Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of

Continuous Improvement Advisory

Committee

Meeting Agenda of

Tuesday, February 7, 2017 HERITAGE ROOM

3:30 PM

City Hall, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, BC

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 7, 2017 Meeting Agenda

Recommendation: That the Agenda of the February 7, 2017 Continuous

Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted.

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

2.1 July 27, 2016 Committee Minutes

Recommendation: That the Minutes of the July 27, 2016 Continuous Improvement

Advisory Committee meeting be adopted as circulated.

2

3. INFORMATION REPORTS

3.1 Draft Report – CIA Recreation Programs 4

4. ADJOURNMENT

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016

The Continuous Improvement Assessment Committee will look for

improvements and efficiencies in our services.

A meeting of the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee of the Corporation of the City of Port

Coquitlam was held in the Heritage Room, City Hall, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, on

July 27, 2016 at 4:00pm.

PRESENT:

Councillor Brad West, Chair

Mayor Greg Moore

STAFF REPRESENTATIVES:

Laura Lee Richard, Director of Development Services

Robin Wishart, Director of Corporate Support

John Leeburn, Chief Administrative Officer

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 Moved and Seconded

That the Agenda of the July 27, 2016 Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee

meeting be adopted.

CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

2.1 Moved and Seconded

That the Minutes of the March 21, 2016 Continuous Improvement Advisory

Committee meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

3. REPORTS

3.1 DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE - BUSINESS LICENCE CIA

The Committee reviewed the draft document and introduced several changes to

clarify the scope and intended outcomes of the CIA.

Moved and Seconded

That the Terms of Reference for the Business Licence CIA dated July 27, 2016

be endorsed.

CARRIED

2

Page 2

Minutes of the Meeting of the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee

held on July 25, 2016

5. ADJOURNMENT

Moved and Seconded

That the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned at 4:30 pm.

CARRIED

________________________________ ____________________________________

Councillor Brad West John Leeburn

Chair Chief Administrative Officer

The official Minutes of the July 27, 2016 Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting are not read and adopted until certified correct by the

Committee Chairperson.

3

Report to Committee

DATE: February 1, 2017

TO: Continuous Improvement Assessment Oversight Sub-Committee of the Finance and

Intergovernmental Committee

FROM: Nathan Taylor, Recreation Program Coordinator- Active Living & Sport

SUBJECT: DRAFT REPORT- CIA RECREATION PROGRAMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At Council’s direction, City staff have completed the Continuous Improvement Assessment

(CIA) on registered recreation programs. The Terms of Reference for this assessment were

approved by the Oversight Committee in March, 2016. Attached is the DRAFT report outlining

the working team’s findings and proposed recommendations.

The working team is seeking input from the Oversight Committee on the DRAFT report. The

report will be revised accordingly and presented to the Finance and Intergovernmental

Committee.

Submitted by:

____________________________________________________________

Nathan Taylor, Recreation Program Coordinator- Active Living & Sports

(CIA Recreation Programs- Team Lead)

Approved by:

Lori Bowie, Director of Recreation

John Leeburn, Chief Administrative Officer

Attachment 1: DRAFT Report- CIA Recreation Programs

4

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT

RECREATION - REGISTERED PROGRAMS

Project Team: N. Taylor (Lead), L. Caron (Consultant), J. Dancs, C. Laustrup, B. North, S. Patrick

DRAFT REPORT

(February 2017)

Attachment 1

5

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT – RECREATION – REGISTERED PROGRAMS

DRAFT – FEBRUARY 1, 2017

Page 2 of 131

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4

3. PROJECT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 6

Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 7

4. RECREATION SERVICES IN PORT COQUITLAM ...................................................................................... 8

5. THE ROLE OF POLICY AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE DESIGN OF RECREATION PROGRAMS .......... 9

National Recreation Definition and Benefits ............................................................................................ 9

Recreation in Port Coquitlam ................................................................................................................... 9

Framework for Recreation Program Delivery in Port Coquitlam ........................................................... 10

6. CORE PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................ 11

Working Definition of Core Registered Recreation Programs ................................................................ 12

Core Recreation Program Policy ............................................................................................................. 13

7. PROGRAM PLANNING ......................................................................................................................... 14

Recreation Registered Program Planning Cycle ..................................................................................... 14

Diagram of Recreation Registered Program Planning Cycle................................................................... 15

Program Planning Performance ............................................................................................................. 16

8. COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 19

Recreation Department Expenses Compared to other City Departments ............................................. 19

Division Operating Budget ...................................................................................................................... 20

Program Expenses .................................................................................................................................. 21

Program Revenues .................................................................................................................................. 23

Program Costing Process ........................................................................................................................ 26

Guidelines on Registered Program Fee-setting ...................................................................................... 31

9. CURRENT PRACTICES COMPARED TO EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS ................................................... 32

1. General Planning and Program Design ........................................................................................... 32

2. Needs Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 33

3. Budget and Fees .............................................................................................................................. 34

4. Contracting Instructors ................................................................................................................... 34

5. Scheduling Program Space .............................................................................................................. 34

6. Marketing ........................................................................................................................................ 35

6



Page 3 of 131

7. Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 35

8. Core Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 36

10. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 36

11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX 1 –TERMS OF REFERENCE .......................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF INTERVIEW/SURVEY RESPONDENTS ........................................................................ 48

APPENDIX 3 – INTERVIEW/SURVEY QUESTIONS ......................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX 4 – PARKS AND RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES POLICY (2000) ............................................ 51

APPENDIX 5 – CHART 3: PROGRAMS RUN/CANCELLED BY FUNCTION AREA, 2015 AND 2016 .................. 82

APPENDIX 6 – CHART 5: RECREATION DIVISION ACTUAL AND BUDGETED REVENUE AND EXPENSES ...... 83

APPENDIX 7 - CHART 7: RECREATION DIVISION EXPENSES, WITH PROGRAM STAFF AND DIVISION EARNINGS.................................................................................................................................................... 84

APPENDIX 8 - CHART 8: NUMBER OF RECREATION STAFF HOURS WORKED PER YEAR ............................. 85

APPENDIX 9 - CHART 10: CHANGE IN PROGRAM EXPENSES, 2011 VS 2016 .............................................. 86

APPENDIX 10 - CHART 11: PROGRAM REVENUE COMPARED TO DIVISION REVENUE ............................... 87

APPENDIX 11 – DATA SOURCES FOR STATISTICAL CHARTS ........................................................................ 88

APPENDIX 12 – DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS TABLES .................................................................................... 92

APPENDIX 13 – ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PLANNING ............................................. 115

APPENDIX 14 – SAMPLE RECREATION DEPARTMENT SEASONAL REPORT ............................................... 116

APPENDIX 15 – CORE RECREATION PROGRAMS ....................................................................................... 119

APPENDIX 16 – ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (Fall 2016) AND TEAM BACKGROUND ................................... 126

Recreation Program Team Background ................................................................................................ 127

APPENDIX 17 – LIST OF ACTIVE PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS ...................................................................... 128

APPENDIX 18 – SAMPLE PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK FORM ......................................................................... 129

APPENDIX 19 – REGISTERED PROGRAM COSTING WORKSHEET TEMPLATE ............................................ 130

7



Page 4 of 131

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the fifth Continuous Improvement Assessment (CIA) completed by the City of Port Coquitlam. The purpose was to determine whether registered recreation programming practice effectively managed program growth and expenditures when responding to community needs and interests. The assessment focused on registered programs specifically, and did not include drop-in activities, birthday parties, or services that do not require pre-registration. An internal team of employees from Recreation Division, Finance and Development Services collaborated with a subject matter expert and a consultant to complete this project. The research process included individual interviews with recreation staff members, focus group meetings with recreation coordinators and recreation programmers, interviews with six neighbouring community service organizations, surveys with eight municipalities from the Lower Mainland and a review of relevant documents. Based on the research, three critical findings were identified:

1. There has been little change in number of recreation programs offered in the six years assessed in this report (an average of 5,350 programs +/- 4% run annually); registration levels have increased with 57% of programs now running at maximum registration; fewer programs are cancelled (10% decrease in cancellation rate between 2011 and 2016); and higher revenues are generated (32% increase between 2011 and 2016). Programming is reviewed on a seasonal basis and modified in response to the diverse needs and interests in Port Coquitlam communities, without increasing the total number of programs offered.

2. The budgeting strategy ensures all programs are delivered within the net annual program budget. More than 95 percent of the direct programming costs are recovered, resulting in a minimal impact to the overall facility operation cost. Data from 2011-2016 demonstrates that changes in direct program costs (instructors, materials, supplies and equipment) and program staff expenses are proportionate to overall Division expenses. To ensure programs are accessible and fees are aligned with market rates, increases in fees have been minimal over the six years examined in this CIA. Over this period, increases in revenue were generated purely through higher enrolment, as fees were not adjusted in proportion to increased operating costs.

3. The Division’s approach to programming is consistent with the practices identified in external organizations, particularly municipalities, in needs assessment, program design, and scheduling of facilities’ spaces and program instructors. Programming is modified effectively to match the diverse and dynamic community needs without increasing the total number of programs offered each season.

The primary conclusion of this CIA is that although registered recreation programming practices effectively manage program growth and expenditures in response to community needs and interests, there are several areas where improvements are needed. It was confirmed that programs are being managed responsibly and in alignment with the guiding Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy approved by Council May 8, 2000, which emphasizes community access to recreation programs. The

8



Page 5 of 131

assessment identified specific areas for improvement, resulting in seven recommendations with a number of specified actions. Of these, four were considered to be of highest priority:

1. Review the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000).

2. Develop and implement core program delivery guidelines including a definition, criteria, a list of

primary core program categories by function area and a clearly defined approval process for

new programs.

3. Establish and report on key performance indicators including program statistics and financial analysis.

4. Strengthen program planning tools and guidelines, for example, develop a program decision-making tool reflecting core program guidelines and community and organizational priorities.

The three remaining recommendations focus on marketing, staff development and monitoring and evaluation. A detailed list of common industry practices, current Port Coquitlam Recreation Division practices, gaps and recommendations are documented in the data analysis tables (see Appendix 12). Supervisory staff guidance, program staff training and on-going collaboration amongst program staff in all function areas will be important to successfully implement the recommendations of this CIA. A recreation staff working group, led by the Director of Recreation, will be tasked with developing an action plan to prioritize and implement the approved recommendations to evaluate the resources required.

9



Page 6 of 131

INTRODUCTION In July 2013, the City of Port Coquitlam introduced Continuous Improvement Assessment (CIA) Guidelines as a model for reviewing City service delivery. To date, four CIA reviews have been completed: Inspection and Compliance Customer Service; Purchasing; Fleet Services; and Shared Services. The findings validated the strengths of the services assessed and made recommendations for improvements and efficiencies. This is the fifth report in the series, and addresses registered recreation programming practices as prioritized by Council and Recreation Division staff. The project was led by a team of representatives from Recreation, Development Services and Finance, with expert input from an external advisor and support from a consultant (see Appendix 1 for the Terms of Reference including the list of contributors and a summary of the external advisor’s credentials). The report examines various aspects of program planning, starting with the rationale for recreation programs based on the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), description of core programs, main elements of Division planning, statistics on program performance, financial and staff resource costs, identified practices in external organizations compared to Division practices, and finally recommendations. The appendices contain data tables, graphs, resource materials, guiding documents, a compilation of the research results and a list of planning tools. 3. PROJECT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Project Scope The primary purpose of this CIA is to determine whether registered recreation programming practice effectively manages program growth and expenditures when responding to community needs and interests. The research focused on the Recreation Division’s registered programs specifically and did not include drop-in activities, birthday parties or services that do not require pre-registration. The reason for this focus is that there is a specific investment of instructor resources and program staff planning and oversight time required for registered program delivery. The expertise required to deliver these instructional programs is well-defined and results in measureable skill development, health benefits and social connections for participants which are highly valued by the community as reflected in the City Budget Survey responses. A focus on registered programs also examines how fee subsidies are administered. To provide the benefits of participation in recreation to greatest number of residents, a fee subsidy structure is in place that impacts cost recovery, specifically in the areas of children, youth and seniors programs. Registered programs are delivered by internal staff and contract instructors at city facilities as well as outside facilities (e.g., school spaces). These instructor-led programs are often subject to regulated instructor-to-participant ratios and may require specific instructor certifications, supplies, equipment, and facilities (e.g., National Life Saving Society certifications, report cards and award badges; sport-specific equipment; gymnasium/ pool/ arena facilities).

10



Page 7 of 131

Registered Programs

Instructor-led activities that require pre-enrolment and pre-payment. Activities can consist of one to multiple sessions, and are of varying durations.

Drop-in Activities

Activities that do not require pre-enrolment; a user fee is paid immediately prior to activity participation. This includes admission-based activities such as fitness classes, public swimming and public skating. The planning and delivery of drop-in activities are outside of the scope of this CIA.

Specific focus areas of the assessment are:

1. To clarify the criteria that staff use to guide registered program delivery (e.g., planning, costing

and implementation) especially when responding to requests for new programs (e.g., adding

new classes); discontinuing existing programs; and adding additional programs to accommodate

waitlisted patrons and in response to customer requests for new programs, varying levels and

time options.

Program Waitlist

When programs meet their maximum enrolment, patrons can opt to be added to a waitlist. Waitlist information is used to make decisions on whether to modify program offerings (e.g., add an additional class or an additional instructor to accommodate waitlisted patrons), and subsequently as an indicator of program demand/community interest for future planning.

2. To identify best practices, to ensure evidence-based and community impact‐focused decision

making, and to standardize the approach to recreation programming.

3. To identify the core programs offered by each recreation programming area and define how

research evidence, best practices and other influences are used to develop programs and

programming standards.

4. To identify the administrative resources required to consistently and efficiently deliver quality

recreation programs (e.g., programming guidelines, staff training and seasonal evaluation

report).

Please refer to the Terms of Reference in Appendix 1 for a more detailed outline of the project scope.

Methodology Research was conducted to explore current recreation program planning and delivery practices in the City of Port Coquitlam as well as in other municipalities, the not-for-profit and private sector. In addition to on-going consultation with recreation staff, the external advisor, and members of the CIA

11



Page 8 of 131

team, and a document review, a series of interview/ survey questions were developed to collect data from three respondent groups:

Port Coquitlam recreation staff members representing seven function areas;

External informants representing larger private and community service providers in the vicinity of Port Coquitlam (providing similar services: ice arena, arts and culture, swimming, afterschool and out of school children/youth programs, gymnastics and fitness); and

Recreation peers from Lower Mainland municipalities. Following the data collection, key themes were presented back to Program Coordinators and Recreation Program Assistants to validate and expand on the collated information. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the complete list of respondents, and Appendix 3 for the research questions. With a small respondent pool, the findings and data may not be statistically significant, but do provide a qualitative exploration of current practices and emerging trends. 4. RECREATION SERVICES IN PORT COQUITLAM At the time of this CIA, the Recreation Department had three divisions: Administration, Recreation, and Facility Services. The Administration Division provides strategic direction, leadership and business operations for the Department and supports the Healthy Community Committee, while the Facility Services Division maintains and improves City facilities to meet public needs and expectations. The Recreation Division includes Arts and Culture and is responsible for registered program delivery. The Recreation Division is responsible for the day‐to‐day operation and programming of public recreation facilities including Hyde Creek Recreation Centre, Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex, Leigh Square Community Arts Village, Centennial Pool, Robert Hope Pool, Routley Wading Pool, Sun Valley Wading Pool/Spray Park, RailSide Youth Park and the Bike Skills Park. Services and programs offered include: registered programs; drop-in access to pools, arenas and fitness facilities; and facility rentals. For the years 2013 to 2015, the Division reported the following measures per calendar year, on average:

Registered Programs

30,000 program registrations

5,400 registered programs

Other Services

300 volunteers

128,000 membership scans

162,000 drop-in visits

2,242 active memberships

10,500 online transactions (program registrations and membership purchases and renewals)

12



Page 9 of 131

Registered recreation programs are instructor-led activities involving physical, social and creative participation that focuses on developing a variety of skills. Participants are required to pre-register, and pay a fee in advance. Program duration can be as little as an hour on one day, or be recurring in a specific timeslot over a number of weeks or even months. The ratio of instructor to participants varies depending on type of activity and the age of the participants. Registered programs are delivered in the following function areas:

a. Active Living and Sport (includes Arena) b. Adults and Access c. Aquatics d. Arts and Culture

e. Children f. Health and Wellness (Fitness) g. Youth

5. THE ROLE OF POLICY AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE DESIGN OF RECREATION

PROGRAMS

Highlights from key documents, as cited below, define what municipal recreation service delivery entails, the goals of municipal recreation programs, and the main principles that drive recreation program delivery. National Recreation Definition and Benefits

In Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada, the 2014 report produced by the Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council and the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association1, recreation is defined as the experience that results from freely chosen participation in physical, social, intellectual, creative and spiritual pursuits that enhance individual and community wellbeing. Experiences can include participating in physical activity and sport, and in artistic, cultural, social and intellectual activities. They can be organized or unstructured, and can be done individually or in groups. This document also reinforces the benefits of recreation that are supported by research showing positive impacts on individuals and communities. Primary impacts include: enhanced mental, physical and social well-being; development of strong families and communities; and economic benefits.

Recreation in Port Coquitlam

The City’s vision as stated in the Vision 2020 Corporate Strategic Plan is that Port Coquitlam is “a happy, vibrant, safe community with healthy, engaged residents and thriving businesses, supported by sustainable resources and services”. This document emphasizes the City’s commitment to promoting an active, healthy community as well as addressing barriers that prevent active lifestyles, and maintaining valued programs, services and facilities. It also states

1 Refer to complete document at: http://lin.ca/resources/framework-recreation-canada-2015-pathways-wellbeing-final

13

http://lin.ca/resources/framework-recreation-canada-2015-pathways-wellbeing-final



Page 10 of 131

that the parks and recreation facilities in Port Coquitlam are one of the City’s top ten strengths and are highly valued by residents. In the 2015 and 2016 Port Coquitlam Budget Survey, approximately 75% of respondents noted that the level of service in recreation and culture meets (~57%) or exceeds (~18%) their expectations. The Recreation Department’s key roles are the delivery of recreation, sport, community and cultural programs, events and services, and the operation of recreation facilities. In the 2007 Port Coquitlam Parks, Recreation and Culture Ten-Year Plan, the Mission Statement is as follows: “The City of Port Coquitlam is dedicated to meeting community needs for the benefit of all citizens through the provision of parks, recreation, athletics, arts, culture and fitness.” The plan acknowledges that the goals of the department are: 1) to use leisure services to foster a sense of community identity, spirit, pride and culture and 2) to use leisure services to foster growth of individuals to reach their full potential.

Framework for Recreation Program Delivery in Port Coquitlam The Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), approved by City Council on May 8, 2000 (see Appendix 4), sets out the primary direction of the Department in providing recreation services. The services are based on demand from the community, intrinsic benefit to direct users, ability to meet socially worthwhile goals (community growth, individual development), and the availability of resources to deliver quality services. The following three principles summarize the main themes in the policy:

1. Municipal Role: “The Department has an obligation to provide, within the constraints of

limited available public resources, basic leisure services which meet socially worthwhile

goals and objectives and clearly demonstrate a benefit to all residents, as far as is

reasonably possible.” (p. 8)

2. Accessibility: “Different admission rates may be charged, based on the age of the

participant. (…) Services provided by the Department should be available to all who wish

to participate regardless of ability to pay. Setting user fees so high that they are a barrier to

a large segment of society is in conflict with the achievement of socially worthwhile goals

and objectives. Leisure is an essential service as are education, health or safety services

and should be available to all. (…) Therefore, a number of strategies are to be developed

by the department to provide access for the economically disadvantaged and their

dependents to publicly sponsored leisure services.” (pp. 10-11)

3. Meeting Socially Worthwhile Goals (i.e., establishing a broadly felt community identity,

and the social, emotional, and physical development of each member of the

community): “The value of a department leisure service shall not be determined solely or

primarily by the amount of revenue it produces or the number of participants involved.

The value of a department leisure service relates directly to its effectiveness in meeting

socially worthwhile goals and objectives which clearly show indirect benefit to the entire

14



Page 11 of 131

community. In some cases such objectives can and will be met using services that cater to

a narrow range of users and generate little or no revenue.” (p. 9)

Based on this philosophical policy statement, the Department delivers a diverse range of programs

and services in varied formats that provide flexible and accessible recreation options for the

community.

6. CORE PROGRAMS Recreation departments often highlight core programs and services. Typically what is described as core are the programs and services historically delivered through public recreation that provide the communities served with a broad selection of introductory and recreational level physical and social activities. Although the market is dynamic and some of what is considered core may change over time depending on public demand and interests, and what is offered elsewhere in the community, there is a strong base of core activities including swimming, skating, and children’s camps that are consistently offered through recreation services. The chart below shows examples of registered recreation programs which staff consider core, and an indication of which activities are out of scope. “Out of scope” typically includes programs which are better offered by specialty providers in the private or non-profit sector. For a more comprehensive list of the Division’s current core programs in all function areas, please refer to Appendix 15. A review of current programming indicates that very few program offerings appear to be out of scope (e.g., Kundalini yoga, underwater hockey, Dolphin Swim Club), and these would be further assessed as described in the recommendations. Chart 1: Examples of Current Core Programs

Sample Core Health and Wellness Categories:

Registered introductory and moderate level group fitness offered in multi-use space, appropriate for healthy populations ages 12+, e.g., low impact cardio, spinning, boot camps, programs for 50 yrs+

Yoga programs for ages 12+

Out of Scope Health and Wellness:

Advanced level and specialized classes requiring specialized equipment or training certifications, e.g., hot yoga, barre, cross fit

Physiotherapy for high risk populations (injuries, heart issues, rehab) which require specialized equipment, adequate space and specialized instructor training

15



Page 12 of 131

Sample Core Aquatics Categories:

Nationally standardized, competency-based registered swimming lessons – ages four months to 80+ years, e.g., Red Cross levels

Advanced aquatics - Lifesaving, Lifeguarding and Instructor Certification Courses

Out of Scope Aquatics:

Competitive aquatics training and meets, e.g., swimming, water polo and diving

Pool-based rehabilitation and therapy programs

Working Definition of Core Registered Recreation Programs Based on information collected through the CIA research, a definition of core programs and the criteria or key characteristics of core registered recreation programs were identified. These will require refinement by the Department before being formally adopted. Core programs should reflect all, or almost all, of the criteria; programs that do not clearly fit within this definition require further review by supervisory staff and may be considered out of scope.

Proposed Core Program Definition In the context that municipal recreation is an essential service that should benefit a significant number of community residents, be affordable by the vast majority of the public and strive to achieve socially worthwhile goals as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), core municipal recreation programs are affordable introductory level and general interest sport, fitness, recreation, social, educational, arts and culture programs which are offered to the public in a welcoming environment that supports community building. The City has a particular role in providing recreation services where a gap is identified and other providers are not able or willing to respond to community needs, or where the City can do so more efficiently or effectively.

In order to focus the majority of City resources on core programs, the Division supports collaborative relationships with other recreation program providers to better meet community need, avoid unnecessary competition, discover gaps in the delivery of services, leverage resources and establish compatible service delivery plans. The City also acknowledges and welcomes the contribution of external organizations which provide specialty and elite programs that are beyond the City’s resources, facilities and/or qualifications to provide2. Characteristics of Core Programs While there is no universally adopted definition of a “core program”, common characteristics drawn from a variety of municipal recreation documents include:

2 Refer to Appendix 17 for a list of partnerships currently in place.

16



Page 13 of 131

Consistent with the City’s strategic vision, and Recreation Department mandate and mission statement;

Meets community needs and interests; Supports socially worthwhile goals; Represents introductory and base-level sport, fitness, recreation, social, educational, arts

and culture programs; Accessible to the public in cost, scheduling and location; Safe and easy to engage in for the majority of users; Offers a welcoming environment that fosters community building; Well-matched to City facilities and staff capacity; Complements services provided through other organizations or fills a gap that cannot be

met by the market; Operates within the cost-recovery formula, or has a specific costing strategy; In high demand and routinely runs close to capacity; and Trusted and expected by the public.

Dynamic Nature of Core Programming What is defined as a core program can change in response to constantly evolving community needs. For example, Zumba was an extremely popular trend for a number of years, and at its height, a significant proportion of programming space and time was allocated to meet the demand, and revenue generation was very high. As popularity declined, program offerings were reduced. Similarly, well-established half-day children’s programs were delivered to accommodate families whose children were enrolled in morning or afternoon kindergarten. Once the Provincial Government mandate changed to include full-day kindergarten, daytime recreation programming for five-year-olds was reduced. With that change, programs for three- and four-year-olds became a greater public demand and programming focus shifted accordingly.

Core Recreation Program Policy A core recreation program policy can help reinforce the principles upon which the Department’s programs are based, and clarify the intended program outcomes. A preliminary scan in British Columbia and Alberta revealed eight municipalities with core policies. Port Coquitlam already has two documents in place which substantially cover the content of a core recreation program policy. These are the Parks, Recreation and Culture (Master) Plan (2007) and the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000). Additional resources referenced by staff that outline the strategic and philosophical direction for recreation programming as it pertains to social goals, accessibility, roles in the community and other factors are: Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada; and the Canadian Sport/ Active for Life3 model.

3 A movement to improve the quality of sport, physical activity and lifelong participation in sport in Canada:

http://canadiansportforlife.ca/sites/default/files/Sport%20for%20Life%20-%20What%20We%20Do_Feb19.pdf

17

http://canadiansportforlife.ca/sites/default/files/Sport%20for%20Life%20-%20What%20We%20Do_Feb19.pdf



Page 14 of 131

7. PROGRAM PLANNING

Recreation Registered Program Planning Cycle The planning and delivery of specific registered programs are led by Recreation Program Assistants with oversight from the function area Program Coordinator. Staff time and resources are assigned for January to December through the annual area budget and business planning processes. Please refer to Appendix 13 for a list of administrative resources available to program staff for planning purposes. Additional or new priorities beyond core program and service delivery may arise during business planning or unpredictably during the operational year (e.g., offering day camps during a school strike) which require a shifting of resources. The Department has a responsibility to ensure that the anticipated and actual workload does not exceed staff and resource capacity. The six steps identified in registered program planning are as follows (see the corresponding diagram that follows):

1. Needs Assessment: Meeting community needs is considered by staff to be the most important factor in planning. Strategies used to assess community needs and interests include research into local demographics and trends, feedback from participants, outreach, consultation with instructors, and networking with other providers, Lower Mainland municipalities, and professional associations such as: BC Parks and Recreation Association, Canadian Parks and Recreation Associations, Creative Cities Network, Recreation Facilities Association of BC, and the BC Life Saving Society.

2. Program Design: This step includes program selection based on needs assessment, scheduling of space, availability of qualified instructors, area budget distribution and program budget cost recovery calculations.

3. Seasonal Launch and Marketing: Programs are promoted in the seasonal leisure guide,

City website, posters inside recreation facilities, presentations to targeted audiences, e.g., schools and parent advisory committees, and through direct interaction between instructors, staff and current participants.

4. Registration: Registration (online, by phone or in-person), payments, wait listing and

cancellations are managed through the Active Net software.

5. Implementation and Adjustments: Recreation programs are highly dynamic and there are

opportunities to change and optimize programming throughout the year. This step includes monitoring program budget, adjusting class location to match enrolment, adding instructors to meet demand and canceling classes with low registration.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation: Each program area monitors program attendance and seeks

participant and instructor feedback to ensure program quality.

Function Area Budget

A portion of the Division budget that is assigned to managers and coordinators for specific program areas, e.g., Aquatics,

18



Page 15 of 131

Children Services.

Program Budget

The portion of the area budget that applies to a specific registered program, e.g., Introduction to Badminton, Swim Kids Level 1, Spinning, and includes costs related to activity instruction, supplies, equipment, space rental and the program revenues required to meet cost recovery requirements (subsidy varies depending on age group).

Diagram of Recreation Registered Program Planning Cycle4

4 The planning cycle is composed of a continuum of broad steps within which specific planning tasks (for example, as listed in Section 9

and Appendix 12) take place

1. Needs Assessment

2. Program Design

3. Seasonal Launch and Marketing

4. Registration

5. Implementation and Adjustments

6. Monitoring and Evaluation

19



Page 16 of 131

New registered programs may be added at Step 2 or Step 5 in the planning cycle. The majority of registered programs are repeated over multiple seasons. A “new” program is based on an idea or trend that is substantiated through a needs assessment process and deemed to be an appropriate addition to existing programs in the City and the community. Opening up a second class in response to waitlist demand or adding an instructor to a class to accommodate additional registrants is not considered a “new” program.

Program Planning Performance

Between 2011 and 2016, the number of programs run annually was relatively consistent, averaging approximately 5,350 programs per year, with a variation of +/- 4%. During this same time period, participation in registered programs increased by 18% from 24,354 to 28,684 participants per year. Chart 2 illustrates trends and efficiencies in registered recreation programs since 2011, by showing how many programs were offered to the public for registration based on the sum of the number of programs that ran and the number that were cancelled. The number of programs offered/run and cancelled are key performance indicators of program planning efficiency.

Definitions: Programs offered: Programs formally available for registration Programs run: Programs which registered patrons participated in and completed Programs cancelled: Programs that were formally offered but did not get implemented

20



Page 17 of 131

Chart 2: Number of Programs Cancelled and Run, 2011-2016 Source: CLASS (2011-2014) and Active Net (2015-2016)

Overall, analysis indicates that programming is efficient, with minimal growth in the number of programs offered in the last six years, and an 86% program run rate for 2015 and 2016. The function area with the highest number of registered programs offered (3,721 – accounting for more than all other programs combined) and the highest run rate, at 90%, was Aquatics. For a breakdown of run/cancellation rates in all function areas, with program-specific cancellation explanations, please see Chart 3 in Appendix 5. As shown in Chart 3, the area with the lowest run rate, at 46% of 179 registered programs offered in 2016, was Arts and Culture. The cancellation rate was attributed to staff vacancies resulting in inconsistent programming practices. The Program Coordinator position was covered on a part-time basis by a Program Coordinator from another function area, and less experienced, casual Recreation Leaders filled Recreation Program Assistant positions on an interim basis. This created a gap in: focused programming time (e.g., inadequate contract hiring and program marketing/promotion); expertise (e.g., weekly drop-in activities were entered into the system as registered); and instructor availability (e.g., Recreation Leaders who used to teach were now performing Recreation Program Assistant duties). A new Arts and Culture Manager and Recreation Program Assistants are now in place, and will bring a renewed focus and structure to programming in this function area. Implementation of the recommendations detailed in later in this report will also improve registered program performance in this function area. Programs are cancelled for various reasons including: low registration (i.e., not enough participants registered in the program to cover expenses at the approved subsidy level), unexpected changes in space, instructor availability and weather. The higher cancellation rates observed between 2011 and 2014 were attributed to the practice of copying over the previous year’s seasonal programming as a starting point for inputting the current season’s programs (a strategy called “batch rollover”). Limitations of the CLASS software system, which do not exist in the current Active Net system, meant that any programs that were copied over but were not selected to run

5,442 5,414 5,301 5,099 5,487 5,370

1,810 2,020 1,883

1,710 895 832

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cancelled

Run

21



Page 18 of 131

were individually removed and by default labelled a cancellation, rather than simply a deletion. Thus, an accurate measure of the true number of cancelled programs during those years was not possible to attain for this report.

Program Cancellation Anomalies Aquatics typically experiences the lowest cancellation rates. The areas where cancellations do occur are upper and advanced levels of Red Cross Swim classes. These are “transition” classes where the age categories cross over between the highest preschool levels and the lowest children’s levels, leaving families to choose which best suits their child’s development; this makes enrolment difficult for programmers to predict. There is a diminished interest in swim lessons for older children who know how to swim, which results in smaller class sizes and more combined classes in higher level swim programs. An anomaly that skewed the 2015 cancellation statistics in the area of Active Living and Sport was the practice of a contracted outdoor tennis program provider scheduling multiple programs each day, with the intent of providing options and increasing flexibility, but knowing that there was demand for only one program per day to run based on registration minimums. This situation was further exacerbated by inclement weather conditions (a factor that impacts cancellation rates in all outdoor programs), resulting in additional cancellations. This practice has been addressed and significantly less cancellations in future seasons are expected.

22



Page 19 of 131

Efficiency in Other Municipalities The 2015 run rate for registered recreation programs at the City of Surrey was 81%, while Burnaby was at 90%. The Port Coquitlam run rate of 86% is in line with both, representing 5,487 programs run and 895 programs cancelled.

It is important to note that the program run rate is a quantitative metric associated with service delivery; a variety of qualitative measures are also used to further assess program quality and customer satisfaction such as customer surveys. 8. COST ANALYSIS

This section refers to detailed charts and analysis of the costs and revenues related to recreation programming5. For a list of data sources used in all charts produced for this report, please refer to Appendix 12.

Recreation Department Expenses Compared to other City Departments

5 The historical program data detail required for this report was not easily obtainable due to the combination of discontinued and new

data systems. Detailed data coding in the new Agresso and Active Net software, currently underway for the 2017 budget development process, is expected to improve the Department’s ability to link and produce reports from the financial and program databases. Data will be available at an improved level of detail, which will result in more complex and accurate reporting. For example, program staff will be able to easily produce reports on trends in program staff hours specifically against program offerings and number of registered participants, and capture detailed information on expenses and revenues in a particular program or service area. The capacity will strengthen as the systems are populated with data over a number of years.

35,929

25,759

5,487

8,193

2,785

895

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

SURREY BURNABY PORTCOQUITLAM

Programs Cancelled

Programs Run

23



Page 20 of 131

The chart below, reproduced from the City’s 2015 Annual Report, shows a five-year profile of City expenses by major responsibility area. The City spends approximately 41% of its total expenses, or $34M, in wages each year. In 2015, about half of the City’s 551 employees worked in the Recreation Department (281 employees). The annual expenses displayed for Recreation include all divisions as well as amortization of capital assets and special operating costs, which vary year to year. While the Recreation Department is the largest employer and the second highest cost area, as shown in Chart 4, between 2011 and 2015, the overall increase in expenses was 2.8%. Chart 4: City Department Expenses, 2011-2015 Source: Port Coquitlam Annual Report 2015

Division Operating Budget The Recreation Division operating budget6 includes recreation programming, maintenance, customer service, special events, community services, and support to drop-in activities. Budgeted 2016 Recreation Division expenses were $8.98M, and revenues were $3.5M, yielding a net annual budget of $5.45M. The Division recovers approximately one-third of its budget each year through program revenue, drop-in activities and facility rentals. Chart 5 in Appendix 6 shows 2015 and 2016 actual vs budgeted expenses and revenues. Chart 6 (below) shows the Division’s net operating budget over the last six years. There is an average increase of 4.7% per year.

6 All charts in the report specific to Recreation Division do not include other divisions, Terry Fox Library or special operating costs.

24



Page 21 of 131

Chart 6: Recreation Division Net Operating, Budgeted and Actual, 2011-2016 Source: Cayenta and Agresso

Program Expenses Earnings for all Recreation Division staff account for approximately 75% of the total Division expenses annually. On average, program staff earnings comprise 36% of total Division staff earnings and 27% of Division expenses. Program staff includes: direct programming and delivery by Recreation Program Assistants, Leaders and Attendants, with function area supervision, staff training, program area budget monitoring, strategic direction and leadership provided by the Program Coordinators. Between 2011 and 2016, the staffing cost of recreation program delivery increased in proportion to Division staffing cost increases. For details on staff earnings in relation to Division expenses, please see Chart 7 in Appendix 7. The increase in budgeted Division expenses between 2011 and 2016 was $1.43M. Staff earnings account for $1.03M of this increase which reflects CUPE wage adjustments and additional staff hours. During this period, the number of staff hours dedicated to recreation programming increased by approximately 24,500 hours or 29%, as illustrated in Chart 8 in Appendix 8. This is proportional to the revenue increase of 32%, to be explored further in the next section addressing revenues. With significant program participation increases, instructor costs also increase. As noted earlier, more registered programs are running at capacity; participation has increased by 18% with a similar number of programs are being run each year, while cancellation rates are diminishing. For example, Aquatic staff hours account for almost half of the increase due to the large volume of swim programs offered, particularly at the preschool level, where a lower instructor-to-participant ratio for programs is required. Greater demand for one-on-one lessons was also a factor. In addition, Recreation Program Assistant hours were increased to address the high demand for after school programs in schools. Please refer to Chart 9 below for a breakdown of the hours by job title.

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Net Operating Budget(Budgeted)

Net Operating Budget(Actuals)

25



Page 22 of 131

Evidence-based Program Expansion – Children’s Services Recreation program staff participate in a variety of professional development sessions annually which are focused on research updates, emergent trends and industry best practices. In the mid-2000s a large body of research was published emphasizing the need for appealing, supervised after school activities for children and adolescences. As a result of busy families and the structure of the school day, the healthy development needs of middle childhood students were not met in many communities and a trend of increased high risk behaviours between the hours of 3pm and 6pm was seen throughout North America. Researchers consistently stated that after school programs had an important role to play in addressing this issue. The Beyond the Bell after school program began in 2008 in response to community demand. It is a collaboration between School District #43, the Port Coquitlam Recreation Department, and the Canadian Tire Jump Start Funding program. Schools provide gym space and equipment, the City provides a variety of instructor-led recreational activities and Canadian Tire provides funding for those unable to pay for the program. This program has grown substantially from one program in 2009 held at Mary Hill Elementary School, serving 347 children, to 21 programs in 9 schools, serving 996 children in 2016.

Chart 9: Number of Recreation Staff Hours Worked Per Year, by Job Title, 2011-2016 Source: Payroll Department

RPA = Recreation Program Assistant

In addition to registered programs, some function areas dedicate a significant portion of program staff time to deliver services other than registered programs. For example, Arts and Culture program staff also coordinate performances, art displays and artists in residence that are not registered programs and do not produce revenue. Similarly, in the Health and Wellness area, many fitness and yoga classes are drop-in.

-

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

35,000.00

40,000.00

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016 (Projected)

26



Page 23 of 131

Areas of increase in budgeted expenses, other than staff, were greater financial assistance and grants provided to the community (e.g., Port Coquitlam Heritage and Cultural Society, Port Coquitlam Sports Alliance Society and financial assistance to low income patrons), inflationary costs related to facilities and utilities, and the addition of the Poco Grand Prix in 2016. These areas of growth, as well as CUPE wage increases, are factors beyond the control of recreation program staff that increase program delivery costs and contribute to a widening gap between costs incurred and the market rate participant fees collected. For example, from 2011 to 2016, changes in staff wages and facility costs account for a 9.1% cost increase in a Swim Kids 1 program, and 3% for a Child 1 skating lesson program. The research on cost increases are shown for these examples in Chart 10 in Appendix 9. The increasing difference between fees collected and costs incurred results in higher minimum registration requirements, and limits cost recovery potential (see Program Costing Process section for a full analysis).

Program Revenues The Division has generated more than $3M in revenue every year from 2011 to 2016, mainly through program registration, drop-in activities, and facility rentals. This revenue recovers about one-third of Division expenses, an on-going trend that has been observed since 2011. To see the ratio of program and division revenue over six years, please refer to Chart 11 in Appendix 10. The revenue generated from registered programs in 2015 was approximately $1.46M, representing 45% of the total 2015 Division revenue of $3.26M; this ratio is expected to continue in 2016 based on year end revenues projected at Q3. The following chart shows the distribution of all sources of Division revenue in 2011 and 2016:

27



Page 24 of 131

Chart 12: Division Revenue Sources, 2011 and 2016 Source: CLASS and Active Net 2011 2016

As shown above, registered program revenue represented the highest segment, contributing 40-46% of all revenues. The Other category included grants, advertising and donations. Program revenue steadily increased each year, helping offset increases in expenses. Between 2011 and 2016, the total increase in revenue was about $400K or 32%. Higher revenues were attributed to the higher rates of participation compared to previous years’ programs that ran. This further illustrated programming effectiveness; fewer programs are running with higher participation numbers rather than more programs with lower registration. An important point-is that program fees are kept at market rate in order to remain affordable and competitive with nearby municipalities; with costs rising and minimal increases in fees over the six-year period reviewed, increasing program revenues is a noteworthy accomplishment.

Minimal Increases in Fees The practice of ensuring program fees are affordable based on comparable market price has resulted in minimal registered program fee increases over the six year period reviewed as illustrated by the examples provided in the chart below. The 32% increase in registered program revenue between 2011 and 2016, presented earlier in Chart 12, reflects higher rates of participation with minimal increases in registered program fees. Change in Fees for Sample Programs, 2011-2016

Program 2011 Fee (per participant)

2016 Fee (per participant)

% Change

Swim Kids 1 $49.25 $50.75

3.0%

Soccer Tots $24.10

$25.00

3.7%

Child 1 Skate Lessons $48.00

$50.40

5.0%

$1,226,520

$649,200

$833,270

$48,422

$342,640 Registered ProgramRevenue

Facility Rentals

Membership/Drop-inActivities

Sponsorships

Other

$1,614,331

$534,012

$891,066

$114,170

$372,571

28



Page 25 of 131

The fluctuations in division revenues (without program revenues) are due to varying annual contributions from the sources listed below:

Sponsorships and grants

Facility bookings

Membership and drop-in admissions (all-inclusive memberships were introduced in 2014, resulting in lower drop-in admission revenue)

Facility rentals revenue has decreased due to discontinued demand for early morning and late night private ice rentals, field rental revenues are now included in the Engineering Department’s Parks budget after separating from the Recreation Department in 2015, and a drop-off in booking by community schools. For example, Hope Lutheran Christian School used to book space at Hyde Creek Recreation Centre five days a week throughout the school year resulting in annual facility rental revenues in excess of $10,000; this revenue generating opportunity ended in 2014. In addition, increased ice time was allocated to minor sports in response to a reduction in ice time they had previously accessed in neighbouring communities. This increased use by minor sports reduced rental revenue as they pay lower rental fees than adult or private groups. Increasing the ice time allocated to minor sports required a curtailment in arena registered programs, reducing revenue in that stream as well. Cost of Registered Recreation Programs Without Overhead The total Recreation Division budgeted expenses for 2016 was $8.98M. As shown in the previous section, staffing costs make up 75% of Division expenses. The total budgeted cost of operating the two main facilities where the majority of registered programs are offered, Hyde Creek Recreation Centre and Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex, was $4.77M in 2016, up $583K from 2011 (see Chart 13). This includes the cost of heat, electricity, maintenance and essential staff (excluding staff involved in direct delivery of registered programs) to support other public uses such as public skate, public swim, facility rentals, and drop-in areas. Chart 13: Base Facility Operation Budgeted Costs Source: Approved Budgets – Cayenta & Agresso

2011 2016 Change

Hyde Creek Recreation Centre $2,370,900 $2,725,900 $355,000

Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex $1,813,500 $2,042,350 $228,850

TOTAL $4,184,400 $4,768,250 $583,850

Providing registered programs in facilities that also offer a variety of public services and participation opportunities, increases operating expenses by $1.43M, as shown in Chart 14 below, but also generates registered program revenue in the amount $1.39M. Registered programs are an essential component of recreation service delivery that increase participation options and provide progressive skill development (e.g., Learn To Swim and Learn To Skate programs), for a net cost of approximately $40K. This additional investment of $40K by the City supports 5,350 programs serving more than 28,000 registered program participants. A breakdown of direct program costs by function area is provided in Chart 14. This chart also illustrates the impact on

29



Page 26 of 131

cost recovery in the four areas offering primarily subsidized recreation opportunities, programs for specific populations and programs requiring lower participant to instructor ratios. Chart 14: Direct Registered Program Expenses and Revenues, by Function Area Source: 2017 Operating Budget

Function Area Program Expenses (Recreation Leaders,

Attendants, contractors, supplies and materials and 50% of Recreation Program Assistant staff

hours7)

Registered Program Revenue

Net

Active Living and Sports $120,550 $145,900 ($25,350)

Adults and Access $124,479 $121,000 $3,479

Arena Programs $84,750 $114,400 ($29,650)

Aquatics (includes Outdoor Pools)

$417,000 $475,400 ($58,400)

Arts and Culture $96,674 $30,500 $66,174

Children Programs $420,118 $378,200 $41,918

Health and Wellness (Fitness)

$59,162 $84,400 ($25,238)

Youth Programs $112,400 $43,700 $68,700

TOTAL $1,435,133 $1,393,500 $41,633

Program Costing Process When planning new or expanded programs, a costing process is applied to determine feasibility and establish the participant program fee. There are a number of variables considered in the costing process, including subsidy rates for different groups and program expenses. Expenses include program instruction, supplies, equipment, marketing and promotion, and facility space. The costing process is an integral part of the current “bottom line” budgeting approach to program planning. “Bottom line” budgeting allows each function area to adjust expenditures in relation to revenues in order to stay within the approved net operating budget amount. This flexibility allows programming staff to adjust and add registered programs (e.g., in response to dynamic community demand throughout the calendar year), to the extent that the net function area budget (i.e., expenditures minus revenues) or “bottom line” remains unchanged. This means that all costs from added programs are completely offset by the resulting revenues, ensuring there are no additional net costs to the city. Registered programs are run once the minimum registration number has been achieved. Once the minimum enrolment required to cover both the program cost and any applied subsidy is achieved,

7 It is estimated that half of Recreation Program Assistants’ time is dedicated to recreation programming (50%). The remaining 50% is

allocated to other functions including supervision, events and administrative duties.

30



Page 27 of 131

revenue is generated. An analysis of registered program data confirmed that in the last two years, an average of 87% of programs ran between the minimum and maximum enrolment (on average 57% of programs ran at full enrolment – 100% capacity). The current practice is for waitlist expansion programs to recover all costs, including any applied subsidy. Occasional exceptions to this do occur where revenue generated from other programs is used to offset specific programs that do not meet minimum registration but are considered of high value. Over the past two years, approximately 13% of programs ran with less than minimum enrolment. This practice of running programs with less than the minimum enrolment is applied in well-defined situations such as providing inclusive opportunities, meeting a specific social objective for a small group or addressing an operational need, e.g., pre-natal yoga, self-esteem building for pre-teens, women-only learn-to-swim lessons, or lifeguard certification. This approach aligns with the guiding principles outlined in the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000); growth in programs is viewed as positive for the community when it can be achieved while still being financially viable for the Department. For an example of how the cost of a registered program is determined, refer to Chart 15 below. The chart details the instructor wages and facility rental fees incurred to run a Multi-Sport program. For some programs, additional expenses must be considered, including supplies, transportation and external admission fees. In order to illustrate the principles applied in program costing with a simple example, additional expenses are not included in Chart 15. The Registered Program Costing Worksheet used by program staff includes a comprehensive list of all costs to be considered (see Appendix 19). Chart 15: Registered Program Costing Worksheet – Multi-Sport Program Example

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION DETAILS CALCULATION

General

Dates and Time July 11-18, 2016, 9 am – 12 pm

Anticipated Number of Participants 15

Maximum Number of Participants 15

Number of Sessions 5

Hours Per Session 3

Total Number of Program Hours 5 sessions x 3 hrs 15 hrs Direct Fixed Costs

Direct Program (Number of Program Hours x Hourly Instructor Cost x Number of Instructors)

15 hrs x $21.28/hr x 1 instructor

$319.20

Prep/Clean Up Time (Number of Sessions x Hours Per Session x Hourly Instructor Cost)

5 sessions x .25 hours per session x $21.28/hr x 1

instructor

$26.60

Benefits (Total Instructor earnings x 23%)

$319.20 x 23% $73.42

Total Labour (Union) Cost and Benefits or Contract Cost

$419.22

Facility Rental Costs

Facility Rental for Program Time (Number of Program Hours x Hourly Rental Rate)

15 hrs x $54/hr. $810.00

Facility Rental for Set-up/Take-Down Time (Number of Sessions x Hours per Session x Hourly Rental Rate)

5 sessions x .25 hrs/session x $54/hr.

$67.50

Total Facility Cost $810 + $67.50 $877.50 Total Fixed Costs

Total Direct Fixed Costs Plus Facility Rental Costs $419.22 + $877.50 $1,296.72

Total Expenses

$1,296.72

Proposed Participant

(Total Expenses x % Program Recovery)/Minimum Number of Participants

($1,296.72 x 50%)/7 *7 participants chosen as the

$92.62

31



Page 28 of 131

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION DETAILS CALCULATION

Fee 8

Cost Recovery (based on subsidy) Rates: Tot/Child 50%, Youth 75%, Adult 100%, Senior 75%

minimum number of participants needed to run the

program Review Program Fee With Local Market Competition

Up to three comparisons Burnaby: $72.75 Port Moody: $90.00

New Westminster: $69.75

Final Program Fee

Program minimum registration considered so fee can be adjusted to align with market rates if necessary

Proposed program fee of $92.62 is in line with the higher end of the market range. No change in

price is recommended.

$92.62

Program Break Even Amount

Number of registrants needed to break even (recover 100% of program expenses) Total Program Expenses/Program Fee

$1,296.72/$92.62 = 14 14 Participants

Program Revenue (based on expected registration

Total Actual Revenue – Total Actual Expenditure (The example on the right considers that the program had 15 participants)

(15 participants x $92.62/participant) - $1,296.72

$92.58

Understanding the Registered Program Costing Sheet As demonstrated in the program costing sheet above, program subsidy rates have an influence on establishing program fees, and the minimum number of participants required to successfully run a program. Chart 16 further illustrates how the price of the program and the minimum number of participants required to run it changes based on the use of the subsidy. Still using the Multi-Sport program example, the minimum number of participants required to offer the program is seven participants and the maximum enrolment is 15 participants. Seven participants represent a reasonable number of participants to offer a meaningful learning outcome for this type of program.

8 See discussion later in this section entitled “Guidelines on Registered Program Fee-Setting” for more details

32



Page 29 of 131

Chart 16: Impact of Subsidy on Program Costs and Minimum Participation Numbers, Scenario 1

Scenario 1: Multi-Sport Program offered at Market Price With Subsidy

Amount of

Subsidy

Number of Participants

Program Fee

Program Revenue

Recovery Amount Required

Program Expenses

Net (Expenses

minus Revenue)

50% Minimum = 7

$92.62 $648.36 $648.36

$1,296.72

$648.36

50%

Maximum = 15 $92.62

$1,389.30

$648.36

$1,296.72

($92.58)

50% Break Even = 14

$92.62 $1,296.72 $1,296.72 $1,296.72 $0

Analysis: In this example, the program subsidy rate (50% for a children’s program) has been applied. With the minimum seven participants required to offer the program, the resulting program fee would be $92.62. As noted in the costing sheet example above (Chart 1), the market price for a comparable program ranges from $69.75-$90.00. Thus, the program fee that has been established is appropriate and within the market range. A minimum of seven participants would be required at the 50% subsidy rate and 14 participants would be required for the program to break even. At 15 participants (the maximum enrolment), the program would generate a net revenue of $92.58. This example illustrates the importance of being able to apply a subsidy to program pricing to ensure affordability and accessibility. Without the subsidy, and keeping within the market price for the program (the row highlighted in yellow), the minimum number of participants required to recover all of the program expenses would be twice as many (14 vs 7); in certain situations, this could be challenging to achieve. With high minimum numbers, the potential for the program to be cancelled is greater, which would reduce opportunities for the public to participate in recreation programs. This would also limit the ability to offer programs at non-peak times to accommodate the needs of families and persons with non-traditional work schedules. With this approach, new programs are able to grow and run at lower numbers, when deemed appropriate, for the first one or two seasons offered.

33



Page 30 of 131

Chart 17: Impact of Subsidy on Program Costs and Minimum Participation Numbers, Scenario 2

Scenario 2: Multi-Sport Program Offered Without Subsidy

Amount of

Subsidy

Number of Participants

Program Fee

Program Revenue

Recovery Amount Required

Program Expenses

Net (Expenses

minus Revenue)

0% Minimum = 7 (Break Even)

$185.25 $1,296.72 $1,296.72

$1,296.72

$0

0%

Maximum = 15

$185.25

$2,778.75

$1,296.72

$1,296.72

($1,482.03)

0% Minimum = 11

$117.88 $1,296.72 $1,296.72 $1,296.72 $0

Analysis: In this example, no program subsidy rate has been applied and all program expenses must be fully recovered. In keeping with a minimum of seven participants and using that number as a break-even point, the resulting program price would have to be $185.25 in order to achieve this amount of recovery. The program would make revenue for every participant thereafter, peaking at $1,482.03 if the maximum enrolment of 15 participants was achieved. The program fee of $185.25 is nearly twice as much as the comparable market price. This high fee would likely present a financial barrier that would limit a number of children from participating. An alternate strategy would be to increase the minimum number of participants, for example, from seven to 11, as shown in the row highlighted in yellow, resulting in the program fee being reduced from $185.25 to $117.88. This number is still high, but closer to the market price. The downside of this approach is similar to the example presented in Scenario 1, whereby a minimum participant number that is too high increases the chances that a program that is new or offered at a non-peak time will get cancelled. Furthermore, if this was a consistent pricing strategy, Port Coquitlam residents may prefer to seek their recreation services in nearby municipalities offering similar programs at subsidized rates. Managing Demand: Adding Instructors and Expanding Classes The current practice for managing waitlisted patrons and program demand is to do so without incurring any additional expenses. The Division has two options to continue to meet community demand without creating additional costs. These include (1) increasing the enrolment in an existing class by adding an additional instructor, or (2) adding an additional class. Each of these is described below. (1) Increasing the Enrollment of an Existing Class by Adding an Additional Instructor: In the

example of the Multi-Sport program above, the maximum enrolment is 15 for one instructor. If the program is full and there is a waitlist, a second instructor can be added (if appropriate to program design and space) to accommodate waitlisted patrons, and as long as any additional costs can be fully recovered. Under this scenario, the additional cost of a second instructor must be recovered; the program space, marketing and most other expenses have already been accounted for. In the example above, the cost of a second instructor for the Multi-Sport

34



Page 31 of 131

program is $419.22 (see line 10 in the Costing Sheet example in Chart 15). Therefore, $419.22 must be recovered through additional program fees to offset this expense. At the program fee of $92.62, five additional participants are needed to cover the costs of the second instructor. This option is preferred and more effective than offering an additional class at a new day and time, from a resource and a customer perspective, as it maintains the time and date that waitlisted participants had originally opted for.

(2) Adding an Additional Class: When a program is full, and there is a large waitlist, a second class could also be considered at a new time, date and location, instead of adding more participants and an additional instructor to an existing class. This approach is more challenging to implement but is necessary when the space being used by the existing class is too small to accommodate additional patrons, instructor availability is limited or the specific instructor is preferred by the waitlisted participants. When adding a new class, all costs described in the costing worksheet (instructor wages, facility rental fees and program supplies) must be fully recovered. Using the example of the Multi-Sport program, this means that $1,296.72 must be recovered through program registration fees. This option is more expensive than adding a second instructor, and, as a result, 14 participants would be required to recover the full costs of the new class as was described in Scenario 1 in Chart 16. This approach to manage public demand is another example of bottom-line budgeting, whereby increased costs to run the second program are completely offset by program revenues resulting in a net zero change to the original program budget. As previously noted, 57% of the programs run at maximum capacity, resulting in waitlists and unmet demand. The Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000) highlights the benefits of public recreation and the importance of inclusion. With these guiding principles in mind, program staff make every effort to respond to community demand by increasing participation opportunities when possible and to efficiently use available facility and community programming spaces within the approved budget.

Guidelines on Registered Program Fee-setting Financial accessibility by the general population is a critical factor in the provision of municipal recreation programs. As set out in the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), the considerations in setting fees are as follows:

1. Subsidy: The majority of the Department’s recreation services provide mixed benefits

(individual and community), so they should be partly funded by the community through

tax revenue and partly through user fees. Leisure services achieve socially worthwhile

goals and provide indirect community benefit - the larger the benefit, the larger the

subsidy justified. However, when programs are fully financed by users, then a subsidy is

not required, even if justified. Rates are approved annually in the Fees and Charges Bylaw.

2. User Fees: Fees are collected to minimize tax subsidy, and should be as high as feasible

within the mandate. They must be substantial enough to offset program costs without

prohibiting the vast majority from participating. If participation is great, subsidy or fee can

be reduced. The more a service provides private benefit to individual users, the more the

cost is justified to be recovered through user fees.

35



Page 32 of 131

3. Market Competitiveness: Fees must be competitive relative to the surrounding area to

maintain share of market.

4. Internal Pricing: Fees and charges, including facility rent, drop-in and registered user fees,

will be equitable across different types of activities and facilities.

9. CURRENT PRACTICES COMPARED TO EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS

A comprehensive summary of industry practices, current Recreation Division practices and gaps identified in the research are set out in Appendix 12. This section summarizes how the Department compares to the external organizations included in the research, and is presented in the order of the interview questions. Overall, current practices match or exceed the standard practices identified in the organizations interviewed.

1. General Planning and Program Design

Identified Practices:

Planning and approval processes are a management priority, well documented and fully implemented.

The planning process begins well in advance of the program season.

Leadership is shared and all levels of staff are involved in the planning and budgeting process.

The organizational mandate, mission, vision and/or priorities are well understood, and are linked to operational programs and supports.

Statistical information is readily available for use in making planning decisions.

The ability of program staff to influence area-specific planning is effective in meeting community needs, and strengthens staff development.

Many effective strategies are employed to manage waitlists, minimize the impact of cancellations and when to strategically run a program with low registration.

Analysis:

o The Department reflects the identified practices to a very high degree; o Planning approaches are effective but not always shared across function areas and

locations; o Staff are still transitioning to Active Net and Agresso and expressed an interest in further

developing skills for planning and reporting; o Administrative resources could be more accessible; some documents are due for review

and revision, and some new tools could be added. o There could be increased clarification where function areas/age groups/program type

overlap (e.g., camps are offered in five function areas; yoga is offered in three). o A particular focus on staff training and use of planning tools and guidelines will be helpful

for the Arts and Culture function area, to ensure that future program performance is supported and enhanced

36



Page 33 of 131

Centralized Planning Tools: The City of Coquitlam makes planning resources available to staff on an intranet site, where a diagram displaying main planning elements contains hyperlinks to resource documents and background materials. This makes it easy for staff to access, ensures that up-to-date versions of corporate documents are used, and is a great tool to train new staff.

Benefit of Delegated Responsibility: One external organization’s mandate includes offering new recreation experiences for their participants. A research department at headquarters seeks out ideas and shares them with front-line staff in satellite offices. Staff are then given complete freedom to implement programs at a local level in a way that suits their neighbourhood and community, while ensuring they work within the organizational mandate. This model of delegated responsibility strongly contributes to program success.

2. Needs Assessment


A broad range of approaches are used, such as program monitoring, research, feedback, focus groups, outreach, partnerships, surveys and networks.

Responsiveness to constantly changing community needs is a critical skill among program staff.

Selecting relevant programs and running them at the right time are the greatest contributors to program run rates.

Analysis: o The Department reflects the identified practices to a very high degree; and o Current needs assessment approaches are implemented within each function area and

could benefit from more sharing and support.

Model for Responsiveness: The City of New Westminster is highly responsive to community input, placing administrative offices close to program rooms and accommodating demand to provide a Program Guide specific to one facility with a strong community identity. Staff pride themselves on being able to react quickly to a great program idea from a community member, and will do everything possible to find a space for the program if the individual with the idea can bring the minimum (8) registrants required to run it. If a new program becomes successful, contract instructors are phased out once unionized staff are trained to deliver it, contributing to positive labour relations.

37



Page 34 of 131

3. Budget and Fees


Financial management is rigorously maintained by finance specialists and senior managers, with smaller operational sections managed by program staff.

Popular programs that generate high revenue are used to offset important but lower demand programs.

There is a heavy reliance on specialized software programs to manage both registration and payments, with Class and Active Net being the most commonly used.

There are many ways that organizations facilitate access by making programs low or no cost

Budgets are increased annually to take into account the effects of inflation.

Analysis: o The Department reflects the identified trends to a very high degree and uses “bottom-line”

budgeting to be efficient and responsive to community needs; and o The costing-related administrative documents and tools are not consistently used across

function areas, and require review.

4. Contracting Instructors


There is a direct link between the skill of instructors and the quality and popularity of programming, so instructors are carefully selected

Programs can be taught by full-time/part-time permanent staff, casual staff or contractors

Approaches to casual/contractor staffing: recruit externally, develop existing instructors or receive proposals

In-house training programs provide a pool of potential staff

Instructors may have a contracted responsibility to recruit program participants

Analysis: o The Department reflects the identified practices to a very high degree; and o There are no guidelines on job categories, job descriptions and wages across function areas

for contracted instructors, or selection guidelines on contracting processes.

5. Scheduling Program Space


Organizations invest significant resources well ahead of time to plan a schedule that fits clients’ preferences and availability

The schedule uses space to its fullest

Staff are flexible and responsive in booking programs at the last minute

Space is allocated to priority activities and groups, particularly during high demand times

38



Page 35 of 131

Analysis: o The Department reflects the identified practices to a very high degree; and o Practices can be enhanced by adopting internal guidelines around scheduling and space

usage for registered programs, to help ensure core policy and other priorities are considered.

Approach to Customer Experience:

One external organization places great emphasis on the customer experience, using many strategies to ensure that registrants find a suitable class. It will run a smaller or shorter class rather than cancel, and offer a $25 discount to a registrant who is asked to move to a larger class. Quote: “Above all, we don’t want someone to just leave.”

6. Marketing


Full time resources working on marketing, promotion and communications.

Promotion and marketing done through website, leisure guide, posters inside recreation facilities, social media – Facebook, Twitter, newspaper, mail, radio

Analysis: o Many organizations have dedicated staff and resources for recreation marketing and

promotion; this would be beneficial for Port Coquitlam as well. o The Port Coquitlam leisure guide is issued after Port Moody and Coquitlam which may

impact registration. Earlier registration may attract more patrons and allow class to fill more quickly.



Program implementation is tracked regularly

Regular program status meetings are held

Participants are given evaluation sheets

Swim audits are done every three months Preparation of seasonal and year end reporting, to evaluate accomplishments and inform

future efforts (e.g., success/failures, what worked/didn’t work, why changes were made, how much revenue was generated)

Analysis: o Monitoring and evaluation approaches are somewhat effective and would benefit from a

more thorough approach at the program level. o A focus on scheduled program reporting and building staff capacity to manage this process

would be beneficial

39



Page 36 of 131

Program Performance Analysis: The District of West Vancouver has adopted an award-winning “Situational Analysis Report” approach (PERC Award for Management Innovation and Ingenuity, BCRPA) where programs are rated from 0-7 for “Community Benefit” and examined for revenue generation and growth, to help determine their viability. Programs with a low Community Benefit Score and declining participation and/or percent contribution are flagged for discontinuation. Programs are expected to be in continuous growth, and a 40% revenue generation rate is targeted after cost recovery.

On-going Evaluation: One external organization does financial spot checks on long-running programs to look at them with fresh eyes and challenge the way it operates – the objective is identify any facets of the program that might be improved or adjusted.

8. Core Policy


The majority of municipalities do not have a core recreation program policy.

Existing core policies contain high level principles and guidelines but do not extend to decision-making procedures for new programs or expansions.

Analysis o The Department does not have a core policy, but has documents with similar content, e.g.,

Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), Parks, Recreation and Culture (Master) Plan(2007)

o The refinement of the core program definition and criteria by staff, would reinforce the rationale and policy design behind recreation programs

o The development of a simple core policy-based tool to guide program determination and space priority would help further refine current program decision-making processes

10. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were developed from an analysis of the information collected, in response to the areas of focus set out in the Terms of Reference.

Priority Recommendation 1- Review the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000).

a) Review the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000) to: (1) validate and/or

revise the program delivery philosophy and mandate of the Recreation Department, and

(2) ensure consistency with the City’s Financial Management Policy, Cost Recovery.

40



Page 37 of 131

Priority Recommendation 2 - Develop and Implement Core Program Delivery Guidelines

Develop and adopt core program delivery guidelines including a definition, criteria, a list

of primary core program categories by function area and a clearly defined approval

process. The Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), Parks, Recreation and

Culture (Master) Plan (2007) and other resource documents should be referenced in the

research.

Priority Recommendation 3 – Establish and Report on Key Performance Indicators

Create templates that align with the annual business plan to report on key performance

indicators, program statistics, financial updates, and qualitative program measures (see

example in Appendix 14), and produce them on a regular schedule. Training and

development on new software systems, e.g., Agresso, Active Net, should prioritize

information required for reporting.

Priority Recommendation 4 – Strengthen Program Planning Tools and Guidelines

Develop a program decision-making tool linked to core program guidelines and any dynamic community and organizational priorities, e.g., emphasis on certain age groups, focus on a particular neighbourhood, or promotion of a widely accepted recreation philosophy. This tool would: confirm whether a new or existing program is considered core or out of scope based on the current community reality; determine how well it meets the mandate and evolving priorities; project performance (e.g., anticipated registration, revenue and expenses, quality of instruction); and assess program success before repeating or expanding the program.

Adopt a standardized Contract Instructor Wage Chart for use in costing across all program areas, and consider developing selection guidelines and an instructor contract template to ensure sound contracting practices.

Formalize a Registered Program Planning Cycle (see example in Section 7 of this report)

based on current practices and examples.

Build on current capacity in needs assessments by documenting a Needs Assessment

Checklist with links to resources showcasing the range of options available.

Enhance the Active Network Programming Manual, with a focus on data fields required

for program reporting.

Work as a staff team to update and revise Guidelines for Setting Participant Fees for

Registered Programs and Registered Programs Costing Worksheet.

Create a central intranet hub containing primary planning resources that can be

maintained in a single location and easily accessed by all staff.

41



Page 38 of 131

Additional Recommendations: Marketing

Create a marketing strategy for registered programs, which could include templates for

flyers, and information campaigns.

Coordinate the leisure guide release date within the Tri-Cities.

Staff Development

Prioritize succession planning, retention, training and productivity for programming staff,

in recognition of their skilled contribution to successful program delivery.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Establish a formal, multi-year monitoring and evaluation plan at the program level.

11. CONCLUSION The purpose of this Continuous Improvement Assessment was to determine whether registered recreation programming practices effectively manage growth and expenditures when responding to community needs and interests. The review team’s main research findings are:

1. There has been little growth in terms of the number of programs being offered; cancellation rates are decreasing while revenues and participation levels have increased;

2. The Recreation Department utilizes an effective strategy to ensure that programs are delivered cost efficiently within the allotted budget; and,

3. Programming is consistent with the practices identified in external organizations,

particularly municipalities.

With respect to these findings, the review team identified four priority recommendations to help the Department continue to improve its delivery of recreation programs. These recommendations highlight opportunities for the Department to formalize programming practices, including program decision criteria and reporting standards that staff can use to ensure that sound, evidence-based decisions are being made with respect to programming. This will ensure a more consistent application of guidelines outlining how programs are run, when they are cancelled and when they can be expanded, with the appropriate oversight provided by Program Coordinators. The four recommendations, including the specific actions of each are described in the previous section and include: (1) review the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000); (2) develop and implement core program delivery guidelines; (3) establish and report on key performance indicators; and (4) strengthen program planning tools and guidelines. Moving forward, implementation of the CIA recommendations has been included in the Department’s 2017-2018 Business Plan. Once reviewed by the Oversight Committee, a Recreation Department working group will be responsible for implementing the approved recommendations. Recreation staff are committed to continuously improving services including the delivery of

42



Page 39 of 131

registered programs, to better meet the needs of residents and contribute to the City’s vision that Port Coquitlam is a happy, vibrant, safe community with healthy, engaged residents and thriving businesses, supported by sustainable resources and services.

43



Page 40 of 131

APPENDIX 1 –TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of Reference

Continuous Improvement Assessment: Recreation Programs Background

This review is the fifth of its kind undertaken by City staff using the Continuous Improvement Assessment (CIA) Guidelines, originally adopted by Council in July, 2013. CIAs are one of the tools by which Council can ensure there is regular rigorous review of the City’s service delivery. As identified in the Recreation Department’s 2016 Work Plan, the intent of this project is to establish recreation programming criteria that will ensure evidence-based and community impact‐focused decision making when: responding to requests for new programs; discontinuing existing programs; and adding additional programs to accommodate waitlisted patrons and customer requests for varying levels and time options. The purpose of this project is to provide clarity as well as a better understanding of:

The criteria and considerations that staff use to guide registered program delivery;

How programs are planned and implemented; and,

Program costing formulas.

This assessment will specifically focus on establishing best practices for adding new classes, responding to waitlist demand and discontinuing existing programs. Review Team Membership

Staff members from a cross-section of recreation programming areas were appointed to the Review Team for this project in January, 2016 by the Recreation Management Team. The team will also include staff from other departments as well as external experts who will be consulted at regular intervals, throughout the review process. Table 1: CIA – Recreation Programs Review Team

Name Position Title Review Team Role

Nathan Taylor Program Coordinator- Active Living and Sports

Team Lead

44



Page 41 of 131

Steve Schaffrick Municipal Representative External Expert – Recently completed Master of Arts thesis on Collaborative Practice Strategies in the Community and Recreation Services Division, City of Surrey

Previously held positions as Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture with the District of Lake Country, Arena Manager with the City of Kamloops, a Manager in Recreation Division, City of Surrey, and currently Supervisor Parks Operations & Maintenance Systems, Visitor & Operations Services, Metro Vancouver (GVRD) Regional Parks.

Sherry Patrick Program Coordinator- Aquatics Team Member

Janis Dancs Program Coordinator- Children Services

Team Member

Carlie Laustrup Development Services Team Member

Brian North Finance Expert Team Member

Lani Caron Consultant Project Support

Lori Bowie Director of Recreation Direction and Guidance

John Leeburn Chief Administrative Officer Executive Direction and Guidance

Member Responsibilities

Table 2: Team Responsibility Matrix

Person(s) Primary Responsibilities

Team Lead Ensure timelines and deliverables are achieved

Assign team member responsibilities and areas of inquiry

Coordinate team action plan

Participate in the work of the team members

Co-deliver final presentation to CMT, Council and Unions

Team Members Attend and participate in team meetings

Conduct interviews with staff from other function areas

Research assigned focus area(s)

45



Page 42 of 131

Participate in discussions and developing recommendations

Provide data, analysis and content for final report, on assigned topics

Attend/participate in report presentation to CMT, Council and Unions

Note: participation of external experts will involve 3-4 scheduled meetings subject to his/her availability

Project Support Ensure a fair and consistent approach

Provide background Human Resource information

Compile and distribute survey information/interview questions

Provide project-specific research assistance, as needed

Provide HR support throughout (communication, change management, etc.)

Draft and finalize the report

Direction and Guidance Ensure a fair and consistent approach

Participate in team discussions and decision making

Provide guidance and direction, as needed (oversight)

Attend and participate in meetings with CIA Oversight Committee and Council

Provide feedback on draft report, ensuring that outcomes are consistent with Council expectations and aligned with corporate goals and Department mandate

Scope

The “Areas of Focus” identified in the CIA processes document will be applied as appropriate to the areas of inquiry. In addition to general research related to the project areas of inquiry, the scope of this review will specifically include:

(1) Evaluate and improve the practice of programming registered recreation classes and activities

(2) Define how research evidence, best practices and other influences are used to develop core service programs and programming standards

(3) Identify the core programs offered by each recreation programming area

(4) Identify actions needed to implement best practices and standardize our approach to recreation programming

(5) Redevelop decision criteria used by staff for recreation programming such as demand from the public (assessment of community needs and interests, patron feedback and waitlists), program costing formulas and sector best practices

46



Page 43 of 131

(6) Identify the resources required to deliver the expected recreation program service (programming guidelines, staff training and seasonal evaluation report)

This project will evaluate current practice and provide improvement recommendations specific to registered programs offered by the Department. It will include programs delivered by internal staff and contract instructors at City facilities as well as outside facilities (e.g. school spaces).

This project does not include drop-in activities, birthday parties or other services that are not registered programs (e.g., special events, partnership initiatives etc.).

Deliverables and Timeline

The Review Team is responsible for delivering a comprehensive report to CMT, the Oversight Committee and Council, that outlines current practice, establishes best practices and provides recommendations for improvement in recreation program delivery. The Review will be completed by the end of the third quarter of 2016 with estimated delivery of the final report and presentation to Council in October, 2016. Appendix 1 details the Team Work Plan and Timelines. A description of the project actions and deliverables is detailed below. OBJECTIVE/TIMELINE ACTIONS AND

DELIVERABLES DESCRIPTION

Evaluate Current Practices

(February-April 2016)

Program Inventory

Inventory of current programs being offered in Recreation to identify programming gaps and overlaps

Waitlist Statistics and Protocols

Analysis of current program success rates - waitlist statistics in comparison to the number of classes offered, running and cancelled

Policy Review Review of the registered program fee structure within the current Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000)

Program Budgeting

Review of current programming costing formula sheet including internal and external factors

Decision criteria used by staff

Review factors that staff currently use for recreation programming including demand from the public, program costing formulas and sector best practices

Research and Identify Best

Practices (April- June 2016)

Sector Research Review of current guiding documents outlining recreation service delivery purpose and philosophy (Canadian National Recreation Framework, BCRPA, etc.)

Best Practices Review of best practices in recreation using evidence-based materials and market research to outline how programs are offered in neighboring communities, not for profit organizations and private businesses

47



Page 44 of 131

Identify Gaps and Make

Recommendations for Improvement

(June-August 2016)

Core Service Delivery

Identification of recreation “core programs” in each programming area

Formalize Decision Criteria

to be used by staff

Based on the analysis of information from an evaluation of current practices, and a review of best practices, develop decision criteria to be used by staff for future recreation programming

Present and Implement

Recommendations

Presentation

Presentation and Report to CMT, the Oversight Committee and Council.

Implement Recommendations (January 2017 and

Beyond)

Implementation of recommendations as approved and presented in the report to the Oversight Committee

PROJECT’S CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS (MUST BE MEASURABLE)

Success of the project will be measured by the following:

(1) Core services for each program area are identified and communicated

(2) Program success rate increases = programs running/programs offered

(3) Implementation of best practice by delivering a programming workshop for staff to outline guidelines and introduce a seasonal program review process

(4) Council endorses the Recreation Programming criteria and processes

(5) Review of registered program fee structure within the current Fees & Charges policy is complete

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

Input and support from Recreation Department Management Team

Effective communication between staff, project team, CMT and Council

Department collaboration

Program Coordinator/Programmer/Program Assistant input throughout the CIA review process

Project reflects City values and the philosophy of community recreation service delivery

Clearly defined purpose, priorities, objectives, goals and values of the project

Commitment of project team

Alignment with key guiding documents – Fees and Charges, Business Plan, City’s 20/20 Vision Strategic Plan, City’s 2016 operating budget, and the Canadian National Recreation Framework

Adequate time is dedicated to the project team to complete this project; other responsibilities of the team members is considered and re-prioritized through consultation with the Recreation Management Team

SIGNOFF

48



Page 45 of 131

SIGNOFF

Project Sponsor:

Lori Bowie: Date:

Dissolution

The Review Team will be dissolved upon completion and delivery of the report to Council. Responsibility for implementation will be delegated to the manager(s) of the affected area(s).

-END-

49



Page 46 of 131

Appendix: (1) Team Work Plan and Timelines

Appendix 1: Team Work Plan and Timelines (subject to change)

Week of Jan 18th, 2016

Review Team Meeting:

Introduce CIA and roles of the review team

Outline scope and deliverables

Present draft Terms of Reference (TOR)

Confirm team meeting time

Other Key Work Items:

Connect with Ellen to transfer project charter to TOR

Collect program cancellation data by function area

Week of March 23 & April 6


Review feedback from Oversight Committee meeting

Plan and assign tasks for researching and collecting best practice information from resources and neighboring municipalities (Mar 23)

Review cancellation data (Apr 6)

Review current program costing data sheet (Mar 23)

Week of Feb 5, 2016


Review TOR draft

Create project timelines

Discuss potential external experts to join the review team


Make changes to TOR document

Week of Feb 24 and March 9


Review and finalize TOR

Put plan together for meeting with Oversight Committee on March 21 (TBC)

Plan for data analysis for course cancellations- develop feedback form to be distributed to programmers (to send out by Mar 11 and returned by Apr 5)


Prepare presentation and report for CMT and Oversight Committee meeting

Week of March 15, 2016

CMT Meeting (March 15):

CMT to provide feedback on Terms of Reference

CIA Oversight Committee Meeting (March 21)

Approve TOR


No work group meeting on March 15

50



Page 47 of 131


Meet with preferred external expert (week of Apr 6- TBC)

Week of April 20


Review and summarize best practice research

Identify gaps between current and best practices


Review current program criteria

Develop focus group questions ( Program Coordinators, Programmers, RPA’s)

Week of May 4


Review Data from Focus Groups


Communicate findings and seek feedback from Programming Staff

Work on summary report

June


Identification of core programs

Develop draft of recommendations

Create a revised draft of Programming Criteria and Costing Guidelines


Progress on developing summary report

July/August

Review Team Weekly Meeting

TBD

Other Key Work Items

Complete summary report and develop presentation

September


Finalize the CIA summary report and presentation


TBD

October/November

Presentation to: CMT, Oversight Committee and Council

Present the CIA Summary Report

51



Page 48 of 131

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF INTERVIEW/SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Internal: 1. Recreation Program Assistant, Adult, Active Living and Sport, Hyde Creek 2. Recreation Program Assistant, Children, Children’s Services, Hyde Creek 3. Recreation Program Assistant, Early Learning, Children’s Services, Hyde Creek 4. Program Coordinator, Health and Wellness, Hyde Creek 5. Programmer, Aquatics, Hyde Creek 6. Program Coordinator, Youth Services, Hyde Creek 7. Program Assistant, Arena, Poco Recreation Complex 8. Program Coordinator, Adult and Access, Poco Recreation Complex 9. Program Coordinator, Arts and Culture, Poco Recreation Complex

External - Municipal: 1. City of Coquitlam 2. Township of Langley 3. City of Maple Ridge 4. City of New Westminster 5. North Vancouver Recreation and Culture 6. City of Richmond 7. City of Surrey 8. District of West Vancouver

External – Other:

1. Boys and Girls Club of South Coast BC 2. Club Aviva 3. Place des Arts 4. Planet Ice 5. TAG Sports Centre 6. Tong Louie YMCA

52



Page 49 of 131

APPENDIX 3 – INTERVIEW/SURVEY QUESTIONS INTERNAL SECTION 1: PROGRAM PLANNING 1. Please walk through the steps you take in your regular planning process, making sure you

describe the factors you consider when deciding which programs to offer. 2. What is the MOST important factor in making a decision about whether to offer a program?

SECTION 2: PROGRAM CANCELLATION

1. Under what circumstances do you cancel a planned program? Looking at your summary table, are there any additional factors that explain the rates of cancellation?

2. Under what circumstances do you NOT cancel a planned program, which normally would be, for reasons listed in Question 1?

3. What administrative steps do you take when you decide to cancel a program? Do you document the reasons for cancellation? Why or why not?

4. What are ways that you could currently capture important cancellation information? 5. How might cancellation information help you make planning decisions? 6. Please describe what you think can realistically be done to reduce cancellation. SECTION 3: PROGRAM WAITLISTING

1. How do you currently access waitlisting information? 2. How do you try to meet the needs of waitlisted patrons? 3. How can information on waitlists be helpful in planning? 4. What are ways that you could currently capture important waitlisting information?

SECTION 4: COSTING MODEL

The Recreation Department has provided the following tools and parameters for fees and other costs for programs:

a) Guidelines for Setting Participant Fees for Registered Programs and an accompanying Registered Programs Costing Worksheet in Excel. These tools were designed to assist program staff in calculating the actual costs of program delivery, and establishing participant fees. Entry fields include fixed costs, such as facilities, instructors, administration, supplies and marketing, plus variable costs per participant. There are guidelines on the proportion of costs that should be covered by City subsidy.

b) The City also has a Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000) which sets out the rationale for City subsidization of recreation services, and how to determine fees for a given program or type of user, as well as an annually updated Fee and Charges Bylaw which states the costs of services, facilities and other items.

1. Which parts of these tools work well for you? Which do not? 2. What other tools and strategies are you using to manage costing in your program area?

53



Page 50 of 131

3. What additional tools, information or training might help you in managing program costing? SECTION 5: 1. Looking over a list of your programs for the last two or three years, please identify:

a) Programs offered every year b) Programs offered only in this season/year c) New programs tried in the past two seasons/years

EXTERNAL SECTION 1: PROGRAM PLANNING 1. Please walk through the steps you take in your regular planning process, making sure you

describe the factors you consider when deciding which registered programs to offer (e.g., needs assessment, budgeting, etc.).

2. What is the MOST important factor in making a decision about whether to offer a program? SECTION 2: PROGRAM CANCELLATION 1. Under what circumstances do you cancel a planned program (e.g., low registration)? 2. Do you document the reasons for cancellation and use this in future planning? 3. Under what circumstances do you NOT cancel a planned program, which normally would be,

for reasons listed in Question 1 of this section? 4. What administrative steps do you take when you decide to cancel a program? SECTION 3: PROGRAM WAITLISTING 1. How do you currently access waitlisting information? 2. How do you try to meet the needs of waitlisted patrons? SECTION 4: COSTING MODEL 1. What tools and strategies are you using to manage costing in your program area? SECTION 5: CORE PROGRAMS 1. What are core programs in your organization (e.g., run every year, expected by community,

etc.)? 2. How does your organization define “core” and what criteria do you use to determine which

programs are core? 3. How do you decide whether to offer new or developmental programs that are not core?

54



Page 51 of 131

APPENDIX 4 – PARKS AND RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES POLICY (2000)

PURPOSE

To establish a Fees and Charges Policy for the City of Port Coquitlam’s Parks and Recreation

Department which results in fair, equitable and achievable cost recovery for facility and field

usage.

The goals of the policy are:

• To ensure fair, reasonable fees are established for services in Parks and Recreation

facilities/fields and that such fees reflect an appropriate cost recovery; and,

• To ensure consistency in the rental and admission/pass fees charged at all facilities/fields

which provide the same or similar service to clients; and,

• To identify ways of recovery increased costs.

• To ensure access for all residents.

• To develop a pricing policy mechanism that facilitates a continuous, systematic review

process.

55



Page 52 of 131

DEFINITIONS

1. City of Port Coquitlam Services/Programs

Services offered through or under the auspices of the City of Port Coquitlam.

ie. * programs offered by the City of Port Coquitlam

* programs offered to the general public by an organization in

cooperation with the City of Port Coquitlam

* contractual obligations that are endorsed by the Parks and

Recreation Department and/or approved by City Council

2. Educational Programs

All programs that have been approved as part of the school curriculum for School

District #43 and other recognized schools within the City of Port Coquitlam.

3. Local Community User Groups

Registered Societies, (non-profit) community based groups, organizations and

clubs whose membership is generally open to all interested persons of which at

least 75% are City of Port Coquitlam residents.

4. Private Use/Services

Individuals, private clubs, groups or organizations which use the facility for

private functions, programs or socials events (ie. weddings, anniversaries, socials,

political groups, unions).

5. Commercial Use/Services

Commercial organizations and groups or individuals which use the facility for the

purpose of promoting or operating a business or sponsoring an activity for profit

(ie. car shows, conventions, rock concerts, pro sport events, markets, craft fairs,

socials and dances). Note, these groups need a business license.

6. Non Resident Groups/Individuals Use/Services

Individuals or groups whose majority of membership/participation (less than 75%)

is from persons residing outside of the City of Port Coquitlam.

56



Page 53 of 131

7. Special Event

A special event is a booking that interrupts total/or portion of facility operation for

an extended period of time (eg. one or more days). A special event may be

scheduled up to 18 months in advance or in a time frame established through the

facility booking policy.

Major Event – “Those which bring recognition to or increase the public

profile of the community. Specifically International, National, Western

Canadian, Provincial gatherings for individuals or multi-sport/recreational

events which are sanctioned by the appropriate governing body.”

Minor Event – “Non-recurring (not weekly) recreational activities initiated

by the Parks and Recreation Department or a specific user group for the

purpose of enhancement, promotion, expression of sport, culture or social

needs for the residents of Port Coquitlam.”

8. Facility Rental Contract/Permit

The document by which a client agrees to certain terms and conditions for the use

of part or all of a facility/field at specified times/dates and is signed by the renter.

9. Renter

A renter is defined as an individual, group, club or organization. The renter must

have a designated authorized agent as per the signed Facility Rental

Contract/Permit.

10. Authorized Agent

Individuals that are authorized to sign/change a rental contract/permit on behalf of

a rental group.

11. Bookings

The reservation of all or part of a facility/field for use on one date, or for a series

of dates in the future at specified times on each of those dates.

12. Meetings

Any gathering of two or more people for the purpose of discussion or decision

making.

13. Programs

Activities involving physical participation, training, teaching and learning such as

workshops, clinics and seminars, etc.

14. Client

Shall mean all individuals or user groups renting a facility or field.

57



Page 54 of 131

15. Booking Space

An activity space which a client/group can rent to carry out a specific activity. A

booked space may accommodate a variety of activities or may be limited to only

one type of activity.

16. Rental Rate

The rate established for each rental area expressed in terms of a definitive unit.

(eg. per hour)

17. Pass Rate

The pass rate established for each type of participant pass in terms of a definitive

unit. (eg. 3 month pass)

18. Operating Costs

The total cost of direct expenditures required to operate each facility or field.

19. Cost Recovery

Reflects an achievable level of revenue recovery for each rental area on a per

facility/field basis (eg. merit service - 75% cost recovery, revenue vs.

expenditure).

20. Estimated Usage

Reflects the estimated demand for each activity area in terms of hour units.

21. Fair Market Value

The generally accepted value a majority of clients are prepared to pay for the same

or similar services provided by locally/surrounding communities.

58



Page 55 of 131

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES

Public Demand

Probably the most common philosophical base for the provision of public leisure services is

PUBLIC DEMAND. According to this approach, a municipal parks and recreation operation

would base all of its decisions on what it perceived the public wanted. It would ask the

public what it wants and then give people what they want because they said they want it. It

suggests that the City should collect taxes from everyone and use the tax pool to create a

service which is offered on a subsidized basis.

The first problem with this approach alone is that philosophically it is difficult to justify.

Why should the community pay to subsidize individual wants and desires if there is not

direct or indirect public benefit?

Other problems with the “demand” approach are a mixture of philosophical and practical

considerations:

• It is reactive in nature instead of being proactive. As demands change so should the

service; therefore, it is impossible to plan.

Demand is a tenuous thing which is often invalid. A person’s perceived wants are based

on what that persons knows. If they do not know about something, they cannot want it.

Stated demands often conflict with “hard data” (ie. Often a public survey results in

people saying they want more multi-purpose activity spaces whereas the inventory data

shows clearly that this perception is invalid, that, in fact, the community has excess

capacity in a wide variety of multi-purpose activity spaces – then what is a Parks and

Recreation Department to do?)

Intrinsic Value

A second common foundation on which Parks and Recreation operations are based rests on

the value of recreation. This philosophy suggests that RECREATION HAS INTRINSIC

VALUE and that people who participate in recreation activities get significant value from

such participation. As a consequence, everyone should be taxed in order to create a fund

from which services can be provided for those who want to participate because of the direct

benefit they get from participating.

It is true that people who do participate in high quality recreational activities derive direct

benefit from participating but that does not necessarily constitute a reason for public sector

involvement and subsidy.

59



Page 56 of 131

Direct/Indirect Benefit

The two traditional philosophical bases for providing public leisure services, namely demand

and intrinsic value, are both based completely upon the direct benefit that accrues to those

participating in the service. These positions raise the question of why non-participants

should help finance the service if they get no direct benefit from it. In fact, public leisure

services, like all public sector services, must be based not on direct benefits but instead on

the indirect benefits that accrues to all residents of the community. That is the only way of

answering the question “Why should I pay taxes to support a recreation facility or service if I

will not be using it?”

To the extent the indirect benefit can be justified to benefit all residents perhaps they will

support the project and finance a portion of it in relation to the amount of indirect benefit that

is perceived to occur.

The obvious conclusion is that the use of taxpayer’s money to subsidize the delivery of

public leisure services should not be justified solely on the intrinsic value of the service or on

meeting stated demand, both of which relate solely to direct benefits to subscribers of the

service. The use of the tax system to subsidize public leisure services can best be justified if

the services are treated as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves and are used in

a way which results in indirect benefit to all residents of the community.

Socially Worthwhile Goals

Port Coquitlam’s Parks and Recreation Department’s (herein called the “Department”)

involvement in leisure services will not only deal with the intrinsic value of leisure but will

consider leisure services as a vehicle to be used in meeting socially worthwhile goals and

objectives in the community. If the goals and objectives deal not only with the direct

benefits to users of City sponsored leisure service, but also can be seen to deal with indirect

benefits to non-users of the service then municipal involvement can be justified. Therefore,

the Department will be involved in the provision of leisure services that benefit all residents

of the community, not just those who participate directly in the service. An initial

determination of socially worthwhile goals as outlined in the 1991 Parks Recreation Cultural

Master Plan are as follows:

Development of a Sense of Community

ie. through first establishing a broadly felt community identity and then

developing a widely held community spirit and finally, the evolution of a

community culture.

Development of the Individual

ie. the social, emotional, and physical development of each member of the

community.

60



Page 57 of 131

The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Department Master Plan further defined service

objectives as strategies for achieving these goals. These service objectives are summarized

as:

SERVICE OBJECTIVES

Growth of Community Growth of Individual

Special Events Fitness (Well Being)

Support to Community Groups Pre-school Opportunities

Spectator Sports Basic Skill Development for School Children

Exposure to the Arts Adv. Skill Development for School Children

Social Functions Social Opportunities for Teens

Protecting Natural Resources Basic Skill Development for Adults

Beautifying the Community Advanced Skill Development for Adults

Opportunities for Family Services for Seniors

Mixing Generations Interpreting the Environment

Reflection/Escape

Leisure Education

Communication System

The goals and objectives will be evaluated periodically, and redefined where necessary, to

ensure they are appropriate for the developing community of Port Coquitlam.

The types of leisure services that the municipality will be involved in are those which are the

most effective vehicles in meeting the socially worthwhile goals and objectives. These

services are determined after careful study of community need, resources available to deliver

service, projection of future events and conditions, and the present level of service in the

community.

POLICY STATEMENTS

The following principles are integral to the Department’s Fees and Charges Policy. The

principles are consistent with the rationale outlined in the justification for leisure services

and they form the philosophical foundation from which specific policy is derived. The

principles also provide direction in developing and prioritizing new programs and services

with appropriate fees to meet community leisure needs.

Justification for Subsidy

Indirect Community Benefit

The philosophical approach to fee subsidy is the same as the philosophical approach

to the provision of leisure services as previously described. Both are based on

socially worthwhile goals and indirect benefit to all. Leisure services are justified to

the degree they achieve socially worthwhile goals and objectives and provide indirect

61



Page 58 of 131

benefit to the community. Services that go farther in achieving these ends are more

worthy of public subsidy and a larger subsidy can be justified.

Profitability

A service may result in indirect benefit to all and thereby justify a subsidy. However,

in many cases a subsidy may not be required in order for the service to continue

meeting socially worthwhile goals and objectives. In some cases, revenue may be

equal to or greater than the cost of providing services, even though users are assessed

relatively low use fees that virtually everyone can afford. Indeed, many of the

services currently provided by non-profit groups in Port Coquitlam are fully financed

by users, yet contribute substantially to the greater community good. In such cases,

there is no need to subsidize, even though there may be justification for subsidy.

Basic Service

The Department has an obligation to provide, within the constraints of limited

available public resource, basic leisure services which meet socially worthwhile

goals and objectives and clearly demonstrate a benefit to all residents, as far as is

reasonably possible.

.

62



Page 59 of 131

Cost/Benefit

Those services which achieve the socially worthwhile goals and objectives to the

greatest degree at the least unit cost will be considered highest priority among all

basic leisure services.

Socially Worthwhile

The value of a department leisure service shall not be determined solely or primarily

by the amount of revenue it produces or the number of participants involved. The

value of a department leisure service relates directly to its effectiveness in meeting

socially worthwhile goals and objectives which clearly show indirect benefit to the

entire community. In some cases such objectives can and will be met using services

that cater to a narrow range of users and generate little or no revenue.

Degree of Subsidy

* Private Benefit

When an individual or select group is the direct beneficiary of a special or

exclusive service which may involve instruction or private use, the fees must

be paid for in whole, or in substantial portion, by the participant group or

individual. Services of private benefit are defined as services providing their

primary benefit to the individual receiving the service and the community as

a whole receives little or no benefit from the service. The more a service

provides private benefit to individual users the more the cost is justified to be

recovered through user fees.

* Public Benefit

Any leisure services provided by the Department which might be considered

over and above the basic services will be provided only on the basis of

proportionately greater recovery of cost from the participant, to the point

where the participant is paying all the direct costs of participating. The more

a service provides public benefit, the more subsidy from general taxation is

justified. Services of public benefit are defined as those primarily benefiting

the community as a whole and where an individual benefit cannot be clearly

identified (ie. open spaces, trails, etc).

* Mixed Benefit

The majority of the Department’s leisure/parks services provide mixed

benefits.

63



Page 60 of 131

These are services whereby both the individual receives direct identifiable

benefit and also the community as a whole benefits. The mixed nature of the

benefits suggest that these services should be partly funded by the community

through tax revenues and partly by user fees.

* Age/Ability to Pay

Different admission rates may be charged, based on the age of the participant.

However, it should be clear that such differentiation by age is not based on

the cost of providing the activity to the user, or of any discrimination on the

basis of age but rather on the presumed variance (by age group) in ability of

the user to pay. Since it is generally true that children have little or no

control over funds available to them and since the Parks and Recreation

Department is basically dealing with discretionary income in leisure services,

admission rates for children should be kept at a level whereby almost all

children might subscribe to publicly sponsored leisure services without

restriction by others. On the other hand, it is assumed that teens generally

have more control over funds in, that they may have their own funds either

through allowances or part-time jobs. Consequently, it is assumed while they

may not be able to pay adult rates they are capable of paying higher rates than

are children. Adults are presumed to have the greatest degree of discretion in

allocating funds to leisure services and thus the rates are correspondingly

higher. Seniors, on the other hand, are presumed to have less discretionary

income because many are on fixed incomes and consequently the rates are

more closely aligned with others having restricted powers of discretion.

Barriers to Participation

* Reverse Subsidy

Services provided by the Department should be available to all who wish to

participate regardless of ability to pay. Setting user fees so high that they are

a barrier to a large segment of society is in conflict with the achievement of

socially worthwhile goals and objectives. Leisure is an essential service as

are education, health or safety services and should be available to all. Higher

than optimum fees can result in a “reverse subsidy” and/or in diminishing

returns due to the concept of elasticity of demand.

.

64



Page 61 of 131

A reverse subsidy occurs when, as prices increase, a larger portion of those at

the low end of the ability to pay scale are paying taxes to subsidize an ever

decreasing proportion of those at the other end of the ability to pay scale, that

can still afford the higher prices. Most leisure services are considered “price

elastic”, ie. as price increases, consumption or demand will decrease.

Therefore, if a reduced public subsidy is pursued through higher fees, the

possible corresponding reduction in volume (consumption) may result in an

even greater public subsidy being required.

* Fee Variation/Implementation

Once a fee schedule is determined either through benefit analysis, market

survey and/or both, consideration will be given to implementation of the new

or revised fee schedule. The Department will be sensitive to the historical

expectations and vested interest of the user. Many individual and group

activities are structured around existing costs. Significant changes in costs

(fees) can have serious impact on their operation and viability. If significant

increases in user fees are desirable, an attempt should be made to phase in the

change over a period of time. This “softening of the impact” is important

because change causes stress on the users and therefore, stress on the system

in general and could significantly alter patterns and ultimately, revenue.

* Economically Disadvantaged

The fees of programs which meet the community’s socially worthwhile goals

and objectives should be affordable by the vast majority of the public.

Regardless of fee amount, there will be a number of economically

disadvantaged in Port Coquitlam who live on low incomes and are not able to

afford access to department leisure services. Therefore, a number of

strategies are to be developed by the department to provide access for the

economically disadvantaged and their dependents to publicly sponsored

leisure services. Strategies to be developed include but are not limited to:

- community (business/service club) sponsorship of public recreation

activity sessions

- social agency referrals

- recreation subsidies based on income levels

These strategies will continually be developed, evaluated and adjusted

accordingly, to meet existing community needs.

65



Page 62 of 131

Private Sector

* Non-Competition

The Department need only provide a service if the quasi-public or private

sector agencies are unable or unwilling to provide these services in a way

which meets the community need. The exception to the above is in the

operation of facilities that due to their design and operating effectiveness may

be required to provide services that are similar to the public or private sector.

* Market Rates

No commercial and/or private interest will be allowed to profit at the expense

of Port Coquitlam taxpayers. If those groups require a City of Port Coquitlam

resource (ie. facility) to meet their own objectives and those objectives do not

overlap with the City’s service objectives, then that private/commercial entity

will be charged a rate which is consistent with market rates charged by

comparable private/commercial facilities.

* Potential Partnerships

In the course of meeting socially worthwhile goals and objectives the City of

Port Coquitlam may contract with private sector entities to provide a public

service in City facilities.

Operational Considerations

* Cost/Benefit

In cases where the cost of collecting the revenue exceeds the revenue

collected, no user fees should be charged.

* Cost Recovery

A primary objective of a fee program is to minimize the tax subsidy required

in the provision of services. To this end, the Department will strive to realize

the highest cost recovery feasible within its mandate of providing public

leisure services. Four factors involved in cost recovery are:

1) Fee

Should be substantial enough to significantly impact the required

tax subsidy without prohibiting the vast majority from participating.

2) Participation

The greater the participation, both residential and non residential, the

Department may either reduce its service subsidy through increased

revenues or reduce the unit participant price necessary to meet a

specific program cost.

66



Page 63 of 131

3) Efficiency

The degree to which the organization is successful in operating

efficiently and effectively correlates to the benefit/revenue potential

received for service expenditure.

4) Alternative Revenues

Alternative revenues include activities such as:

- “ad on” sales (ie. food/beverage, retail, etc.)

- sponsorships, both capital development and program operations

- advertising (ie. brochure, facility fixtures)

The Department will endeavour to maximize these alternative

revenues with the provision that they neither compromise the

integrity of the municipality in meeting socially worthwhile goals and

objectives, and/or compete directly with the City of Port Coquitlam

and/or commercial sectors.

* Market Equity

The City of Port Coquitlam’s Parks and Recreation Department is one of

several public agencies offering public leisure services in Greater Vancouver

area. These program and facility services are often comparable between

agencies and therefore those fees must remain competitive relative to the

surrounding area if Port Coquitlam’s share of the market is not to diminish.

* Facility Equity

Fees and charges will provide for equity of service. Community groups using

Department facilities can expect to pay the same proportionate amount of the

facilities cost regardless if they play hockey, figure skate, swim or play

baseball. Rental rates for similar spaces within different facilities will also be

consistent. Clients of pre-registered or drop in programs of similar content

and quality will also be assured equity in fees.

67



Page 64 of 131

FEES AND CHARGES POLICY

The following pertains to the Department’s five major service areas of registered programs,

general admissions/passes and facility, field rentals and Major Events Assistance Program.

This policy is consistent with and derived from, the preceding fees and charges principles

and leisure services justification. It will provide the guidelines for the development of the

additional policy which may be necessary to address specific and, at times, changing

community needs (eg. employee wellness, economically disadvantaged, etc).

Fees and charges policy development, implementation and evaluation is a dynamic process.

Regular policy review and adjustment will occur to ensure that the policy addresses current

community needs.

REQUESTS FOR WAIVING OF FEES

The Parks and Recreation Department can not waive fees but it can work cooperatively with

organizations on joint programs where there is clear public benefit. All requests by groups

for waiving or reducing a rental fee will be forwarded to City Council via the Parks and

Recreation Committee for their consideration/approval.

Strategy#1: Registered Programs

Principles

Fees for programs sponsored directly by the Department will be based on the

following principles:

* the fees will be based on recovery of direct cost

* the fees will encourage maximum public participation and at the same

time minimize, within reason, the tax subsidy

* registrants will be responsible for financially contributing to their recreation

activity

consistent with market fees

Direct Cost

Registered programs are to recover the direct costs of the program. Direct program

costs include:

* Materials (consumable items):

Includes all items necessary to ensure the program meets recognized

standards. This includes items such as arts and craft supplies, ball and nets,

camping equipment, vehicle and equipment rental, tools and parts, stationary

and printing, etc.

.

68



Page 65 of 131

* Leadership:

Includes all persons directly involved in the preparation, teaching, coaching and

immediate supervision of a program or activity. This category refers to all

leaders/instructors whether paid by wage or honorarium.

* Transportation:

Includes vehicle lease, rentals, tolls, fuel and labour costs.

* Facilities:

Includes admission rates or rentals of non-city or City operated recreation facilities.

Rental fees based on degree of recoverable costs (listed below).

* Advertising:

Includes cost of advertising (or portion thereof) planned for a specific

activity or series of programs.

* Administrative Surcharge:

A minimum of a 15% surcharge based on the total amount of all other indirect

costs, will be included as part of the direct program cost. This surcharge is to

compensate for other indirect costs associated with the programs production (ie.

administration/supervision, facility fixed charges, etc).

Degree of Recoverable Costs

The program fee structure based on direct recoverable costs for respective registrant(s) will

be as follows:

Adult 100%

Youth/Senior 75%

Children/Tot 50%

Note: Programs offered at the Wilson Centre are cooperatively planned

within the City by the Wilson Centre Advisory Society and may be

given a different degree of recoverable costs.

69



Page 66 of 131

The actual fee will be set by adding up all direct program costs and then dividing

these costs by 75% of the optimum registration number. For example, if the costs

of a swim lesson class is $270.00 and the optimum class size is 8 persons, the fee

would be 270/6 (75 % of 8) or $45.00 per registrant.

This formula allows the municipality to operate programs at less than optimum

capacity without financial impact, but also to generate additional revenues if 75%

registration is exceeded.

Factors of Consideration

Other factors which may be taken into account when establishing program fees are:

* Program Fee Comparisons:

Program fees charged by other agencies and municipalities for similar

services.

* Grants & Partnerships:

If the Department is successful in obtaining funding from other levels of

government or funding from corporate sponsors, the standard program fees may be

decreased in order to encourage greater participation (ie. community special events,

special interest programs, etc).

* Developmental Programs:

May not initially recover costs but are continued at a loss in order to encourage and

promote interest. It is expected however, that over a period of time, these programs

too will reach established recovery targets.

* Loss Leaders:

“Loss leader” or “service” programs are programs which provide service to

customers of other functions within the operation. These “Loss Leaders” are

considered necessary for the success of other “profitable” operations within the

facility (ie. developmental, introductory sessions, etc).

70



Page 67 of 131

Strategy #2: General Admission/Pass Programs

Principles

The City of Port Coquitlam is one of several leisure delivery agencies operating within the

relatively compact geographic region of Greater Vancouver. If one organization is not

price consistent with other agencies providing comparable service, the demand for their

service will vary accordingly.

Consistent with the principles outlined in this policy, general admission/pass fees should

not be so high as to prohibit the participation of the majority of the public, but not so low as

to ignore the obligation of the user to pay for service and minimize the cost to the taxpayer.

In consideration of the above, and within the principles and rationale of the Fees and

Charges Policy, the following general admission/pass pricing policy will apply.

User Classifications

Adult 19 - 59 years of age

Senior 60 years of age and older

Children 4-12 years of age

Youth 13-18 years of age

Tot 0 - 3 years of age

Family parent(s) or guardian(s) with dependent children aged 18 or

under. Family rate pays for one or both parents/guardians

whether related or not, and all the children in the same family.

Note: For programs and services offered at the Wilson Centre, a member is

classified as fifty (50) years or better.

General admission/pass services will include but not necessarily be limited to: swimming,

skating and fitness. A base rate for all general admission/pass services which will be equal

to the adult admission/pass rate, will be determined by:

a) market analysis of comparable services in the Greater Vancouver area; and,

b) consideration of inflationary costs in providing the service.

71



Page 68 of 131

Degree of Recoverable Costs

The fee structure as a percentage of the base rate for the respective user classification will

be as follows: (Note: Includes direct costs only)

Adult 100%

Youth/Senior 75%

Children 50%

Tot n/c

Family The rate equal to two adults.

Marketing Strategies

* Multiple admission tickets may be available for up to 10% and 20%

respectively off applicable single rates for 10/20 admissions.

* Passes may be developed, where appropriate, to facilitate regular long term

use (ie. 3, 6 and 12 month passes may be available based on 3 months at 26 times

their respective single admission rate).

* Passes purchased for 6, 9, 12 months will receive a 5%, 10% and 15%

reduction, respectively.

* Reductions in fees may be made for groups and non-priority times to

facilitate maximum use of facilities.

* The Parks and Recreation Director/designate will have the authority to

waive or reduce fees and set fees for services not identified in the fees and

charges schedule to provide for unusual, promotional and/or experimental

purposes.

Strategy #3: Facility Rentals

Principles

Fees for facilities operated by the Parks and Recreation Department will be consistent with

the rationale and principles in this policy and with specific consideration given to:

* Greater Vancouver market rate for facility services of same or similar

nature.

* Users contribution to the voluntary provision of recreation opportunities

for the City of Port Coquitlam.

72



Page 69 of 131

* The encouragement of responsible and efficient use of facilities.

* Maximize revenue potential to recover maintenance, operating and labour

costs and minimize financial burden to the taxpayer.

* Ensure fee equity for facilities of similar or same size and quality.

Marketing Strategies

* If over twelve (12) hours are rented in one day, of the same activity space (note:

average numbers between two separate activity spaces) the total rental rate shall be

no more than the cost for twelve (12) hours of rental. A day will begin at midnight

or at the actual time of set-up of the event where applicable.

The Parks and Recreation Director/designate will have the authority to waive or reduce fees

and set fees for services not identified in the fees and charges schedule to provide for

unusual, marketing and/or experimental purposes.

Note: Extra service or amenity fees may be applied if request is outside of

normal service(s) provided.

A base rate for all facility rentals (adult non-profit at 75% merit service level) will be

established and be consistent with the rates of same or comparable facilities in the Greater

Vancouver market. Variations of the base rate in consideration of the aforementioned

principles will be designated to various categories of use. The categories are as follows:

* User Categories

The following level of priorities shall be respected in the allocation of facility

spaces:

1) City of Port Coquitlam and the Parks and Recreation Department’s

sponsored programs/services.

2) Local school activities during school hours.

3) Registered local non-profit groups that use facilities/fields for the provision

of leisure oriented activities that are open to all citizens of the

neighbourhood and/or community. Further order of priority is as follows:

major special events, minor/youth groups regular use and adult groups

regular use.

4) Local approved government, educational, social service agencies, religious

organizations and service clubs.

73



Page 70 of 131

5) Local private, labour, business and social/sport clubs groups and/or

individuals.

6) Local commercial/political.

7) Non-resident groups/individuals.

Note: These categories may be further refined in other policies due to the need,

based on the type of usage for that specific facility (ie. arena

ice allocation policy).

Percent of Base Rate

The percent of base rate or recoverable costs set for each facility will decrease with the

degree to which the user group generally supports and/or contributes to the City’s mandate

of providing public leisure services.

Facility percentage of base rate that will be established according to user category and

activity function is as follows: Note: Based on direct costs only. Figures reflect percentage of base rate each category will be assessed.

Users % of base rate - recoverable costs

(Based on adult non-profit at 75% merit service)

Programs, Workshops,

Meetings, Special Events,

Social Events, Fund Raising

and Tournaments

City of Port Coquitlam, Parks & Rec

Registered/Drop-in Programs, Local Schools,

Local Government & Service

Agency/Clubs/Religious

100%

Non-profit Community Leisure Groups (local)

a) Adult

b) Youth (minor)

100%

50%

Private 125%

Commercial/Political/Non-Resident 150%

74



Page 71 of 131

Strategy #4: Field Rentals

Principles

Fees for fields operated by the Department will be consistent with the rationale and

principles in this policy and with specific consideration given to:

* Greater Vancouver market rate for field services of same or similar

nature.

* Users contribution to the voluntary provision of recreation opportunities

for the City of Port Coquitlam.

* The encouragement of responsible and efficient use of fields.

* Maximization of revenue potential to recover operating costs and minimize

financial burden to the taxpayer.

* Ensure fee equity for fields of similar or same size and quality.

Note: Extra service or amenity fees may be applied if request is outside of normal

services provided.

Marketing Strategy

The Parks and Recreation Director/designate will have the authority to waive or reduce fees

and set fees for services not identified in the fees and charges schedule to provide for

unusual, marketing and/or experimental purposes.

A base rate for all field rentals (adult non-profit at 75% merit service level) will be

established and be consistent with the rates of same or comparable facilities in the Greater

Vancouver market. Variations of the base rate in consideration of the aforementioned

principles will be designated to various categories of use. The categories are as follows:

* User Categories

The following level of priorities shall be respected in the allocation of field spaces:

1) City of Port Coquitlam and the Parks and Recreation Department’s

sponsored programs/services.

2) Local school activities during school hours.

75



Page 72 of 131

3) Registered local non-profit groups that use facilities/fields for the provision

of leisure oriented activities that are open to all citizens of the

neighbourhood and/or community. Further order of priority is as follows:

major special events, minor/youth groups regular use and adult groups

regular use.

4) Local approved government, educational, social service agencies, religious

organizations and service clubs.

5) Local private, labour, business and social/sport clubs groups and/or

individuals.

6) Local commercial/political.

7) Non-resident groups/individuals.

Note: These categories may be further refined in other policies due to the need,

based on the type of usage for that specific facility (ie. Field Allocation

Policy).

Percent of Base Rate

The percent of base rate or recoverable costs set for each field will decrease with the degree

to which the user group generally supports and/or contributes to the City’s mandate of

providing public leisure services.

76



Page 73 of 131

Field percentage of base rate that will be established according to user category and activity

function is as follows:

Note: Based on direct costs only. Figures reflect percentage of base rate each category will be assessed.

Users % of base rate- recoverable costs

(Based on adult non-profit at 75% merit service)

Outdoor Program,

Special Events,

Fundraising

and Tournaments City of Port Coquitlam Parks & Rec

Registered/Drop-in Programs, Local Schools,

Local Government & Service Agency, Clubs,

Religious

100%

Non-profit Community Leisure Groups (Local)

a) Adult

b) Youth (minor)

100%

50%

Private 125%

Commercial/Political/Non-Resident 150%

77



Page 74 of 131

Basic Services Matrix/Subsidy Level Summary

Users/Uses Drop-ins Public Use Programs &

Events

Regular

Scheduled

Special

Events &

Fund-

raising

Group

Support (ie. Board

Meetings)

Citizens Tot A A A

Child C C C Youth D D D Adult E E E

Family 2 x Adult 2 x Adult Senior D D D

Groups Local

Non-profit

Rec. Group -

Youth

C C C

Local

Non-profit

Rec. Group -

Adult

E E E

Local Private

Group F F F

Commercial/

Political/

Non-Resident

Groups

G G G

Rate Codes

A No fee charged for this service. All costs subsidized by the taxpayers because substantially all the benefits

from it accrue to the community.

B Philosophically, a rate equal to 25% of the total direct costs of adult base rates will be charged for this service

because most benefits from it accrue to the community and relatively little accrue to the user/ability to pay.

C Philosophically, a rate equal to 50% of the total direct costs of adult base rates will be charged for this service

because the benefits from it accrue relatively equally to the community and the user/ability to pay.

D Philosophically, a rate equal to 75% of the total direct costs of adult base rates will be charged for this service

because the benefits accrue primarily to the user and less to the community/ability to pay.

E Philosophically, a rate of 100% of total direct costs at 75% merit service (base rate) will be charged for this

service because most of the benefits from it accrue to the user/ability to pay.

F Philosophically, a rate equal to 125% of the total direct costs will be charged for the service because there is no

justification for subsidy and indeed, taxpayers deserve a return on their investment for these activities.

G Philosophically, a rate equal to 150% of the total direct costs will be charged for the service because there is no

justification for subsidy, and indeed, taxpayers deserve a return on their investment for these activities.

78



Page 75 of 131

Strategy #5: MAJOR EVENTS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Purpose

The purpose of the Major Events Assistance Program is to encourage major sport competitions and

special events to occur in Port Coquitlam. This program is available to non-profit service groups,

cultural, recreational and sport organizations to offset the facility rental costs of hosting a major

regional, provincial, national or international event in a City of Port Coquitlam facility.

Principles

Accessibility

* To ensure that all eligible organizations have equal access to the assistance

program.

Accountability

* To ensure that the events supported by the assistance program enhance the

visibility of Port Coquitlam and provide a good economic return in the

community for municipal funds expended.

* To ensure that each organization which receives funding files the necessary

documents with the City of Port Coquitlam to support the funding.

* To ensure that the review process is administered in a professional and fair

manner.

Eligibility Criteria

Events must be officially sanctioned by the appropriate provincial or national organization which

oversees the specific competition or major event. An official letter of endorsement from the

respective governing body must accompany the Major Events Assistance Program application

form. If such an association does not exist, letters from the appropriate organizations in all

participating areas must be included in the application form.

An organization must be a non-profit society to be eligible for assistance.

Retroactive requests will not be considered.

The special event or competition must occur within Port Coquitlam and at a facility owned or

operated by the City of Port Coquitlam.

.

79



Page 76 of 131

MAJOR EVENTS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Purpose

The purpose of the Major Events Assistance Program is to encourage major sport competitions

and special events to occur in Port Coquitlam. This program is available to non-profit service

groups, cultural, recreational and sport organizations to offset the facility rental costs of hosting

a major regional, provincial, national or international event in a City of Port Coquitlam facility.

Principles

Accessibility

* To ensure that all eligible organizations have equal access to the assistance

program.

Accountability

* To ensure that the events supported by the assistance program enhance the

visibility of Port Coquitlam and provide a good economic return in the

community for municipal funds expended.

* To ensure that each organization which receives funding files the necessary

documents with the City of Port Coquitlam to support the funding.

* To ensure that the review process is administered in a professional and fair

manner.

Eligibility Criteria

Events must be officially sanctioned by the appropriate provincial or national organization

which oversees the specific competition or major event. An official letter of endorsement from

the respective governing body must accompany the Major Events Assistance Program

application form. If such an association does not exist, letters from the appropriate

organizations in all participating areas must be included in the application form.

An organization must be a non-profit society to be eligible for assistance.

Retroactive requests will not be considered.

The special event or competition must occur within Port Coquitlam and at a facility owned or

operated by the City of Port Coquitlam.

Funding Assistance

The purpose of the rental fee assistance is to offset relative facility rental and associated costs

(not applicable to direct staff costs and S.O.C.A.N. costs) during a booked major special event

or competition. Port Coquitlam’s level of support to major special events and competitions will

vary according to the scope of the event:

Category % Reduction of Rental Fees

* Regional 15%

80



Page 77 of 131

* Provincial/National/International 40%

81



Page 78 of 131

For the purpose of placing the major event/competition in the appropriate rental fee assistance

category the following applies:

Regional Level of Event

25% of the participants/registrants or teams must be from outside of the vicinity,

defined as west of Port Moody, east of Maple Ridge, south of the Fraser River and north

of Coquitlam.

Not withstanding the above, a minimum of five (5) teams must be from outside the

defined areas to be considered for the fee reduction.

Provincial/National/International Level of Event

40% of the participants/registrants or teams must be from outside the region, defined as

west of Vancouver, east of Hope, south of Canada/US border and north of Pemberton.

Not withstanding the above, a minimum of five (5) teams must be from outside the

defined areas to be considered for the fee reduction.

If the tournament/event is a duration of five (5) days or more, for each day thereafter

the subsidy will increase to 50%.

Application for Deadline/Process

Applications are accepted up to 18 months in advance of the event or competition and must be

submitted with a completed facility rental application form. Organizations will receive

confirmation that their assistance form has been received and processed. Special consideration

may be given to organizations that may require approval to host an event more than 18 months

in advance.

Authority

The Parks and Recreation Director or designate is responsible for review and approval of the

assistance program.

82



Page 79 of 131

CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM APPLICATION FOR MAJOR EVENTS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

A Major Special Event is defined as "Those which bring recognition to or increase the public profile of

the community. Specifically International, National, Western Canadian, Provincial gatherings for

individuals or multi-sport/recreational events which are sanctioned by the appropriate governing body".

Typically, these events interrupt total/or portion of a facility operation for an extended period of time

(one or more days). Eligibility Criteria An official letter of endorsement from the respective governing body must accompany the application

form. If such an association does not exist, letter from the appropriate organizations in all participating

areas must be included. An organization must be a non-profit society to be eligible for assistance.

Retroactive requests will not be considered. The Major Special Event must occur within Port

Coquitlam and at a facility owned or operated by the City of Port Coquitlam.

Please answer all questions completely and provide any additional information that will give a better

understanding of your request. Applications received that do not include the necessary information will

be returned to the applicant and will only be accepted when all the required information is included.

PLEASE PRINT

Name of Event Event Location

Dates of the Event Event Location

Event Times: Please provide information for each day and location. (attach as a separate documents if

necessary)

Name of Organization Hosting the Event

Non-profit Incorporation # Date of Incorporation

Under which category are you applying for assistance? Regional Provincial National International

Regional Event -15% reduction of rental fee 25% of the participants/registrants/ or teams must be from outside of the City and west of Port Moody, east of Maple Ridge, south of the Fraser River, north of Coquitlam

• If the tournament/event is of a duration of 5 days or more for each day thereafter the subsidy could

increase to 50%.

83



Page 80 of 131

Provincial, National/International Level of Event – 40% reduction of rental fee 40 % of the participants/registrants or teams must be outside the geographical boundaries of: west of

Vancouver, east of Chiliwack, south of the border, north of Squamish Note:

• If the tournament/event is of a duration of 5 days or more for each day thereafter the subsidy could

increase to 50%.

• Not withstanding the above, a minimum of five (5) teams must be from outside the defined areas to

be considered for the fee reduction.

1) Please provide a list of the participants/registrants/teams (which ever is appropriate for your event).

Include the name and City they are from. If the list is yet to be confirmed, please provide your list

of invitees and indicate the date you will have your confirmed list.

2) Please include the event budget with your application.

3) Is your organization receiving (or applying for) any other assistance (financial, in-kind,

sponsorship, etc.) for this event from other sources? No Yes If yes please provide a list of those providing assistance/or you

have applied to and what the value or potential value of the assistance is.

4) If your application for subsidy is not accepted how/what will be the effect on your event?

NOTE: At the conclusion of your event please submit your actual budget for the event, along with the number

of people that volunteered at the event and the total number of volunteer hours.

Contact Person

Mailing Address

Please indicate preferred method of contact: Landline Cell Phone Fax E-mail

Telephone Number (Day Time) Evening)

Other Contact Numbers (Fax ) (Cell)

E-mail address

The undersigned hereby agrees that all information stated is true and correct.

Print Name of President of the Organization Hosting the Event Date

84



Page 81 of 131

Signature of President of the Organization Hosting the Event Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the following City Parks and Recreation Departments for their assistance and

information in helping to develop our Fees and Charges Policy.

• Ridge Meadows Parks & Leisure Services

• Township of Langley Parks & Recreation Department

• City of Regina Parks & Recreation Department

• City of Sannich Parks & Recreation Department

• City of Calgary Parks & Recreation Department

• City of Coquitlam Leisure & Parks Services

85



Page 82 of 131

APPENDIX 5 – CHART 3: PROGRAMS RUN/CANCELLED BY FUNCTION AREA, 2015 AND 2016

Chart 3: PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS RUN AND CANCELLED, BY FUNCTION AREA, 2015 AND 2016 Source: Active Net

* A L & S = Active Living and Sport

The area with the highest number of registered programs offered in 2016 (3,721 – accounting for more than all other programs combined) and the highest run rate, at 90%, was Aquatics. The area with the lowest run rate, at 46% of 179 registered programs offered, was Arts and Culture.

68% 81% 90% 82%

56% 82% 85% 80%

32% 19% 10% 18%

44% 18% 15% 20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2015 CANCELLED

2015 RUN

83% 89% 90% 89%

46%

79% 84% 75%

17% 11% 10% 11%

54%

21% 16% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2016 CANCELLED

2016 RUN

86



Page 83 of 131

APPENDIX 6 – CHART 5: RECREATION DIVISION ACTUAL AND BUDGETED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Chart 5: Recreation Division Actual and Budgeted Revenue and Expenses (without Terry Fox Library), 2015-2016 Source: 2016 Financial Plan and Q3 Variance Report

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

2015

2016 (Projected YE basedon Q3 Actuals)

87



Page 84 of 131

APPENDIX 7 - CHART 7: RECREATION DIVISION EXPENSES, WITH PROGRAM STAFF AND DIVISION EARNINGS Chart 7: Recreation Division Expenses, with Program Staff and Division Earnings, 2011-2016 Source: Cayenta and Payroll Department

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Division Expenses (withoutTerry Fox Library) Minus AllStaff Earnings

Recreation Division StaffEarnings Minus ProgramStaff

Program Staff Earnings

88



Page 85 of 131

APPENDIX 8 - CHART 8: NUMBER OF RECREATION STAFF HOURS WORKED PER YEAR

Chart 8: Number of Recreation Staff Hours Worked Per Year, 2011-2016 Source: Payroll Department

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Total Number of RecreationProgramming Staff Worked,Per Year

89



Page 86 of 131

APPENDIX 9 - CHART 10: CHANGE IN PROGRAM EXPENSES, 2011 VS 2016 Chart 10: Change in Program Expenses 2011 vs. 2016 Aquatics – Swim Kids Level 1 (5-16yrs) – 30 min lesson x 10 lessons (5 hrs program time)

Expense 2011 2016 % Change

Facility Space (pool) $66.40/hr $73.00/hr 9.9%

Staffing (Aquatic Leader)

$24.55/hr $26.25/hr 6.9%

Total Expenses (Facilities plus Staffing)

$90.95/hr $99.25 9.1%

Revenue 2011 2016 % Change

Program Fee (per participant)

$49.25 $50.75 3.0%

Skating Lesson – Child 1 (5-7yrs) - 30 min lesson x 8 classes (4 hrs program time)


Facility Space (pool) $230.00/hr $237.00/hr 3.0%

Staffing (Skating Instructor)

$20.45/hr $21.86/hr 6.9%


$250.45 $258.86 3.4%



$48 $50.40 5.0%

Soccer Tots (3-6yrs) – 1hr program x 5 classes (5 hrs program time)


Facility Space (gym) $58.00/hr $54.00/hr -7.4%*

Staffing (Recreation Leader)

$24.48/hr $26.17/hr 6.9%


$82.48/hr $80.17/hr -2.9%



$24.10 $25.00 3.7%

* Facility rental costs are adjusted through the annual Fees and Charges Bylaw review process; alignment with market rates is one of the factors considered.

90



Page 87 of 131

APPENDIX 10 - CHART 11: PROGRAM REVENUE COMPARED TO DIVISION REVENUE Chart 11: Amount of Program Revenue compared to Recreation Division Revenue, 2011-2016 Source: Financial Plans, 2016 Q3 Variance Report, CLASS and Active Net

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Division Revenuewithout ProgramRevenue

Program Revenue

91



Page 88 of 131

APPENDIX 11 – DATA SOURCES FOR STATISTICAL CHARTS All of the data used in the following charts includes the Recreation Division only. Data from Facility Services, Centralized Services and Parks (2011-2016) was excluded. Chart 2: Programming Efficiency- Number of Programs Cancelled and Run, 2011-2016

YEAR(S) SOURCE DETAILS

2011-2013 CLASS Programs cancelled and run during winter, spring, summer and fall

2014 CLASS Programs cancelled and run from Jan 1-Nov 30

Active Net Programs cancelled and run Dec 1-31

2015 Active Net Programs cancelled and run during winter, spring, summer and fall

2016 Active Net Programs cancelled and run during winter, spring, summer and fall (up to November 25, 2016).

Chart 3: Percentage of Programs Run and Cancelled in 2015 and 2016, by Function Area


2015-2016 Active Net Programs cancelled and run for all function areas during winter, spring, summer and fall (January 1, 2015 to November 25, 2016).

Chart 4: Expenses by City Department


2015 Annual Report

Chart 5: Recreation Division Actual and Budgeted Revenue and Expenses, 2015-2016


2015 2016 Financial Plan

All 2015 figures are taken from the 2016 Financial Plan.

2016 2016 Financial Plan 2016 Q3 Variance Report

Budgeted revenues and expenses are taken from the 2016 Financial Plan. All 2016 numbers are projected and budgeted revenues and expenses.

92



Page 89 of 131

Chart 6: Division Net Operating Budget 2011-2016 (without Terry Fox Library – “TFL”)


2011-2014 Cayenta All numbers are actual revenues and expenses.

2015 2016 Financial Plan

All 2015 numbers are actual revenues and expenses.

2016 2016 Financial Plan 2016 Agresso

All 2016 numbers are projected and budgeted revenues and expenses.

Chart 7: Recreation Division Expenses, with Program Staff and Division Staff Earnings, 2011-2016 “Program Staff” includes: Recreation Program Coordinator, Recreation Programmer, Recreation Program Assistant, Recreation Leader, Recreation Attendant, Aquatic Leader, Aquatic Attendant, and Skating Instructor. “Recreation Division Staff Earnings minus Program Staff” is the difference between Division staff costs minus the Recreation staff costs from each year. “Division Expenses (without Terry Fox Library) minus all staff earnings” is the difference between Division expenses (as presented in Chart 6) and Division staff earnings (as described above) for each year.


2011-2014 Cayenta Financial Plans Payroll

Division expenses are actual figures from Cayenta. Recreation Division staff earnings are from Financial Plans (2012 and 2014 are actuals, and 2011 and 2013 are budgeted). Recreation staff earnings are taken from actual Payroll data.

2015 2016 Financial Plan Payroll

Division expenses and staff earnings are taken from the actual figures in the 2016 Financial Plan. Recreation staff earnings are taken from actual Payroll data.

2016 2016 Financial Plan Payroll

Division expenses and staff earnings are taken from the budgeted figures in the 2016 Financial Plan. Recreation staff earnings are taken from actual Payroll data.

Chart 8: Number of Annual Recreation Staff Hours Worked, 2011-2016


2011-2016 Payroll

Actual earnings from staff in the following positions: Recreation Program Coordinator, Recreation Programmer, Recreation

93



Page 90 of 131


Program Assistant, Recreation Leader, Recreation Attendant, Aquatic Leader, Aquatic Attendant and Skating Instructor. Exception: 2016 figures are projected using Q3 actuals up to November 11, 2016.

Chart 9: Number of Annual Recreation Staff Hours Worked, by Job Title, 2011-2016


2011-2016 Payroll

Actual number of hours worked by staff in the following positions: Recreation Program Coordinator, Recreation Programmer, Recreation Program Assistant, Recreation Leader, Recreation Attendant, Aquatic Leader, Aquatic Attendant and Skating Instructor. Exception: 2016 figures are projected using Q3 actuals up to November 11, 2016.

Chart 11: Amount of Program Revenue compared to Recreation Division Revenue, 2011-2016 “Division Revenue without Program Revenue” is the difference between the actual program revenue minus the actual registered program revenue received during that year.


2011-2016 CLASS Active Net Cayenta 2011-2015 2016 Financial Plans 2016 Q3 Variance Report

Program revenue are actual figures taken from Program Status Reports in CLASS (2011-2014) and Active Net (December 2014 plus 2015-2016) Division revenues are actual figures taken from Cayenta (2011-2014) and the 2016 Financial Plan (2015 figures). 2016 projected figures are based on Agresso Q3 Variance Report.

Chart 12: Recreation Department Revenue Distribution


2011 Cayenta

Actual figures.

2016 Agresso Actual figures taken from a Budget Variance Report.

Chart 13: Base Facility Operation Budgeted Costs


2011 Cayenta

Budgeted figures

2016 Agresso Budgeted figures are taken from a Budget Variance Report.

94



Page 91 of 131


Chart 14: Direct Registered Program Expenses and Revenues, by Function Area


2017 Agresso

Operating Budget

95



Page 92 of 131

APPENDIX 12 – DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS TABLES Identified Practices, Current Practices and Gaps 9 The following tables present the analysis of information collected through the surveys, presenting them as Identified Practices in all organizations, the Current Practices of the City, and any identified Gaps. The gaps generally form the basis for recommendations. The table categories are (following the order of the interview questions): 1. General Planning and Program Design

2. Needs Assessment

3. Budget and Fees

4. Contracting Instructors

5. Internal Staffing

6. Scheduling Program Space

7. Marketing


9. Managing Waitlists

10. Responding to Low Registration

11. When to Run a Class Below Minimum Registration

12. Documenting Reasons for Cancellation

13. Core Programs

9 Gold stars ( )in the tables indicate areas in which the Department compared favourably with identified practices in external organizations

96



Page 93 of 131

1. GENERAL PLANNING AND PROGRAM DESIGN

IDENTIFIED TREND Planning and approval processes are a management priority, well documented and fully implemented.

The planning process begins well in advance of the program season.

Leadership is shared and all levels of staff are involved in the planning and budgeting process.

The organizational mandate, mission, vision and/or priorities are well understood, and are linked to operational programs and supports.

Statistical information is readily available for use in making planning decisions.

The ability of program staff to influence area-specific planning is effective in meeting community needs, and strengthens staff development.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Management engages staff in an inclusive business planning process.

High level budgeting is tasked to the management team, while program budgeting mainly rests with Program Coordinators.

Planning responsibility in program areas is undertaken thoughtfully and conscientiously.

Program staff have a good understanding of their current planning processes, within their responsibilities and the direction provided.

Staff have a high degree of discretion in determining their programs.

Planning begins approximately four to six months ahead of a season.

Program data is available through the Active Net, and still accessible through the previous system, CLASS.

The existing regularly scheduled cross-program meetings are a prime opportunity to collaborate and share ideas

97



Page 94 of 131


GAP o Planning at the program level has been area-specific, resulting in varying practices among the program areas and locations.

o Planning support and resource materials available to staff could be more readily available to staff in a consistent format.

o The Class software system was phased out of Port Coquitlam in 2014 (having been informed that the software company will no longer support this product). Prior years’ data from the Class system is not organized in the same way as Active Net, therefore, detailed reporting that includes 2014 and earlier is time-consuming and requires manual compilation and staff expertise in both systems.

o Capacity and preparedness for reporting on programs (statistics, financial data, highlights) would improve program assistants’ ability to fulfill routine and ad hoc reporting expectations.

o Data reliability and comparability among program areas could be increased by continuing to assist staff in their transition to Active Net. Any data fields used in reporting should be the primary focus for training and support, such as “function groups”, “age”, “reason for cancellation” and “status”.

o Further training on Active Net and Excel is required to produce program statistical reports.

o Active Net requires further customization to meet our needs, e.g., single program status report, and capacity to track reasons for program cancellation.

RECOMMENDATION

Create a central intranet hub containing primary planning resources

that can be maintained in a single location and easily accessed by all staff.

RECOMMENDATION

Formally adopt a Registered Program Planning Cycle based on

current practices and examples (see example in Section VII).

98



Page 95 of 131


RECOMMENDATION

Build the capacity for program staff to produce a Recreation Department Seasonal Report that is in line with the annual business plan and reports on key statistics, financial updates, and program information. This could be further extended to create a “dashboard”.

The report could potentially replace the current Program Status Reports, and can be used to brief the Healthy Community Committee as well as internal staff, and provide a basis for year over year comparison for planning and accountability purposes (see Appendix 14 for an example of what this might include). The first year of reports would serve as a baseline for subsequent years.

RECOMMENDATION

Refine the Active Network Programming Manual, with a focus on data fields required for program reporting.

Support staff in common data definitions and data entry practices.

RECOMMENDATION Identify in each area the program priorities for following year in July, to be ready for budget and business planning exercises.

RECOMMENDATION

Review the use of the City shared computer network and centralize all shared information documents across the program areas in a consistent location and format. This task could start with areas where there is active sharing of duties (e.g., scheduling and contact lists), standardized documents (e.g., planning tools, data entry definitions), statistical program data, and possibly budgeting, and eventually extend to program specific information. This can be done through a phased-in approach.

99



Page 96 of 131

100



Page 97 of 131

2. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

IDENTIFIED TREND A needs assessment is essential to program planning. A broad range of resources are accessed:

Continuous, daily program monitoring (followed up by meetings)

Research into local demographics

Feedback from participants

Speaking with parents and caregivers

Focus Groups

Neighborhood Outreach

School Presentations

Surveys

Best Practices

Trends

Review of programs already offered

Request for Proposals approach (rather than pre-determined contract) and/or discussions with instructors/ teachers/ leaders to determine program content

Lower Mainland Municipal Program Coordinators Network

Personal network

Responsiveness to constantly changing community needs is a critical skill among program staff. Selecting relevant programs and running them at the right time are the greatest contributors to program run rates.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Meeting community needs was identified as by far the most important planning factor for staff. Staff follow a process similar to identified practices.

GAP o The current needs assessment processes are localized, at times informal, and based on best fit, experience, and available resources. It may be helpful to adopt a more systematic and strategic approach.

RECOMMENDATION

Build on current capacity in needs assessments, and document a Needs Assessment Checklist with links to resources showcasing the range of options available.

101



Page 98 of 131

3. BUDGET AND FEES

IDENTIFIED TREND Financial management is rigorously maintained by a combination of finance specialists, managers and program staff.

Popular programs that generate high revenue are used to offset important but lower demand programs.

There is a heavy reliance on specialized software programs to manage both registration and payments, with Class and Active Net being the most commonly used.

There are many ways that organizations facilitate access for those with low income – subsidized fees, access passes and use of government grants; in organizations who do a lot of fundraising, they ensure that no one is turned away.

Budgets are increased each year to compensate for inflation and

adjustments in staff wages according to Collective Agreements.

CURRENT PRACTICE

A combination of finance specialists, managers and program staff (the latter mainly at the Program Coordinator level) are responsible for managing the function area budget proposed by the Department and approved by Council.

Registered recreation programs are highly dynamic relative to other City services. Each recreation function area benefits from working within program budgets on a bottom-line basis for much-needed flexibility while the Recreation Division overall stays within its approved expenditures. This flexibility allows staff to make programming choices that are efficient and make the most of evolving opportunities.

Budgets are responsibly and conservatively managed, and consistently run within their limits.

Active Net was adopted in 2015, replacing Class. Agresso was also rolled out in 2015 for financial management.

GAP

o There is variance in how staff are fulfilling program costing duties, particularly in positions reporting to Program Coordinators.

102



Page 99 of 131

3. BUDGET AND FEES

o Some staff reported being strongly motivated to enhance their

program budgeting skills, tools and processes. o The costing tools available to staff could be reviewed for improved

utility and relevance (e.g., Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), Guidelines for Setting Participant Fees for Registered Programs and accompanying Registered Programs Costing Worksheet)

o There is still a learning curve in using Active Net and Agresso.

RECOMMENDATION

Review the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000) as it relates to the City’s Financial Management Policy, Cost Recovery.

RECOMMENDATION

Continue to provide support, training and other learning opportunities in Excel, Active Net and Agresso, to enhance staff’s ability to complete job duties.

RECOMMENDATION

Revise the Department’s Guidelines for Setting Participant Fees for Registered Programs and Registered Recreation Program Costing Worksheet to be more effective and user friendly, or develop an

alternative.

Larger policy discussions should be resolved in advance, notably, on how to account for maintenance fees and internal rent.

RECOMMENDATION Standardize Agresso work order descriptions and account coding to ensure consistency and enable reporting on program specific costs from spreadsheets.

103



Page 100 of 131

4. CONTRACTING INSTRUCTORS

IDENTIFIED TREND

Quality of programming is directly linked to the skill of instructors – this is a significant factor in program integrity, participant satisfaction and repeat registration.

Programs can be run by full-time/part-time permanent staff, casual staff or contractors.

Three identified approaches to casual/contractor staffing:

Actively recruit staff to run pre-determined programs

Build programs based on the skills set of existing leaders/instructors - create growth opportunities and better programs by involving them in program development

Be reactive and instructor-driven, where proposals are received from contractors and reviewed by staff for approval

Match the availability of instructors to the schedule, which is determined by space and client preferences.

Support in-house training programs, which provide a pool of potential staff – often they are previous program participants or volunteers.

Quality instructors have a following, and can be retained over many

years. Relationships with instructors can also be part of an organization’s mandate, such as supporting local artists.

Instructors (e.g., fitness) have a responsibility to recruit program

participants, and this is written into their contracts. Cancellations can be reduced by having a list of part-time/on call

instructors. There is a standard job category, description and compensation chart

for instructors.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Overall, program staff manage contract instructors in close alignment with identified practices.

104



Page 101 of 131

4. CONTRACTING INSTRUCTORS

GAP o There is currently no standard job category, job description and compensation chart, resulting in a wide range of rates and duties for instructors/teachers/leaders among program areas.

o Employment of program attendants will be affected by the

increase in minimum wage, which over time will reduce the availability of qualified staff at the Recreation Leader level and higher.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a standardized Contract Instructor Compensation Chart for use in costing across all program areas. An example is available from the City of Surrey.

105



Page 102 of 131

5. INTERNAL STAFF

IDENTIFIED TREND Staff are highly dedicated and passionate about their work, and demonstrate a high level of job satisfaction.

Staff have well defined roles, and there are adequate levels of employees for the workload.

Staff have been in their roles for a long time and lend a great deal of historical knowledge and expertise.

Staff are accountable for their work, aim to fulfil the organizational mandate, are dedicated to providing the highest quality service possible, and are in tune with the needs of program users.

Staff work collaboratively with management to actively seek ways to share leadership and responsibility.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Program staff expressed a drive to meet the needs of the community and seek out ways to continuously provide the best programming possible.

There is a strong sense of accountability - a desire to make sound program decisions, meet revenue targets and perform to a high standard.

Most program areas have highly qualified, long-term staff, showing a successful rate of retention in the Division.

GAP o Planning activities vary across the program areas. o Some staff have indicated an interest in additional training and

support.

o Succession planning, individual training plans and performance reviews could be used to greater effect.

RECOMMENDATION

Prioritize succession planning, retention, training and productivity for programming staff, in recognition of their strong, skilled contribution to successful program delivery.

106



Page 103 of 131

5. INTERNAL STAFF

Continue to provide training, support and learning opportunities.

Formalize learning efforts through goal-setting processes.

Update orientation for new employees with content that addressed their specific areas of assignment, and include standardized planning tools.

Strive for a general standard for all recreation staff, e.g., First Aid, High Five certification, NCCP.

Assess the adequacy of training budgets to provide quality training for essential skills.

RECOMMENDATION

Continue to invest in volunteers who may supplement existing programs or receive valuable mentorship to be contributing members of society and eventually have the potential to be part of a labour pool for recreation programs.

6. SCHEDULING PROGRAM SPACE

IDENTIFIED TREND Organizations invest significant resources well ahead of time (up to

eight months ahead) to plan a schedule that fits clients’ preferences and availability.

Use previous year as a starting point.

Start by knowing total hours available.

Develop key planning documents, e.g., calendar mapping

Consider concurrent programming for siblings and even parents, as well as child minding.

Avoid scheduling similar programs in the same time slot which might have the same participants.

Survey participants for schedules, e.g., daytime suited for seniors; preschool programs are not scheduled during preschool hours.

Consider whether certain programs take precedence over others, depending on organizational priorities, e.g. a short lunchtime program for six low income families may be scheduled over a two-hour league training session for twenty people.

The schedule uses space to its fullest at every minute of the day -

determine maximum number of programs that can run at the same

107



Page 104 of 131


time day - very little ability to add programs if there is demand

Staff are flexible and responsive in creating programs at the last minute, e.g., due to cancellations, by maintaining a list of alternate programs and services that are in demand for various timeslots.

Space is allocated to priority activities and groups, particularly during

high demand times.

If space becomes available at the last minute, it is filled very quickly.

High demand for limited space creates the opportunity for significant revenue generation.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Program staff are skilled at scheduling space. Scheduling is a high priority and staff are focused on designing, tracking and adjusting it.

Scheduling is particularly challenging in high volume programs, e.g., aquatics, requires strong organizational skills and attention to detail.

The quantity of programs that can be offered is limited by the amount of space available.

In virtually all programs, indoor space is used to capacity throughout the year.

Space is used differently in various times of the year, e.g., ice becomes dry floor; preschool or after school programs become daycamps in summer, outdoor park space is used in the summer.

Space is shared among programs, e.g., children’s programs use pool space and the ice arena, and space may be allocated based on historical usage or by importance of need, even if less revenue is generated.

Programs will not overfill available space to ensure safety and quality of programming, e.g., tennis courts have a cap, prefer reasonable ratio of staff to participants

Some programs have dedicated space, e.g., Youth Centres, Fitness Studio, and programming rooms.

108



Page 105 of 131


Staff are able to fill in unoccupied space with programs very quickly.

GAP o Clearer guidelines around prioritization of facility space usage for registered programs would make space allocations clearer and more transparent.

RECOMMENDATION Work as a team to establish Guidelines on Registered Program Space Allocation to ensure fair and transparent space usage that takes into account priority groups and core program policy. These should be incorporated into the core program policy.

Suggested criteria for the allocation of internally managed program

space in City recreation facilities:

Inventory of space available Regulations and limitations set by governing bodies,

e.g., provincial and national standards Maximizing use of space available Core program status Community need met Length and frequency of program Registered vs drop in High vs low demand time slot (including definition of

“prime time”) Availability of alternative space/time

109



Page 106 of 131

7. MARKETING

IDENTIFIED TREND

Have dedicated full-time resources working on marketing, promotion and communications.

Do promotion and marketing through:

Website

Leisure guide

Posters inside recreation facilities

Social media – Facebook, Twitter

Newspaper

Mail

Radio

Word of mouth

Booths at public events and festivals

Flyers handed out at birthday parties and field trips hosted at facility

Presentations to targeted audiences, e.g., schools and PACs

Discounts offered to members

Sale of brand merchandise

Bonuses for referrals

Discounts for early registration and sibling registration

Loyalty program, e.g., Youth Access Card (costs $10) gives a $5 discount for every registered program as well as unlimited drop-in

CURRENT PRACTICE

Marketing is handled by regular staff in their respective function areas.

Most common practices: Written: Leisure guide, flyers, pamphlets, highlights on

the City’s website, new logos, branding In person: Informal contact with clients, go directly to

schools to promote with principals, vice principals and parent advisory committees, partnership and committee efforts

Classes: trial drop-in activities or registered classes, free week at beginning of session

110



Page 107 of 131

7. MARKETING

GAP

o The Recreation Department does not currently have a dedicated marketing position.

o The Port Coquitlam leisure guide is issued after Port Moody and Coquitlam which may impact registration.

RECOMMENDATION

Create a marketing strategy for registered programs, which could include templates for flyers and an information campaign, e.g., on the quality of services from skilled City staff and/or the positive impact of recreation, based on the Sport/Active for Life model – could promote the benefits of recreation, tell success stories, and profile messages in the leisure guide.

RECOMMENDATION

Coordinate leisure guide release date within the Tri-Cities.

111



Page 108 of 131

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

IDENTIFIED TREND

Program implementation is tracked on a daily basis (e.g., walking around program space).

Regular program status meetings are held. Participants are given evaluation sheets after most sessions.

Swim audits are done every three months.

Management undertakes financial spot checks, particularly for

long-standing programs, to identify any areas for improvement. Preparation of seasonal and year end reporting, to evaluate

accomplishments and inform future efforts (e.g., success/failures, what worked/didn’t work, why changes were made, how much revenue was generated).

CURRENT PRACTICE

Processes described above are being practiced by program staff, although they may be able to do it more consistently. A sample participant feedback form can be referred to in Appendix 18.

GAP o The current monitoring and evaluation processes are localized, at times informal, and based on best fit, experience, and available resources. It may be helpful to adopt a more systematic and strategic approach.

RECOMMENDATION

Establish a formal, multi-year monitoring and evaluation plan at the program level that addresses formative evaluation questions (i.e., whether a program is on track and how it might be improved to better meet clientele needs, or whether or not to continue to offer a program) and summative evaluation questions (i.e., determines program results and effectiveness, based on desired outcomes and impacts), and provides guidance to program staff on their role and activities in its implementation.

112



Page 109 of 131

9. MANAGING WAITLISTS

IDENTIFIED TREND Manage waitlisting through an online registration system.

Review programs in a status report form on a daily basis with the

waitlist information beside each program.

Contact the next person on the waitlist if participants drop out of a full class.

Key strategies to meet needs of waitlisted patrons:

Add a class (could be different time, day, date, location; only possible after registration opens but before the session starts) if there is additional facility space and an additional instructor is available.

Ensure that any additions (e.g., instructors and volunteers) to accommodate waitlisted clients do not result in a loss of revenue.

Refer participants to similar programs that are not full.

Add an instructor to increase class maximum.

Locate camps at multiple sites, so that parents can access the camps either close to where they live or work – or any of the routes in between.

Review waitlists at the end of the season and create more sessions

for programs with large waitlists/use that information during the evaluation process to plan more courses for the next season to accommodate demand.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Program waitlisting practices are consistent with identified practices. Staff manage class waitlists in accordance with the costing model as described in the Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000).

GAP

None

RECOMMENDATION

None

113



Page 110 of 131

10. RESPONDING TO LOW REGISTRATION

IDENTIFIED TREND

The number one reason for cancelling programs is low registration, followed by instructor unavailability and space cancellation (e.g., School District space). Scheduling and weather are also minor factors. Some classes require a minimum number of participants to teach the content, e.g., lifesaving, team sports.

Registration software is monitored on a daily basis for registrant and waitlist numbers.

Decisions are made on low registration as late as two days before

the scheduled start date.

Strategies to deal with low registration:

1. Make last minute marketing pushes, if appropriate (e.g., instructor to find more registrants, make flyers, highlight on website, call registrants to see if they know someone else who is interested).

2. Move registrants from a busy class to a smaller one; offer an incentive of a $25 credit for transferring.

3. Merge under-registered programs. 4. Run the class for a shorter time slot or duration. 5. Encourage registrant to transfer to a fuller class. 6. Help registrants make other arrangements or suggest alternate

programs. 7. Reduce the program fee.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Program cancellation practices are consistent with identified practices.

GAP None

RECOMMENDATION Look at the feasibility and benefits of an automated notification in Active Net to registrants when a class is cancelled.

114



Page 111 of 131

RECOMMENDATION Ensure that when reporting cancellation data, it is not double-counted.

11. WHEN TO RUN A CLASS BELOW MINIMUM REGISTRATION

IDENTIFIED TREND

There are many circumstances when programs will run even though they have low numbers, which usually means it will not recover costs: 1. The program is new and has to build up interest – can run a

number of times at a loss in the beginning. 2. The program fits a narrow audience and traditionally has low

registration (e.g., pre-natal yoga, support for people with brain injury).

3. Costs can be offset by other very popular programs 4. The program meets a specific need in the community (e.g.,

empowerment, brain injury and MS), particularly when no other organization will provide this programming.

5. It is absolutely needed for children whose parents work. 6. It is only time the registrant can come. 7. A child has a sibling in a class at the same time. 8. The registrant has experienced a cancellation one or more times

already 9. When registrants have been waiting for a while. 10. The instructor is willing to do the class anyway, presumably for

less pay 11. The class is volunteer-led, and therefore very low cost 12. When part-time Recreation Leaders are guaranteed a minimum

number of shift hours, and hours need to be filled – sometimes a lower attended course that is scheduled in between two full classes will run anyway.

13. To sustain the program, e.g. when two courses have the same instructor but one of them is below the minimum, the two courses could run to maintain the instructor in both courses.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Program staff select valid reasons, as listed above, to run classes that do not meet the minimum requirements according to the cost recovery model.

GAP

None

115



Page 112 of 131

RECOMMENDATION None

12. DOCUMENTING REASONS FOR CANCELLATION

IDENTIFIED TREND

Document reasons for cancellation – program staff can look up past status reports to see patterns.

Produce a year-end report to be analyzed and used in the planning process.

If the program is a priority but was cancelled due to insufficient registration, offer it again but change the approach (i.e., different time, new location, increased or different marketing strategy).

If the program continues to be cancelled two more times (over two

more seasons) do not offer the program again until an appropriate evaluation is done.

CURRENT PRACTICE

The number of programs cancelled is used for planning, and reasons recorded are known anecdotally.

GAP

o Active Net does not allow the entry of a detailed reason for cancellation. Other methods must be used.

RECOMMENDATION Continue to work with Active Net to increase the capacity of the software to meet our needs.

116



Page 113 of 131

13. CORE PROGRAMS

IDENTIFIED TREND Organizations can better deliver recreation programs when it is clear

what their mandate, mission and vision is, supported by policy statements that guide decision-making on program offerings.

Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, West Vancouver, Richmond, Kelowna, Fort St. John, Calgary and Lethbridge have done some work in defining “core programs.”

CURRENT PRACTICE

Relevant resources such the Parks, Recreation and Culture (Master) Plan (2007), Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000), Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada (2014), and the Sport/ Active for Life model could be more broadly used and understood by staff.

GAP

o A single, user-friendly resource addressing core policy and programming would be beneficial.

RECOMMENDATION Develop a Policy for Core Recreation Programs which includes Program Space Allocation Guidelines, using other municipal examples and a user-friendly adaptation of the Parks, Recreation and Culture (Master) Plan (2007) and Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000). It should also incorporate guidelines on space allocation for registered programs.

This undertaking can be done in coordination with, or as a helpful preparatory step for, the new Master Plan, scheduled to launch in 2017.

Key elements that an effective core policy statement should include are:

1. The value of recreation services in a community.

2. The role of the municipality in providing recreation services.

3. The municipality’s policy objectives in recreation.

4. Priorities to ensure best use of limited resources and to be able

117



Page 114 of 131

13. CORE PROGRAMS

to meet policy objectives.

5. How to determine whether the municipality duplicates,

complements, compensates for, and partners appropriately with

other community services, institutions and market-driven

recreation providers, and strategies to address gaps and reduce

duplication?

6. The degree to which municipal taxes subsidize recreation

programs, and limits.

7. Factors that determine fee-setting and cost recovery.

8. Management of fee-setting when market rates are externally set

and do not reflect actual local costs.

9. Determining and reporting on success.

10. The types and levels of service that must be maintained to fulfil

the City’s core mandate.

11. Guidelines on when it is appropriate to go beyond the core

mandate.

12. Balancing the need between revenue generation and service

obligation/accessibility.

118



Page 115 of 131

APPENDIX 13 – ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PLANNING The information, tools and resources available to staff to guide program planning include (bolded items represent external resources): 1. Corporate Strategic Plan Vision 20/20

2. Parks, Recreation and Culture (Master) Plan (2007)

3. Imagine Port Coquitlam - Cultural Plan (2016)

4. Annual Recreation Department Summary and Community Services Division Business Plan

5. Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada (2015)

6. Canadian Sport/ Active for Life model

7. High Five10

8. Fees and Charges Bylaw

9. Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Policy (2000)

10. Guidelines for Setting Participant Fees for Registered Programs (2005)

11. Registered Program Costing Worksheet (2005)

12. Active Network Programming Manual

13. Annual Recreation Program Status Reports

14. Feedback and Evaluation Forms

10 Best practices in the quality assurance of recreation and sports programming for children aged 6-12: http://www.highfive.org/what-high-five

119

http://www.highfive.org/what-high-five



Page 116 of 131

APPENDIX 14 – SAMPLE RECREATION DEPARTMENT SEASONAL REPORT

A. WHAT WE DO: The mandate of the Recreation Department is the delivery of sport, community and cultural programs, events and services, and the operation and maintenance of recreation facilities.

Programs are primarily run in these locations:

Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex (Jon Baillie Arena and Wilson Centre)

Hyde Creek Recreation Centre

Leigh Square Community Arts Village – The Outlet and the Gathering Place

Various outdoor locations (seasonal)

Partnership locations (local schools)

The Department strives to be responsive to community needs, uses a community engagement approach, and establishes partnerships that leverage expertise and resources.

B. REPORT BACK ON BUSINESS PLAN OBJECTIVES:

PRIORITIES KEY DELIVERABLES

1.

2.

3.

4.

C. BUDGET AT A GLANCE:

BUDGETED EXPENDITURES: $ ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $ Highlights: Programs - $ Supplies – $ Employees – $ Instructors/Contractors - $

COMMENTS:

PROJECTED REVENUE: $ ACTUAL REVENUE: $ Highlights: Registration - $ External grants - $ External rentals - $

COMMENTS:

BALANCE = (EXPENDITURES) – (REVENUE + TAX SUBSIDY)

COMMENTS:

120



Page 117 of 131

D. SEASONAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS

ALL PROGRAMS

Active Living and Sport (including Arenas)

Adults and Access (Wilson Centre)

Arts and Culture (Leigh Square)

Aquatics (Hyde Creek)

Children Services (Hyde Creek, PoCo Recreation Complex, Leigh Square and partnership locations)

Health and Wellness – Fitness (Hyde Creek)

Youth (Hyde Creek and partnership locations)

Volunteer Services

Number of registered programs run: Number of registered programs cancelled: Number of registrants: Number of special events: Number of new programs: Number of partnership programs: Number of instructors: Number of contractors: Hours of registered program time: % of Port Coquitlam residents using programs:

PROGRAM COMPARISON

Pie chart for programs run, by area Pie chart for programs cancelled by area Bar chart for number of registrants, by area Bar chart for revenue generation vs cost, by area

THREE-YEAR COMPARISON

Three-year trend line graph for programs run Three-year trend line graph for registrants

Active Living and Sport

Learn to skate and learn to play hockey

Public skating and drop-in hockey

Dry floor arena sports

Highlights and successes: Challenges: Participant feedback:

Adults and Access

Membership

Registered workshops/classes

Drop-in activities


121



Page 118 of 131

D. SEASONAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS

Arts and Culture

Registered workshops/classes

Drop-in activities


Aquatics

Swimming lessons (group and private) at the indoor pool at Hyde Creek Recreation Centre

Outdoor pool, spray parks and wading pools

Aquatic programs


Children Services

Children - afterschool programs

Preschool – daytime activities and school preparation


Health and Wellness

Registered and drop-in activities in gym and fitness studio


Youth

Registered and drop-in activities


122



Page 119 of 131

APPENDIX 15 – CORE RECREATION PROGRAMS A thorough review of core programs, along with definitions and guidelines, is a priority recommendation of this CIA. A preliminary draft of the City’s current core program offerings is outlined in the following chart. Staff focused on the primary areas that the public has come to trust and depend upon the municipality to offer in a safe, high quality and accessible format:

FUNCTION AREA CORE ACTIVITY CATEGORY PROGRAM TYPES OUT OF SCOPE

ACTIVE LIVING AND SPORT

1. Introduction to recreation and sports,

and development of fundamental sports skills, for children and youth

Learn to Skate

Learn to Bike

Introduction to Hockey/ Badminton/ Martial Arts/ Tennis/ Basketball

Sports Camps

Competitive Hockey Programs (Minor Hockey)

Running clinics

2. Adult “Active for Life” Sport Programs

Sports Leagues (basketball, volleyball, slo-pitch, soccer)

123



Page 120 of 131


ADULTS

1. Arts and craft programs involving a

variety of mediums, from beginner levels to advanced.

Silk Painting

Oil and Acrylic

Drawing

Painting

Woodcarving

Pottery – Glass Fusing

Watercolours

Jewelry Design

Brazilian Embroidery

Quilting

Sewing

Piano

Choir

2. Partnership programs

Get up and Go – Fraser Health

AQUATICS

1. Nationally standardized, competency-

based registered swimming lessons – ages 4 months to 80+ years

Red Cross Preschool

Red Cross Swim Kids

Red Cross Teen & Adults

Red Cross Swim @ School

Competitive aquatics training and meets, e.g., swimming, water polo and diving

Pool-based rehabilitation and therapy programs

2. Advanced Aquatics - lifesaving,

lifeguarding and instructor certification courses

Lifesaving Society and Red Cross Level Training

124



Page 121 of 131


3. First Aid Training

Certification courses in Standard First Aid, Emergency First Aid, and CPR

4. In-house developed registered

children/youth swim, water safety and play programs.

Aqua All-Stars

Begin & Swim

Junior Triathlon Training

ARTS AND CULTURE

1. Recreational art classes at all levels,

involving a variety of mediums and activities (e.g., performing, visual and literary arts).

Camps and Out of School programs for children

Registered programs for youth and adults

CHILDREN

1. Educational and social recreation

programs that contribute to a Healthy for Life Model for children from toddler to ten years old.

School readiness/early learning/social recreation - Preschool Prep, Playschool, Kinder Begin

Introduction to healthy living - Little Chefs, Kids in the Kitchen, Girls Go

After School/Pro-D Camps/ Social Recreation through sports, arts, cooking

Daycare

Fundamental, elite and competitive sports training

Children’s fitness, e.g., yoga and Zumba

Tournaments

Homework clubs and school subject programs

Outdoor recreation

Music and drama 2. Partnership programs

Cine Kids, Let’s Dance Club, Bricks for Kids, Strong Kids, Gymnastics Club, and Indoor Ringette

125



Page 122 of 131


HEALTH AND WELLNESS

1. Introductory and moderate level group

fitness and yoga classes offered in multi-use space, appropriate for healthy populations ages 12+, e.g., low impact cardio, spinning, bootcamps, programs for 50 yrs+.

Spinning

50+ classes

Osteofit

Chairorbics

Body Fit

Core Conditioning

Full Body Stretch

Dance Cardio

Zumba Line Dancing

Tai Chi

Latin Fit

Dynamic Flow Yoga

Chair Yoga

Hatha Yoga

Yoga Therapy

Advanced level and specialized classes requiring specialized equipment or training certifications

- High impact and fast-paced fitness classes

- Cross-fit training - Elite sports team training - Hot yoga - Reformer Pilates - Aerial yoga - Barre - Yoga for lower limbs,

pelvis, back, and digestion

Physiotherapy for high risk populations (injuries, heart issues, rehab) which require specialized equipment, adequate space and specialized instructor training

2. Yoga classes for all fitness levels, ages

12+.

3. Partnership programs for specialized

audiences.

Group training and fitness classes for people with mental health issues (Fraser Health) at low or no cost

126



Page 123 of 131


YOUTH

1. Registered recreational programs for

youth grades 6-12. Sport skill development programs are limited to those not covered by other divisional function groups.

Summer, Spring Break, Pro D Day camps

Skateboard and scooter lessons

Fencing: Beginner-Level 3

Don’t try this at home – Science

Babysitter and Home Alone programs in the schools

Youth Yoga

Clinical Counselling

Employment Programs, e.g., government or community-based

2. Collaborative projects that empower

youth to engage in connection, volunteering, leadership, and community betterment.

Youth Community Garden

PoCo Youth Crew: Random Acts of Kindness

Teens Against Graffiti

Youth Week celebrations

Themed community meals

3. Education and skill development

(employable/ transferable/ life), with a focus on supporting at risk youth.

Youth Employment Training Program

Youth Volunteer Leadership Training

School homework and project support

Resume support and job search guidance

4. Low-barrier afterschool recreation and

programs that promote learning, active and healthy lifestyles.

Cooking, sports and activities programming from 3-5pm daily at one of the five middle schools in the

127



Page 124 of 131


city (funded by Step by Step)

5. Partnership services to support youth

at risk (School District, Simon Fraser Society For Community Living).

Support, guidance and resource provision for youth in crisis, including referrals and reports of divulgence, crime and addictions.

128



Page 125 of 131

129



Page 126 of 131

APPENDIX 16 – ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (Fall 2016) AND TEAM BACKGROUND

Director of Recreation

Area Recreation Manager, Poco Recreation ComplexCultural Development &

Community Services Manager

Manager of Facilities

Administrative SupportRecreation Support Coordinator

Area Recreation Manager, Hyde Creek

Recreation Program Coordinator-Volunteers .5

Recreation Program Coordinator-Arts & Culture PT

Recreation Program Coordinator-Community & Civic

Events

Recreation Program LeadersCasual

Recreation Program Assistant PT

Recreation LeaderCasual

Recreation Program Assistant FT


Recreation Support

Recreation Support

Recreation Support PT

Recreation Program Coordinator-Adult/Access

Facility Maintenance CoordinatorRecreation Program Coordinator- Sport – 50%

Facility Maintenance Supervisor

Facility Maintenance Supervisor

Technical Maintenance Coordinator

Technical Maintenance Worker

Technical Maintenance Worker

Rec Program Assistant -Adult/Access

Rec Program Assistant FT

Rec Program Leader -Adult/Access PT

Rec Program Leader -Adult/Access PT

Food Service Worker PT

Concession Worker PT

Rec Program Leaders -Adult/Access Casuals

Concession Workers Casuals

Rec Program Leader Casuals

Area Attendants Casual

Skating Instructors Casual

Recreation Program Coordinator-Arenas – 50%

Recreation Program Assistant – Arenas FT

Recreation Program Coordinator-Youth Services

Recreation Program Assistant PT – Youth

Services

Recreation Program Assistant PT – Youth

Services

Rec Program Leader PT



Rec Program Leaders Casuals

Recreation Program Coordinator-Aquatics

Recreation Programmer- Aquatics

Recreation Programmer Assistant- Aquatics

Recreation Programmer Assistant- Aquatics

Aquatic Team Leader

Aquatic Team Leader

Aquatic Leaders Casual

Aquatic Attendants Casual

Recreation Program Coordinator-Childrens Services

Recreation Program Coordinator-Health & Wellness





Rec Program Leaders Casuals

Rec Program Attendants Casuals


Weight Room Attendants Casual

Facility Service Worker




Facility Service Worker Casuals

Pool Maintenance Worker

Zamboni Operator Casuals

Area Maintenance Worker



Area Maintenance Worker PT

Area Maintenance Workers Casuals

Building Maintenance Worker







Building Maintenance Worker PT





Building Maintenance Worker Casuals

Recreation LeadersCasual

Recreation Program Coordinator-Customer Service .5

Customer Service Team Lead PT

Customer Service Team Lead PT

Customer Service AssistantsCasuals


130



Page 127 of 131

Recreation Program Team Background The recreation program team is made up of experienced, qualified full-time and part-time staff. Program Coordinators possess a minimum of one college diploma, with qualifications as high as a Master’s degree, as well as certifications and training in related disciplines, skills and leadership. Coordinators have been with the city for 15 years on average, and have an average of 22.5 years of experience in the recreation field. Most supervisory staff and assistants possess a degree up to the undergraduate level, as well as specialty diplomas, certifications and training in related fields (e.g., National Coaching Certification Program related courses, High Five, BC Recreation and Parks Association, Lifesaving Society pool certifications). Their average tenure with the city is 11 years, and 19 years in the recreation field. The overall level of retention suggests recreation staff are engaged in satisfying work and enjoy a healthy work environment.

131



Page 128 of 131

APPENDIX 17 – LIST OF ACTIVE PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS Access Youth Services Annette Jackson Dance Tots Astoria Avenues of Change- United Way BCRPA Bricks 4 Kids Canucks Autism Network Cinekids Coast Capital Savings Community Police Coquitlam Express Hockey Club Coquitlam Lions Club Douglas College RCMP Fraser Health Authority Government of Canada Hawthorne Duet Bikes I am Someone Society K&S Dance Kid Proof Kids First Physio ParticiPACtion

PoCo Marlins Swim Club PoCo Minor Hockey PoCo Sports Alliance Society Port Coquitlam Physiotherapy Clinic Port Coquitlam Rotary Centennial Port Coquitlam/Ridge Meadows Ringette Association Port Moody Rotary Rec West Red Cross Save-on Foods Pharmacy School District 43 Share Food Bank Simon Fraser Aquatics Subway Via Sport VanCity Credit Union WestCoast Family Resource Centre Westminster Savings Wilson Centre Pharmacy Youth Services in various Lower Mainland municipalities

132



Page 129 of 131

APPENDIX 18 – SAMPLE PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK FORM

133



Page 130 of 131

APPENDIX 19 – REGISTERED PROGRAM COSTING WORKSHEET TEMPLATE

134



Page 131 of 131

135

Documents

Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of