2015 06 01 Situational Analysis - FINAL

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

NORFOLK COUNTY PARKS, FACILITIES AND

RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Submitted by:

June, 2015

509-318 Homer St Vancouver BC Canada V6B 2V2 | p: 604.899.3806 | f: 604.899.3805 51 Wolseley Street Toronto ON Canada M5T 1A4| p: 416.645.7033 | f: 416 645 7046

[email protected] | www.elac.ca

Cover Page Image Source: www.flickr.com

E . L e e s & A s s o c i a t e s C o n s u l t i n g L t d .

LEES+Associates Contact Information: 509-318 Homer St, Vancouver BC Canada, V6B 2V2 | p: 604.899.3806 | f: 604.899.3805 51 Wolseley Street, Toronto ON Canada, M5T 1A4 | p: 416.645.7033 | f: 416.645.7046

[email protected] | www.elac.ca

June, 2015

The Corporation of Norfolk County County Administration Building 50 Colbourne Street, South Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 4H3

Attention: Frank Sams, Manager, Parks Facilities and Recreation

Dear Mr. Sams,

Re: Final Situational Analysis – Norfolk County Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan and Feasibility Study

LEES+Associates in partnership with F.J. Galloway Associates Inc. and Nicholson Sheffield Architects Inc., is pleased to submit the final Situational Analysis for the Norfolk County Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan and Feasibility Study. We have incorporated a wide range of background information, trends and best practices, empirical observations, and input through multiple consultation methods to develop this final analysis. It represents a distillation of these inputs into a document that has also set the stage for developing a community-driven vision and principles to guide future parks and recreation decision making in the County.

We are pleased to submit the final Situational Analysis, along with the Final Master Plan and Feasibility Study.

Yours Truly,

Erik Lees, BLA, CSLA, MCIP, RPP

Norfolk County – Situational Analysis

LEES+Associates - i -


LEES+Associates - ii -

CONTENTS SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 1

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

1.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................................. 3 OVERALL SETTING ................................................................................................................. 3 CURRENT POPULATION ........................................................................................................ 4

NORFOLK COUNTY ................................................................................................................... 4 SIMCOE ....................................................................................................................................... 5 PORT DOVER ............................................................................................................................. 5 DELHI ........................................................................................................................................... 6 WATERFORD .............................................................................................................................. 6 PORT ROWAN ............................................................................................................................ 6 COURTLAND ............................................................................................................................... 6

HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH ................................................................................... 6 POPULATION PROJECTION ................................................................................................... 7 ETHNICITY ............................................................................................................................... 8 EMPLOYMENT ......................................................................................................................... 8 FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS ............................................................................................... 9 EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 9 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.0 SERVICE DELIVERY ................................................................................... 11 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................... 11 PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................................................................................. 11 MUNICIPALITY ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.0 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY .................................................. 14 NORFOLK COUNTY ............................................................................................................... 14

COURTLAND ............................................................................................................................. 16 DELHI ......................................................................................................................................... 16 PORT DOVER ........................................................................................................................... 16 PORT ROWAN .......................................................................................................................... 17 SIMCOE ..................................................................................................................................... 17 WATERFORD ............................................................................................................................ 17

TRAILS ................................................................................................................................... 18 STORMWATER PONDS ......................................................................................................... 19 PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................................................................................. 19 RECREATION FACILITIES - OUTDOOR ............................................................................... 19

Ball Diamonds ............................................................................................................................ 19 Soccer Pitches ........................................................................................................................... 20 Tennis & Multi-Purpose Courts ................................................................................................. 20 Playgrounds ............................................................................................................................... 20 Additional Recreation Amenities ............................................................................................... 20


LEES+Associates - iii -

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................. 21 SCHOOL BOARDS ................................................................................................................. 22 NATURAL HERITAGE ............................................................................................................ 23 FOREST MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 25

SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................... 25 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 26 CURRENT ISSUES ................................................................................................................... 26 LAND OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 27 REVENUE GENERATION ........................................................................................................ 28

Timber Marketing ................................................................................................................... 28 Cost Recovery ........................................................................................................................ 28

PERMITTING SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 28 Forest Conservation By-Law ................................................................................................. 28

THE RURAL / URBAN LANDSCAPE ....................................................................................... 29 CEMETERIES ......................................................................................................................... 30

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 30 COUNTY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 30

Inventory ................................................................................................................................. 30 Revenue & Expenses ............................................................................................................ 31 Interment Analysis .................................................................................................................. 31 Fees: Oakwood Cemetery ..................................................................................................... 32 Fees: Rural Cemeteries ......................................................................................................... 32 Revenue and Expenses ......................................................................................................... 33

CEMETERY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 33 Ownership .............................................................................................................................. 33 Administration ......................................................................................................................... 34 Operations .............................................................................................................................. 34 Grounds Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 35

LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 35 Demographics and Population Growth ................................................................................. 35 Rate of Interment at Cemeteries under the County’s Control .............................................. 35 Current Land Inventory .......................................................................................................... 36 Cremation Lot Inventory (Oakwood) ..................................................................................... 36 Remaining Burial Capacity .................................................................................................... 36

STRATEGIC TRENDS .............................................................................................................. 37 Consumer Trends .................................................................................................................. 37 Interment Trends .................................................................................................................... 38

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 39

4.0 INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES .............................. 40 ARENAS ................................................................................................................................. 40

DELHI COMMUNITY CENTRE ARENA ................................................................................... 40 LANGTON ARENA .................................................................................................................... 40 PORT DOVER ARENA ............................................................................................................. 40 SIMCOE RECREATION CENTRE – ARENA AND AQUATICS .............................................. 40 TALBOT GARDENS ARENA .................................................................................................... 41 WATERFORD TRICENTURENA .............................................................................................. 41

COMMUNITY CENTRES ........................................................................................................ 41


LEES+Associates - iv -

WATERFRONT AMENITIES ................................................................................................... 43 PORT DOVER WATERFRONT MARINA ................................................................................. 43 PORT ROWAN WATERFRONT MARINA ................................................................................ 43

5.0 MAJOR FACILITY UTILIZATION PROFILES .............................................. 44 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 44 ARENA UTILIZATION ............................................................................................................ 44 BALL FIELD UTILIZATION .................................................................................................... 47 PICNIC SHELTER RENTALS ................................................................................................. 50

6.0 PARKS AND RECREATION FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS ........................ 51 FINANCIAL OPERATING PROFILE....................................................................................... 51

REVENUES ............................................................................................................................... 51 EXPENDITURES ....................................................................................................................... 51 NET RESULT ............................................................................................................................. 52

FEASIBILITY STUDY FINANCIAL OPERATING PROFILES ................................................ 56 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES .................................................................................................... 60 CAPITAL FUNDING RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 64 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 67

7.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................... 69 FOCUS GROUPS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS ........................................................... 69

WHAT IS WORKING: ................................................................................................................ 69 MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS ............................................................................................. 70 FUTURE TRENDS..................................................................................................................... 70 TOP PRIORITIES ...................................................................................................................... 71

COMMUNITY SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 71

8.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW .................................................................................. 74 DRAFT NORFOLK COUNTY CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 2015 - 2019 ...................... 74 NORFOLK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY, 2014 .............. 77

GROWTH PROJECTION .......................................................................................................... 78 DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST FOR GENERAL SERVICES ................. 78 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY UNIT TYPE ........................... 78 PROJECTED NET OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................ 79

NORFOLK COUNTY SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS, 2011 ......................................................... 87 DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................................... 87 LABOUR FORCE ....................................................................................................................... 87 ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 88

NORFOLK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, 2011 ................................ 89 NORFOLK COUNTY TRAILS MASTER PLAN, 2009 ............................................................ 90 NORFOLK COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN, 2006, AS AMENDED ............................................... 93

COMMUNITY PARKS ............................................................................................................... 94 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS ..................................................................................................... 94 PARKETTES .............................................................................................................................. 95 LINKED OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM .............................................. 95


LEES+Associates - v -

LAKESHORE PARKS ................................................................................................................ 96 HAMLET AREAS ....................................................................................................................... 97

NORFOLK COUNTY PARKS, FACILITIES AND RECREATION SERVICES MASTER PLAN, 2005 ........................................................................................................................................ 97

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 98 STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS & USER GROUP AGREEMENTS .................................. 98 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS ..................................................... 99 PROMOTIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS ...........................................................................100 PLANNING ...............................................................................................................................101 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT & FISCAL MANAGEMENT ........................................................102 ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................102

9.0 STRATEGIC TRENDS ............................................................................... 103 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 103 SOCIETAL AND LEISURE TRENDS .................................................................................... 103

Aging and Youth Populations ..................................................................................................103 Changing Cultural Face of Canada .........................................................................................105 Sport Activities .........................................................................................................................105 The Rise of Arts, Culture and Crafts .......................................................................................109 Facility Quality ..........................................................................................................................110 Tourism and Sport Tourism .....................................................................................................110 Environment .............................................................................................................................111 Community, Health, Educational, Social and Policy Services Integration .............................112 User Fees, Charges and Affordability .....................................................................................113 Market Segmentation / Services Differentiation .....................................................................113 Leisure Services Development and Delivery Strategy ...........................................................114 Volunteers and Leisure Services Delivery ..............................................................................115 Urban Design and Intensification ............................................................................................116 Community Trails .....................................................................................................................117 Collaboration, Partnership and Joint Ventures .......................................................................118 Role of the Parks and Recreation/Community Services Department ....................................119 Capital and Operating Finances ..............................................................................................119 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................121 Multi-Use / Multi-Partner Facilities ..........................................................................................121 Use of Schools and Their Availability ......................................................................................121 Geographic Service Levels......................................................................................................122 Capital Facility Maintenance ...................................................................................................123

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 124 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY TRENDS ............................................................................................. 125

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................125 Individual Activity Trends .........................................................................................................126

Baseball ................................................................................................................................126 Ice Activities .........................................................................................................................127 Soccer ...................................................................................................................................129 Other Field Sports ................................................................................................................130 Trails/Walking .......................................................................................................................131 Track and Field .....................................................................................................................131 Gymnastics ...........................................................................................................................132


LEES+Associates - vi -

Gymnasium Sports and Fitness ..........................................................................................132 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 133

10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND STRATEGIC THEMES ......................................... 135 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 135

COMMUNITY PROFILE ..........................................................................................................135 MAJOR FACILITY UTILIZATION PROFILES.........................................................................135

Arenas ..................................................................................................................................135 Baseball Fields .....................................................................................................................136 Picnic Shelters ......................................................................................................................136

PARKS AND RECREATION FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS ..................................................136 Financial Operating Profile ..................................................................................................136 Capital Expenditures ............................................................................................................136 Capital Funding Resources .................................................................................................137

SERVICE DELIVERY ..............................................................................................................137 VOLUNTEERS .........................................................................................................................138 PARKS AND TRAILS ..............................................................................................................138 TRENDS ...................................................................................................................................139

STRATEGIC THEMES .......................................................................................................... 139 RECREATION FACILITIES .....................................................................................................139 PARKS AND TRAILS ..............................................................................................................140 FOREST MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................140 CEMETERIES ..........................................................................................................................140 WATERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS ...............................................................................141 SERVICE DELIVERY ..............................................................................................................141 PROGRAMMING AND SERVICES DIRECTIONS ................................................................141 VOLUNTEERS .........................................................................................................................141 FINANCES ...............................................................................................................................141

APPENDIX A – NORFOLK COUNTY PARK LAND INVENTORY, PARKS AND RECREATION OVERVIEW MAP ..................................................................... 143

APPENDIX B - FOCUS GROUP, PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY......................................................................... 144

APPENDIX C – NORFOLK COUNTY CEMETERY INVENTORY AND INTERMENT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 145


LEES+Associates - 1 -

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION The County of Norfolk was formed after the 2001 restructuring of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. There are six urban areas - Simcoe, Port Dover, Delhi, Courtland, Port Rowan and Waterford, as well as 42 smaller rural hamlets and neighbourhoods and two resort areas, along with an expansive agricultural area.

These communities have been providing recreation and leisure opportunities for several decades through recreation facilities, programs and community events. The Master Plan is the second Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan for the County. It recognizes the work completed through the County’s previous Master Plan in 2005. This plan is intended to take a broader perspective by responding to changing population characteristics, evolving availability of resources, new initiatives and emerging trends.

This Situational Analysis report is the preface to the Master Plan as it builds upon previous studies, extensive background information, as well as stakeholder, community partners and general public feedback in the preparation of a Master Plan.

This document represents the first draft of the Situational Analysis. The report assembles the consultation input received through a community engagement process. It also provides perspectives on the community through demographics, documents review, parkland resources, recreation facilities and financial operations. The last section of the report provides the current trends and strategies available to Norfolk County for the delivery of parks, facilities and programs.

The Report has been developed based on the following sections and content themes:

1.0 Community Profile: Community profiles establish the overall setting for parks and recreation in the municipality. This section identifies existing communities and anticipates future development and locations for growth within the County. The demographics section provides background material and projections related to population and age in anticipation of changing parks and recreation needs in the population.

2.0 Service Delivery: This section describes the roles of three service approaches for recreation and leisure provision: volunteer organizations, the private sector and the municipality. Each plays a distinct but intertwined role in their respective endeavors.

3.0 Parks and Open Space Inventory: This section identifies the various parks, trails, venues and recreation assets and resources related to their size, location and features. These components are important baseline information to assess the current servicing levels, locational distribution and related considerations.

4.0 Indoor Recreation Facilities Inventory: This section identifies and describes indoor recreation facilities; specifically arenas and community centres.

5.0 Major Facility Utilization Profiles: This section examines the use schedules for recreation facilities, including arenas, ball diamonds and picnic facilities.

6.0 Parks and Recreation Financial Assessments: This section summarizes the Parks and Recreation Division of capital and operating budgets for parks and facilities.

7.0 Community Engagement and Consultation: This section provides the results from a variety of



sources including the focus groups workshops, public meetings and on-line survey.

8.0 Document Review: Several documents relevant to Parks, Facilities and Recreation were summarized based on outcomes and recommendations.

9.0 Strategic Trends: This section reviews the leisure and recreation trends and strategies related to service delivery and facilities. It is based on experience across Ontario in small and large, urban and rural municipalities. These trends and strategies identify emerging approaches and influences on public interests, responses to demographic trends and service delivery strategies that have been successful elsewhere. This perspective is important in allowing the County to identify approaches that best match the local characteristics.

10.0 Conclusions and Strategic Themes: This section creates strategic themes based on an analysis of key conclusions. They will be used to evolve into the strategies, action plans, implementation and overall master plan development. They will also become vital in developing a vision and mission for the Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan.



1.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE

OVERALL SETTING Norfolk is a single-tier municipality comprising of just over 1,600 square kilometers in a largely rural setting. Norfolk is situated on the north shore of Lake Erie and is bordered by Haldimand County to the east, the Counties of Brant and Oxford to the north, and Elgin County to the west. Norfolk County consists of six urban areas – Simcoe, Port Dover, Delhi, Waterford, Port Rowan and Courtland, as well as 42 hamlets, two resort areas – Long Point and Turkey Point, and a large agricultural area. Simcoe and Port Dover have the highest urban populations that account for 67% of the County’s urban areas in the 2011 census.

Traditionally rooted in agriculture with a strong farming culture, Norfolk County is positioned at the heart of the Ontario Tobacco Belt and was once a major contributor to the Canadian tobacco industry. However, changes in the tobacco industry have led to greater agriculture diversity with an array of alternative crops, vegetables, fruits and are promoted under the moniker of ‘Ontario’s Garden’.

Norfolk County has a rich natural heritage with more than 25% of the County considered to be forested. Long Point is a significant natural feature with a 40 km (25 mile) narrow peninsula projecting into Lake Erie. It plays an important part in the eastern North American bird migration.

“Ontario’s South Coast” is the County’s tourism moniker as Norfolk promotes the coastal areas of Port Dover, Port Rowan, Turkey Point, and Long Point for their natural settings and water activities. Additional tourism opportunities such as eco-tourism along the lakeshore; including bicycle tours, festivals and concerts in the downtown areas, as well as agricultural areas are all contributing to the County’s visibility.

Figure 1: Map of Norfolk County

Source: Google Maps, 2015



CURRENT POPULATION NORFOLK COUNTY

Norfolk County’s population was 63,175 based on the 2011 Census. The County experienced modest population growth representing 4% over a ten year period from the County’s formation in 2001 to the 2011 Census. As shown in Table 1-1 below, Norfolk grew by only 1% over the 2006 to 2011 Census period.

Table 1-1: Norfolk County Age Characteristics - 2001 to 2011

Age Characteristics 2001

Population

2006

Population

2011

Population

2011

Ontario

Total – All Persons 60,850 62,560 63,175 12,851,820

Age 0 – 4 3,140 2,965 2,920 704,260

Age 5 – 9 ---* 3,400 3,140 712,755

Age 10 – 14 8,335 4,190 3,610 763,755

Age 15 – 19 4,650 4,665 4,180 863,635

Age 20 – 24 3,270 3,765 3,615 852,905

Age 25 – 34 ----* 5,630 6,010 1,615,485

Age 35 – 44 15,680 8,285 7,110 1,768,410

Age 45 – 54 9,215 10,385 10,295 2,062,020

Age 55 – 64 6,650 8,415 10,070 1,630,275

Age 65 – 74 5,500 5,780 6,710 1,004,265

Age 75 – 84 3,365 3,855 4,025 627,660

Age 85 & over 1,045 1,215 1,475 246,400

Median age of population 40.4 43.4 46.1 40.4

% of population change from previous census .5 2.8 1.0

% of population ages 19 & under 26.5 24.3 21.9 23.7

% of population ages 55 & over 27.2 30.8 35.3 27.3

% of population ages 65 & over 16.3 17.3 19.3 14.6

Total private dwellings 25,359 26,527 27,814

Population density per square km 39.3 38.9 30.3 8.76

Source: Norfolk County Census, 2011 * 2001 age characteristics combined in age groups: 5 to 14 and 25 to 44

The above table identifies Norfolk County’s population according to age characteristics with a comparison from 2001 to 2006 and to 2011, including a comparison to the overall 2011 Ontario population. The County’s total population is increasing modestly and is forecasted to continue in a modest trend over the next three decades. (Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014)

The County continues to undergo a change characterized by an aging population similar to Ontario and across Canada. The median age has increased from 40.4 in 2001 to 46.1 in 2011. In comparison, the provincial 2011 median age is lower at 40.4. The demographic change is due in part to the employment decline in the agriculture and resort areas. Also, the out-migration of young adults looking for improved employment and post-secondary education opportunities in surrounding counties and regions, including the Toronto, London and Greater Golden Horseshoe areas is on the increase.

On the other hand, there is an in-migration of middle to older age adults, from surrounding regions/counties, who wish to experience the rural and shoreline characteristics unique to Norfolk County. This population



influx is most prevalent in Port Dover where residential development is taking place with a focus on active living retirement communities.

Of particular interest is the decrease in population over a ten year period in all age segments 44 and under, with the exception of the age group 20 - 24. This anomaly may be due, in part, to the economic decline where more young adults are still living with their parents. More on this subject is discussed later in this section under Families and Households. Conversely, the population increases during the same ten year time frames from 45 and older. For example, pre-school to older teens, ages 0 to 19 show a 4.6% decrease over a ten year span (2001 to 2011). This amount is 1.8% lower than the provincial median for the same age group. Similarly, the age group 25 to 44 represents a 5% decrease in population over the same ten year span. This amount is 5.5% lower than the provincial median for the same age group.

In contrast, older adults, ages 55 and over have increased by 4.5% over the same time frame. This amount is 8% higher than the provincial median.

These six urban centres account for 48% of the County’s population. Within the urban areas, growth has been focused in the Simcoe and Port Dover communities, accounting for one half of the County’s urban area population growth between 2006 and 2011. As shown in Table 1-2, Simcoe and Port Dover have grown 24% and 26% respectively.

Table 1-2: Urban Area Population Growth, 2006 - 2011

Urban Area

2006

2011

Net

Change

Share of Urban Area

Population Growth

Share of Urban Area Total

2011 Population

Simcoe 14,420 14,644 224 24% 46%

Port Dover 6,292 6,530 238 26% 21%

Delhi 4,806 4970 164 18% 16%

Waterford 3,355 3,485 130 14% 11%

Port Rowan 1,020 1,192 172 19% 4%

Courtland 1,019 1,019 0 0% 3%

Urban Area Total

30,910 31,840 928 100% 100%

Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014

SIMCOE

Simcoe shows a slight increase of 1.8% in population from 2006 to 2011 census. However, studies show that Simcoe is the second fastest growing community, next to Port Dover, and will see a minimal to moderate increase of new development in the foreseeable future. Similar to Port Dover, Simcoe is also experiencing an aging population with 40% of the population over the age of 55. As in other Norfolk communities, the ages 15 to 19 are under-represented at only 6.2 % in the 2011 census. However, the younger age group of 0 to 14, at 13.4% of the total population, will see the older teen years better represented in the next Census period.

PORT DOVER

Port Dover is a significant urban waterfront community and tourism node in the County. Port Dover is the fastest growing community in Norfolk County with a strong emphasis on the retirement population. The older age group of 55 plus represents 46.1% of the total population, while the least represented age group is the teens, aged 15 to 19, at 5.2% of the total population. The youngest age group, 0 to 14, is also at a lower rate than other Norfolk urban communities, at only 10.7%.



DELHI

The Delhi community shows a slight population increase at 1.7% from 2006 to 2011 census. This minimal increase suggests that limited new development may take place in the foreseeable future. Further, Delhi portrays an aging population with 34.6% over the age of 55. In 2011, the ages 15 to 19 were the minority age group at 5.4%, however the younger generation, 0 to 15 are growing at 16% and will be in their older teen years in the next Census period.

WATERFORD

Waterford is the only urban community where the population decreased between the 2006 and 2011 Census. The decrease was minimal at -1.7%. The age group of 15 to 19 is the least represented at 7.5% while the senior population (55+) is the highest at 32.7%. When compared to other urban communities however, Waterford has a higher than average teenage group (15 to 19) and a lower than average senior population. The age group 0 to 14 consists of 14.6%. The median age is 44.5. Waterford is the only urban community, with a decreasing population in Norfolk. However the balanced age groups would suggest a more family oriented community.

PORT ROWAN Port Rowan is a small waterfront community in the southwest area of the County and on the shore of Lake Erie. The 2011 population was just under 1,200 showing an increase of 7% from 2006. (Source: Norfolk Population Project Study, 2014) There is no census information regarding specific age groups.

COURTLAND Courtland is the smallest urban community. The population stayed constant at 1,019 during the 2006 to 2011 Census Period. (Source: Norfolk Population Project Study, 2014) There is no census information regarding specific age groups.

HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH The following table represents the net change in population growth with a distinction between urban, resort, hamlets and agricultural areas. The six urban areas had the highest growth from the 2006 to 2011 Census, however showing only modest growth at 3%. In comparison, the resort areas experienced a drastic decline in population, -14%. Hamlets held their own at 1% increase and agriculture areas declined slightly by 1%.

Table 1-3: Population Growth by Areas – 2006 to 2011

Location 2006 2011 Net Change Growth Rate

Urban Areas 30,910 31,840 930 3%

Resort Areas 1,420 1,220 -200 -14%

Hamlets 6,800 6,880 80 1%

Agriculture Areas 23,440 23,230 -201 -1%

Norfolk County (Census) 62,560 63,180 620 1%

Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014



POPULATION PROJECTION The future population growth will come from migration into the County with middle and older age residents moving mostly from the Greater Golden Horseshoe urban centres. However, the continued out-migration of young adults will somewhat negate the future growth. (Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014)

Norfolk population is forecasted to grow from 63,180 in 2011 to just under 70,000 in 2031. (Source: 2011 Norfolk Census) Most future growth and development will occur in the urban areas, which accounts for 70% of growth since the 2001 restructuring. The rural areas will continue to see housing growth; however there will be a net decline in population due to declining average household size. (Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014)

There will be sufficient designated residential lands to accommodate the forecasted population growth. However there is a very limited supply of lands to accommodate traditional industrial-type employment growth. (Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014)

URBAN CENTRES The 2006 Norfolk County Official Plan, as amended identifies a number of policies related to the management of growth in the urban centres. The following are excerpts of the Official Plan policies as they relate to parks and open spaces:

Simcoe - Current and future development will be focused on the Downtown Area, Secondary Centres (shopping nodes) and Queensway Corridor.

Port Dover - Current and future development will be focused at three special policy areas:

Waterfront Area - opportunities exist to continue its multiple roles as a tourist attraction, a working commercial port, an international gateway and a recreational and cultural resource. General design policies relating to parks and open space include parks and open spaces with connectivity to each other and the broader County;

Silver Lake Area – opportunities exist through the transition to open space and recreation uses with a focus on specific linkage between the Downtown Area and the Lynn Valley Trail. Recreational uses include passive and active open space as well as public and/or private commercial recreational facilities, and

Lynn River/Black Creek Area – adherence to the marine industry will support a variety of interests relating to tourism, recreation and innovative residential development.

Delhi – The recognition as an important urban community and cultural and agricultural support centre will continue. Policies relevant to this report include the promotion of an open space and recreational network that is integrated with open spaces throughout the County and provides appropriate urban, natural and active areas.

Waterford - The recognition as an important urban community and cultural and agricultural support centre will continue. Waterford is the closest urban area to Highway 403, and as such, employment growth and development will be encouraged. The County will encourage development of trails integrating Waterford with other areas of the County. Trail linkage opportunities exist in the form of abandoned rail corridors and other linear open spaces.

Mill Pond Area – redevelopment and revitalization opportunities exist through historical buildings, creating a focal point and theme for the southern shoreline of the Mill Pond area.

Port Rowan – The recognition as a significant urban waterfront community and tourism node will continue. There will be support and promotion as a sustainable waterfront urban community focused on port and lake-based activities.



West Area – The development of commercial and service related uses serving tourists and visitors at a level that does not detract from the Downtown Area will be encouraged and will be recognized as a unique gateway to the lakeshore.

Courtland – There is a limited growth potential as the community’s sanitary services consist of private on-site disposal systems. Due to its strategic location in the western part of the County, Courtland will continue to accommodate an important employment node.

HAMLET AREAS Hamlet areas are designated on the basis that they contain a minimum of 25 residential units existing as a distinguishable cluster, or have an historical identity as a hamlet. The rural settlements are intended to function as small clusters providing limited commercial, institutional and recreational services to the surrounding agricultural community. The County will promote limited growth in these communities while supporting the rural character and evolving role as service and residential centres.

ETHNICITY In 2011, Norfolk County reported 86.2% of the population as having English only as their mother tongue, while 1.2% reported French only and 12.0% reported a non-official language only. German was the highest rated non-official language, followed by Portuguese, Dutch, Hungarian and Flemish. The top four ethnic groups consisted of English, Canadian, German, Scottish and Irish in descending order. Figure 2: Norfolk County – Language.

EMPLOYMENT Norfolk County is recovering from an economic decline and is most notable in the areas of agriculture and resorts. In addition, manufacturing employment, where Norfolk residents commute to neighbouring counties/regions, has shown a noticeable decline. Although there is a resurgence in farming (fruit and vegetables), there will still be fewer farmers than seen in decades past.

The number of Norfolk residents who are employed either within the County or elsewhere declined by close to 7% over the 2006 to 2011 Census period. This is due, in large part to the economic decline throughout southern Ontario, and specifically the broader Greater Golden Horseshoe region, owing to the recent recession and the significant decline in manufacturing.

Norfolk County ‐ Language

English French Non‐official language



In 2011, the employment rate at 57.9% was lower than in Ontario at 63.5%, and the unemployment rate was higher than in Ontario (Norfolk 9.3% vs Ontario 8.4%). The highest percentage of the labour force worked in the following industries:

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting

Utilities

Manufacturing

Construction

A large contingent of the Norfolk labour force commutes outside the County to work in all industries, with construction and manufacturing being the top two. (Source: Norfolk County Population Projection Study, 2014)

The forecast suggests a recovery from the recession over the next two decades. During this period, the economy is shifting away from manufacturing with future employment focusing in the service industries.

FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS In 2011, there were 18,770 census families in Norfolk, which represents a 1.8% increase from 2006 census. 86.8% of the families were married or common-law while 13.2% were lone-parent families. Among the married and common-law couples, 39.8% were couples with children aged 24 and under living at home. (2011 Census)

There are 25,045 private households in Norfolk, representing a 3.3% increase from 2006. This number is broken down into the following categories:

Couple-family households with children aged 24 and under - 6,340 (25.3%);

Couple-family households without children - 9,505 (38.0%);

Lone-parent family households - 2,265 (9.0%);

One-person households - 6,110 (24.4%);

Multiple family households - 330 (1.3%), and

Other households - 500 (2.0%).

EDUCATION Based on the 2011 Census, Norfolk residents have a higher level of education than the Ontario norm in relation to a high school certificate, apprenticeship or college diploma. 78.6% of the population has a high school certificate or higher education. On the other end of the scale, 21.4% of residents do not have a high school certificate.

The most prevalent fields of study in a post-secondary setting are architecture, engineering and related technologies. Business, management and public administration fields of study have the second highest prevalence, while the third largest field of study is health, parks, recreation and fitness.

SUMMARY The Norfolk County population is aging gradually at a rate slightly higher than the provincial average. This trend is anticipated to continue, due in part to fewer children being born now that the baby boomer generation



is post child-bearing age and also as young adults and their children seek education and employment opportunities outside of Norfolk County. The decline in the younger population is offset by an increase in older adults starting at age 55. The in-migration of older adults plays a significant role in the current and future population characteristics.

An aging population profile is evolving, but there will not necessarily be an absolute decline in youth numbers. Therefore, there is a need to have a more balanced services delivery plan, which considers both an aging population and planning for youth retention.



2.0 SERVICE DELIVERY

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Community organizations involve a host of service clubs, minor sports organizations, seniors clubs, environmental and heritage groups and many others both incorporated and not incorporated. They are often based upon strong volunteer and activities leadership. Many have been sustained for decades and have evolved successfully. Others have not been able to be sustained and are experiencing challenges in attracting volunteers at both leadership and delivery levels.

Service clubs, minor sports organizations and other groups are often at the heart of a community and are vital in ensuring an important array of recreation services. Over several decades, service clubs and other community-based organizations were also instrumental in developing parks and recreation facilities. Within Norfolk County, many local parks and recreation facilities have been inaugurated by and heavily invested in by service clubs and other local community groups.

It is important to sustain this model, which is a reflection of community identity and demonstrates how valued volunteerism and community engagement are within Norfolk County. It is also important to reflect the individual needs of each community, which is unique in terms of its history, demographics and levels of interest; as well as from resourcing and other key perspectives. The County would be well served to ensure that the volunteer and community nature of service delivery is sustained and enhanced wherever possible, through encouragement, collaboration, engagement, resourcing, facilitating access to grants and a host of other initiatives.

PRIVATE SECTOR The private sector operates where profitability is available. There tend to be two types in Norfolk County for private sector park and recreation services. The first is on the program level, particularly around fitness, yoga, Pilates and other activities. These tend to either rent municipal recreation spaces or have their own leased space. Many of these organizations are smaller in nature and often focus on the program leader who is also the owner. There is some history of transition as these groups come and go, but they fulfill an important role in the community.

The second area of the private sector engages in specific facilities and venues, such as marinas, golf courses, campgrounds, destination theme parks, farm tours, selected community events and other related areas of recreational and community services.

The private sector plays an important role, especially where capital investment is recoverable through membership and / or operating fees, and the volume of participants is adequate to create a sustainable business model.

In Master Plans, the private sector is often overlooked for its contributions because they are businesses. However, they play an important role in selected services delivery. The County should undertake steps to encourage private sector service delivery and should refrain from duplicating such services where they are sustainable. However, there may be instances where they are not sustainable and the County may deliver alternate opportunities if demand warrants it, costs are reasonable and the overall operation is sustainable.



MUNICIPALITY The County of Norfolk is the largest provider of parks, recreation services and facilities in the area. Over the years, they have undertaken responsibility for most major facilities / venues involving arenas; indoor and outdoor pools; community centres, both general and specialized; major park sites; sports fields; and an array of recreation programming. Also, they have a key role in community development that focuses on supporting community organizations that deliver key services in their geographic areas involving parks in some of the rural areas, specialized programs, heritage groups and many others. The community development component of the County’s role is vital in sustaining programming and responding to a wide range of needs and interests of the population across the County. As a result, the County has a significant staff group within the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Division of its Community Services Department; it has a significant operating budget; and undertakes annual capital investments as identified in other sections of this Situational Analysis Report.

Figure 3 profiles the organization structure used by the County to deliver its services.

Parks and Recreation Operations Forestry and Cemeteries Trails Development / Business Marketing Aquatics Community Programs A series of support positions.

The Division has a core staff of over thirty people, plus over fifty part time and seasonal staff to support its ongoing operations within its multiple dimensions. The following key roles are outlined:

Key Role Duties

Division Manager Responsible for both the ongoing day to day operations, including

planning and integration, budgeting, management, and future services planning.

Operating Superintendents Responsible for both parks and facilities in their areas. The staff are

assigned on an integrated basis through summer and winter seasons.

Forestry and Cemeteries Superintendent

Dedicated to delivering Cemetery Services within the Cemeteries Act across the multiple venues.

Trails / Business Marketing Coordinator

Trails have become a much larger focus of the County and dedicated leadership is now provided for that focus that is also integrated with business marketing initiatives.

Aquatics Supervisor Responsible for all indoor and outdoor pools which are a major business

operating for the Division.

Community Program Supervisor

Dedicated to working both with community organizations and managing the direct delivery of a range of recreation and leisure activities for seniors, children and youth, special and events, fitness and active living, communications and broader programming initiatives.



Figure 3: Norfolk County Community Services Department – Organizational Structure



3.0 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE INVENTORY

NORFOLK COUNTY The urban communities include Delhi, Port Dover, Simcoe and Waterford with populations of 3,000 to 15,000, as well as Courtland and Port Rowan with populations under 1,200.

Table 3-1 provides the total acreage of each of the four park categories: Community, Neighbourhood, Parkette and Linked Open Space & Natural Heritage System. Lakeshore Parks are included in the Official Plan’s park descriptions, however are not included in the following inventory. Further park descriptions are provided in the section Document Review: Norfolk County Official Plan, 2006, as Amended.

This data is based on the Norfolk Properties document, with revisions to better recognize the attributes of the park categories as set out by the Official Plan. For example, Parkettes that are described as a street island and have no value as a green space to a neighbourhood are removed from the list. Community Parks are broken down further to fit into three categories based on their specific attributes to the community or County at large:

Athletics – These are the primary outdoor athletic facilities in the County. They consist of ball diamonds, soccer fields, tennis/multi-use courts, lawn bowling, skatepark, etc that the general population would utilize and would possibly travel outside a 800 metre radius to get there.

Special Purpose – These parks are unique within the County and don’t fit within the traditional park classification structure. An example would be a memorial park (Powell Park in Port Dover), whether neighbourhood or community, with open space being the dominate feature. Memorials or public gatherings such as events and festivals are a popular function of these parks.

Nature – These parks are defined by the natural environment and untouched by development. They may include a woodlot, watercourse and natural habitat. They are unsuitable for the recreation activities that take place in a typical community park.

In addition, neighbourhood parks that provide sports facilities for the general population, rather than a specific neighbourhood, are re-named community – athletic.

Norfolk County parkland consists of a total of 335.4 acres. A complete inventory of Norfolk County Parkland and Categories can be found in Appendix A.

Table 3-1: Urban Communities – Parkland Distribution by Acres

Courtland Delhi Port Dover Port Rowan Simcoe Waterford Norfolk Total -

Urban

2011 Population 1,020 4,172 6,387 1,190 14,777 3,111 30,657

Park Category

Acres

Acres /1000

Acres

Acres / 1000

Acres

Acres / 1000

Acres

Acres /1000

Acres

Acres / 1000

Acres

Acres /1000

Acres

Acres /1000

Community – Athletic

13.5 17.4 17.1 8.8 95.7 7.5 160

Community – Special Purpose

1.0 2.1 8.0 11.3 0.3 22.7

Community – Nature

1.2 18.5 7.1 5.8 11.7 3.5 47.8

Total Community

14.7 14.4 36.9 8.8 26.9 4.2 22.6 19.0 118.7 8.0 11.3 3.6 231.1 7.54



Neighbourhood 4.9 1.2 12.9 2.0 22.7 1.5 3.0 0.96 43.5 1.4

Parkette 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.7 .09

Linked Open & Natural Heritage

0.1 28.4 28.3 28.5 .93

Lakeshore 1.3 1.3

Total – All Park Categories

14.7 42.3 68.3 23.9 171.9 14.3 335.4

SWP – with trail (not classified as park)

8.8 6.0 14.8

Other (not classified as parkland)

2.3 10.7 21.7 0.6 35.3

(Source: Staff Background Information - Norfolk Properties and Types and 2011 Norfolk Census)

The Norfolk County Official Plan standard park type is as follows:

Community Park:

o 2.5 acres (1 hectare) per 1000 population

o General size - 15 to 25 acres (6 to 10 hectares)

Neighbourhood Park:

o 2.5 acres (1 hectare) per 1000 population

o general size - 5 to 10 acres (2 to 4 hectares)

Parkette:

o less than .73 acres (.3 hectares)

Linked Open & Natural Heritage:

o standards based on trail connectivity and natural attributes

o not all Trails are included in the above inventory.

These standards are general and not always applicable to the specific park classification. It is not so much the quantity or size of the park, but the quality of the park with regards to location, purpose and use opportunities that should be taken into consideration.

Based on the above Table, all of the urban centre’s community parks are represented sufficiently when using the minimum standard of 2.5 acres per 1000 population.

All of the urban centre’s neighbourhood parks fall considerably below the recommended minimum standard of 2.5 acres per 1000 population. Port Dover is close to the recommended minimum standard at 2.0 acres per 1000 population. Courtland and Port Rowan do not have neighbourhood parks, which would be understandable considering their small population and a more rural setting. Community Parks and public/catholic schools would typically host play activities for the smaller urban and rural centres.

When breaking down each urban community, the following is revealed:



COURTLAND

Courtland is the smallest urban centre, however typical of the rural centres, such as Langton, Windham Centre and Walsingham, it has a strong community presence through the Courtland Lions Community Park (Athletic). St Ladius Park is a smaller undeveloped Community - Nature Park. The two community parks combined result in 14.4 acres per 1000 population.

There are no neighbourhood parks, however there is a playground at the community park. Although serving the population of Courtland and surrounding rural area, the park is not within a built-up residential area and therefore not within a ten minute walk for most residents.

DELHI

Delhi has a balance between Community – Athletic (17.4 acres) and Community – Nature (18.5). The McLaughlin Soccer Park Sports Park (8 acres) is included in this inventory, although the County does not own the land. Delhi has more community parks per capita compared to other urban centres.

Delhi consists of eight community parks. Two Community – Athletic Parks include the McLaughlin Soccer Park Sports Park (8 acres), which is leased on an annual basis, however maintained by the County. This park consists of two lit senior soccer fields, parking lot and clubhouse. The Delhi Sports Park (9.4 acres) consists of an arena, lit ball diamond, outdoor swimming pool, splash pad and parking lots. The Centennial Park (6.7 acres) is located adjacent to the Delhi Sports Park and consists of a woodlot, pavilion and trail. Two Community – Nature Parks include the Quance Park East & West (10.6 acres) and Centennial Park (6.7 acres). With the inclusion of the McLaughlin Soccer Park Sports Park, Delhi is well represented with community parks at 8.8 acres per 1000 population, which is well above the recommended minimum standard of 2.5 acres (1 hectare). These parks, however, fall under the Official Plan’s general size of 15 to 25 acres (6 to 10 hectares).

There are three neighbourhood parks. The minimum recommended standard for neighbourhood parks is 2.5 acres per 1000 population, however Delhi falls short of this number at 1.2 acres per 1000 population. In addition, these park types do not meet the general size of 5 to 10 acres, with the closest being Delcrest Park at 2.3 acres and two others being less than 2 acres in size. All three neighbourhood parks have playgrounds and at least one other park amenity.

PORT DOVER

Port Dover’s total community parks, at 4.2 acres per 1000 population, has the least amount of acreage compared to other urban communities, however it falls within the 2.5 acres per 1000 population.

Port Dover community parks meet the minimum recommended standard of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) per 1000 population with a total of 26.9 acres. There are three community – athletic parks with ball fields being the dominant amenity. They consist of the Kinsmen Park (4.9 acres) and Port Dover Area Arena Ball Park (6.8 acres). Included in this category is the Harry Misner Memorial Park (6 acres), which is owned and operated by the Port Dover Lions Club. Community – nature parks consist of two parks with Denby Road Park (3.5 acres) and Lynn Park (3.6 acres). The third sub-category is community – special purpose parks with Memorial Park (0.7 acres), Powell Park (1 acre) and Ryerse Island (0.3 acres). All community parks fall considerably under the Official Plan’s minimum recommended standard size of 15 acres.

The neighbourhood parks consist of a total of 12.9 acres covering six locations. This park is within reach of the recommended 2.5 acres per 1000 population; however the amenities typical of a neighbourhood park are minimum to non-existent. Of these six locations, three have playgrounds. As noted previously, the Official Plan identifies neighbourhood parks as meeting the recreation needs of the local residents within a ten minute walk or 800 metre radius, and should be of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum of two recreational activities, including junior sports fields, outdoor rinks, multi-use courts, playground equipment, and shaded areas for passive recreation.



PORT ROWAN

Port Rowan has a good balance of community parks with 19 acres per 1000 population. There are 4 community – athletic parks with Port Rowan Community Park being the largest at 5 acres. The Port Rowan Marina / Lions Park is categorized as special purpose due to the opportunities for family picnics, etc. Port Rowan has taken advantage of their Lake Erie setting with 4 small Lakeshore Parks.

There are no neighbourhood parks and, similar to Courtland with a more rural setting, a public school is relied upon to provide play activities for the young generation.

SIMCOE

Simcoe has a significant amount of community parks. The Community – Athletic parks stand at 95.7 acres. The Norfolk Soccer Park, at 40.1 acres, is a large contributor to this park category. The two additional Community sub-categories are equally divided: Community – Special Purpose at 11.3 acres and Community – Nature at 11.7 acres.

Simcoe’s community parks consist of 118.7 acres resulting in 8 acres per 1000 population, which is well above the recommended minimum standard of 2.5 acres. There are 15 community parks; however a majority of these do not meet the general community park size of 15 to 25 acres (6 to 10 hectares). Of these parks, 9 are community – athletic parks, including the Norfolk Soccer Park at 40 acres; 4 community – nature parks totaling 11.7 acres, and 2 community – special purpose parks with Wellington/Grant Anderson Park being the largest at 10.7 acres.

These smaller parks satisfy the community criteria with destination amenities - meeting the needs of several neighbourhoods or the County at large. Examples are lawn bowling, a skateboard park, tennis courts, and ball diamonds. With the exception of the Norfolk Soccer Park,, the community parks fall well under the recommended standard size of 15 to 25 acres.

Linked Open & Natural Heritage Parks are well represented in the Simcoe community, which is due in large part to the Sutton Walkway (23.7 acres). This park category has a passive component with woodlots, watercourses and nature trails providing connectivity to other parts of the community.

Neighbourhood Parks have a total of 22.7 acres and are under-represented with only 1.5 acres per 1000 population. There are 8 neighbourhood parks. Some originally categorized neighbourhood parks were re-assigned as Parkettes as they were under one acre in size.

WATERFORD

Waterford community parks are holding their own at 3.6 acres per 1000 population. The acreage is still above the recommended minimum standard of 2.5 acres per 1000 population.

Waterford is the third smallest urban community but has a strong focus on the concept of a public gathering destination. The Audrey S. Hellyer Memorial Park (7.5 acres) represents the Community – Athletic profile and consists of an arena and two lit ball diamonds (one with seating). This community park is strategically located beside a public school on the east side with a playground, and a high school on the south side with soccer/football fields, and a paved basketball court. The Old Dump (3.5 acres) fits the Community – Nature profile. It is located off of Concession 8 Townsend with access to the Waterford Heritage Trail. The park is a woodlot with lake access. Waterford community parks are well represented with 3.6 acres per 1000 population.

Neighbourhood parks are under-represented with only 0.96 acres per 1000 population. The Lions Park (.342 acres) is the only neighbourhood park with a playground, however it is not located in a residential area and is below the recommended size of 2.5 acres. Two other parks – Yins to the south and Lingwood to the northeast are primarily open space and not located in built up residential areas.



TRAILS Trails are an important part of the open space and parkland provisioning. They provide opportunities for passive, non-structured outdoor experiences. Trails are an important component of healthy communities, which provide health, environmental, economic and social benefits. Walking is the number one activity in recreation studies across Canada and can be enjoyed by all age groups.

Norfolk County recognizes the importance of trails, not only for the benefits noted above, but also for connectivity opportunities from one neighbourhood to another, connecting between urban and rural communities as well as adjoining Counties. The 2006 Norfolk County Official Plan, describes trails as Linked Open Space and Natural Heritage Systems. The Official Plan is described in more detail later in this report under Documents Review. It is noted that Trails, or Linked Open Spaces and Natural Heritage, are not included in the Parkland Inventory, with the exception of trails within parks – example Sutton Walkway in Simcoe. This could be, in part, because trails are linear in nature and there is no standard size.

Norfolk has a number of trail networks that have traditionally been developed by the Community Trail Committees on utility corridors, in conservation authority tracts, abandoned railroad rights of way and in urban settings. The following trails are of significant note:

Lynn Valley Trail – This 10 km trail was opened in 1993 and connects Simcoe and Port Dover on a former Canadian National Rail line. The Lynn Valley Trail Association was instrumental in its formation and continues to provide maintenance and care.

Norfolk Sunrise Trail – The Norfolk Rotary Club raised funds in 2008 for this 3.7 km trail. It runs from Argyle Street in Simcoe, travelling north to Concession 13 in Waterford and provides a link between the Lynn Valley Trail and the Waterford Heritage Trail.

Waterford Heritage Trail – This 6.2 km trail is located on abandoned Lake Erie and Northern Rail Road and runs from Simcoe to Waterford. The Waterford Heritage Trail group advocated for the trail in 2001 and continues to develop and maintain it. Long Point Region Conservation Authority has many trails including:

Backus Woods, Port Rowan – Three trails in a 650 acre forest tact, totaling 13.4 km of trails. Brook CA, Simcoe – A 2.3 km trail located on 30 acres. Hay Creek CA, Port Ryerse – A 2 km trail in Port Ryerse. Several others but not organized or maintained trail networks.

Turkey Point Provincial Park - Contains a 4.2 km trail within its park.

St Williams Conservation Reserve – This trail offers a number of non-traditional activities, including ATV, trail bikes, mountain biking, equestrian as well as traditional walking. The County is in the process of developing an organized trail system to balance use and protect significant natural features.

Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan – Contains a 2 to 3 km trail.

Big Creek National Wildlife Area, Port Rowan – A 2 km route is within this park. Of special interest, is the 65 km water trail route running north to south, which offers canoeing.

In addition, Norfolk County manages several urban and rural parkland areas with localized trail networks. Courtland, Delhi, Langton, Port Dover, Port Rowan, Simcoe & Waterford are examples of localized trails. Port Dover provides a good example of how neighbourhoods connect. The Newport Lane to Somerset Park West and East connect to neighbourhoods to the west as well as to the north where new subdivision development is taking place. The Somerset stormwater pond nature trail provides the link between the two subdivisions and beyond.

The County completed a Trails Master Plan in 2009 which is summarized further in this report under Document Reviews.



STORMWATER PONDS Stormwater Ponds are not part of the parkland classification and should not be included in developer negotiations. It is brought forward at this time, as there is an increasing trend in Ontario to landscape and beautify stormwater ponds to a natural setting with walkways/nature trails that connect to surrounding neighbourhoods and adjacent parkland or open space.

The Official Plan provides a policy whereby a development proponent shall consider enhancing the vegetation, wildlife habitats and corridors in and along the stormwater management system and the receiving watercourses. Where appropriate, public access to and along the stormwater management system should be provided in the form of a trail or open space system.

The Somerset Stormwater Pond in Port Dover is one example. A walkway around the two ponds connects to the trail system in Newport Lane to Somerset Park (East & West) and surrounding neighbourhoods, including a new subdivision development to the north at Silver Shadow Way. The necessity of stormwater ponds in new subdivisions should not negate a developers’ responsibility to enhance the neighbourhood.

PRIVATE SECTOR The private sector plays an important role in the provision of outdoor recreation activities. Their fee structure ensures profitability and usually consists of programs that the County is unable to provide due to budgetary constraints or risk factors. A sample of privately owned outdoor recreation based activities can be found at Norfolk County Tourism (norfolktourism.ca). They include a wide variety of recreation activities ranging from picnicking, bird watching and hiking, to zip lining and kayaking. The price is dependent on the type of activity with a wide range of fees, starting at free. Norfolk’s natural heritage, from forests to waterfront areas is a huge tourism draw and has something for every age and ability.

RECREATION FACILITIES - OUTDOOR Outdoor recreation facilities include the range of physical building structures and equipment used for recreation programs and activities throughout the County. This section will focus on the outdoor recreation facilities identified in the context of the operational model for the delivery of parks services on active playing fields, court sports and playgrounds.

The province created service level target standards in the 1970s. Through this best practices measurement tool, specific recreation facilities were quantified according to the municipality’s current population to determine a deficiency or surplus. In recent years this best practice tool has been replaced with a more ‘demand’ focus when determining service needs. The provincial standard for sports fields and tennis courts will be referred to in this section, however only in general terms. Discussion with the individual sports users, the community at large and further studies will determine if a demand warrants a service level change.

BALL DIAMONDS

There are 18 ball diamond locations throughout the County. Within these parks there are 17 lit and 11 non-lit ball diamonds. The Courtland, Langton, the Doverwood and Arena A in Port Dover, Cedar A and B in Simcoe and Walsingham fields represents fairly low utilization diamonds. The Delhi Arena, the Kinsmen A in Port Dover, the Lions Fields 1, 2 and 3, Memorial in Simcoe represents high use fields.

In general, the provincial target level for ball diamonds is one ball diamond per 3,000 residents. Based on this service level the County, with a population of 63,000, would be adequately supplied with 21 ball diamonds. Using this target level, Norfolk is slightly under supplied if taking only the lit fields into



consideration. However, an additional 11 unlit diamonds fit into the equation, some of which may be for passive or practice ball use.

SOCCER PITCHES

There are 7 soccer field locations throughout the County. Within these locations 2 fields are lit and 11 fields unlit. Most fields are set up so that all age groups have opportunity to play. This includes privately owned fields at Benson and Hedges in Delhi (County maintained) and the Lions Soccer Field in Port Dover (Lions own and operate). Norfolk Youth Soccer Park in Simcoe is the largest property at 40.1 acres with five soccer pitches allowing for youth and senior play. Senior soccer pitches also accommodate youth age soccer with two to four mini-pitches aligned on the width of the senior pitch. This inventory does not account for the number of mini-pitches.

In general, the provincial target level for soccer is one soccer pitch per 2,000 residents. Based on this service level the County is considerably under-supplied with a deficit of 20 soccer pitches. With a population of 63,000, the provincial target would be 31 soccer pitches.

TENNIS & MULTI-PURPOSE COURTS

There are 9 locations throughout the County where tennis and multi-use courts are found. Of these, 13 are lit courts and two are unlit courts. The County is transitioning some of the tennis courts to multi-use courts, where basketball, etc is replacing one court where two or three tennis courts exist. An example of this co-existence is the Lions Community Park in Courtland where three lit courts support one tennis and two multi-use courts. Pickleball is a recreation activity rising in popularity. It is played on a tennis court with slightly different rules and a slight change in the court lining and the net height.

The provincial service standard is one tennis court per 6000 population. Based on this recommended standard the County is well represented with tennis/multi-use courts at 10.5 per 1000 population.

PLAYGROUNDS

Playgrounds are normally located within a residential area and within a ten-minute walk of the park. Playgrounds have been a major component in the design of neighbourhood parks due to the significant health benefits to the younger generation. Community parks are also a popular location for an upgraded or destination playground/park that would entail more play components. The smaller Norfolk communities rely on the community park where all their recreation needs are met, including a playground. Examples of the rural communities where a number of recreation amenities exist are Courtland, Langton, Waterford and Windham.

The provincial standard is one playground within 800 metres of every residential area.

A review of neighbourhood parks throughout the County and the amenities within, suggest that the County is inconsistent in the provision of playgrounds. A number of parks are more natural environments in character, consisting of open space and/or woodlots. There are many large urban residential areas where a deficiency in parkland or non-existent playgrounds is apparent, as noted previously in this section. Understandably, the rural and smaller urban centres rely on the Community Park to provide playground features due to their small population.

ADDITIONAL RECREATION AMENITIES Norfolk has additional outdoor park amenities provided by the County or through community partnership organizations. (Source: InNorfolk, Spring Summer 2014 Community Guide; Norfolk Parkland Inventory)

There are several basketball courts incorporated with tennis courts as well as stand-alone basketball courts. The Courtland Lions Community Park has 3 multi-use courts with tennis, basketball and ball hockey. The stand-alone basketball courts can be found at:

Briarwood Acres Park, Simcoe – 2 half courts

Evergreen Heights Park, Simcoe – 1 full court



Lynndale Heights Park, Simcoe – 2 half courts

A ball hockey court can be found at the Langton Sports Park within 3 tennis courts. There is a fenced ball hockey arena at Port Dover Area Arena Ball Park.

A bowling green with clubhouse is located at the 1.2 acre Bowling Green Park.

Bocce is located at the Wellington Park/Grant Anderson Park in Simcoe.

Skateparks are located at 3 locations, the largest being the Skateboard Park at the Fairgrounds property in Simcoe, with the land leased to the County. Other locations include the Port Dover Area Arena Ball Park and a small size skatepark within a tennis court setting at the Victoria Ball Park.

An outdoor swimming pool and a spray park are located at the Delhi Sports Park. A splash pad is located at Simcoe Kinsmen Park.

A sand volleyball court and an aging velodrome are located at the Wind-Del Community at Windham Centre.

Dog parks can be found at two locations. The first is a fenced off-leash park at the Audrey S. Hellyer Ball Park in Waterford and a second non-fenced dog park at the Don Shay Memorial Park in Simcoe.

The County rents out picnic pavilions to families and event organizers. More discussion on picnic pavilion utilization can be found later in the report titled Major Facility Utilization Profiles. There are 11 locations:

Courtland Community Lions Park;

Delhi Kinsmen Park;

Delhi Quance Park;

Simcoe Lions Pavilion Park;

Simcoe Youth Soccer Park;

Port Dover Kinsmen Park;

Port Rowan Harbour Marina;

Port Rowan Lions Park;

Turkey Point Park – booked through community group;

St Williams Lions Park – booked through community group;

Thompson Memorial Park – booked through community group, and

Wind-del Community Park – booked through community group;

Port Rowan Harbour Marina

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS Community partnerships play an important role in providing park amenities, either through donation of land, fundraising initiatives or a more active role in the ownership and maintenance of the park.

The Norfolk County Fairground is owned by the Norfolk County Agriculture Society (Fair Board), however they have a cooperative relationship with the County. The County leases the area that the Skateboard Park is on from the Fair Board. The Farmers Market leases their location from the Fair Board and the Farmers Market is part of the County’s Recreation Services Budget. The County takes responsibility for snow removal. A County led walking program takes place at the AUD during January and February, as well as March break and summer programs often take place at the building. The Recreation Centre is County



owned, however there is an agreement in place that allows the Fair Board to use the building during their annual Fall Fair event, including pre and post-dates.

The Port Dover Lions are very active in the community. The Port Dover Lions’ Soccer Field and the Harry Misner Memorial Park are both owned and operated by the Port Dover Lions Club. The latter park hosts baseball. Sports organizations work with the Lions Club with the grounds maintenance and line painting, while the County provides a small grant to offset the property taxes.

The Benson and Hedges Park in Delhi has a unique operation. The County leases the sports park from a private landowner on an annual basis and the County pays the taxes. The capital costs for the building are shared between the County and the Soccer Club. The County recently replaced the lighting on one field through capital funds. Grounds maintenance and utilities are paid by the County and the Soccer Club operates the fields. The Soccer Club and the private owner have a good working relationship and some funds to upgrade storage buildings were provided by the owner.

Additional cooperative maintenance activities are as follows:

Windham Centre – community volunteers contract out grass cutting and they line the ball fields at the Wind-del Community Park. Volunteers also run ball, rugby and soccer programs through the Optimist Club and a velodrome. This park is home to 4 ball diamonds, 2 tennis courts, a soccer/rugby field, a sand volleyball court, playground and bike track.

Vittoria – community volunteers cut the grass at Thompson Memorial Park. The minor ball association book and line the ball diamond.

St Williams – the Lions Park grass cutting is contracted out by the County and the community’s minor ball association books and maintains the diamonds and washrooms picnic pavilion.

Walsingham – the community ballpark is maintained by volunteers and the grass maintenance is contracted out by the County.

Simcoe & Delhi – soccer groups line the fields and the County maintains the turf (irrigation, fertilizer and grass cutting).

All of the above, with the exception of Simcoe and Delhi are operated by Council appointed volunteer boards.

SCHOOL BOARDS There are a number of schools in Norfolk that complement the parkland inventory. The primary and secondary schools are managed under two boards – the Grand Erie District School Board and the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board. Their close proximity to a park allows added space for soccer, football and baseball. They also provide the much needed playground amenities in the smaller urban and rural centres. Examples of schools where their close proximity to community parks are advantageous to the County include:

Port Dover:

o Lakeview School is located beside the community centre, arena and ballpark, and

o Doverwood Public School is located beside the Kinsmen Park.

Simcoe:

o Lynndale Heights Public School is located beside the Lynndale Heights Park.



Waterford:

o Waterford District High School and Waterford Public School are located beside the Audrey S Hellyer Memorial Park.

Port Rowan:

o Port Rowan Public School is located across the street from the Optimist Club Youth Ball Park and up the street from the community centre and tennis courts.

Langton:

o Two schools - Sacred Heart School and Langton Public School - are in close proximity to the Langton Sports Parks, including a community centre, arena, ball diamonds, soccer pitch and the Lions tennis courts.

Walsingham:

o Walsingham Christian School is down the street from the community centre and park.

Walsh:

o St Michael High School is located beside the Charlotteville Community Park.

In June 2005, Norfolk County Council approved a School Use Affiliation Policy which allows for the identification of recreation and cultural programming groups/organizations that are eligible to use school facilities. A new school use policy is currently being drafted by the School Boards.

NATURAL HERITAGE Norfolk County is a prominent location for conservation areas and provincial parks, where residents and visitors can enjoy the County’s rich natural heritage. Norfolk County has a rich natural heritage with over 25% forested area as well as a significant waterfront along Lake Erie. Hunting, fishing, boating, bird watching, hiking and camping are among the many recreation opportunities available.

There are several internationally, nationally and provincially significant natural areas within the Norfolk County boundaries, as summarized below. Norfolk Tourism (norfolktourism.ca) and Google search were helpful in preparing the following dialogue.

The Norfolk County Environmental Advisory Committee (NEAC) is a committee of Norfolk County Council that was formed in the fall of 2002. NEAC advises and assists Norfolk County in land use planning matters pertaining to the preservation, conservation, restoration and enhancement of the County's natural environment.

The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) is a community- based environmental management agency that protects local ecosystems in partnership with its member municipalities and the Province of Ontario. For more than 50 years, it has spearheaded grassroots environmental efforts to help achieve a healthy environment within the Long Point Region watershed. During this time, significant achievements have been made in flood control, natural area protection, environmental planning, erosion control, water quantity and quality, as well as, the provision of conservation areas for educational and recreational use. Today, the LPRCA works with local communities and many other partners to achieve the



conservation, restoration, development and responsible management of water, land and natural habitats through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs.

The LPRCA has designated 11 significant forest tracts (1933 acres) as Natural Heritage Woodlands within Norfolk County. These forest tracts are based on criteria that evaluate natural heritage values and assesses the status of species and habitats. The Natural Heritage Woodlands represent twenty percent of the Authority's total forest holdings.

LPRCA's holdings also include the Backus Heritage Conservation Area (BHCA). This 210-acre facility blends Norfolk's natural and cultural heritage. BHCA offers numerous exhibits and special events for the enjoyment and education of visitors of all ages. There are opportunities for camping, fishing, swimming, hiking as well as tours of the nationally recognized 1798 grist mill, a conservation education centre and a heritage village.

Norfolk Conservation Area is a 46 acre public recreation and conservation property bordering Lake Erie. It runs the length of Lake Erie from Port Dover to Long Point. It’s scenic lakefront setting and range of facilities makes Norfolk Conservation Area an ideal spot for an overnight stay or a day in the great outdoors. Recreational facilities include two covered pavilions, beach volleyball court, a sports field, horseshoe pits and a small playground area. The Park’s proximity to Port Dover and Simcoe makes it a convenient base for daytrips and cycling tours.

Waterford North Conservation Area, also known as Waterford Ponds, is a popular conservation area. The three ponds – Pickerel Lake, Willow Pond and Bass Lake – are a favourite to anglers with an array of fish species. The three ponds are excellent examples of gravel pit rehabilitation, with deep rocky bottoms, and pronounced shorelines. The conservation area is located a short distance from the Waterford Heritage Trail, providing access for hiking and cycling.

Long Point Provincial Park is a popular tourist destination located at the farthest tip of the Long Point peninsula. It is known for boating, swimming, fishing, waterfowl-hunting and canoeing for more than 100,000 visitors each year. Long Point is best known for its bird migration and is a major staging area for many breeds of waterfowl, including the North American Tundra Swan.

St. Williams Conservation Reserve is a 1035 hectare area of Crown land. It is comprised of two separate locations – the Nursery Tract (J.E. Zavitz Forest) at St. Williams, and the Turkey Point Tract (J.H. White Forest) at Turkey Point. Due to its exceptional ecological diversity and natural heritage values, the site was designated a Provincial Conservation Reserve in 2004. The site also has a rich natural cultural heritage, including being the site of the first reforestation station in Canada, in operation from 1908 to 1998. Hiking is a compatible activity with the Reserve’s rare ecosystems.

Turkey Point Provincial Park is located on the Lake Erie between Port Ryerse and Port Rowan. Recreation activities include golf, hiking, swimming, boating, picnicking and camping.

Long Point National Wildlife Area as one of the core protected areas where species of plants and animals are preserved. It also includes the surrounding watershed as the zone of co-operation where local citizens strive for a balance between conservation and economic development - a balance that will help to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

The Big Creek National Wildlife Area (NWA) is located on the north shore of Lake Erie, 3 km southwest of Port Rowan. The NWA is home to birds, frogs, turtles, amphibians, insects and many other species, which rely on the wetland for their main habitat. This sandy peninsula is also a major staging ground for



more than 300 bird species during their spring and fall migrations. A 2 km nature trail runs through the marshes in the Long Point area.

The Long Point World Biosphere Reserve functions as promoting and demonstrating a balanced relationship between people and nature. The sites are established to promote sustainable community development with the conservation of biodiversity, based on local community efforts and sound science.

The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), part of Environment Canada, handles wildlife matters that are the responsibility of the federal government. These include protection and management of migratory birds, nationally significant habitat and endangered species, as well as, work on other wildlife issues of national and international importance. In Norfolk, CWS manages the Long Point and Big Creek national wildlife areas covering 9000 acres (3642 hectares).

The Carolinian Canada Coalition (CCC) strives for a healthy, balanced and sustainable landscape for the benefit of wild and human communities. With a wealth of natural diversity, Norfolk is in the heart of the Carolinian zone – one of North America’s most vibrant and fragile eco-regions – a region extending from Toronto in the east to Grand Bend in the west - and south to Lake Erie's northern shoreline.

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the steward of Ontario's provincial parks, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral resources, as well as, Crown lands and waters that make up 87 per cent of the province. MNR manages this responsibility through a diverse legislative mandate and an array of programs aimed at meeting the needs of numerous stakeholders. The Ministry works to conserve biodiversity, protect greenspace, ensure sustainable forestry, support renewable energy, protect source water and enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation.

In Norfolk County, one initiative that highlights MNR's commitment to enhancing the local environment is the Wetland Drain Restoration Project which uses the Drainage Act to modify existing drains in order to restore wetlands and their associated functions and benefits - thus improving the quality and quantity of water supplies available to the farming community and wildlife.

In the St. Williams Conservation Reserve, MNR has worked to protect and preserve the unique biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage features of the landscape, while permitting traditional public land uses that are compatible with natural heritage protection - demonstrating that nature and humankind can coexist.

FOREST MANAGEMENT SCOPE

The forests of Norfolk County are but one component of one of Ontario’s most abundant natural heritage systems and one of southern Ontario’s most heavily wooded jurisdictions. As one of the crown jewels of Canada’s Carolinian life science zone, this biota is well-documented within Ontario’s ecological land classification system. The soils and climate, natural disturbance factors (especially the effect of the blow-sands on agricultural land during the Depression) and human impacts and historical influences on forest development have been well documented by a number of highly regarded sources. These include County staff, the Long Point Region Conservation Authority the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. The project staff of LEES+Associates have worked with these agencies on sites within the county over the last four decades, and are familiar with the numerous resources available that describe and analyze them.



Conducting a detailed inventory of the current character of forests and other natural communities within the county was not within the scope of this overview. Instead, the focus of this assignment is to examine productive lands such as hardwood and softwood dominated forests, rather than other aspects of the county’s natural heritage systems such as wetlands that are used for both consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife management.

The specific aspects that will be covered regarding forest management in Norfolk County are described in the following section of this report.

OBJECTIVES

The following objectives, consistent with the terms of reference for this addendum to the broader plan, are the focus of this section:

Identify specific concerns in the forestry domains that the municipality and its constituents are faced with.

Review and summarize, in writing, information that is available verbally and in written format that relates to forest management. Examine options related to the future management of forests within the County, especially with respect to the specific mandates of both the public and private sectors.

Render opinions on the matters that can be addressed in the near-term, within the budget parameters established by the County for this overview addendum.

Integrate these with the draft Situational Analysis and Master Plan that is being discussed with the County during the 2015 Spring season.

Develop a terms of reference (and related costing) for other items, if any, that will still need to be studied in subsequent work relating to the long-term management of forest resources within Norfolk County.

CURRENT ISSUES

Although there was no structured public engagement program in our retainer, we discussed some of the challenges faced by the County with some members of staff and the public relating to the oversight and management of forests within Norfolk County. The insight provided to us dealt with land ownership, wood-fibre production and revenue, and the rural / urban landscape. These have been incorporated into the text that follows for each of these sections, and specifically include the following:

The PPS and the County’s official plan, which is presently being updated, mandate the protection of certain components of the natural heritage system; woodlands adjacent to watercourses and wetlands, for example.

In other instances, though, components of the system are not perceived as a valuable part of the regional natural heritage system, nor are these important from a revenue-generating standpoint. The current council exemption process for these lands may not be in sync with the programmatic requirements of the emerging demands of the contemporary agricultural landscape within the County.

The funds generated annually from the tree-cutting bylaw exemptions that relate to residential and agricultural site alterations are of special relevance to many.

The matter of whether or not the County should be owning forest lands and harvesting these for revenue is on the minds of politicians and others within the constituency.

The need to explore specific mandates of both the public and private sectors in relationship to forest harvesting.



The need to dialogue with a wide variety of stakeholders, including but not exclusive to the woodlot owners association, is of importance to the County. Consistency of the provisions of Norfolk By-Law No. 2006-170 with the provincial policy statement would be part of this discussion.

In addition to the challenges noted above that relate to the rural forest setting, the options for management of the urban tree canopy need to be examined. Of special interest was the desire to bolster tree cover in new landscapes, especially those created to accommodate the growing population of residents who’ve migrated to the County from the urban landscapes of the GTHA. Given that the County Official Plan update process is in its early phase, the timing is ideal for addressing these matters in a more detailed study.

As part of this informal process, we also took the liberty of reviewing the incidental observations that we’ve gathered in our files over the decades while assessing the impact of various initiatives on privately owned and managed woodlands within the County. Of special note to us was that it is important for future policies to address both the rural and urban forest canopies across the County.

LAND OWNERSHIP

Council has indicated that it would like to dispose of some, if not all, of the County forests. Consequently there is a need to examine the value of the forestry system in the County to determine which components are an asset from a revenue-generating silvicultural perspective, and which are not.

There are a number of interest groups with a vested interest in this matter. These include:

The county woodlot owners association ;

Local landowners associations, sawmills, forestry consultants and field naturalists;

The Norfolk County Environmental Advisory Committee, the Norfolk County Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Norfolk County Trails Advisory Committee, and the Norfolk Tourism and Economic Development Advisory Board;

Conservation Authorities (Grand River and Long Point), the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests;

Carolinian Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

There are matters that would need to be taken into consideration in the event of land disposition. These include Species at Risk protection, wetland and hazard lands protection, and the loss of public use for recreational activities like hunting and hiking.

The possibility of placing restrictive covenants on the lands as a condition of disposition would also need to be considered.

Of course, any County-owned forest that is disposed of will need to be re-registered under the Land Titles Act and needs to be re-designated under the Planning Act. Forests that could be re-cleared for intensive agriculture, timber production, or for the use of private residences may need to be re-designated under the Planning Act.



REVENUE GENERATION

Timber Marketing

There is a sense that the County is not managing woodlots as effectively as it could be from the standpoint of revenue generated by wood-fibre production from both hardwoods and softwoods.

Pines and Red Oaks grow best on the sites and soil conditions that currently exist in Norfolk County agricultural areas. The existing Pines in Norfolk County are currently at the size and age to be logged. Forests in the County were reforested mainly to Red Pine plantations because the intensive agriculture had already failed on windblown and dry sites. Once these are harvested, these parcels could be returned to conifers, hardwoods or may have a role to play in the re-emerging agricultural landscape within the County. Farming as an after-use is especially feasible, since pines and Red Oaks grow best on the sites and soil conditions that currently exist in Norfolk County agricultural areas. With respect to marketable timber, the main management strategy is to remove the over story pines to allow volunteer (understory) deciduous hardwood trees to take over.

It may be that all of the marketable timber assets within the County should be brought within the purview of “Forest Certified Council” standards to ensure that this resource is marketable beyond the region.

A permitting system is in place to ensure that the harvesting is carried out in a sustainable manner with minimum adverse impacts on the flora, fauna and water quality. This system is considered in a later section of this report. In addition, The MFTIP prescription was designed by the province for landowners to manage their own properties for tax reductions. The County could offer basic instruction in Good Forestry Practices for what it sees is most important to the County. Landowners with at least 4 hectares (9.88) of forested land may be eligible for the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) which can reduce property taxes. As a result landowners have incentives to comply with Good Forestry Practices.

Cost Recovery

With respect to permit fees and charges, Section 391 of the Municipal Act allows for these. The Act puts a restriction, on fees and charges for revenue derived from the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation of natural resources. Therefore, it may not be possible to recover all County By-law costs through a fee structure. The exception would be land clearing, since this does not appear to be covered in Section 394 e) of the Act.

Woodlot management services are provided to Haldimand County on a contractual basis; whether or not this service is cost-efficient is unknown at the present time.

PERMITTING SYSTEM

Forest Conservation By-Law

The Forest Management By-Law is a tool that could be used to promote responsible forest management - if the by-law is laid out correctly. At the present time there is a feeling amongst the constituents that it is too intrusive as written.

One aspect of this relates to the ability of landowners to manage their own property. There is a shortage of qualified Members and Associate Members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. At the same time the Professional Foresters Act already allows individuals on land which they own to design, specify or approve silvicultural prescriptions and treatments, including timber harvesting under the Good Forestry Practices section.

The trend governing professions in Ontario is to promote the teaming of landowners with contractors and consultants to meet a landowner’s management objectives. The sentiment amongst competent professionals is that contractors already understand, and are willing to practice, good Forestry Practices with landowners. This makes sense: they need to have suitable woodlands to return to for another



harvest. Landowners and contractors need to have some simple guidelines, such as is laid out in the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program. The MFTIP prescription was designed by the Province for landowners to manage their own properties for tax reductions.

Tree Cutting By-Law

The by-law applies to woodlands that are 1.0 hectare or more; there is some flexibility with woodlots less than 1 hectare in area.

The County’s Agricultural Advisory Committee has requested that provisions to reflect the application of Normal Farm Practices to by-law exemptions should be the focus of a by-law revision. Specifically, the request is to amend the by-law: to read that “no municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation”. Furthermore, the AAB has indicated that the amendment should indicate that clearing woodlands less than 1.0 hectare in the middle of an agricultural field is considered a normal agricultural practice by the Agricultural Advisory Board.

There are several site-specific normal farm practices carried on as part of an agricultural operation that c should be added to the tree-cutting by-law. These are described in later sections of this report.

Finding a balance between environmental stewardship and effective farm practices will be critical to the proposed amendment, as well as the fact that urban tree-cutting by-law elements are not necessarily applicable to rural property owners.

THE RURAL / URBAN LANDSCAPE

Given the disparity between the dominance of agriculture in certain parts of the County that contrasts with the urban growth in other locations such as Port Dover, it is important for future policies to address both the rural and urban forest canopies across the County.

In addition to the challenges noted above that relate to the rural forest setting, options for management of the urban tree canopy need to be examined with respect to conditions attached to Planning Act approvals, especially with respect to plans of subdivision and site plan approvals. The interface of new development with the County’s natural heritage system can serve to expand tree cover in new landscapes, especially those created to accommodate the growing population of residents who have migrated to the County from the urban landscapes of the GTHA.

Given that the County Official Plan update process is in its early phase, the timing is ideal for addressing these matters in a more detailed study.

Although the Municipal Act permits municipalities to regulate the injury and destruction of trees on private property, in our experience most property owners value their trees and have a valid reason for having a tree removed. Recent civil court decisions have reinforced this, even in the case of boundary trees and especially in the case of hazard trees. Some are of the opinion that a typical property owner should not have to bear the added expense, and sometimes frustration, of having to seek permission to remove either type. There are other constraints, as well as benefits, to the existence of an urban property tree-cutting bylaw.



CEMETERIES OBJECTIVES

The following objectives will be the focus of this section:

Examine whether current cemetery inventory is adequately priced;

Examine current inventory to determine if it reflects contemporary and emerging market trends;

Explore additional product lines with respect to emerging industry trends, with a view to generating increased revenue;

Examine future demand needs to be analyzed in the context of the existing land inventory to determine if additional land acquisition is required;

Examine options related to the future management of Cemetery Management Boards, including succession planning, and

Examine options related to operating efficiencies with a view to reducing operating costs at a number of sites especially at sites that do not generate revenue.

COUNTY OVERVIEW

Inventory

Cemeteries are considered parkland with unique features. They serve as historical, memorial, spiritual, aesthetic and passive recreation greenspaces within the urban environment.

There are approximately 84 known cemeteries in Norfolk County. Of these, the County owns 20 active cemeteries and 24 inactive/abandoned cemeteries. The remaining cemeteries are active and inactive religious or privately owned. Oakwood Cemetery in Simcoe is the largest and most active of the County owned cemeteries. Norfolk County owned active and inactive cemeteries; as well as privately owned cemeteries are listed in Appendix C.

Norfolk County provides a range of traditional cemetery services and products, including single/multiple grave lots (adult, veteran and infant), cremation lots, as well as full body and cremation interment options.

County staff conducts the opening and closing at 11 of the active rural cemeteries, including full interments (casket) and cremation interments. The remaining eight County owned active cemeteries are managed by Cemetery Boards.

The County’s cemeteries are divided into three sectors. The active cemeteries include two in the central sector of the County, 14 in the western and one in the eastern sectors. The inactive/abandoned cemeteries include four in the central sector of the County, 11 in the west and nine in the east.

The County provides traditional interment rights (lots) sales in the form of single to multiple lots, cremation lots and infant lots. A columbarium was designed in 2014 and, according to County staff; the intention is to install it in 2015.

Norfolk active cemeteries consist of 71.6 acres. Oakwood Cemetery in Simcoe is the largest cemetery with 39 acres. Bayview Cemetery in Port Rowan is the next largest at 4 acres. The third largest is Cultus United in the hamlet of Cultus, at 3.23 acres. The remaining 17 active cemeteries fall between 1 acre and 2.32 acres.



Revenue & Expenses

The County’s main source of cemetery revenue is derived through the Tariff of Charges (Fee Schedule) as approved by Council. Revenue is in the form of lot sales, interment services, administration fees, memorial program (benches) and investment income from the Care and Maintenance Trust Fund. The expense portion is derived mostly from salaries, equipment, contracted services and material costs.

Interment Analysis

Annual revenue is directly related to the number of interments that take place and the number of interment rights (lots) sold in a given year. Annual revenue is also affected by the different charges applied to various forms of interment services (full body versus cremation) and interment rights sold (adult single versus cremation lot).

Table 3-2: Norfolk County Interment Analysis – 5 year Comparison

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 5 Year

Average

Local Deaths 382 349 371 373 385 1860 372

Full Interments 94 83 73 81 90 421 84

Cremains Interments 71 88 67 96 83 405 81

TOTAL (Full/Cremation) 165 171 140 177 173 826 165

% Market Share 43 49 38 47 45 44

% Cremation 43 51 48 54 48 48.8

Source: Norfolk County Staff

The above table indicates the number of interments taking place at 20 County owned Cemeteries. It is noted that the number of interments fluctuated over a five year period, from 2010 to 2014. Of the +/- 375 deaths in the County in any given year, approximately 84 full body (casket) interments and 81 cremation interments took place in County owned cemeteries, for a total average of +/-165 interments per year. The cremation interment rate is fairly consistent over a five year period, ranging from a low of 43% in 2010 to a high of 54% in 2013, with an average of +/- 50%. This percentage is slightly lower than the provincial average of 53.1% and the Canadian average at 58.2%. (Source: Cremation Association of North America, Canadian Province Cremation Trends, 2012)

When separating Oakwood’s data from the total number of interments, it is noted that 81% of the total full body and 77% of cremation interments took place over the five year period. In comparison to Oakwood, there are two other cemeteries worth noting – Bayview and Cultus. Over this same time period, Bayview received 5% full body and 10% cremation interments of the total amount. Cultus received 6% full body and 4% cremation interments during this same time period. The remaining 16 rural cemeteries received a total of 8% full body interments and 9% cremation interments. A Five Year Interment Analysis for Full and Cremation Interments for 20 County owned cemeteries is detailed in Appendix C.

The above table further identifies the market share – percentage of interments based on the number of deaths in the County. The number of deaths in the County stayed relatively consistent over a five year period, from 2010 to 2014, with +/- 375 deaths per year. The County’s interments are +/-165 per year. This information indicates that an average of 44% of deaths in the County are being interred in the County owned cemeteries. Of the +/- 375 deaths, 37% were interred in Oakwood Cemetery over the five year period.



Fees: Oakwood Cemetery

The County revises its cemetery services fees by 3% on an annual basis in mid-April. Table 3-3 below compares the price of a sample of services over the last 5 years.

Table 3-3: Tariff of Charges – 5 Year Comparison

Lot Sale & Interment Service 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Single Lot Sale $690 $710 $731 $753 $768

Cremation Lot Sale $758 $780 $803 $827 $844

Open/Close – Full $631 $649 $668 $688 $702

Open/Close – Cremation $289 $297 $305 $314 $320


The above Tariff of Charges five year comparison reflects Oakwood Cemetery only. Further, the interment service reflects the months of mid-April to mid-December only. Additional charges for winter month interment services (mid-December to mid-April) are increased by approximately 20%.

40% of an Interment Rights sale goes toward the Care and Maintenance Trust Fund as regulated by the Province. An additional $100 of the purchase price is placed in a Reserve Fund. $100 for a full body interment and $50 for a cremation interment is also placed in the fund. The Reserve Fund was originally set up a number of years ago to purchase equipment and materials for the cemetery operations.

Fees: Rural Cemeteries

Rural cemeteries have a separate Tariff of Charges with lot sales and interment services listed at a lower price than Oakwood. Some of these rural cemeteries are County owned and operated, while others are County owned, however managed by a Cemetery Board. The cemeteries that fall under the Rural Tariff of Charges include:

Port Royal (Cemetery Board);

Salem United Church (Cemetery Board);

Ukrainian Greek Orthodox (Cemetery Board);

Hartford Baptist (Cemetery Board);

Walsh Baptist (Cemetery Board);

Bethel – Nixon;

Marston;

King lake;

Glen Meyer, and

Jericho.



As noted previously, these rural cemeteries have minimal interments compared to the larger cemetery of Oakwood. For example, Bayview in Port Rowan and Cultus United in Walsingham, are two cemeteries where the most number of interments take place after Oakwood. During a five year period, from 2010 to 2014, Bayview averaged five full body and seven cremation interments; while Cultus United averaged five full body and four cremation interments. In comparison, Oakwood Cemetery in Simcoe averaged 71 full body and 66 cremation interments over the same time frame.

An example of the price difference between Oakwood and the rural cemeteries in 2014 during mid-April to mid-December is noted in the following table.

Table 3-4: Oakwood and Rural Cemeteries Price Comparison

2014 Sales & Services Oakwood Rural

Single Lot Sale $768 $472

Full Body Interment $702 $681

Cremation Interment $327 $199


Revenue and Expenses

Revenue is generated, in most part, through lot sales, interment services and administration fees. The Tariff of Charges, as noted above, is the tool that generates the revenue, however, municipal cemetery services are historically subsidized by the tax base, and for the moment we can assume that Norfolk County is no exception. On the expense side, employee wages, contract services, equipment and materials are the major contributors to the cemetery operations. Norfolk County has taken a positive step by setting up a Reserve Fund for major equipment purchases. A $100 fee allotted to the Interment Rights sales as well as an adult interment is placed in the Reserve Fund. In addition, a $50 fee from a cremation interment is placed in the fund.

The following table examines a five year comparison of revenue and expenses.

Information requests relating to revenues and expenses have been requested from the client. After receiving this information, the Situational Analysis will be refined if it is demonstrated that any of that data would influence the conclusions of the Master Plan.

CEMETERY MANAGEMENT

Ownership

Cemetery Boards manage eight of the 20 County owned active rural cemeteries. The management and maintenance of the cemeteries vary across the County. Some Boards manage the interment sales and services as well as grass cutting, while others rely on the County to look after the interment services or the grass maintenance. One example is Bayview Cemetery at the outskirts of Port Rowan, where a Cemetery Board sells lots, interments are contracted out and the County Parks staff cut the grass.



The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 – O.Reg.30/11 states that ‘the municipality will assume responsibility and take ownership of the abandoned cemetery with all rights and obligations in respect of the cemetery and the assets, trust funds and trust accounts related to it that the previous owner or operator had.’ In most cases, the Cemetery Boards who have indicated their desire to turn over their operations to the County have already transferred revenue and trust funds to the County.

There are three Cemetery Boards who are in discussion with the County to take over the cemetery management and operations. They include Courtland Baptist, Silver Hill, and Teeterville. There are five cemeteries (Hartford, Port Royal, Salem, Ukrainian Greek Orthodox and Walsh Baptist) that were managed by a Cemetery Board in past years, however the County has taken over the Boards’ responsibilities. Essentially, these cemeteries have been abandoned and now fall under the County’s responsibility, as legislated by the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 – O.Reg.30/11.

In addition to the Norfolk County owned cemeteries, there are 35 Private Cemetery Boards who typically own, manage and operate the cemeteries under their care. The Port Dover Cemetery is included in this inventory and is one of the more active private cemeteries in the County. This cemetery is well positioned, considering that Port Dover has the highest growing population of middle to older adults, who will potentially be in the market for cemetery services in the upcoming years. Although privately owned, these cemeteries could potentially be abandoned at some point in the future and the County will then be obligated to take ownership and, thereby provide grounds maintenance and monument care into perpetuity. Privately owned cemeteries are not subject to this study, however are noted for future reference. A County map, highlights Norfolk County owned active cemeteries and privately owned cemeteries in Appendix C.

Administration

The cemetery services component of Parks, Facilities and Recreation is overseen by the Forestry and Cemeteries Superintendent. There are three full time staff and a number of part-time, casual and student labourers.

Cemetery administration is conducted out of the Community Services building on Culver Street, in Simcoe. The office is in near vicinity of Oakwood Cemetery. A Cemeteries Administration and Operational Assistant is responsible for the day to day office duties including customer service, lot sales, interment orders and record keeping. A software program is utilized to record all interment rights sales and interment services. The Finance Department looks after all receivables.

Operations

A Lead Hand and one Labourer look after the interment services, including locating and preparing the grave for the opening and closing service, as well post-interment grave maintenance. They share the duties of truck driver and backhoe operator, as needed.

County staff is responsible for the interments at 11 of the 19 rural active cemeteries. Cemetery Boards look after the interments at the remaining eight County owned cemeteries. The majority of interments take place at Oakwood Cemetery where an average of +/- 70 full body and +/- 65 cremation interments take place in a given year. This interment rate generates to approximately 1.5 full body and 1.2 cremation interments on a weekly basis in Oakwood Cemetery. Generally speaking there are +/- 5 interments per year at the remaining 11 cemeteries. This will increase minimally when three Cemetery Boards transfer their interment responsibilities to the County, as noted in previous discussion. Student staff assist with cremation interments during the summer months and Forestry staff will fill in on as needed basis for illness and vacation situations.



Grounds Maintenance A part-time Labourer as well as casual staff and students are responsible for grounds maintenance at Oakwood Cemetery. Parks staff cut the grass at 11+ active cemeteries. This is included in their regular parks maintenance schedule and is separated into two County sectors – east and west. It is not known which Division is responsible for cemetery grass in its budget. Grass cutting is contracted out at the 26 inactive/abandoned cemeteries.

Foundations are the responsibility of the interment rights holder and are conducted by the monument dealers, prior to monument installation. Staff is responsible for the foundation layout, as well as inspection prior to the pouring, and quality of the foundation at completion. A fee is charged to the monument dealer for this service.

The Ontario Parks Association (OPA) produced a Parks Best Practices Manual in 2012. A Cemeteries section outlines the processes and procedures relating to cemetery maintenance. This manual may be of interest to County staff as it relates to maintenance practices generally accepted across the Province.

LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

To determine the County’s cemetery land needs for interment and memorialization purposes during the upcoming 10 and 20 year periods (to 2025 and 2035) it is necessary to establish:

Population growth; The death rate; Interment rates at cemeteries under the County’s control; The interment capacity at cemeteries under the County’s control, and The interment capacity that will become available in the future (cemetery extension potential).

Demographics and Population Growth

The County demographics are discussed in Section 1 - Community Profile, of this Situational Analysis, however the following dialogue provides a perspective when looking through the lens of cemetery operations.

The 2011 Norfolk Census indicates the population at 63,175. The County experienced modest population growth representing 4% over a ten year period from the County’s formation in 2001 to the 2011 Census. Norfolk experienced a very modest growth of 1% over the 2006 to 2011 Census period. The median age was 46.1 in 2011, which was higher than the provincial 2011 median age at 40.4. The demographic change is due in part to the out-migration of younger adults looking for improved employment opportunities. On the other hand, there is an in-migration of middle to older adults who wish to experience the rural and shoreline characteristics unique to Norfolk County. This population influx is most prevalent in Port Dover where residential development is taking place with a focus on active living retirement communities.

Rate of Interment at Cemeteries under the County’s Control

Table 3.2 (Norfolk County Interment Analysis), previously discussed, sets out the total number of deaths and total number of interments that took place at the County owned cemeteries over a five year period, from 2010 to 2014. The total average number of interments per year as well as the number of full body interments and cremation interments are summarized as follows:

Average total number of interments (full and cremation): 173 Average number of full interments: 88 (51%) Average number of cremation interments: 85 (49%)



Current Land Inventory Norfolk’s active cemeteries consist of 71.6 acres. Oakwood Cemetery in Simcoe is the largest cemetery with 39 acres. Bayview Cemetery is the next largest at 4 acres, and Cultus Cemetery follows as 3.23 acres. The 17 remaining County owned active cemeteries consist of 25.4 acres and fall between 1 acre and 2.3 acres.

Cremation Lot Inventory (Oakwood) There are 125 in-ground cremation plots available for sale in a separate section of Oakwood. The plots measure 4’ x 4’ and will hold up to 4 cremation interments. The cremation lots are higher priced by 10%, than a single adult lot measuring 40” x 10’. Alternatively, a single adult lot may contain six cremations on top of a full body interment at a lesser cost. (Source: Norfolk County By-law 2012-130) Cremation interments are not being realized to their full potential in Oakwood Cemetery. Generally, cemeteries across the province allow for a maximum of four cremations on top of a full body interment.

Remaining Burial Capacity The following table provides data on Oakwood Cemetery and five County owned active cemeteries, where records are available, with respect to interment spaces sold and interment spaces still available.

Table 3-5: Norfolk County 5 Year Lot Sales Analysis – 2010 to 2014

Cemetery Acres 2010

Sales

2011 Sales

2012 Sales

2013 Sales

2014 Sales

Average Sales / Year

Lots Available

Oakwood 39.0 106 69 74 68 58 67 1,850

Bayview* 4.0 18 3 3 17 14 9 300

Cultus* 3.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 870

GlenMeyer 2.09 4 0 0 0 2 1 400

Hartford 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

Kinglake* 2.21 1 0 2 5 0 1.5 n/a

Ukrainian 1.04 0 0 1 0 2 .5 65


* Interment Rights Sales managed by Cemetery Boards

There are five known cemeteries with interment rights (lots) available for sale. There are 8 additional County owned cemeteries that are managed by Cemetery Boards however, interment rights sales data is currently unavailable.

Of special note is the number of lot sales in 2010. According to County staff, the lot sales increased dramatically prior to the HST being implemented on July 1st of that year. There were 45 sales alone in the month of June. Typically, the lot sales from 2011 to 2014 are more in line with the norm and therefore a four year analysis will be a more appropriate time period to determine future land inventory needs.

Oakwood Cemetery, with 39 acres, has 1850 lots available for sale. The number of lots sales has fluctuated over the four year period, 2011 to 2014, with a down-turn movement taking place. Over this four year period, there was an average of 67 sales per year. Using a four year average, at an average rate of 67 lot sales per year, lot sales are projected for +/- 28 years and potentially more if the down turn continues. There is an opportunity for additional lots in future years, once trees are strategically harvested.



Rural Cemeteries: There are five rural cemeteries listed in the above table where interment rights continue to be sold. County staff have advised that Cultus Cemetery has approximately 870 lots available for sale, however annual lots sale records are not available at this time. These cemeteries are rural in nature and would be of most interest to residents who are historically connected to the cemeteries. For example, they have family members interred in the cemetery; they live in close proximity to the cemetery, and/or they are loyal to the local community. An additional factor is that the price is lower than Oakwood Cemetery for both lot sales and interment services. To further reduce costs, people will often have their cremated remains interred in their parent or grandparent’s lot. The County By-law 2012-130 allows for six cremations on top of a full body interment. Based on the above table, the following information is provided:

Bayview Cemetery is located just outside of Port Rowan and is managed by a Cemetery Board. This cemetery is located in a picturesque rural setting. Staff has indicated that Bayview is one of the more popular County owned cemeteries. There are approximately 300 remaining lots available for sale in the 4 acre cemetery. At an average rate of nine lot sales per year, lot sales are projected for the next +/-33 years. However, the increase in lot sales over the previous two years, 2013 and 2014, suggest a potentially higher rate of sales could significantly reduce the lot sales life expectancy.

Glen Meyer Cemetery is 2.09 acres in size with 400 lots available for sale. At an average rate of one lot sale per year, there are more than ample years remaining for lot sale opportunities.

Hartford Cemetery, in Wilsonville, is one acre in size. Although 100 lots available for sale, this cemetery has not sold any lots in the last five years.

Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Cemetery is 1.04 acres in size with 65 lots available for sale. At an average rate of .5 lot sales per year, there are ample years remaining for lot sale opportunities.

There are an additional nine active rural cemeteries with no inventory available for future sales. Interment services continue at these cemeteries where interment rights have been sold in the past. These cemeteries are Bethel, Hartford, Hemlock, Jackson, Jericho, Marston, Port Royal, Ukrainian Greek Orthodox, and Walsh Baptist.

STRATEGIC TRENDS

Consumer Trends There are four different generations of consumers, each providing insight related to cemetery marketing, customer service and future development. Each generation is depicted with the following general patterns of personal and lifestyle characteristics:

Veterans/Traditionalists (1922 – 1945) o Lived through a depression and 2 world wars; o Respectful of authority and discipline; o Traditional family background, and o Frugal and therefore more apt to save for weddings and funerals.

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) o Comparatively wealthy and well educated; o Optimistic look at future; o Build up debt as they seek out a better lifestyle than previous generation; o Wait longer to have children; o Divorce rate is higher; o Remarriage or common-law relationships result in fragmented, merged or extended

families;



o Preference is not to save money, but to buy now and pay later, and o Comparative shoppers with a preference for innovation and a wider range of options.

Generation X (1965 – 1980) o More skeptical outlook of the future; o Educated but not necessarily in their chosen profession; o Jump from one job to the next or laid off due to downturn in the economy; o Spending habits are cautious and conservative while trying to save for a unpredictable

future, and o Tendency to live at home longer in an attempt to get ahead financially.

Generation Y (1981 – 2000) o Relatively young and still in school or just graduating from post-secondary school; o Confident with a strong social network; o Come from a merged or extended family; o Education comes at an incredible expense; o More technically savvy with a heavy reliance on social media to communicate, and o Spending habits are ‘earn to spend’ however, due to their young age, true spending

characteristics have not been realized as yet. (Source: Mixing and Managing Four Generations of Employees, FDU, Winter/Spring 2005)

The above information would suggest that the funeral industry trends are changing dramatically from what was experienced 20 to 30 years ago. Where people once lived in the same municipality or on the family farm, people are now scattered across the country and the globe. The same family values no longer exist and being buried in the family plot is a thing of the past, unless it is a cost efficient choice.

Demographically, as the large Baby Boomer generation (born 1946 to 1964) passes on, a common expectation is for a correlating increase in demand for cemetery services.

The oldest Baby Boomer turned 68 in 2014. The average anticipated lifespan for the entire cohort is around 80 years. In 2026, the first of the Baby Boomers will reach the age of 80, an age when mortality increases significantly. The death rate will increase and will be high for the duration of the entire ‘Baby Boom’ of 14 years (approximately 2026 to 2045). The number of deaths will then decrease again towards the end of the ‘Baby Boom’ generation in 2045 when the youngest of this generation turns 81.

Interment Trends

In North America, there are two main ways to dispose of the deceased: full burial (casket) or burial of cremated remains. The preference may be dictated by religious and cultural practice; however it is increasingly being influenced by such considerations as cost.

Throughout the Province of Ontario, over the past 10 to 20 years, the practice of traditional burials has progressively declined while the demand for cremations has risen dramatically. Research indicates that, aside from personal reasons, including financial, protecting the environment is the single largest reason for the increased interest in cremation.

The increasing cremation trend does not necessarily mean that all cremains will be interred in a cemetery. Societal trends suggest that this phenomenon could be a result of the decline of traditional families. Divorce, remarriage and common law relationships, resulting in fragmented/merged/extended families, are increasingly the norm. With this comes a change in family and church values and a change in how a person perceives the burial process. As noted earlier, in years past the family business was passed down from one generation to another, and everyone was buried in the family cemetery plot. People saved for marriages



and funerals. Now we are seeing the children (Baby Boomers), leaving home at an early age and finding careers in all points of the globe. Their decision on a final resting place is not a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

The following text will ultimately be inserted into Section 12 of the revised Situational Analysis that is being edited.

A number of pertinent matters consistent with the scoped terms of reference developed as an adjunct to the broader master plan for parks, trails and open space have been offered in our overview assessment. The analysis conducted for this study was based on informal discussions with staff.

County staff advised that an attempt to bring the rural fees in line with the Oakwood Cemetery fees has met with resistance in previous years. The fee schedule at Bayview Cemetery should be reviewed, given that active full-body lot sales have been affected by the provision of cremation interment opportunities in 2008.

The acquisition of lands in former years that are currently vacant shows foresight by the municipality, given the changes in the Provincial Policy Statement constrain the use of near-urban lands for cemetery purposes in the contemporary setting. The preliminary analysis conducted as part of this study indicates that Oakwood Cemetery has adequate opportunities in the next two decades for full body interments. It is expected that Port Dover will be the focus of future demand in the County over the long term.

A range of burial options and prices is needed, given the trend towards cremation that offers families many more interment options than full burial.

Fees are increased by only 3% on an annual basis. The political appetite for changing this approach should be determined.

Three cemetery boards have turned to the County with the intention of transferring their responsibilities to the municipality. In addition to the five rural cemeteries that are now operated by the County, it is anticipated that other cemetery boards and religious cemeteries will transfer their responsibilities to the County in future years.



4.0 INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES

The indoor and outdoor recreation facilities are categorized under 3 headings – Arenas, Community Centres, and Waterfront Amenities. The Simcoe Recreation Centre addresses a shared use for both arena and aquatic users. This section summarizes each facility including the available park amenities in close proximity. Additional discussion on this topic can be found later in this report under Major Facility Utilization Profiles.

ARENAS Norfolk County has 6 arenas, all of which are single pad ice surfaces. Urban centres that have an arena include Delhi, Port Dover, Waterford and Simcoe (2). Langton is the only rural community with an arena. The development of these six arenas dates back 30 + years. The following is a brief summary of each facility.

DELHI COMMUNITY CENTRE ARENA This community arena is located in the Delhi Sports Park off of a main artery – Talbot Road. The park is also home to a lit ball field, an outdoor swimming pool and a spray park. Both aquatic facilities, the outdoor swimming pool and the spray park, are located in close proximity to one another within the Delhi Sports Park. There is an open concept community hall on the second floor with a 150 person capacity. The arena is host to a Junior C hockey team.

LANGTON ARENA The Langton Arena is located centrally within this small rural community. The arena is situated within the Langton Community Park which hosts 2 lit ball diamonds (1 senior and 1 minor ball), a soccer pitch, 3 lit multi-use courts (2 tennis and 1 ball hockey) and a playground. The Langton Community Centre is located across a shared parking lot. There is a public school and a catholic school in close proximity that could make good use of the park and arena’s amenities. The Langton Arena has a meeting room with a seating capacity of 30 to 50 people.

PORT DOVER ARENA This arena is also part of a large community sports complex. The adjacent Port Dover Ball Park was removed and relocated to the Doverwood School property in 2014 in anticipation of the community constructing a new medical centre on the site. Furthermore, three additional amenities were added - a ball hockey pad, skateboard park and 4 tennis courts. The arena has a meeting room capacity of 30 to 50 people. The Port Dover Community Centre is located in the same vicinity. There is a high school with additional outdoor recreation amenities in close proximity to the park. The Port Dover Arena is host to a Junior C hockey team.

SIMCOE RECREATION CENTRE – ARENA AND AQUATICS



An indoor swimming pool and an arena form the Simcoe Recreation Centre. The centre is a 2 story building with a lounge seating capacity of 100 to 120 people, along with a kitchenette and separate meeting rooms. The indoor swimming pool, renamed the Annaleise Carr Aquatic Centre, was originally constructed in 1972. The ice rink was added to the west side of the building in 1978.

The centre is situated in close proximity to the Norfolk County Fairgrounds. The Simcoe Skateboard Park is also located next to the centre. The Golden Gardens Park is the closest park and is located across Queen Street to the west, and consists of a playground and open space.

There are also aquatic facilities at the Simcoe Kinsmen Park, this park is approximately 1.8 km north of the Recreation Centre and contains a splash pad. This identifies the overall aquatic facilities within Simcoe, which include an indoor swimming pool, as well as a splash pad.

TALBOT GARDENS ARENA This arena is also located in Simcoe. It is a 3 story building and was originally constructed in 1948, with a number of additions over the years. The arena contains meeting space for 125 to 150 people with a kitchenette (fridge, stove, sink). The Talbot Gardens Arena is located in the downtown area of Simcoe, therefore close to the shopping district. There are no parks located in close proximity to the arena. It is home to the Simcoe Storm Junior C Team.

WATERFORD TRICENTURENA This arena is located within the Audrey S. Hellyer Memorial Park. The park hosts 2 lit ball diamonds. Three lit tennis courts and a full basketball court are located on the adjacent property of the Waterford District High School and are available to the public through a shared use agreement. The arena has a meeting room capacity of 30 to 50 people.

A public school is located to the east of the park and a high school is located to the south, each with their own outdoor recreation amenities, including a playground and soccer/football field.

COMMUNITY CENTRES Norfolk County inherited a number of stand-alone facilities throughout the County. In most cases, particularly the rural areas, these facilities have developed strong community ties. The centre or hall is often considered the heart of the community with their development taking place at the grass-roots level. (Source: Norfolk County Community Hall Management Strategy, 2011) The following discussion highlights 15 community centres.

Community Halls provide a range of activities and services to groups and individuals. A Community Hall Management Strategy was conducted in 2011 with subsequent reports to Council in January, 2013 and November, 2013. The Park, Facilities and Recreation Division are responsible for the operations and budgets of the Norfolk County hall facilities. Some facilities are operated directly by the County while some are operated under a management board or committee who are responsible for part-time managers and the operation of their particular hall facility. Table 4-1 identifies 15 community centres/halls with associated facts and items of interest.



Table 4-1: Norfolk County Community Centres

Community Centre (CC) Year of Construction

Building Size

(sq. ft.)

Facility Components Governance

Charlotteville CC, Walsh 1865 4,716 2 halls (main floor & basement), 2 kitchens, bar, coat room, washrooms, storage

County – PRF Division

Courtland CC 1994 6,580 Main hall with stage, bar, kitchen, coat room, storage & OPP office


Courtland Scout Hall / Lions Den

1952 3,400 Meeting room, kitchen & storage Courtland Lions lease from the County

Delhi Friendship Centre (Seniors Centre)

1972 (former Public Works Garage)

3,969 Main hall Managed by Delhi Senior Citizens Club

Langton CC 1965 (renovated – 1967 & 1993)

8,967 Main hall with stage, kitchen, meeting room, Lions’ meeting room, mechanical room, storage room & washrooms


Port Dover Kinsmen Scout Hut

1972 1,559 Hall, kitchen, washrooms & storage closet

Managed by Port Dover Kinsmen Club

Port Dover CC 1980 14,905 Main hall with stage, meeting room, kitchen, mechanical rooms, washrooms & utility rooms

Management Board appointed by Lions Club

Port Rowan CC 1955 11,168 Main hall with stage, kitchen, bar, coat room, mechanical rooms, storage, Lion’s room & washrooms. Second level – meeting room, storage & office


St. Williams CC 1997 4,277 Main hall with stage, kitchen, office, storage, mechanical rooms & washrooms

Managed by community board

Simcoe Adult CC 1891 (additions – 1916, 1923, 1928)

24,000 2 floors plus small basement area (utilized by several community groups)


South Walsingham Women’s Institute Hall

1865 2,342 Hall with stage, kitchen, washrooms, small mechanical/storage room

Walsingham Women’s Institute

Teeterville Women’s Institute Hall

1849 (several additions over the years)

4,399 Main floor - hall with stage, washrooms; Basement – hall, kitchen, storage


Vittoria & District CC 1970 (renovated in 1988)

10,904 Main hall with stage, kitchen, meeting rooms, lobby, bar, coat room, washrooms, mechanical rooms, storage, office

Managed by community board

Vittoria Town Hall 1870 2,527 Hall with stage, kitchen, storage County – PRF Division

Waterford CC 1910 6,712 Hall on main floor & basement, kitchen, vestibule, mechanical rooms, coat room, storage rooms, washrooms

Lion’s Club management board

Source: Norfolk County Community Hall Management Strategy, 2011



As noted in the above table, there are some community centres dating back to over 150 years. For example, the Teeterville Women’s Institute dates back to 1849 (166 years) and the Charlotteville Community Centre in Walsh dates back to 1865 (150 years). The most recently built centres are the St. Williams Community Centre in 1997 (18 years) and the Port Dover Community Centre in 1980 (35 years).

The Simcoe Adult Centre, also known as the Simcoe Seniors Centre, is the largest facility at 24,000 square feet. This facility was first constructed as a tanning factory in 1891 and was later given a heritage structure designation. The facility was converted into a multi-tenant community centre with the Seniors Centre being the main focus. The facility also services several arts and culture groups, with activities such as a pottery workshop, youth theatre, and artist workshop and a Boy Scout group.

WATERFRONT AMENITIES PORT DOVER WATERFRONT MARINA Please refer to Section 8 - Document Review, Port Dover Harbour Marina Business Plan, 2014, for a detailed description of the amenities found at the Port Dover Waterfront Marina. A few unique features of the Port Dover Waterfront Marina include:

Its ability to attract both boaters and non-boaters to the waterfront

Opportunities for Marina renewal in order to improve community access

Good location adjoining the downtown and access to Lake Erie

PORT ROWAN WATERFRONT MARINA Please refer to Section 8 - Document Review, Port Rowan Harbour Marina Business Plan, 2014, for a detailed description of the amenities found at the Port Rowan Waterfront Marina. A few unique features of the Port Rowan Waterfront Marina include:

The boathouses located at the marina which contribute to the historic aspects and charm of the waterfront

Opportunities to focus on the historical aspects of the community in order to attract tourism with the harbour being a major focal point

Options for water sports activities within the calm water of the Inner Bay and Long Point Bay

Opportunities for Marina renewal in order to improve community access



5.0 MAJOR FACILITY UTILIZATION PROFILES

INTRODUCTION The following material examines the use schedules for arenas, ball fields, and picnic facilities operated by the County. The soccer component was undertaken via the input from the Soccer Club who operate the soccer complex.

ARENA UTILIZATION Table 5-1 examined arena utilization between 2010 and 2013 based on a typical week in February for non-prime time and prime time categories as per the County’s policy. Non-prime time is up to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. All evening and weekend uses is prime time. The amount of non-prime time hours available varied from 10 hours at Langton Arena to 28.5 hours at the Tricentura, Delhi and Simcoe Recreation Centre facilities. Prime time hours were consistent for all six arenas at 68 hours per week.

Relative to non-prime time, the following highlights are identified:

There was approximately 100.75 hours of non-prime time left available / unused in 2010. This has slowly been reduced to 85.5 hours by 2013 with the most significant increase occurring between 2010 and 2011.

The utilization rate for non-prime time ice was 23.1% in 2010, and increased to 34.7% in 2013.

There is significant variability in the percent of non-prime time utilization by arena as the hours available during the day range widely. In 2013, eight of the ten non-prime time hours at the Langton Arena were utilized compared to six hours of the 28.5 hours available at the Simcoe Recreation Centre.

Non-prime time hours are generally not a strong measure of demand, as children are in school and adults are working. The opportunities for seniors programs; mom-pop-tots; itinerate use; seniors / masters skates; special events; and rentals exists, along with figure skating clubs who sometimes have the opportunity to use times in the late afternoon.

Overall, there is significant non-prime time available indicating no additional demand for more ice capacity in this timeframe.



Table 5-1: 2010 to 2013 Arena Ice Utilization Profiles

Non-Prime Time 2010 2011 2012 2013

Arena

# of Hours

Available # Hours

Sold %

Utilization # Hours

Sold %

Utilization # Hours

Sold %

Utilization # Hours

Sold %

Utilization

Delhi 28.5 2.0 7.0 7.0 24.6 8.0 28.1 5.0 17.5

Langton 10.0 2.0 20.0 6.5 65.0 10.0 100.0 8.0 80.0

Port Dover 25.5 4.8 18.6 7.8 30.4 17.0 66.7 10.0 39.2

Simcoe Recreation Centre 28.5 8.8 30.7 9.5 33.3 6.0 21.1 6.0 21.1

Talbot Gardens 10.0 7.0 70.0 2.5 25.0 3.5 35.0 4.0 40.0

Tricentura 28.5 5.8 20.2 10.0 35.1 17.3 60.5 12.5 43.9

Total Utilization for Arenas 131.0 30.3 23.1 43.3 33.0 61.8 47.1 45.5 34.7

Unused Capacity 100.8 76.9 87.8 67.0 69.3 52.9 85.5 65.3

Prime Time

Delhi 68.0 56.0 82.4 57.0 83.8 59.8 87.9 53.5 78.7

Langton 68.0 55.5 81.6 43.0 63.2 33.5 49.3 49.5 72.8

Port Dover 68.0 54.8 80.5 56.0 82.4 54.3 79.8 50.3 73.9

Simcoe Recreation Centre 68.0 48.5 71.3 49.0 72.1 47.5 69.9 47.3 69.5

Talbot Gardens 68.0 56.0 82.4 56.0 82.4 58.0 85.3 55.3 81.3

Tricentura 68.0 62.5 91.9 63.0 92.6 56.0 82.4 66.8 98.2

Total Utilization for Arenas 408.0 333.3 81.7 324.0 79.4 309.0 75.7 322.5 79.0

Unused Capacity 74.8 18.3 84.0 20.6 99.0 24.3 85.5 21.0



With respect to prime time ice time utilization, the following highlights are identified:

Overall, 81.7% of the prime time was utilized in 2010 across the six arenas. This has dropped marginally to 79.4% in 2011, 75.7% in 2012 and 79.0% in 2013.

In 2013, there were 85.5 hours of prime time available which was almost universally later evening hours and early morning hours on Saturday and Sunday. The Tricentura Arena typically had the highest percentage utilization, always in excess of 90% prime time utilization, and reaching 98.2% in 2013.

Talbot Gardens had the second highest overall prime time utilization, typically in the low 80%, 81.3% in 2013.

The lowest non-prime time utilization is the Simcoe Recreation Centre at 69.5%, with the Langton and Port Dover arenas in the low 70.0% range and the Delhi in the 78.7%.

Delhi, Langton, Port Dover and the Simcoe Recreation Centre all had declining prime time utilization, with Langton having the highest reduction over the four years from 81.6% to 72.9%, almost 9% less.

Talbot Gardens and Tricentura have had consistent utilization, with Tricentura being the highest except for 2012 when it had only 82.4% utilization.

The prime time ice demand would indicate that there are in the order of 85 hours of prime time ice available per week. With an overall prime time utilization of 79.0% in 2013, this would indicate there is no immediate demand for additional ice capacity in Norfolk. Also, if the declines being identified for four of the arenas were to continue over a number of years, the overall ice capacity may be more than the market demand warrants, and adjustments may have to be considered.

Also, all six arenas are single ice pad facilities, all built thirty or more years ago. They have been well maintained, a significant capital investment by the community. Today, the development of twin pad arenas has been more universally pursued as twin pad arenas offer the opportunity for up to 25% savings on capital costs and 20% to 25% savings on operating costs versus two stand alone single pad arenas. Also, participants, especially minor hockey and adult leagues who operate tournaments, tend to strongly prefer twin pad facilities as tournament operations, visitation, concessions and related activities are often significantly enhanced.

Table 5-2 examines the consolidated percentage comparisons for the arenas based on prime time ice utilization rates with the residual hourly capacities available for the 2013 ice season.

The Simcoe Recreation Centre had approximately 21 hours of prime time availability per week, with Langton and Port Dover each having 18 and 17 hours of availability respectively. Delhi has approximately 14 hours per week, and Talbot Gardens almost 13 hours of availability, while Tricentura is almost 100% utilized.



Table 5-2: 2010 to 2013 Prime Time Arena Ice Utilization Percent Average

Prime Time % Range % Average 2013 Prime Time Ice Availability / Week (Hours)

Delhi 78.7 to 87.9 83.2 14.5

Langton 49.3 to 81.6 66.7 18.5

Port Dover 68.0 to 62.4 79.2 17.75

Simcoe Recreation Centre 69.5 to 71.3 70.7 20.75

Talbot Gardens 82.3 to 85.3 82.1 12.75

Tricentura 82.4 to 98.2 90.9 1.25

Total Utilization for Arenas 75.7 to 81.4 78.9 85.5

Table 5-3 undertakes a comparison for 2010 to 2012 utilizing November ice schedules, compared to February ice schedules.

Table 5-3: 2010 to 2012 November Arena Ice Utilization Profile

Utilization Percentage

Arena 2010 2011 2012

Delhi 89.3 79.4 85.3

Langton 75.0 82.4 57.4

Port Dover 96.30 83.0 82.4

Simcoe Recreation Centre 69.10 74.3 72.1

Talbot Gardens 83.0 80.1 89.7

Tricentura 93.80 93.4 83.8

Total Arenas (%) 84.40 82.1 78.5

February % Utilization 81.70 79.4 75.7

The data indicates that in 2010, the February schedule had approximately 2.5 hours less prime time ice than the November schedule which was similar for both 2011 and 2012. This indicates that there is marginally higher utilization levels in the fall peak season period compared to the winter peak season period, at a rate of approximately 2.5 hours to 3 hours per year. The use of the arenas for prime time hours is relatively stable through both halves of the annual ice season.

BALL FIELD UTILIZATION Table 5-4 provides the use profile for the ball fields operated by the County for 2010 to 2013. The data is identified as specific reservations. Capacity is heavily influenced by field conditions, weather, league start up and a host of other variables, so only reservation data were utilized.



Table 5-4: 2010 to 2013 Utilization Ball Field Profile

2010 2011 2012 2013

Courtland 21 33 17 14

Delhi Arena 70 70 78 75

Langton

1A 32 29 21 34

2A 21 21 33 8

Subtotal 53 50 54 42

Port Dover

Kinsmen A 83 64 71 86

Kinsmen C 18 22 22 39

Doverwood 11 0 0 0

Arena A 56 0 0 0

Subtotal 168 86 93 125

Simcoe

Cedar A 55 20 19 15

Cedar B 25 16 13 14

Kinsmen C 52 58 49 48

Lions 1 118 107 144 130

Lions 2 143 138 160 145

Lions 3 138 128 124 115

Memorial 81 88 96 89

Subtotal 612 555 605 556

Walsingham 5 14 0 2

Waterford

Arena 1 43 48 33 32

Arena 2 31 37 32 32

Subtotal 74 85 65 64

Total Ball Field Utilization

1003 893 912 878



The data identifies a number of perspectives:

The Courtland ball field has shown diminished use, except in 2011, down one third for reservations from 2010 to 2013.

The Delhi Arena ball field continues to have significant use, increasing to 75 and 78 uses a year from 70 in 2010.

The two Langton ball fields have shown steady use for diamond 1A, but declining use for 2A, with overall use declining by approximately nine reservations or almost 9.0% per year.

In Port Dover, utilization has been highly variable, from a high of 168 for the four diamonds in 2010, down to 86 in 2011, and 93 reservations in 2012, and 125 in 2013. Two of the diamonds have had no use since 2010, while the use of Kinsmen A and C diamonds has increased.

In Simcoe, there has been some decline in ball field utilization, from a high of 612 reservations in 2010 to 605 in 2012. In 2011 and 2013, the reservations were at 555 and 556 respectively. There has been a decline of nearly 10%.

The Walsingham field has been variable but with limited use. There was a high of 14 uses in 2011, with no uses in 2012, and only two uses in 2013.

In Waterford, the use levels have declined in 2012 and 2013. In 2011, there were 85 reservations. For the last two years, the reservations have been in the order of 65, down 20 or almost 25%.

Total ball field utilization has declined from 1,003 reservations in 2010 to 878 in 2013, down 125 uses per year or 12.5%. The use levels have been somewhat erratic, increasing in 2012 over 2011 but then dropping 34 reservations in 2013.

Ball field use overall has been declining on County-owned and maintained diamonds. The Courtland, Langton, the Doverwood and Arena A in Port Dover, Cedar A and B in Simcoe and Walsingham fields represents fairly low utilization diamonds. The Delhi Arena, the Kinsmen A in Port Dover, the Lions Fields 1, 2 and 3, Memorial and Simcoe represent high use fields, with the rest of the fields being more in the 30 to 50 reservations per year.

Some reconfiguration of diamonds could be considered in the future if diamond utilization continues to decline at the levels that are being indicated. The factors influencing this trend could be the overall decline in baseball since 1993, though youth baseball has shown a resurgence in recent years based on initiatives by Baseball Ontario. Other issues could be as indicated in some of the focus groups for the Master Plan, i.e.: challenges in attracting the needed coaches and league executives to sustain youth baseball in particular. Also, with an aging population and an influx of retirees, there could be some decline in adult baseball league participation.



PICNIC SHELTER RENTALS Table 5-5 examines the rentals for the eight picnic shelters operated by the County, over the 2010 to 2013 period.

Table 5-5: 2010 to 2013 Utilization Picnic Shelter Rental Profile

2010 2011 2012 2013

Courtland 17 22 26 27

Quance Park 8 7 9 6

Delhi Kinsmen 14 11 12 6

Langton 3 5 7 6

Port Dover 16 11 13 11

Port Rowan Marina 0 0 0 23

Simcoe Kinsmen 32 32 32 33

Simcoe Lions 17 16 18 23

Total Rentals 107 104 117 135

For 2010 to 2011, there were 107 and 104 rentals respectively. However, rentals have increased to 117 in 2012 and 135 in 2013. Courtland, Port Rowan Harbour Marina, Simcoe Kinsmen and Simcoe Lions had the most significant rentals in 2013, ranging from 23 at Simcoe Lions, to 33 as Simcoe Kinsmen. The Quance Dam, the Delhi Kinsmen and Langton each had six rentals which represented significant decline for Delhi Kinsmen of over 50%. The Port Dover Kinsmen Pavilion has also experienced some decline in use between 2010 and 2011 but has remained relatively stable through 2011 to 2013. The Port Rowan Harbour Marina had no utilization in 2010 or 2012, but had 23 reservations in 2013.

These picnic shelters, which also provide shade and other opportunities throughout the summer for park users, have fairly significant utilization which is showing some increase, primarily due to the inclusion of the Port Rowan Harbour Marina picnic shelter.



6.0 PARKS AND RECREATION FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS

FINANCIAL OPERATING PROFILE Table 6-1 profiles the Community Services Department’s operating profile for 2011 to 2013 based on revenues and expenses for key areas of its operation. The data has been divided into two categories – Recreation, as well as Parks and Facilities.

The data indicates the following perspectives:

REVENUES

Recreation revenues typically represented approximately 25% of total Department revenues, while Parks and Facilities revenues represented approximately 75%.

Arena revenues are far and away the most significant source of revenue, constituting just under 50% of total revenues in each of the three years.

The second largest sources of revenue are pools and programs in the $250,000 to $300,000 range.

Centres / Halls represent the fourth largest sources of revenue at approximately $160,000 per year, while other revenues are typically significantly smaller.

Total revenues have ranged from just under $3 million in 2012 to $2.831 million in 2011, being variable based on fees, small capital works, grants, etc.

The percent of revenues that are user fees varies widely, from a high of 100% for concessions to 91.7% and 91.6% for programs and marketing, to 99.2% for arenas. At the other end of the scale, fees have a more limited role in seniors programs at 25% of total revenues, with no revenue for Recreation administration or Parks and Facilities administration. Forestry is at 9%.

EXPENDITURES

Expenditures range from a high $9.665 million in 2013 to a low $8.872 million in 2011, having grown each year, by $220,000 between 2011 and 2012, and nearly $600,000 between 2012 and 2013.

For Recreation, expenditures were approximately $2.2 million on average for the three years with pools and programs having the most dominant cost profile, an average of about $935,000 for pools and $650,000 for programs.

Seniors have typically averaged around $190,000 to $212,000 per year in expenses.

Recreation expenses have increased each year from $2.179 million to $2.271 million.

For Parks and Facilities, arenas are the dominant cost element at approximately $2.950 million per year on average, followed by parks at approximately $1.555 million per year.

Administration and halls and centres represented the third and fourth largest categories, the former at $900,000 a year on average, and the latter at approximately $700,000 a year, though both were up significantly in 2013.

Total Parks and Facilities expenditures have increased each year from $6.7 million in 2011, to $6.9 million in 2012, to nearly $7.4 million in 2013.



Labour costs represented a significant portion of the expenditure budget, ranging from a high of 81.8% for programs to approximately 74.0% for pools, to approximately 45.0% for parks, 65.0% for cemeteries and 43.0% for arenas.

NET RESULT

Relative to a net position, total Recreation, and Parks and Facilities operations have required municipal financial support to the level of $6.041 million in 2011, $6.170 million in 2012 and $6.766 million in 2013.

The areas of the highest net costs are the arenas at approximately $1.5 million per year, having declined marginally each year from 2011 to 2013, followed by parks, which had a consistent net cost of approximately $1.48 million per year.

The two administrative categories had approximately a $380,000 average annual cost for Recreation, and an annually increased cost for Parks and Facilities administration of up to $1 million in 2013.

The pools had a growing annual deficit, ranging from $576,000 in 2011, to $600,000 in 2012, to $620,000 in 2013.

Programs’ net positions have remained relatively constant in the $366,000 to $390,000 range per year.

Seniors program costs were approximately $116,000 per year for 2011 and 2012, increasing to $154,000 in 2013.

The coverage ratio, reflects revenues over expenses as a percentage represents the primary municipal taxpayer investment on an annual basis. It was approximately 32% for Recreation, the same range for Parks and Facilities, and approximately 31% on average for the total Department. The coverage ratio has actually declined between 2012 and 2013 as increased municipal investments have been required as net budget growth moved from $6.207 million to $6.766 million.

On a per capita basis, using 63,175 residents in Norfolk based on 2011 census data, $95.63 per capita was invested by the municipality in 2011; $98.25 in 2012, and increasing to $107.05 in 2013.



Table 6-1: 2011 to 2013 Revenue / Expenditures for Norfolk County Recreation, Parks and Facilities Profile

2011 2012 2013

REVENUES Fees Other Subtotal % Fees Fees Other Subtotal % Fees Fees Other Subtotal % Fees

Recreation

Administration 17,570 17,570 0.0 45,888 45,888 0.0 38,222 38,222 0.0

Pools 261,952 40,434 302,386 86.6 321,138 9,311 330,449 97.2 305,925 30,711 336,636 90.9

Programs 239,056 21,906 260,962 91.6 240,240 13,215 253,455 94.8 262,966 16,625 279,591 94.1

Seniors 18,595 56,025 74,620 24.9 19,119 52,700 71,819 26.6 7,450 50,517 57,967 12.9

Market 33,366 1,000 34,366 97.1 32,795 750 33,545 97.8 31,931 1,961 33,892 94.2

Total Recreation Revenues 689,904 735,156 746,308

% of Total Revenues 24.4 25.5 25.7

Parks & Facilities

Administration 5,983 5,983 0.0 645 645 0.0 2,022 2,022 0.0

Arenas 1,325,070 10,984 1,336,054 99.2 1,389,61

9 32,585 1,422,204 97.7 1,414,73

3 44,703 1,459,436 96.9

Concessions 15,748 0 15,748 100.0 13,151 0 13,151 100.0 12,704 0 12,704 100.0

Halls & Centres 168,655 42,552 211,207 79.9 156,398 49,373 205,771 76.0 154,542 78,092 232,634 66.4

Parks 43,060 19,399 62,459 68.9 37,670 41,118 78,788 47.8 45,286 35,074 80,360 56.4

Cemeteries 61,331 38,283 99,614 61.6 55,749 44,523 100,272 55.6 68,089 48,660 116,749 58.3

Property Management* 70,629 99,273 169,902 41.6 5,400 0 7.2 5,400 0 6.6

Forestry* 21,587 218,982 240,569 9.0 101,373 90,397 39.4 68642 31460 41.4

Total Parks & Facilities Revenues 2,141,536 2,152,842 2,152,246

% of Total Revenues 75.6 74.5 74.3

Total Recreation & Parks Revenues 2,831,440 2,887,998 2,898,554

EXPENDITURES




Staffing Other Subtotal %

Labour Staffing Other Subtotal %

Labour Staffing Other Subtotal %

Labour

Recreation

Administration 201,552 223,103 424,655 47.5 200,919 225,861 426,780 47.1 209,233 212,325 421,558 49.6

Pools 653,504 225,042 878,546 74.4 690,650 240,517 931,167 74.2 710,799 246,118 956,917 74.3

Programs 532,644 118,428 651,072 81.8 502,897 117,063 619,960 81.1 519,357 126,707 646,064 80.4

Seniors 86,594 104,053 190,647 45.4 88,510 100,276 188,786 46.9 129,026 83,629 212,655 60.7

Market 8,016 26,651 34,667 23.1 7,683 25,862 33,545 22.9 8,097 25,801 33,898 23.9

Total Recreation Expenditures 2,179,587 2,200,238 2,271,092

Parks and Facilities

Admin 402,936 317,747 720,683 55.9 432,611 408,295 840,906 51.4 452,062 603,106 1,055,168 42.8

Arenas 1,239,390 1,675,047 2,914,437 42.5 1,287,07

3 1,688,442 2,975,515 43.3 1,339,06

4 1,613,040 2,952,104 45.4

Concessions 698 698 100.0 655 655 100.0 813 813 100.0

Halls & Centres 98,343 530,655 628,998 15.6 130,713 519,984 650,697 20.1 144,930 662,219 807,149 18.0

Parks 767,624 784,818 1,552,442 49.4 739,711 820,823 1,560,534 47.4 690,177 880,164 1,570,341 44.0

Cemeteries 202,272 105,652 307,924 65.7 231,566 120,314 351,880 65.8 226,084 206,980 433,064 52.2

Property Management 175,929 99,057 274,986 64.0 137,859 99,773 237,632 58.0 180,942 105,336 286,278 63.2

Forestry 215,179 77,884 293,063 73.4 187,968 89,033 277,001 67.9 186,574 102,655 289,229 64.5

Total Parks & Facilities Expenditures 6,693,231 6,894,820 7,394,146

Total Recreation &Parks Expenditures 8,872,818 9,095,058 9,665,238

NET POSITION 2011 2012 2013

Recreation

Administration ‐407,085 ‐380,892 ‐383,336

Pools ‐576,160 ‐600,718 ‐620,281

Programs ‐390,110 ‐366,505 ‐366,473

Seniors ‐116,027 ‐116,967 ‐154,688

Market ‐301 0 ‐6

Par ks Admin ‐714,700 ‐840,261 ‐1,053,146




Arenas ‐1,578,383 ‐1,553,311 ‐1,492,668

Concessions 15,050 12,496 11,891

Halls & Centres ‐417,791 ‐444,926 ‐574,515

Parks ‐1,489,983 ‐1,481,746 ‐1,489,981

Cemeteries ‐208,310 ‐251,608 ‐316,315

Property Management ‐105,084 ‐163,036 ‐203,863

Forestry ‐52,494 ‐19,586 ‐123,303

Total Recreation & Parks Net Result ‐6,041,378 ‐6,207,060 ‐6,766,684

Summary

2011 to 2013 Revenue / Expenditures for Norfolk County Recreation, Parks and Facilities Profile

2011 2012 2013

Total Recreation and Parks Revenues 2,831,440 2,887,998 2,898,554

Total Recreation and Parks Expenditures 8,872,818 9,095,058 9,665,238

Net Recreation and Parks ‐6,041,378 ‐6,207,060 ‐6,766,684

% of Coverage

Recreation 31.7 33.4 32.9

Parks and Facilities 32.0 31.2 29.1

Parks and Recreation 31.9 31.8 30.0

Net $ Per Capita (63,175 Census Canada) 95.63 98.25 107.05

denotes: * includes Recoveries



The financial operating data indicates important ongoing operational investments in Parks and Recreation Services by the County of Norfolk. The cost side has increased $790,000 over the three years or 8.9%. Revenues have increased $67,000 or 2.4%. Therefore, the net cost of service delivery is growing as indicated by both the net Recreation and Parks budget position which is up $725,000, and the net per capita investment increasing to $107.05 from $95.63, up 11.9%.

The largest Department operating units as one would expect relative to the range of services and facilities provided, are the pools, programs, arenas, halls and centres, and parks. There has also been significant growth in Parks and Facilities administration, though some of this reflects accounting adjustments.

All functional units for both Recreation, as well as Parks and Facilities have a net operating deficit except for concessions which has an annualized surplus in the $12,000 range. The largest specific points of net investment are arenas at approximately $1.5 million, although this has declined by approximately $60,000 between 2012 to 2013; parks at approximately $1.48 million; parks and facilities administration; and pools at approximately $600,000 a year. These four areas in 2012 represented 72.1% of the total net Department costs.

Revenues remain within a relatively narrow range for all the functional areas over the three years. However, expense lines have changed, particularly in Parks and Facilities administration, halls and centres, and cemeteries which showed the largest expenditure increases.

The County of Norfolk has a wide range of Parks and Recreation facilities and services. Financial operating data for the three years indicates the significant level of investment made in 2013 that reached approximately just over $100 per person on a net basis. The per capita cost would be in the higher range compared with many similar sized municipalities that typically would be in the $75 to $80 range. The higher costs reflect the uniquely different municipal structure of Norfolk County. This is due to characteristics such as a significant number of arenas in smaller communities, along with dispersed parks, community centres/halls, and related facilities which reflect a higher cost operating model than one would find in concentrated urban areas or smaller municipalities that are not geographically diverse.

FEASIBILITY STUDY FINANCIAL OPERATING PROFILES The Simcoe Recreation Centre, the Talbot Gardens and the Simcoe Adult Centre are identified as facilities of specific interest relative to the Feasibility Study component of the Master Plan.

Table 6-2 identifies the financial operating profile for the Simcoe Recreation Centre for the 2011 to 2013 period. The data indicates the following:

The arena and the pool have relatively similar revenue profiles, and represent over 90% of total revenues. The arena generates almost 100% of its revenues from fees, while the pool has a similar profile.

The hall component is significantly smaller in financial scale but is also fee-based in terms of revenues.



Table 6-2: Simcoe Recreation Centre 2011 to 2013 Financial Operating Profile

2011 2012 2013

Revenues $ % $ % $ %

Arena

Grants 1,320 0.5 1,160 0.5 1,050 0.4

Fees 237,856 97.4 239,092 99.4 248,182 98.1

Other 5,094 2.1 209 0.1 3,853 1.5

Total Arena Revenues 244,270 240,461 253,085

Hall

Fees 6,441 99.5 23,239 90.1 26,088 82.6

Other 30 0.5 2,541 9.9 5,499 17.4

Total Hall Revenues 6,471 25,780 31,587

Pool

Grants 3,190 1.3 1,740 0.6 1,826 0.7

Fees 234,183 97.0 287,414 99.3 256,087 96.2

Interdepartmental Fees / Transfers

4,115 1.7 375 0.1 8,281 3.1

Total Pool Revenues 241,488 289,529 266,194

Total Simcoe Recreation Revenues 492,229 555,770 550,866

Expenditures

Arena

Salaries 199,846 47.1 194,709 45.1 187,493 43.4

Materials & Supplies 113,100 26.6 130,594 30.3 128,009 29.6

Services 34,276 8.1 29,589 6.9 28,259 6.5

Subsidies 48,709 11.5 49,141 11.4 53,171 12.3

Interdepartmental Charges 27,624 6.5 26,362 6.1 25,932 6.0

Other 991 0.2 905 0.2 9,267 2.1

Total Arena Expenditures 424,546 431,300 432,131

Hall

Salaries 35,953 33.2 66,981 49.4 77,328 55.2


Services 15,469 14.3 12,033 8.9 10,787 7.7


Total Hall Expenditures 108,276 135,564 140,179

Pool

Salaries 467,154 77.4 493,847 77.8 528,913 77.2


Services 7,654 1.3 7,413 1.2 12,223 1.8




Other 119 0.0 4,899 0.8 21,361 3.1

Total Pool Expenditures 603,271 634,423 684,704

Total Simcoe Recreation Expenditures

1,136,093 1,201,287 1,257,014

Net Position

Arena ‐180,276 ‐190,839 ‐179,046

Hall ‐101,805 ‐109,784 ‐108,592

Pool ‐361,783 ‐344,894 ‐418,510

Centre ‐643,864 ‐645,517 ‐706,148

The total operations of the Simcoe Recreation Centre generated revenues typically around $500,000 in 2011, $555,000 in 2012 and $250,000 in 2013.

From an expenditures perspective, the pool is the dominant cost element, reaching $684,000 in 2013. The arena for the same year was $432,000 and the hall $140,000. All three elements experienced annualized growth in their cost structures with their revenues being more variable.

Salaries represented a significant portion of the pool operations at 77% of total pool operating costs, approximately 45% for the arena operating costs in 2012 and 2013 and over 50% or higher for the hall operating costs.

Total Simcoe Recreation Centre costs have increased from $1.136 million in 2011, to $1.201 million in 2012, to $1.257 million in 2013. This is an increase of approximately $119,000, or 10.5%, compared to revenue increases of approximately $58,000 or 11.6%, slightly higher than proportionate increase in costs.

On a net position basis, arena net costs have ranged from between $179,000 to $190,000 being the lowest in 2013. The hall has typically had a net operating deficit of $108,000, while the pool net operating costs have ranged from $344,000 in 2012 to $418,000 in 2013.

Overall, the Centre experiences net operating costs at a low of $643,000 in 2011 with similar outcome in 2012 of $645,000, then growing to $706,000 in 2013, principally involving the pool.

Table 6-3 examines the operating costs for the Talbot Gardens Arena and Hall for the 2011 to 2013 period.

Table 6-3: Talbot Gardens 2011 to 2013 Financial Operating Profile

2011 2012 2013


Grants 1,320 0.6 290 0.1 350 0.1

Fees 213,621 99.2 236,515 99.9 236,570 88.3

Other 300 0.1 0 0.0 30,882 11.5

Total Revenues 215,241 236,805 267,802

Expenditures

Salaries 183,494 32.3 184,698 32.3 235,204 46.4


Services 38,135 6.7 35,349 6.2 28,785 5.7



Debt 121,197 21.3 120,807 0

Subsidies 49,228 8.7 57,317 10.0 61,194 12.1


Other 1,840 0.3 957 0.2 0 0.0

Total Expenditures 568,265 571,732 507,067

Net Position ‐353,024 ‐334,927 ‐239,265

In total, revenues have grown from $215,000 to $267,000, increasing each year. Fees have represented approximately 99% of total revenues though some other revenues in 2013 changed the profile to 88.3%. Expenditures have been variable from a high of $571,000 in 2012 to a low $507,000 in 2013. Labour costs are the largest component, ranging from 32.3% to 46.4% in 2013, with materials and supplies ranging at 28.0% in 2013.

The overall facility had an annual operating deficit ranging from $353,000 in 2011, to $239,000 in 2013, declining approximately $14,000 or 4% over the three years, illustrating an improved financial position.

Table 6-4 reflects the financial operating profile for the Simcoe Adult Community Centre for the 2011 to 2013 period.

Table 6-4: Simcoe Adult Community Centre 2011 to 2013 Financial Operating Profile

2011 2012 2013


Fees 13,572 45.4 8,462 34.2 9,012 35.6


Total Revenues 29,904 24,762 25,312

Expenditures

Salaries 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0


Services 12,356 25.0 9,101 18.6 7,985 17.7


Total Expenditures 49,522 48,882 45,006

Net Position ‐19,618 ‐24,120 ‐19,694

Revenues have been fairly consistent in the $25,000 range, of which fees have typically constituted just over one third of revenues in the last two years.

From an expenditures perspective, there are no salaries and materials. Supplies constituted 50% of the cost structure.

The operating costs have been relatively constant in the $48,000 range, though they have gone down each of the three years from $49,000 to $45,000. The net operating deficit has been variable from a high of $24,000 in 2012 to 2013 being $19,000.

Each of these three facilities within the feasibility component of the Master Plan, have net operating deficit outcomes. The most significant is the Simcoe Recreation Centre with a net operating deficit of $706,000 a



year. Talbot Gardens has experienced declining net deficits, now being in about the $239,000 range, which could be a slight anomaly due to one-time revenues in that year. The Simcoe Adult Community Centre has typically had a consistent operating deficit of $20,000 a year with no staff costs.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Table 6-5 examines the proposed capital expenditures by the County of Norfolk for Community Services for the years 2011 to 2013.

Table 6-5: 2011 to 2013 Parks and Recreation Capital Program

2011 2012 2013

Cemetery 50,000

Lakeview Park Playground

Waterford Arena 30,000

Heat Recovery 25,000

VRA 40,000

Simcoe Recreation Centre Arena 120,000

Delhi Arena

Signage 60,000

Parking 70,000

Doors 10,000

Fire 25,000

Langton

Ceiling 30,000

Parks 58,000

Compressor 70,000

Talbot Gardens

Compressor 80,000 50,000

Flooring 95,000

Seating and Score Board 190,000

Ice Resurface 80,000

Fire & Life Safety 50,000

Port Dover Arena

Compressor 50,000 65,000

Refrigeration Plant 30,000

Seating and Score Board 40,000

Parking 55,000



Lions Pavilion 25,000

Walsh Hall 90,000

Vittoria Community Centre Parking

Community Centre Parking

205,000

Forestry Master Plan 100,000

Simcoe Youth Soccer 205,000

New Park 50,000

Steel Town 100,000

Skateboard 150,000 50,000

St. Williams Roof 11,000

Quance Dam 50,000 510,000

Woodhouse Playground 35,000

Golden Gardens Playground 35,000

Trails 50,000

Playground Replacement 50,000

Port Rowan Waterfront 340,000

Wellington Waterway 100,000 25,000

Simcoe Lions Pavilion 40,000

Equipment Purchases 15,000

Total Capital 510,000 2,076,000 1,023,000

In total, approximately $510,000 was planned to be spent in 2011, just over $2 million in 2012 and $1 million in 2013.

The following highlights are identified:

In 2011, the dominant expenditures were for the arenas, representing all the capital investments except for $50,000 for Quance Dam.

In 2013, significant expenditures were identified for a host of venues, with significant investment in parks, playgrounds, a new skateboard board, Quance Dam at $510,000, the Port Rowan Waterfront at $340,000 and the Wellington Park Waterway at $100,000. The arenas had continuing investment at over $300,000.

In 2013, major investments were made in the Vittoria & District Community Centre for parking at $205,000, a steel tower at $100,000, playground equipment replacement and trails at $50,000 each, and the Walsh Hall at $90,000, with arenas continuing to receive significant investments.

Table 6-6 examines the Capital Plan Forecast for 2014 to 2023 for Community Services. In total, $3.4 million is identified with the following focuses:

$500,000 for playground replacement, $420,000 for spectator areas, $442,000 for ice resurfaces and $330,000 for dredging, along with $195,000 for other costs and $140,000 for administration.

Building upgrades, both exterior and interior, are identified at $254,000, with parking lots receiving potential $125,000.



The proposed capital program covers ten years at approximately $340,000 per year across a significant range of possible applications. Some of the unique areas involve dredging and bird handling. The County of Norfolk is continuing programs on an annualized basis for playground replacement to reflect changing Canadian Standards Association requirements, as well as investment in trails at $150,000.

The year 2015 represents the most significant investment year, totaling over $900,000, or approximately 30% of the proposed capital funding.

No capital funds are allocated for any major new initiatives, with most of the proposed funding focusing on existing infrastructure, enhancements, and related needs.



Table 6-6: County of Norfolk - 2014 to 2023 Capital Plan for Community Services

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Projection

Administration 20,000 100,000 20,000 140,000

Interior Building Upgrades 25,000 55,000 15,000 95,000

Exterior Building Upgrades 25,000 76,000 58,000 159,000

Parking 55,000 70,000 125,000

Flooring 90,000 90,000

Kitchen 30,000 30,000

Refrigeration 190,000 200,000 40,000 85,000 55,000 570,000

Spectator Areas 300,000 120,000 420,000

Ice Resurfaces 84,000 87,000 88,000 91,000 92,000 442,000

Playground Replacement 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000

Steel Light Tower 90,000 90,000

Dredging 65,000 35,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 5,000 50,000 50,000 330,000

Bird Handling 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 70,000

Trails 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000

Other 105,000 65,000 25,000 195,000

Total 559,000 1,026,000 480,000 238,000 415,000 251,000 227,000 110,000 50,000 50,000 3,406,000



CAPITAL FUNDING RESOURCES Capital funds relative to non-debt-based municipal resources include:

Parkland Reserve Fund

The Parks and Recreation Development Charges Reserve Fund

General Capital or Replacement Reserve Fund which is for all municipal capital equipment and the General Building Reserve Fund which is for municipal buildings.

Table 6-7 examines the 2013 to 2024 forecast for the Parkland Reserve Funds which are funds received as cash-in-lieu for parkland from developers. The figures denote sources as well as uses proposed for each year through the lifecycle.

Table 6-7: Parkland Reserve Fund

Sources Uses

Year Opening Balance

Developer Contributions

Interest Earned Capital Commitments

Interest Charged

Closing Balance

2013 167,392 5,950 2,525 (47,673) (743) 127,451

2014 127,451 1,749 (40,000) 89,200

2015 89,200 1,784 0 90,984

2016 90,984 220 (80,000) 11,204

2017 11,203 224 0 11,427

2018 11,428 229 0 11,657

2019 11,666 133 (5,000) 6,799

2020 6,789 136 0 6,925

2021 6,925 138 0 7,063

2022 7,063 141 0 7,204

2023 7,205 144 0 7,349

2024 7,349 147 0 7,496

In 2013, the Parkland Reserve Fund had an opening balance of $167,392. The only allocations identified from developer contributions were for 2013, after which the only other revenues are interest earned. Based on planned expenditures over the period, this fund would be relatively depleted by 2024, with a projected balance of approximately $7,400.

Starting in 2015, the fund would be in the order of $89,000 with a major capital allocation scheduled for 2016 and a smaller one in 2019. As a result, unless there is a significant inflow of developer



contributions, this fund will have limited resources available to support any new capital initiatives recommended within the Master Plan.

Table 6-8 identifies the projected Parks and Recreation Development Charges Reserve Fund which are funds secured for new parks and recreation purposes via the Development Charges Bylaw to support population growth.

Table 6-8: Parks & Recreation Development Charges Reserve Fund

Sources Uses


Developer Contributions

Interest Earned Capital Commitments

Interest Charged

Closing Balance

2013 335,932 123,373 4,440 (58,247) 405,498

2014 405,498 173,900 8,433 (157,761) 430,070

2015 430,070 178,700 11,415 (38,000) 582,185

2016 582,185 182,100 (1,868,000) (22,074) (1,125,789)

2017 (1,125,789) 214,800 (1,000) (18,240) (930,229)

2018 (930,229) 221,000 (1,000) (14,205) (724,434)

2019 (724,434) 226,900 (9,951) (507,485)

2020 (507,484) 233,600 (5,478) (279,362)

2021 (279,362) 240,600 (775) (39,537)

2022 (39,537) 252,100 4,251 216,814

2023 216,814 259,600 9,528 485,942

2024 485,942 264,800 15,015 765,757

Developer contributions are identified each year, from a high of $264,800 in 2024 to a low of $123,373 in 2013. The forecast anticipates a fairly consistent level of residential development with growth particularly from 2017 to 2024.

The overall work program identifies capital commitments in each of the years from 2013 to 2018 with the most significant commitment being $1.868 million in 2016. There are no commitments identified after 2019.

This reserve fund is forecasted to grow from $405,498 in 2013 to $765,757 by 2024. Therefore, this fund does represent some opportunity for investment funds in new initiatives via the Master Plan recommendations if new residential development is sustained at the proposed levels and only for growth related applications.



Table 6-9 reflects the profile for the General Capital Reserve Fund which has annually contributed funds from the municipal levy to support operating budgets, which then fund the replacement of general capital equipment.

Table 6-9: General Capital Replacement Reserve

Sources Uses


Recoveries Capital Commitments

Closing Balance

2013 300,152 2,461 (706,422) (403,809)

2014 (403,808) (650,741) (1,054,549)

2015 (1,054,549) (1,075,000) (2,129,549)

2016 (2,129,549) (643,000) (2,772,549)

2017 (2,772,549) (556,000) (3,328,549)

2018 (3,328,549) (197,000) (3,525,549)

2019 (3,525,549) (484,000) (4,009,549)

2020 (4,009,549) (720,000) (4,729,549)

2021 (4,729,549) (247,000) (4,976,549)

2022 (4,976,549) (384,000) (5,360,549)

2023 (5,360,549) (263,000) (5,623,549)

2024 (563,549) (269,000) (832,549)

In 2013, there was an opening balance of $300,152. However, the fund is identified to be in a negative deficit position for every year through the lifecycle, from a $403,808 deficit in 2013 to a $5,892,549 deficit in 2024. This reflects the impact of aging equipment across the County and the need to make significant investments each year beyond just parks and recreation considerations.

Table 6-10 profiles the General Building Reserve Fund which is the annual contribution from the municipal levy that supports the operating budget to fund replacements, major repairs and renovations to County buildings for 2013 to 2024.



Table 6-10: General Building Reserve

Sources Uses


Levy Contributions

Capital Contributions

Recoveries Capital Commitments

Closing Balance

2013 1,561,380 2,126,812 53,850 2,198,852 1,543,190

2014 1,543,191 1,710,100 (3,669,673) (416,382)

2015 (416,838) 1,744,300 (1,670,000) (342,538)

2016 (342,083) 1,779,200 (1,502,000) (64,883)

2017 (64,883) 1,814,800 (1,277,000) 472,917

2018 472,917 1,851,100 (1,061,000) 1,263,017

2019 1,263,017 188,100 (1,211,000) 240,117

2020 1,940,117 1,925,900 (1,737,000) 2,129,017

2021 2,129,017 1,964,400 (1,345,000) 2,748,417

2022 2,748,714 2,003,700 (1,300,000) 3,452,414

2023 3,452,117 2,043,800 (1,245,000) 4,250,917

2024 4,250,917 2,084,700 (1,315,000) 5,020,617

In 2013, there was $1.561 million in the fund. This is anticipated to grow to $4.25 million by 2024. There is an annualized levy contribution for each year. There are annualized commitments proposed that range from a high $3.669 million in 2014 to a low of $1.061 million in 2018. It is projected that this fund will have a balance of approximately $5.020 million in 2024.

Some recreation buildings, relative to major upgrades and renovations only, could potentially be sourced from this fund.

SUMMARY The County of Norfolk is expending just under $10 million a year on Parks and Recreation services as its direct operating contributions beyond what not-for-profit, private and other providers of parks and recreation services deliver. The County is contributing, in 2013, $107.05 per person which has increased each year over the last three years. From the general levy and related sources, the annualized net investments have reached $6.766 million which have also increased each year.

The pools, arenas, parks, cemeteries and administration represent the most significant points of investment and have the largest net operating deficits.

The coverage ratio, which reflects revenues over expenditures, is relatively balanced between Recreation as well as Parks and Facilities, generally covering approximately 30% of annual operating costs.



From a capital expenditures perspective, the County has an ongoing capital plan covering ten years. Significant contributions are made from various reserve funds, along with Development Charges and Parkland Dedication Funds. The focus of the proposed capital investments and revenues identified, are continuing to upgrade and enhance existing parks and recreation infrastructure with limited opportunities for new initiatives.



7.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement is an important component to the master plan process. To this end, the consulting team met with 22 groups. Internal stakeholders included council, senior management, department management, supervisors, lead hands, front line and program staff. External stakeholders included private recreation providers, tourism, BIAs, trail committees, arts and culture, aquatics, ice users, seniors, sports users and youth. Two Community Workshops and an on-line Community Survey were conducted to obtain the general public’s feedback.

The following is a summary of the key themes arising from all community engagement groups. A complete summary of each Focus Group, Public Workshop and a Public Questionnaire is found in Appendix B.

FOCUS GROUPS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS There were four questions asked at the various Focus Group sessions. They are:

I. When you look at Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation today in Norfolk, in your perspective, what is working well? What are the strengths?

II. What is not working in Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation that needs to be addressed? Gaps in service? Other concerns and issues?

III. Looking ahead 10 years, what is going to be different in trends and changes in Norfolk that we need to start planning for?

IV. What do you think are the priority needs of Norfolk community in the next … 5 years, 5 - 10 years and 10+ years?

WHAT IS WORKING:

Community Identity – There was a strong sense of community pride with several small centres having something to provide for the overall good of the bigger picture;

Outdoor Facilities – There is a diversity of sports opportunities with a good distribution of facilities throughout the County. Ball diamonds and soccer pitches are well used and the conditions are favourable;

Indoor Facilities – Six arenas are well supported throughout the communities. Similar favourable comments were made with regards to the Annaleise Carr Aquatic Centre;

Service Delivery – There was favourable agreement to the quality of care in regards to maintenance and customer service. Staff was noted to be experienced and accessible with a wide variety of customer service stations. The County is recognized for being responsive to the changing demographics as recreation programming is evolving to meet the needs of the community;

Volunteerism – Individuals, community partners and service clubs were acknowledged for their contribution and value to the community, and

Trails & Natural Assets – Passive and active recreation opportunities are available through the strong focus on natural heritage. Many parks have a natural environmental component, including



forests and waterways. Trails are built along hydro corridors and abandoned railways allowing for connectivity to downtown areas as well as from one community to the next.

MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Indoor Facilities – The aging arena facilities have accessibility barriers as well as repair and on-going maintenance issues. The aquatics centre does not handle the demand of the community, is short staffed and does not have adequate storage space. The lack of an indoor facility for year-round soccer and walking is an issue;

Outdoor Facilities – The maintenance is not consistently of good quality. Some ballparks are under-utilized. Additional washrooms and storage facilities are needed;

Parks and Playgrounds – Park space is under-utilized in some areas. Aging playgrounds present safety, maintenance and accessibility concerns;

Volunteer Sustainability – The attrition rate of volunteers is a concern, as aging volunteers are not being replaced by younger cohorts. Volunteer burnout rate is starting to take a toll on the community sports programs;

Water-Based Recreation – The access to waterfronts is poor and beaches could profit from improved maintenance, and

Service Delivery – The concerns were broken down into the following concerns:

Administration/Communication: There does not seem to be a clear line of responsibility, nor communication between departments and from top to bottom;

Maintenance: Litter, graffiti and waterfowl issues are a concern in parks and trails;

Marketing & Promotion: Improved marketing of existing activities and/or recreation opportunities, as well as updated communication methods are desired. Dedicated web-sites, Facebook and Twitter are 3 avenues that would improve communication;

Programming: The facility booking system has potential for improvement. Organizations are required to give 72 hours’ notice of cancellation, however that available ice time is not being advertised or offered to other groups.

FUTURE TRENDS

Demographics – An aging population with an influx of seniors and a decline in youth will change the dynamics in the provision of recreation. A demand for more passive recreation will be balanced with more adventurous / risk taking activities;

Outdoor Facilities – There will need to be a balance of tennis, pickleball and multi-use courts, depending on the demand. Soccer is expected to increase while ball will decline;

Indoor Facilities – There will be a decline in arena users with more attention to multi-use facilities. Any multi-use facility should keep in mind summer sports used during winter months as well as non-competitive recreation opportunities.



Trails – The continued interest in the County’s trail system will see additional trails being built, with the potential for year-round use, rest areas and exercise stations included in the design, and

Service Delivery – Programming for an older age group, who have higher expectations than their predecessors, and is affordable will balance the traditional youth activities. Social media will be key to getting the message out to all age groups.

TOP PRIORITIES

Planning for the Future – Identify what the needs are and the capacity to maintain. Model success stories from other municipalities.

Multi-use Facility – One facility will maximize a number of recreation elements, including year round ice, soccer, walking, etc. Working with residents and community groups from all areas of the County will improve the likelihood of an inclusive plan that works for everyone. The facility should acknowledge the aging population and accessibility issues.

Outdoor Facilities – A full size soccer pitch with lights and irrigation, as well as a T-ball diamond in Port Dover as the priorities of the outdoor user groups.

Parks & Open Spaces – Better utilization of park space and beautification elements will be a focus.

Trails – Maintaining the current inventory and continued efforts towards linking neighbourhoods and communities is key. Rest stations and exercise elements should be considered in the new trail development.

COMMUNITY SURVEY There were 91 responses to the on-line community survey. A percentage of the total respondents are added to the comments where relevant. The following is a summary of the comments received:

PARKS AND OPEN SPACES Respondents frequently visited parks in the County of Norfolk (70% for adults and 69% for children). Beaches were rated very important (63%) to the community more than any other outdoor amenity. Suggestions for improvement included:

Enhanced opportunities for fishing and bird watching, More spaces for families to gather with proper amenities like washrooms, picnic tables and

running water, Enhance Wellington Park, and More flowers and native plant species.

There was mixed feedback on dog parks: some respondents described excellent signage and fencing while others felt the dog parks are problematic and not being properly cleaned.

TRAILS Trails were rated the highest among the program and facilities in the questionnaire, with 68% of respondents rating them as excellent or good. Many respondents provided positive feedback about the existing trail system, including appreciation of improved trail surfaces. Suggestions for improvement included:

More amenities like washrooms, drinking fountains and more signage, The need for on-going maintenance,



Security issues, and Trail improvements needed behind Owen Street.

INDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES (ARENAS, POOLS) Arenas were the most frequently used facility in the County (74% for adults and 89% for children). Many respondents made positive comments about the arenas, including they play an important role in the community and provide recreation opportunities for both adults and children in the winter. Use of the different arenas was distributed fairly evenly. Suggestions for improvement included:

Aging facilities, specifically Talbot Gardens and Recreation Centre Arena, Difficulty booking ice time (see Service Delivery below), Lack of ice time in the spring and summer, and Better utilization of areas in the summer months, for example, ball hockey and lacrosse.

The Simcoe aquatic centre is quite popular (93.3%). However, the pool is rated lower than other indoor facilities, with 36% of respondents rating it fair or poor and respondents expressed the need for improved pool facilities. Suggestions for improvement include:

Increased operating hours, especially for adult swim times, An indoor, multi-use facility that includes a pool and facilities for additional indoor sports.

OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES (BALL DIAMONDS, OUTDOOR POOLS, SKATEPARKS) Ball diamonds are used more frequently by children than adults (82%). One respondent, a baseball tournament convener, turned away 20-24 baseball teams in Simcoe and suggested building another full sized diamond in Simcoe. Although few comments were made about ball diamonds, suggestions for improvements included:

Improved maintenance, A new full sized diamond with pitching mound and lights, and Facilities for winter baseball.

Other outdoor recreation facilities mentioned include the splash pads in Delhi and Simcoe (excellent for parents with small children), tennis courts and skateboard parks. Tennis courts and pickle ball courts were rated poor or fair (39%).

COMMUNITY HALLS, SENIOR CENTRES These facilities were used frequently (67% for adults and 45% for children) and many respondents rated them as very important. Respondents rated the Langton Community Hall as very important (36%) to the community. Comments made include:

Community Halls play a vital role in rural communities, and Community Halls are in need of updating.

PROGRAMMING (COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES) Programs and facilities for adults 18 to 64 were rated most highly at excellent or good (35%). Programming and facilities were rated fair or poor (35%) for teens aged 13 to 17. Similarly, people with disabilities or special needs rated programming and facilities as fair or poor (27%). Additional comments mentioned lack of programming for children, teens and seniors. The Early Years Program was mentioned as a successful program for children.



A number of respondents liked the variety of programs available throughout the winter and summer. Hockey was emphasized as an important activity in the community for both children and adults. Others noted that certain communities lack the programs and facilities that are available in Simcoe, for example, Port Rowan, Delhi and Waterford.

SERVICE DELIVERY (FEES, STAFFING ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS) Positive comments were made about service delivery including accessibility of local programs and helpful, friendly personnel. Suggestions for improvements included:

High fees, Better communication, Difficulty of booking ice time (late allotments given make it difficult to advertise and organize

and difficulty booking on short notice), and Lack of sufficient operating hours for pools; more adult swim times in the late afternoon

and evening are needed.

FUTURE OF PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES By far the biggest concern raised about the future of programs was related to changes in the population such as an aging population (increased need for accessibility) and population growth (pressure on existing facilities). Affordable participation was also mentioned as a potential challenge in the future. The top priorities for parks, facilities and recreation services over the next 5 to 10 years were noted as improved facilities and maintenance of facilities, including respondents who suggested building a multi-purpose sports complex (24%) and improved arena facilities and operations (18%).



8.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW In recent years Norfolk County has undertaken studies and reviews pertaining to the delivery of recreation and leisure services. Many of these documents reflect significant community consultation, others are planning and policy oriented, while some also include research and technical documentation. Combined, these documents provide insight into the recreation and leisure services delivery as well as establishing the foundation for the development of the Norfolk County Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan.

The following documents are summarized with comments as they relate to Parks, Facilities and Recreation.

DRAFT NORFOLK COUNTY CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 2015 - 2019 The County undertook a review of its Corporate Strategic Plan, through Millier Dickenson Blais, with a focus on promoting and addressing the broader range of opportunities and quality of life for its citizens.

The strategic plan had two purposes:

Clearly define a common vision for the community that will define the success of Norfolk County and its diverse communities, and

Provide Council and staff with a framework for decision making.

The Plan prioritizes the key programs, services and initiatives based on the needs, values and aspirations of community members, while balancing the service delivery realities of managing the County. The community provided input to this Plan through a community engagement process that included on-line surveys, phone interviews and group facilitation.

Five key priorities were identified through the consultation process as being critical to the success in making the corporate vision a reality:

Economic Competitiveness

Improved Access and Business Supports

Improved Community Services

Youth Retention

Championing Culture

Council and Senior Staff reviewed the highlights of the community consultation to inform the corporate mission, vision, priorities, goals and objectives, the results are as follows:

Norfolk County Mission – the reason the Corporation exists:

Working together with our community to provide quality service.

Norfolk County Vision – represents the desired future state of the County:



The Norfolk County way of life is rooted in our natural environment, unique sense of space and community, business diversity and confidence and collaboration to achieve results and adapt to changes we encounter.

Key Success Indicators – measure the corporation’s success in achieving the vision:

Increased community pride,

Financial sustainability,

Supporting healthy lifestyles,

Increased employment opportunities,

Career employment for youth, and

Reasonable, affordable and actionable plans.

Key Principles – reflect the needs, values, aspirations and goals of the community, and will guide Council and staff in everything they do:

Accountability and ownership,

Dedication and commitment,

Value or money (efficient, effective, economical),

Mutual respect, and

Collaboration.

Corporate Goals and Objectives:

Financial sustainability and fiscal responsibility;

o Tax arrears situation is under control,

o Meeting the aims of our investment strategy,

o Reserve funds strategy in place and we are meeting objectives,

o Province’s cost of development model has been adapted,

o Improved audit and financial reporting, and

o Credit rating has been maintained or improved.

Improved essential infrastructure;

o Asset management plan completed,

o Master plans completed and Council approved, and

o Ten year capital plan annually updated and improved (prioritized, defendable, affordable).

Recruitment and succession management of county staff, as well as;

o Succession plan in place for all leadership positions,



o Total compensation packages are competitive with comparable communities,

o Knowledge transfer strategy for all leadership functions (including phased-in retirement, etc.), and

o Realignment process in place as a result of BPR (includes redeployment, etc.).

Corporate communications strategy;

o Communications strategy in place,

o Structure and resources are allocated to do this, and

o Regular, consistent message coming out from the County.

NORFOLK COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTION STUDY, 2014 This report presents long-term forecasts of population, housing and employment prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The forecast has been prepared County-wide and by urban area from 2011 to a 2031 and 2041 horizon providing, a basis for planning as well as taking a longer view of anticipated growth and change in the County.

This study has been cited throughout this report. The following is a brief summary of its key findings.

POPULATION

The County has been growing modestly in population and housing over the last decade, with growth slowing over the 2006 to 2011 Census period;

Population is aging and is anticipated to continue, and

Housing growth has been outpacing growth in population, resulting in a decline of the average household size.

EMPLOYMENT

Employment declined over the last Census period amidst the recent recession and a shifting economy away from manufacturing;

Future employment will most likely take place in population serving industries, and

A steady recovery from the recent decline is anticipated by 2031 with total employment growing from 22,850 in 2011 to 24,250 in 2031 and 25,580 in 2041.

FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH

Owing to the aging population trend, the future population growth will come from migration into the County;

Middle and older aged residents from urban centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region will be the most notable,

The migration of older aged residents will partly compensate for the continued out-migration of young adults, and



Continued growth is forecasted with a population of 70,000 in 2031 and 71,300 in 2041.

HOUSEHOLD GROWTH

The household base of 25,000 in 2011 is anticipated to grow to 28,500 in 2031 and 30,500 in 2041.

DEVELOPMENT

Future growth and development will occur in the urban areas which have accounted for 70% of Norfolk’s growth since the 2001 amalgamation, and

Rural areas will continue to see housing growth over the next two decades, however they will experience a net decline in population due to the declining average household size.

LAND SUPPLY

There are sufficient designated residential lands to accommodate the projected population growth and associated population-related employment within the urban areas, and

There is a limited supply of lands to accommodate growth in traditional industrial-type employment.

NORFOLK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY, 2014 Hemson Consulting Ltd. conducted this study that calculates the development charges in compliance with the provisions of the Development Charges Act, 1997. The principle behind the Act is that growth should pay for growth. Therefore the new homeowners, of newly constructed homes, will pay for the necessary infrastructure they require to live there. Infrastructure costs include hard services – fire, parking, water, wastewater and roads, as well as soft services – libraries and recreation. The purpose of the Background Study is to outline the estimated amount, type and location of development within a municipality, and the related calculations of how the new development will affect municipal services. Examples of recreation infrastructure costs are new buildings (i.e. community centre, arena), parkland, playgrounds, furniture and equipment.

The Study determined a county-wide uniform charge approach to align growth-related costs and benefits, as opposed to individual community approach. The exception is rural communities where water and wastewater services do not occur. The study determines the growth-related net capital costs which are attributed to development that is forecast to occur. These costs are then apportioned among various types of development (residential, non-residential) that reflects the increase in the need for each service that is attributed to new development.

The following is a summary of the Study’s findings with specific mention to recreation and marina infrastructure.



GROWTH PROJECTION

There are two planning periods – 2014 to 2023 and 2014 to 2031;

The County’s population is expected to increase by approximately 2,160 over the 2014 to 2023 period:

o Total projected population by 2023 – 65,531, representing an additional 1,707 housing units over a 10 year period,

o Total projected population by 2031 – 68,342, representing and additional 3,168 housing units over a 10 year period.

The County’s employment forecast is projected to add 860 new employees by 2023 and 1,170 new employees by 2026.

DEVELOPMENT RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST FOR GENERAL SERVICES

The gross cost of the County’s capital forecast is estimated at $16.9 million.

$6,400,000 (38%) is related to the provision of Recreation infrastructure;

$3,400,000 (20%) is related to the Library;

$3,300,000 (19%) is related to Fire Protection facilities, vehicles and equipment;

$2,00,000 (12%) is for Marina expansion;

$968,000 (6%) is for development related studies;

$545,000 (5%) is for Ambulance Services, and

$274,000 (2%) is for parking expansion.

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY UNIT TYPE

Residential development charges are proposed to vary by dwelling type to reflect their different occupancy. Recreation and Marinas are reflected in this calculation as follows:

Bachelor and one bedroom apartments;

o Recreation - $458/unit,

o Marinas - $134/unit.

Two plus bedroom apartments;



Multiple units, and



Single and semi-detached units.



o Recreation - $1,262/unit,


PROJECTED NET OPERATING COSTS The net operating costs are associated with the planned capital projects. The net operating costs are estimated to increase by about $692,000 from 2014 to 2023. The most significant portion of this increase is related to new road projects and the expansion of recreation and fire facilities. Recreation related operating cost impacts over this time frame is $143,100 and Marinas is $9,000.

LOCAL SERVICE GUIDELINES - PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT Local service guidelines are general principles established to determine the capital costs eligible for inclusion in the County’s development charges calculations. The services deemed local in nature are not to be included in the determination of the development charges rates. They are instead considered to be a direct responsibility of the developer. Local service definitions address services such as roads and related services, water, wastewater, stormwater management and parkland development.

For the purpose of parkland development, local services require the developer to undertake preparation of the park plan, retaining necessary consultants to prepare design and grading plans for the park, prior to development. The responsibilities also include stripping and stockpiling, leveling, topsoiling, seeding and stormwater servicing, fencing the property perimeter, provide municipal water and wastewater to the lot line. The developer is also required to dedicate parkland or provide cash-in-lieu, consistent with the Planning Act.

Other parkland development components are included in the development charges calculation. The components include parking, park furniture, signage, landscaping and walkways, multi-purpose trails and trail bridges and underpasses, as well as the necessary fields, diamonds, playground equipment, lighting, irrigation and field houses.

PORT DOVER HARBOUR MARINA BUSINESS PLAN, 2014 Norfolk County contracted Marina Management Services, Inc. to develop a business plan for the Port Dover Harbour Marina, with the objective for the marina to achieve its full economic potential and satisfy community needs. The following information highlights the recommendations that relate specifically to Parks, Facilities and Recreation.

The study revealed that close to 63% of boat owners who dock at the Port Dover marina reside outside of Norfolk County. The majority of boaters are over the age of 45. The study further suggests there are two windows of opportunity – land side that attracts non boaters to the waterfront, and waterside relating to attracting boaters. In both cases the objective is to enhance the public’s experience so that they stay longer.



RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Creating an official spur route directing tourists and other individuals traveling the Lake Erie Circle Tour.

Tourism opportunities exist on the land side by creating an official spur route directing tourists who are travelling the Great Lakes Circle Tour – a 6,500 mile (10,500 KM) designated, scenic road system connecting all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The spur would direct travelers off the main Highway 3 route, through lakefront communities such as Port Dover and Port Rowan.

2. Advertising in cruising guide books to attract more boating transient customers with content promoting the marina and what the community of Port Dover has to offer.

The location of the Port Dover Harbour Marina is ideally located on the northern shore of Lake Erie. This location is near the boating route which takes the boaters to the Welland Canal entrance in Port Colborne and the Erie Canal entrance near Buffalo. A cruising guide book is often used by boaters transiting the areas or using the canals located on the east end of Lake Erie. The guides have a long shelf life with boaters using their cruising guide books for a number of years. These guides will often promote marinas that advertise in their books. Marketing initiatives should promote and address the following:

Excellent location adjoining the downtown and access to Lake Erie; Low costs; Services and amenities offered; Efforts to attract younger boat owners and families; Promote to other ports on the east end of Lake Erie, and Promote to boaters using the Welland Canal and Erie Canal.

3. Enhancing the land side approach to provide better community access to the marina.

An improved amenity package would draw the community and land side visitors to the marina. The improved amenity package includes:

Enhance community access to the waterfront; o Develop an inviting land side entrance to the marina; o Build an event centre in a park setting with a pavilion designed to handle both

public and private events; o Add picnic tables and barbeque grills; o Improve traffic flow patterns and designated event parking areas, and o Create green areas and landscaping for a more park like setting.



4. Enhancing the lake side approach to provide better access to the downtown area of Port Dover from the marina as well as providing on-site amenities.

Transient boaters want to know what there is to do while they are at the Port Dover Harbour Marina.

Create a destination friendly experience for transient boaters; o Transportation oriented access:

Enhance access to the downtown area through sidewalks, bicycle paths; Providing a shuttle bus service, and Constructing a pedestrian bridge across Black Creek to the downtown

area. o Establish on-site food service through entrepreneurial means; o Provide clean restrooms and showers; o Provide picnic facilities in a park like setting, and o Develop green space in the form of lawns and landscaping.

5. Conducting capital funding improvements in the form of:

Administrative Buildings; Dredging; Resurface roadways and parking areas; Dock maintenance; Launch ramp Straddle lift well Straddle lift Enhancing community access to the waterfront, and Creating a destination friendly experience for transient boaters.

6. Conducting operating Improvements and adjustments in the form of:

Environmental issues; o Geese; o Aquatic plants; o Recycling efforts; o High pressure wash-down, and o Water reclamation and recycling system.

Security; o Lighting; o Security plan, and o Perimeter fencing.

Fire protection; o Fire plan; o Dedicated fire main, and o Better access to Dock 6.

Fuel Pier; Dock facility preventive maintenance checklist;



Improve winter storage facilities o Security; o Utilities; o Exposure to elements, and o Year-round program.

Food service; Marine supply store; Fishing;

o Bait shop, and o Fish cleaning area.

Hydro electric; Dock #6, and Wireless Internet.

PORT ROWAN HARBOUR MARINA BUSINESS PLAN, 2014 Norfolk County contracted Marina Management Services, Inc. to develop a business plan for the Port Rowan Harbour Marina, with the objective for the marina to achieve its full economic potential and satisfy community needs. The following information highlights the recommendations that relate specifically to Parks, Facilities and Recreation.

Although the Port Rowan Harbour Marina is not seen as a viable business operation, it does have a positive alternative that would enhance the entire local community and make the waterfront a popular draw for tourists and the local residents. Port Rowan is a historic community and the boathouses located at the marina add to its unique charm. Focusing on the historical aspects of the community will attract land side tourism with the harbour being a major focal point. Boaters are not coming to Port Rowan because of a marina, but for what the community has to offer. The Harbour is an amenity to that purpose.

The Port Rowan Harbour Marina is a small marina with the majority of boaters coming from within Norfolk County. The majority of boaters are over the age of 45 and own small motor boats. The marina is seen as a place to gather, socialize and keep their boat.

Creating an environment to draw land side tourists to the waterfront will create an opportunity for entrepreneurs to develop water orientated businesses such as fishing charters, catamaran sailing and other water sports activities. The Long Point Lions community park is in an excellent position with the courtesy docking and charming boathouses as a backdrop. The park offers greenspace for special events, festivals and family picnics.



RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Creating an official spur route to the Great Lakes Circle Route;

See Port Dover Marina Business Plan.

2. Creating a strong marketing focus;

Target the day trip transient; Waterfront access in the historic community of Port Rowan; Water sports activities within the calm water of the Inner Bay and Long Point Bay; Attract young families; Community events, (Bay Fest), and Charm of the boathouses.

3. Enhancing community access;

Build up community access to the marina next to the adjoining historic downtown area; Add picnic tables and bar-b-que grills; Traffic flow patterns and parking areas, and Green areas and landscaping.

4. Focusing on historical aspects of the community to attract land side tourism with the harbour being a major focal point;

5. Establishing building codes designed to preserve the character of the boathouses original intended use;

6. Extending the boathouses the full length of the pier;

Removing public launch ramp so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic visiting the pier.

7. Capital improvements;

Dredging; o Minor maintenance dredging, and o Long term solution to minimize future dredging.

Marina expansion; o Place on hold until dredging solution is determined, and o Restroom expansion.

Launch ramp, and o Remove due to safety risk.

Enhancing community access to the waterfront.

8. Operating improvements.

Transient dockage;



o Reclassify existing transient slips into seasonal slips, and o Dedicate a wall or dock as a temporary tie-up for small visiting boats.

Environmental issues; o Control the goose population; o Clean up after the geese, and o Control aquatic plants.

Parking; o Remove large stones on existing parking areas; o Relocate the existing launch ramp, and create a parking area to the north side of

the North Channel. Security; Marked channel approach; Fire protection; Restrooms; Fishing, and

o Signage and fish cleaning area. Dock and facility preventative maintenance checklist.

NORFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY HALL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, 2011 An internal review of 15 community centres was conducted by the Community Services Department with subsequent reports going to Council in February 2013 (CSD 13-01) and a progress report in November 2013 (CSD 13-25). A previous review of the urban and rural communities was conducted in 2002.

The County inherited a number of facilities after Norfolk became a single tier municipality in 2001. The previous reviews noted that the community centres and halls were developed through community grass-roots initiatives, some dating back to the last quarter of the 19th century. They remain today as the symbolic heart of their respective communities, especially those in rural communities where schools and public buildings have been closed. A number of community activities are hosted at these facilities, as well as being home to community groups, such as Lions Clubs, Women’s Institute and Scouts. The management of the facilities fall under three types:

Department operated facilities with no management board, Management Boards appointed by Council and work with staff to operate, and Operated by others (Lions Club, Women’s Institute and Scouts)

The study purpose was to review the facilities in an effort to find efficiencies, effectiveness and overall economies in the delivery of a wide variety of programs. Issues such as under-utilization, operating costs and capital costs were considered.

The Management Strategy proposed four options as follows:

Status Quo – operate hall facilities as currently do; Turn facilities over to community groups/organizations;



Declare facilities as surplus and sell them on the open market, and Declare facilities surplus and demolish facilities if they cannot be sold.

Recommendations, pertaining to the individual halls, were presented to Norfolk Council in January 2013 with a two-phase management strategy process. Phase 1 implementation would occur within the 2013 budget year and Phase 2 would occur within the 2014 budget year. The individual hall recommendations from the February 2013 Council report, plus status updates from the November 2013 Council report, where applicable, are as follows:

Charlotteville Community Centre, Walsh

A new lease agreement could be established between the County and the Charlotteville Agricultural Society for the existing property and its buildings in Phase 1, and

If community is not interested in taking ownership of the facility, it could be declared surplus and demolished in Phase 1.

November 2013 status: pending discussions with Agricultural Society.

Courtland Community Centre

Remains in operation and be included in Phase 2.

Courtland Scout Hall

A lease agreement could be established between the County and the Courtland Lions Club in Phase 1.

Delhi Friendship Centre

Remains in operation and that a new lease agreement could be established between the County and the Delhi Senior Citizens Club in Phase 1.

November 2013 status: Lease agreement pending; members asking for staff assistance with financial reporting.

Langton Community Centre


Port Dover Kinsmen Scout Hut

Building be declared surplus and sold with the condition it has be removed from the Kinsmen Park or demolished in Phase 1.

November 2013 status: Usage and operating costs reviewed with new information coming forward; staff meeting with Kinsmen Club for potential lease agreement.

Port Dover Community Centre


Port Rowan Community Centre




St. Williams Community Centre


Simcoe Adult Community Centre

An alternate location should be researched to see if seniors group and arts and culture groups can be relocated to a more suitable location, and

Conditional to a suitable site being acquired for the facility users, the facility be considered surplus and the building sold on the open market in Phase 2.

South Walsingham Women’s Institute Hall

A financial plan should be developed that allows the Women’s Institute to assume full responsibility for the building and its operations, and

Should the community not be interested in taking ownership of this facility, it could be declared surplus and sold on the open market in Phase 1.

November 2013 status: A 99 year lease agreement exists (2066 expiry); discussions with members is ongoing.

Teeterville Women’s Institute Hall

Undergo a complete structural review and, if found structurally sound, be offered to the community to operate, and

Should the community not be interested in taking ownership of the facility, it could be declared surplus and sold on the open market in Phase 1.

November 2013 status: A visual structural review was undertaken with several repairs identified; washroom and rear entrance accessibility costs were identified.

Vittoria and District Community Centre


Vittoria Town Hall

Be offered to the community to operate, and Should the community not be interested in taking ownership of this facility it could be

declared surplus and sold on the open market. November 2013 status: Vittoria & District Foundation opted to continue with the status quo option.

Waterford Community Centre




NORFOLK COUNTY SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS, 2011 McSweeny & Associates prepared this study. It is a systematic collection and evaluation of past and present economic, political, social and technological data aimed at identifying internal and external forces that may influence the County’s performance, as well as choice of strategies and assessments of the County’s current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

This study has been sited throughout this report. The following is a brief summary of its key findings.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The County’s population is increasing, however the overall population is older than the province;

All average and median incomes have increased since 2000, however still lower than the province;

The percentage of the population making more than $60,000 increased significantly from 2000 to 2010 and was the largest income segment in 2010, however smaller than the provincial level;

The largest post-secondary field of study is architecture, engineering and related technologies, which is a larger percentage than the provincial level;

The percentage of residents who have a college, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma is higher than the province in 2011 (24.6% vs 22.1%);

The percentage of residents who have a high school certificate or equivalent or lower is significantly higher than that of Ontario (49.3% vs 38.2%);

The percentage of residents who have a university certificate or diploma is significantly lower than that of the province (13.2% vs 31.1%);

People moving to Norfolk County were more likely to be relocating from other parts of Ontario as opposed to moving from outside the province;

90% of residents only speak English;

Less than 4% of residents are bilingual (English and French), which is significantly lower than the provincial level (3.4% vs 11.3%), and

Norfolk has competitive housing prices with the average value of dwellings increased from $145,075 in 2001 to $264,140 in 2011. Housing prices are still lower than the provincial average in 2011 ($371,020) and the GTA average ($518, 915).

LABOUR FORCE

Participation and employment rates are lower than in the province;

The unemployment rate in the County is higher than that of the province in 2011 (9.3% vs 8.4%);

Compared to the province as a whole, there is a higher percentage of the labour force in the following occupations:



o Trades, transport and equipment operators

o Unique to primary industry

o Unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities

Compared to the province, a higher percentage of labour force in the County works in the following industries:

o Agriculture, forestry fishing and hunting

o Utilities

o Manufacturing

o Construction

39.4% of workers within the County commuted to work outside the County – mainly to Haldimand County, Tillsonburg and Brantford;

The County was a net ‘exporter’ of at least 10,005 employees to other communities, representing 33.4% of the labour force, and

Residents who commute to work outside the County work in all industries with the top two sectors being construction and manufacturing.

ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS

Employment in the agriculture sector is the only highly concentrated sector in the County;

Compared to Ontario and Canada, the sub-sectors with high employment concentrations were:

o Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing

o Electrical equipment, appliance and component manufacturing

o Food manufacturing

o Truck transportation

o Nursing and residential care facilities

Compared to Ontario and Canada, farms and dairy product manufacturing industries have high employment concentrations;

Compared to competing communities, employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting was the only sector with a higher concentration;

Norfolk had no unique concentrated employment sub-sectors in comparison to competing communities, and

Norfolk had a total of 1,525 farms and 115,031 hectares of farm land with rye, tobacco, sour cherries, apples and ginseng being the major hay and field crops; and sweet corn, cucumbers, asparagus, cabbage, squash/zucchini and peppers being the major vegetable crops.



NORFOLK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, 2011 The Norfolk County Tourism & Economic Development Division undertook this strategy development through McSweeney & Associates. The purpose of this study was to more effectively understand the local business community and identify new growth areas in key target sectors, as well as provide a platform to align the economic goals and objectives of the County and its partner communities under a common vision. Through a community consultation process, five specific priority themes were identified with associated key action areas. These are as follows: UNIFY THE COUNTY WITH A STRONG VISION AND DIRECTION

Undertake a holistic Community Strategy, Develop a long range Financial Plan (to fund priority actions), Develop a comprehensive Youth Engagement Initiative,

o Including youth specific place brand appeal, Youth Committee, entrepreneurship program, and youth retention and attraction strategy,

Support the Workforce Planning Board of Grand Erie in addressing education, skills, and labour issues.

MAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A COUNTY PRIORITY Establishing community champions to support implementation and drive change, Ensure balanced support of existing and emerging industries, Training and development of staff to foster increased collaboration, open for business

attitudes, appreciation of the importance and value of economic development for the community, and excellence in service,

Encourage collaboration of local and regional economic development partners.

STRENGTHEN THE COUNTY’S NETWORKING CAPACITY, INCREASE COLLABORATION AND GROW PARTNERSHIPS

Three targeted and focused annual industry events or conferences, Implement an annual Business Retention & Expansion visitation program, and Annual Economic Development Symposium and Entrepreneurship Forum.

PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE COUNTY’S TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIES

Ensure the continued support of the Agricultural Sector: o Supporting the Agricultural Advisory Board and conduct an annual Agricultural

Summit, o Includes partnering with industry associations (e.g., Ontario Fruit and Vegetable

Growers Association), research and educational institutes to support growth and development of new products and markets,

o Ensuring key innovation and commercialization enablers and research institutes remain intact and operational to support growth and diversification,

o Support existing post-secondary programming and pursue new programs focused on utilizing local agricultural products,

o Develop marketing and outreach strategies to promote value-added food processing opportunities, local foods, culinary opportunities, and agri-tourism.

Ensure the continued support of the Manufacturing Sector: o Ensure adequate shovel ready land supplies for development/expansion and an

online inventory,



o Strengthen internal and external transportation infrastructure and linkages, o Implement a structured, sector specific business visitation program, o Develop a County-wide manufacturers database, and o Incorporate an investment inquiry response system to service prospects

effectively.

NURTURE NORFOLK COUNTY’S EMERGING INDUSTRIES TO STRENGTHEN AND DIVERSIFY THE ECONOMY

Facilitate increased activity in the Tourism Sector by supporting new developments, increasing tourism infrastructure and focusing greater effort on product development:

o Develop and implement a long range, comprehensive Tourism Strategy, that incorporates agricultural initiatives, and

o Target five industry events and take on a leadership role in the Southwestern Ontario Tourism Corporation.

Grow and Strengthen the County’s Entrepreneurial base: o Increase collaboration with key public and private sector partners to plan a Norfolk

County Small Business Forum, o Review and revise the County’s by-laws on Home Based Businesses to support

small business, o Develop and promote a Youth Entrepreneurship Program, and o Partner with local/regional support agencies to develop promote and operate a

walk-in Entrepreneurship Centre to support existing efforts by the Norfolk District Business Development Centre (CFDC).

Foster increased opportunities in the Arts, Heritage, and Culture Industry: o Create and Coordinate a Norfolk County Arts Council; o Complete an Arts, Heritage & Cultural Strategy and Implementation Plan; o Perform a Cultural Asset Mapping exercise to better understand Norfolk’s

strengths; o Coordinate and align activities with Tourism and Agricultural initiatives, and o Update Norfolk’s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) in the Official Plan Review

to include opportunities and incentives that encourage a Creative Economy. Encourage Green Energy Industry opportunities:

o Support opportunities that capitalize on existing County strengths, such as “non-food” agricultural feed stocks, agricultural waste and by-products,

o Support a regional focus on green energy partnerships with SCOR and the Green Energy Hub, and

o Implement recommendations from Ontario’s Green Energy Hub - Green Economy Background Research and Grand Erie Competitiveness Study.

NORFOLK COUNTY TRAILS MASTER PLAN, 2009 The Community Services Department, through Jay Kivell and Associates, conducted this plan with the objective to provide a framework for future trails development throughout Norfolk County. The overall goal is that a county-wide trails system will integrate communities, parks, open space, on-road links and on-waterway links for the enjoyment of residents and tourists alike.

A summary of the plan and guiding principles is as follows:



Purpose – to promote a healthier lifestyle, an alternate mode of transportation and a commitment to the environment, through:

Linking communities, parks & destinations, Managing current & future trail assets, and Benefiting from a growing interest of multiple trail uses and opportunities.

Trails have traditionally been developed by the Community Trail Committees on utility corridors, in Conservation Authority tracts, abandoned railroad rights of way and in urban settings.

Future trail inventory identified along existing abandoned railway corridors:

North - TH&B Rail Road will connect to Brant County Trails

East – Concession Rd 14 & New Lakeshore Rd will link to Haldimand County trails

West – Lakeshore Rd will link to Elgin County

- Hwys 3 & 59 will link to Oxford County

The Master Plan identified nine guiding principles with accompanying strategic directions and recommendations. Each recommendation was given a time line based on available or budgeted resources and given a rating of high, medium or low with operating budget implications.

The following is a summary of the nine guiding principles and responding strategic directions:

Guiding Principles:

Guiding Principle 1 – Building Healthy Communities

The County and its trail partners will develop a trail network that promotes a healthy lifestyle, social interaction and four-season activities for all generations.

Strategic Directions:

Use the existing trail network to promote a healthy lifestyle for residents and visitors; Encourage activity for physical and mental well-being and social interaction with nature,

and Encourage the use of trails by all generations.

Guiding Principle 2 – Natural Heritage Values

The County and its trail partners will recognize the range of biodiversity of oak savanna, tall-prairie grasses, woodlots and wetlands and practice stewardship and sustainability when planning for and implementing trails.


Conserve and preserve the natural heritage values of the oak savanna, tall-prairie grasses, woodlots and wetlands;

Understand and minimize the impact of trail development in the oak savanna, tall-prairie grasses, woodlots and wetlands, and

Interpret and educate the users of the range of biodiversity of the oak savanna, tall-prairie grasses, woodlots and wetlands and their impact on the resource.

Guiding Principle 3 – Partnerships

The County will develop and enhance multiple partnerships with trail groups, service clubs, adjacent counties and others to plan for and implement tails.




Develop and enhance partnerships with the private sector, community groups, municipalities and provincial government agencies;

Jointly manage the resource with all partners, and Recognize and support the efforts of partners who develop and maintain trails.

Guiding Principle 4 – Connectivity

The County and its trail partners will make connecting trails between towns and villages within the county and to adjoining counties as a priority.


Connect neighbourhoods with urban and rural trails throughout the County; Link the County trails system to the Trans Canada Trail, and Link the County trails system to adjacent counties.

Guiding Principle 5 – Accessibility and Affordability

The County and its trail partners will endeavor to make trails reasonably accessible and affordable to all residents and visitors while recognizing the divergent uses and expectations.


Facilitate access to trail development where the need is the greatest; Provide trails for divergent uses where and when possible; Provide access to the lake Erie waterfront and rivers, and Eliminate barriers for persons with disabilities.

Guiding Principle 6 – Delivery System

The County will be the catalyst to facilitate trail development throughout the County.


Delegate authority to the Community Services Department to facilitate all County departments for all trail planning, development and maintenance;

Appoint Norfolk County Trail Committee to coordinate, lead development, maintain and promote the trails system, and

Operation and management of all trails will be facilitated by the Community Services Department in partnership with community and volunteers.

Guiding Principle 7 – Infrastructure

The County and its trail partners will develop strategies to acquire lands, raise funds, plan for, develop and maintain trails.


Provide capital and operating budgets for land acquisition, development and maintenance of trails;

Acquire lands for trail links, and Plan, develop and maintain trails.



Guiding Principle 8 – Safety and Security

The County and its trail partners will make safety a priority for all trails.


Due diligence will be practiced at all times; Tails standards will be adhered to for the development and maintenance of all trails, and Realistic compatibility of uses will be determined and practiced to protect all users and

adjoining landowners.

Guiding Principle 9 – Marketing and Promotion

The County and its partners will keep residents informed of trail opportunities and market and promote the County’s trails to visitors.


Develop trail guides and maps of the County’s trails; Market and promote the County’s trails as a four-season tourist destination, and Develop uniform signage for all trails.

NORFOLK COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN, 2006, AS AMENDED The County’s Development and Cultural Services, specifically the Community Planning Division (previously known as the Planning and Economic Development Services Department) prepared this plan. This document is a 20 year vision outlining long term objectives and policies of the County with respect to the growth and development of urban and rural communities; the protection of agricultural lands and the conservation of natural heritage areas; and the provision of the necessary infrastructure.

This document was cited throughout the Situational Analysis report. The following is a summary of the key components of the plan as it relates to parks and open spaces.

Norfolk’s growth management and settlement structure for the County is comprised of four interrelated parts:

Urban areas (6)

Hamlet areas (42)

Agricultural area

Lakeshore, including Resort areas (6)

The 2006 Norfolk County Official Plan, as amended (Official Plan) projected a population of 74,300 by 2026. However, the 2014 Norfolk County Population Projection Study indicates a population of just under 70,000 by 2031 is more likely.

In regards to parks and open space, the County’s policy is that they will incorporate in an open space, a natural heritage and recreational network that is integrated with open spaces throughout the County, and provides appropriate passive, natural and active areas. The urban Downtown Areas are recognized as the primary activity centres with a focus on a full range of uses, including culture, recreation and entertainment and opportunities. Linkages between the downtown areas and recreational trails shall be encouraged to foster pedestrian activity and encourage tourism in the downtown areas.



The Official Plan recognizes that parks and open spaces play an integral role in the provision and maintenance of a healthy community. The Official Plan identifies five specific park types as follows:

COMMUNITY PARKS

Community Parks are the largest type of park and serves the overall recreation needs of the individual community as well as the larger community of Norfolk. This park type often (but not always) consists of an arena, community hall, ball diamonds, soccer fields, a major playground and tennis courts. This profile is consistent with the rural communities of the County where the Community Park is often seen as the hub of social and recreational activity.

More specifically the Community Park attributes are as follows:

Designed to accommodate the social, cultural, educational and physical activities of particular interest to several neighbourhoods with emphasis for organized sports (indoor & outdoor);

General size is 6 to 10 hectares (minimum 1 ha / 1000 population or 2.47 ac / 1000);

Smaller areas can be used for passive recreation;

Located in a reasonable central manner to the service population and directly accessible by automobile and bicycle;

Service radius is 1.6 km or a 20 minute walk;

Frontage on a major traffic route is desirable allowing for off street parking;

Coordinated with secondary school sites where possible, and

Developed with focal points for organized and non-organized team sports, athletic activities and casual recreation, as follows:

Regulation size softball & baseball diamonds;

Soccer fields with night lighting;

Spectator facilities;

Major playgrounds;

Tennis courts, and

Visitor service centres.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS

Neighbourhood Parks are land designated within residential areas and are an important component of a healthy and active community.

More specifically Neighbourhood Park attributes include the following:

Designed to accommodate recreational needs of local residents;

Between 2 to 4 hectares in size (1 ha / 1000 population);

Service radius is 800 metres and a 10 minute walk;



Provide link to other neighbourhood uses;

Centrally located within safe and convenient walking distance of majority of neighbourhood residents – service radius of 800 m or a 10 minute walk;

Designed with extensive street frontage for visibility & safety;

Co-ordinate with elementary school sites where possible, and

Accommodate a variety of recreational facilities, including:

Junior sports fields (ball/soccer) – not lit;

Outdoor rinks;

Multi-purpose courts;

Playground equipment, paved areas for informal games;

Shaded areas for passive recreation;

Trails & pathways linking public uses – may be lit.

PARKETTES

Parkettes are the smallest type of park designation; due to being smaller in size, parkettes may include a smaller version of a playground, however typically they are left as open space.

More specifically a Parkette is described as follows:

Neighbourhood-based;

Up to .3 ha in size;

Development & maintenance should involve neighbourhood residents where possible, and

Does not form part of the parkland dedication.

LINKED OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM

The linked open space and natural heritage system includes trail systems with connectivity to existing parkland, community and town centres, as well as abandoned rail lines and existing rights-of-way. There is no set standard regarding size, but is more specific to the connectivity component of the park system. The creation of linked open space can be accomplished through the integration of:

Natural Heritage Features in public ownership (County, LPRCA, GRCA, Provincial and Federal Ministries and land trusts),

Abandoned rail lines in public ownership,

Existing rights-of-way,

Established and proposed service and utility corridors,



Existing parkland,

Linkages via draft plan of subdivision approval process,

Agreements with private land owners,

Retention or acquisition of access easements, and

Land acquisition.

LAKESHORE PARKS

Lakeshore parks are developed to capitalize on the unique waterfront setting. They should be managed for the enjoyment of a diverse population including individuals, family groups, social and cultural activities, and the conservation and protection of Natural Heritage Features and Provincially Significant Features. Historic sites and wildlife habitats should be encouraged. Facilities for residents and visitors should be provided including:

Boat docking,

Seating,

Boardwalks,

Playgrounds,

Informal sports fields,

Picnic shelters,

Interpretative features, and

Passive recreation areas.

SPECIFIC URBAN AREA POLICIES In accordance with the objective of the Official Plan to maintain and promote the small town character through its planning activities, the County will ensure the unique character of the Urban Areas are maintained. Six urban areas are recognized for their unique local land use arrangements with an emphasis on growth opportunities.

Simcoe - Current and future development will be focused on the Downtown Area, Secondary Centres (shopping nodes) and Queensway Corridor.

Port Dover - Current and future development will be focused at three special policy areas:

Waterfront Area - opportunities exist to continue its multiple roles as a tourist attraction, a working commercial port, an international gateway and a recreational and cultural resource. General design policies relating to parks and open space include parks and open spaces with connectivity to each other and the broader County;

Silver Lake Area – opportunities exist through the transition to open space and recreation uses with a focus on specific linkage between the Downtown Area and the Lynn Valley Trail. Recreational uses include passive and active open space as well as public and/or private commercial recreational facilities, and



Lynn River/Black Creek Area – adherence to the marine industry will support a variety of interests relating to tourism, recreation and innovative residential development.

Delhi – The recognition as an important urban community and cultural and agricultural support centre will continue. Policies relevant to this report include the promotion of an open space and recreational network that is integrated with open spaces throughout the County and provides appropriate urban, natural and active areas.

Waterford - The recognition as an important urban community and cultural and agricultural support centre will continue. Waterford is the closest urban area to Highway 403, and as such, employment growth and development will be encouraged. The County will encourage development of trails integrating Waterford with other areas of the County. Trail linkage opportunities exist in the form of abandoned rail corridors and other linear open spaces.

Mill Pond Area – redevelopment and revitalization opportunities exist through historical buildings, creating a focal point and theme for the southern shoreline of the Mill Pond area.

Port Rowan – The recognition as a significant urban waterfront community and tourism node will continue. There will be support and promotion as a sustainable waterfront urban community focused on port and lake-based activities.

West Area – The development of commercial and service related uses serving tourists and visitors at a level that does not detract from the Downtown Area will be encouraged and will be recognized as a unique gateway to the lakeshore.

Courtland – There is a limited growth potential as the community’s sanitary services consist of private on-site disposal systems. Due to its strategic location in the western part of the County, Courtland will continue to accommodate an important employment node.

HAMLET AREAS Hamlet areas are designated on the basis that they contain a minimum of 25 residential units existing as a distinguishable cluster, or have an historical identity as a hamlet. The rural settlements are intended to function as small clusters providing limited commercial, institutional and recreational services to the surrounding agricultural community. The County will promote limited growth in these communities while supporting the rural character and evolving role as service and residential centres.

NORFOLK COUNTY PARKS, FACILITIES AND RECREATION SERVICES MASTER PLAN, 2005 This ten year plan was prepared by a master plan volunteer committee and consultant Rick Gilbert, with financial support from the Ministries of Citizenship, Culture, Tourism and Recreation. The plan provides the rationale for the decision making behind the current and future delivery of the County’s parks and recreation services. Recommendations, or strategic directions were documented under seven categories with a timeline and financial need included for each. Recommendations are summarized as follows:



COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Establish a Leisure Advisory Board to represent the community at large in term of providing input into the development and evaluation of parks, facilities, programs and recreation services;

Establish the Norfolk Trail Association to work in conjunction with related groups to develop a comprehensive trails system throughout the County to connect with the Trans Canada Trail;

Redefine the education and leisure centres and develop a comprehensive marketing program to re-introduce these facilities into their respective communities.

Assist rural residents, who have identified a need for park acquisition and development, to access guidelines and prepare a project proposal;

Re-assess the ways and means by which parks and recreation boards and volunteers at large are recruited, trained and utilized;

Maintain support systems for volunteer organizations;

Investigate ways to raise the awareness of volunteer profiles through an organized program;

Encourage the organization of more special events throughout the County, with a focus on family-based events that will generate revenue for Recreation Services;

Complete a cost/benefit analysis to determine the viability of providing the CLASS registration system to other organizations, on a fee for service basis;

Recognize and highlight the achievements of the Vitoria and District Foundations throughout the County, as a model for community participation;

Complete a Business and Market Analysis of the Wind-Del Park to determine the viability of re-surfacing the Velodrome, as well as the infield of the track to accommodate competitive inline skate racing and skateboarding events, and

Conditional upon the stated interest and involvement of the County, consider the possibility of seeking Requests for Proposal from private and non-profit entities to develop the Wind-Del Park to its maximum capacity.

STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS & USER GROUP AGREEMENTS

Develop and maintain a relevant database, in partnership with related stakeholders, to monitor the growth, development and economic impact of leisure, sports, healthy living, conservation and wildlife programs;

Communicate with related stakeholders to establish long-term usage agreements to ensure continued access and utilization by the public of privately held lands known as parklands managed by other organizations;

Investigate the feasibility of a partners-in-service delivery agreements with the Port Dover Lions Club to enable the County to consider a strategy to assist with capital costs to upgrade facilities owned and maintained by the Lions Club for public use;



Encourage the Forestry and Cemeteries Division to expand partnering relationships with local stakeholders to promote the conservation and controlled utilization of Norfolk County’s woodlots, model forests and reforestation areas;

Develop a strategic campaign to promote the inclusion of non-profit program providers in the provision and delivery of leisure programs throughout the County;

Update and distribute the data base of program providers on an annual basis;

Develop a coordinated strategy for delivering programs and services, including the formation of partnerships and alliances;

Liaise with other leisure program providers financed in whole or in part by the County, such as libraries, museums, art centres and day-care centres;

Explore the possibility of providing or arranging skateboarding demonstrations, coaching and exposure for local teams and individuals;

Continue to work with skateboard organizations to study the feasibility of developing initiatives geographically as demand requires;

Formalize a partnership to explore the possibility of integrating the Sports Hall of Recognition with the Recreation Centre or other County facilities;

Partner with Parks & Recreation Ontario (PRO) and their initiatives to help reach the provincial goal of 45% by 2010 of the adult population being active on a regular basis;

Provide assistance to Port Dover Lions Club with the application for a Brown Field’s Grant;

Encourage the inclusion of all soccer programs in the new Soccer Complex with the expectation of developing a Norfolk Soccer Association in the future;

Encourage the County and all Port Dover Harbour Basin stakeholders to cooperate in the expansion of the Marina;

Re-establish participatory communications with Wind-Del volunteers to explore means and ways to expand the Park’s role and utilization within the County;

Negotiate and execute an expanded land-lease and development agreement with the Norfolk County Fair Board that will accommodate future expansion and operation of the Norfolk Recreation Centre;

Develop and implement a pro-active campaign to establish public-private partnerships, as the means to procure additional capital investment and deliver new programs, services and facilities to the public;

Monitor, evaluate and update the Norfolk County Boards of Education Joint Use Agreements to ensure maximum utilization of facilities and programs, and

Identify and develop Joint Use Agreements with other Norfolk stakeholders.

STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS

New sports park development will include three or more fields with washrooms and change facilities;



Develop park maintenance standards that may be incorporated into a budget allocation policy for parks, located in newly developed subdivisions, wherein the Parks & Facilities budget will be increased proportionately to cove additional maintenance cost;

Develop maintenance standards for stormwater systems that may be used in determining operational costs related to serving new developments;

Develop standards to measure the cost to maintain all Parks and Recreation facilities and services, within a given community that may be incorporated into a budget allocation policy to cover increased costs related to increased demand created by new subdivisions;

Total parkland for developing neighbourhoods shall be established on the basis of 12 acres/1000 population. Neighbourhood parks shall range in size from 5 to 8 acres;

Whenever development or redevelopment of lands in Urban Centres is proposed for residential purposes, the County shall require that up to 5% of such lands for development be conveyed to the County for park purposes, or that cash-in-lieu payment be made if the County so desires. All proposed lands to be so conveyed should require approval by the County. Hazard lands, stormwater management systems or lands with environmental issues may not be acceptable as Parkland, but may be conveyed to the municipality;

Whenever commercial and industrial development shall be proposed, the County shall require that up to 2% of such land be conveyed to the municipality for park purposes or that cash-in-lieu payments be made if the County so desires. All proposed lands to be so conveyed shall require approval by the county. Hazard lands or lands with environmental issues may not be acceptable;

New neighbourhood parks shall be located within 600 metres of residential development. County-wide and Community Parks will have no distance criteria as they shall be developed in accordance with demand and land availability. They may also be regarded as local parks for neighbourhoods in close proximity;

Develop park and open space guidelines for rural communities including: needs analysis, acquisition, development and long-term sustainability strategies;

Continue to enhance customer service and user-satisfaction through cost-effective management and operation practices, community involvement and the utilization of highly motivated and skill staff;

Strive to achieve maximum operational cost-recovery ratios, consistent with community needs and interests, to ensure sustainability;

Implement an ice-allocation plan and develop a cost recovery policy;

Design and develop performance measurement standards that may be used to evaluate the Parks, Facilities and Recreation Services management, operation, fiscal accountability customer satisfaction and community utilization on an annual basis by the Leisure Advisory Committee, and

Complete annual, business case analysis for: summer ice, viability of maintaining six ice surfaces, tournament and special event revenue generation opportunities.

PROMOTIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Promote the education and leisure centre within and outside the County for the purpose of developing one new special event per facility;



Establish an educational outreach program to provide awareness of Forestry Management Services through the school system and the community at large, in conjunction with related stakeholders;

Provide signage and advertise usage of each woodlot for the public at large, especially during hunting season;

Develop and provide special interest and educational programs designed to meet the needs of retirees and seniors;

Educate and promote the benefits of increased physical activity throughout one’s life;

Promote active living programs, opportunities and resources available throughout the County;

Develop and launch a comprehensive Parks, Facilities and Recreation Services web-site;

Purchase and mount television monitors in all high-traffic parks and recreation facilities, and play the program videos on a continuous loop;

Establish working relationships with the radio and television stations serving the area;

Expand promotional activities to all arenas and community centres;

Explore the possibility of installing digital signs in high traffic areas such as the Delhi Arena, junction of Highways 3 and 24;

Develop marketing initiatives utilizing the CLASS Registration database;

Complete a business analysis to determine the viability of establishing a membership or alternative usage program for the Skateboard Parks that will generate revenue to sustain operations on a long-term basis;

Launch Norfolk Partnerships Program in 2005, on a Pilot Project, contractual basis, and

Promote the Norfolk Group/Organization Affiliation Policy to related groups/organizations throughout the County.

PLANNING

Participate directly in the development of Norfolk’s Official Plan to ensure that it contains the policies, programs and flexibility to standardize open space availability throughout the County, as well as to apply quality open space planning to new subdivision developments;

Participate in all new residential development planning to ensure that the allocation of park and open space will meet the needs of the new community, as well as protect natural feature and hazard lands during the development process;

Adopt the standards from the Harvest Glen subdivision as a stormwater management model for the Official Plan, and all new Norfolk multi-unit developments;

Review cash-in-lieu amounts periodically and present proposed amendments to Council for approval and implementation;

Liaise with the Planning Department and Official Plan process to ensure the conservation of Norfolk County-owned woodlands and model forest projects, and



Develop a facility allocation methodology, based on availability, cost recovery formulae, historical rental patterns, new trends and demographic shifts.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT & FISCAL MANAGEMENT

Upgrade existing stormwater facilities, over the next ten years, consistent with the Harvest Glen Development, and include in capital forecasts;

Accelerate the grant application process and play a leading role in the realization of a Forest Management Training Centre;

Strive to achieve maximum operational cost-recovery ratios, consistent with community needs and interests, to ensure sustainability;

Retain and modernize the Simcoe Recreation Centre in accordance with the 2002 Consulting Reports;

Develop a model for the development of public/private partnerships, and alternative financing options for future capital projects;

Transfer 1% - 2.5% of Norfolk’s capital assets to reserves each year to ensure adequate funding is available for future capital replacement development;

Change the name of the Simcoe Recreation Centre to the Norfolk Recreation Centre (NRC);

Develop and implement an immediate remedial program at the NRC, as recommended by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates to meet current building code standards pertaining to barrier-free access;

Complete a detailed analysis, utilizing enhanced forecasting and accounting technologies, of the resource allocation to operate the Centre as a whole, rather than as individual units;

Prepare a business case for the repurposing of the Banquet Hall in the NRC, as a multi-use facility for community-based programming and development initiatives;

Complete a Business Analysis of the Arena to determine ways and means of improving customer satisfaction and cost-recovery ratio, and

Upgrade and expand the Pool consistent with the recommendations outlined in the Simcoe Recreation Centre feasibility study.

ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Expand upon and formalize the dynamic, shared-management model that has evolved between the Parks, Facilities and Recreation Services and Business Systems Division, through an annual staff symposium and on-going training opportunities;

Organize and present annual training and updates to lead hands and staff to continue to maximize efficiency and customer service, and

Implement the proposed Amalgamated Management Program as developed by staff, to optimize operational efficiencies, enhance customer service and utilize new administrative and information technologies for database management and marketing.



9.0 STRATEGIC TRENDS

INTRODUCTION In developing the Parks, Facilities, and Recreation Master Plan, a number of key strategic trends and considerations are relevant in setting directions and courses of action for the ongoing development, delivery and evaluation of facilities and services in Norfolk. The following material is contributory to developing the specific services strategies and recommendations to be incorporated within the Master Plan based on two categories: Societal and Leisure Participation, as well as Specific Activity Trends.

SOCIETAL AND LEISURE TRENDS AGING AND YOUTH POPULATIONS

One of the most significant and well documented trends within Canadian society is that of the aging population. By 2016 to 2020, over 30% of most urban centres and a larger proportion of rural residents in Ontario will be over the age of sixty. Known as the "baby boom generation," this will have a profound impact in both the types of leisure services / activities that will be undertaken and resident servicing expectations.

Today, many "boomers" are in or are quickly moving towards an "empty nest" lifestyle. As a result, many of these adults are not raising families, have different priorities and are starting to, as they age, undertake different forms of leisure activities. Affordability, access, time available to participate, pursuing deferred interests and other impacts are occurring.

Currently, the "baby boomers" are 50 to 65 years of age, of which one half are 55 to 65 years of age and one half is 50 to 55 years of age. These individuals represent a significant proportion of the population, and from a public policy perspective, have typically been a central consideration in many government policy initiatives over the last five decades.

As this generation ages, there has been clear identification, politically and service delivery wise, towards health oriented issues. As a result, the following trends are being identified:

Increasing political importance being placed on health care and wellness services. As boomers age, they become increasingly concerned about health care. This is also augmented by the fact that over 60% of a person's health care costs on average are incurred in the last five years of life;

This generation tends to pursue interests and activities based on convenience, quality and price; compared to previous generations who tended to be significantly more price sensitive with convenience as a lower priority;

This population group can also be somewhat nostalgic, often having a "60s phenomena" and have high expectations as to what their fees will provide, the quality of service received, the instantaneousness of response to information and other customer service perspectives.

Major assessments of this generation, as per the books “Boom, Bust and Echo”, or “Sex in the Snow”, have identified profiles of this population as being more inwardly looking to their own



needs, having higher expectations and being uniquely different from the previous generations, which are primarily those who are associated with the depression and the war eras.

An aging population will have the following participation impacts in leisure and related services:

A rising interest in bird watching, genealogy, walking and related health / fitness / wellness oriented activities;

Declining interest in joining clubs, membership-based activities. This is evident in some changing profiles for senior centres, as well as golf course memberships where there is a trend to offering multiple courses in the same membership package;

An increasing trend towards private fitness centres, personal trainers and related activities;

A general willingness to pay for activities, but often asking what one gets for the increased costs on a year to year basis;

Broader travel interests;

Increasing interests in art, culture and heritage.

Other related demographic shifts, also involve the following points:

The percentage of people retiring under the age of 60 has generally increased over the last two decades, resulting in younger and healthier retirees, even though legislation now bans forced retirement at an age threshold and economic impacts could, at least, in the short term, impact pensions and cause people to work longer;

Improved pensions, as well as more females retiring from the workforce with pensions, which is uniquely different than when senior’s discounts were established thirty years ago for a different type of seniors’ demographic and financial situation;

Many early retirees and other seniors are undertaking consulting, part time contracts and on-going work activities, or pursuing hobbies or deferred interests on a vocational basis;

Seniors populations are showing interest in increased physical fitness and other related activity-based programming which is different from the more traditional socialization oriented leisure programming for older adults.

In conjunction with the aging trends and impacts, is the fact that the birth rate as per the 2011 Census indicates 1.7 children per family, which has stabilized at a low level after a period of decline from over three children per family in to 1950s and 1960s. Many couples are not having children or only having one child. The projection for most urban environments in Ontario, is that the 0-19 population over the next twenty years, will either remain stable in terms of their current absolute numbers of individuals or will actually see some declines in the number of youth. The question in regards to youth services is not that youth are going to disappear or that there is going to be less of them, rather, it is more the fact that there will not be significantly more of them which has been the traditional planning profile for leisure services for the last forty to fifty years. Therefore, proportionately, they will represent a reduced segment of the total population which is a uniquely different planning framework.

As a result of the demographic shifts over the next fifteen years, there will be absolutely more mature adults in terms of numbers who are looking for different types of leisure program relationships and activities while there will not be a growing but rather a likely stable or declining



youth population. This trend uniquely changes some of the perspectives as to the planning and delivery of leisure services from what has historically been the benchmark of the last decades. The Echo Boom generation, now 25 to 35 years of age, has left secondary school and post-secondary institutions. They were the last identifiable growth-oriented youth age cohort, however they are now having children and there has been a slight rise in 0 to 4 year olds in the 2011 census compared to the 2006 census. The future of youth services, will likely focus on existing or declining youth population volumes.

CHANGING CULTURAL FACE OF CANADA

Due to birth rate declines, Canada needs approximately 300,000 net new immigrants per year to sustain its current population. This is felt to be a significant goal for the country in order to ensure a stable and growing economy. As a result, Canada has encouraged immigration from around the world in order to meet these particular policy objectives and strategic outcomes, probably more so than any other country. What has significantly changed related to immigration has been the source of new immigrants and refugees. Traditionally they have come from northern Europe, the Mediterranean area and related regions in large numbers through the later part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. In the last twenty years, they have increasingly been arriving from non-traditional sources, such as the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America. Many of these individuals have also been refugees from war torn, impoverished countries, with no fundamental experiences or traditions in regards to leisure activities, education, health care, etc. Others have come with a different array of leisure experiences, involving soccer, cricket and leisure activities specific to their culture but of limited exposure historically in Canada.

From a leisure services perspective, an ethnically diverse population creates communication requirements to inform and educate new Canadians about leisure services, ranging from everything from how to source information to encouraging participation in new experiences. This trend can also impact the types of services that people are interested in, ranging from increased soccer participation, to reduced interest in activities that people may have no experience in, such as ice-based sports, baseball, fitness and related considerations.

An interesting example is South London, which twenty years ago had the largest minor hockey registration in that city at 1,200 participants. The area became a significant settlement area for new Canadians, particularly from the Middle East. Within a very short period of time, registration fell from 1,200 children to 600 children, which was due to the impacts of both stabilizing youth populations and the higher presence of immigrant children with little ice related experiences.

However, today the Minor Hockey Association is seeing an increase in participation from cultural communities as second and third generation families begin to acclimatize to and participate in more traditional Canadian activities. Hockey Canada and local Minor Hockey Associations have active marketing programs to engage new Canadians.

SPORT ACTIVITIES

There are some significant changes occurring within the minor and adult sports areas which is one of the cornerstones to leisure services planning and development.

The first one involves hockey. One argument that prevails is that there may be no more additional need for ice surfaces as the youth population is stabilized in terms of numbers and the adult population playing hockey is aging. This argument has been presented by David Foot in “Boom, Bust and Echo” and by others.

However, there has been continuing demand for additional ice resources resulting in large part from the substantive growth in women's hockey, both at the youth and adult levels. Over the last



number of years, women's hockey has grown between 10% and 30% annually in most urban centres, 10% to 15% in non-Olympic years and up to 30% in Olympic years. Though there have been some impacts on ringette, it has not caused ringette to collapse as some expected. There are many new female participants coming into the "ice world." As a result, the demand for ice time has been increasing on an annual basis in many areas.

What is also important in terms of longer-term planning is that many of these females at the youth level will want to carry these activities over into their adult life. Therefore, communities see the rise of junior female teams, as well as adult female hockey leagues.

The rise in female activity is not only at the youth level but will continue on through to the adult age groups. It is also anticipated that it will be a number of years before the female hockey participation growth rate stabilizes.

Additionally, there is growth in terms of disabled athletes participating in ice sports, such as sled hockey. As well, in the adult leagues, there is more league segmentation occurring by age groups which encourages older aged participants to continue to play into their 50s, 60s and 70s. This is occurring with the introduction of over 40, 50 and even over 70 year old leagues.

All these different groups and new applications / uses result in some increasing demand for ice time, even though there may be stabilization in members in the more traditional user categories. Another ice consideration is changes occurring in figure skating. In terms of figure skating numbers, the traditional activities may be stabilized but the growth in precision skating, rhythmic skating and other team oriented skating activities has increased.

Another area of interest in terms of ice use is the introduction of the Masters Skating Clubs / Programs, which is similar to old-timers hockey. A number of communities now have Masters skating programs that involve 50 to 100 individuals and this is anticipated to grow as more people re-engage with skating activities to be with their peers and for fitness.

In terms of field sports, a number of key trends are emerging. The first is the substantive growth in soccer. Soccer has grown in the early 2000s to over 500,000 registered youth soccer players in Canada, both male and female. It now has the highest level of minor sports registration for any sporting activity in Canada. A projection by Soccer Canada in 2004, forecasted that registration by 2012 will be over 1,000,000 participants which effectively doubles the participation rate in soccer and has now been exceeded.

Soccer has four key attributes that are attracting participation:

Low cost of participation;

Superior aerobic activity and benefit compared to baseball, golf and similar activities;

More structured / definable times during the summer months which are valued by busy families;

Connections to immigrant population experiences and interests as it is the dominant global sport.

With the significant increases in youth soccer, there is also some growth in women's and men's adult soccer and the introduction of Master's soccer leagues. These are following the same courses / patterns that adult baseball and hockey have followed over the last forty plus years. As a result of these trends, one can anticipate continuing growth in demand for soccer facilities, both for recreational and competitive use. Soccer is also following similar patterns in terms of pursuing more highly developed sites to support competitive and tournament play, i.e.: lit fields, clubhouses and



other higher level facilities than sometimes have historically been provided. This development is similar to the up-scaling of ice, baseball and other sport venues.

A counter trend to the soccer growth has been a decline, in some communities in minor baseball registration. Also, there has been decline in some communities in the number of adult slo-pitch participants. Some minor baseball associations have experienced declines in registrations of 30% to 60% over the last number of years from the peak registrations after the Toronto Blue Jays won two World Series. Many of these individuals have transferred to soccer. Also, the impact of golf, year round aquatics and hockey / skating and other sports have impacted baseball. The Ontario Baseball Association has undertaken an active promotional campaign for the sport over the last five years and is reporting renewal of participation levels closer to the early 1990s.

For adult baseball leagues, trends are more variable from community to community. Some communities have experienced a decline in the number of adult participants in slo-pitch, and adult fastball leagues have been variable. This could be because of changing lifestyles, where summer is more intensive in terms of business and other activities, the impact of ethno-cultural populations who have no long-term history with baseball and other impacts.

Other interesting trends involve tennis, golf and year-round aquatics. Tennis has had a highly cyclical history. In the 1970s, tennis participation grew significantly and many communities developed extensive community-based tennis facilities, such as Kitchener, London, Windsor and other centres. By the 1980s, tennis had declined in participation rates, with many communities moving from public facilities to private or publicly-oriented club environments.

Today, tennis has a continuing interest at a recreation level, but is not one of the dominant high growth leisure sport activities. Tennis court servicing needs to be considered in order to ensure reasonable opportunities but is no longer a given component in individual park master plans and development strategies as occurred in previous decades.

Golf has increased its youth participation, due to interests in U.S. scholarships, the impact of professional golf figures and golf courses attempting to attract more youth players on daytime Monday to Friday use as both a revenue source and for developing future golfers. A significant growth period appears to have peaked, though there is a continuing interest in youth golf opportunities, which are primarily delivered through private sector and not-for-profit golf course operators. Some municipalities do operate public golf courses and a few expansions have occurred in recent years, though the number of new public municipally operated golf courses has not substantively increased over the last twenty to thirty years compared to the growth rate in non-municipal golf courses.

Curling has become a popular TV-based sport. However, many curling clubs are challenged, especially in smaller communities, to remain financially viable, such as in Stratford, Ilderton, Kitchener-Waterloo and other centres. There has been increasing focus on youth development, however, the overall curling activity levels tend to be stabilized and in some areas declining. The TV exposure has not necessarily translated into substantive increased participation. Curling Canada has an active promotion and development program that achieves significant TV exposure land in-school programs.

Racquet sports have declined significantly from their peak levels of interest and exposure in the 1970s and 1980s. This has occurred because of the lack of readily available facilities in many communities, but also due to an aging population. These sports tend to be more challenging due to the impact on knees, ankles and other areas of the body. Many racquetball clubs have reduced the size of their facilities or closed, while a number of municipalities, YMCAs and other providers have eliminated these activities altogether.



Basketball and volleyball have increased in popularity and participation. Once the domain of the educational system in terms of intramural leagues and varsity sports, there are now more community-based leagues. Some of these are offered by police departments as part of youth development initiatives in high crime / risk areas of cities. The YMCA, Basketball Canada and other groups are increasingly offering community-based league opportunities. This has resulted in increased requirements for gymnasium access. A number of communities have moved into developing some of their own gymnasium resources, as school facilities are not always readily available at the times and volumes necessary. Kitchener, London, Stratford and Oakville represent some communities who have recently developed gymnasium-type facilities as part of community centre complexes to facilitate both youth and adult basketball and volleyball opportunities. Burlington has developed gymnasiums at the Tansley Woods, Brant Hills and Alton Recreation Centres.

Other sports considerations involve a host of lesser known activities. One is cricket, which tends to have increasing interest amongst specific cultural connections in the population, particularly East and West Indians who come to Canada. Interest in this sport appears to be tied significantly to settlement patterns in North Rexdale, Mississauga and the Waterloo Region. As facilities are developed and immigration patterns unfold, there may be increasing interest over time but likely within narrower interest parameters.

Another sport that has some changing parameters is rugby. In recent years, women's rugby has unfolded as a participation sport in the secondary school system. It is also now part of the Ontario Summer Games. Consideration is being given to introducing female rugby into the Canada Games. Such exposure will likely impact participation levels. Rugby is the fastest growing sport in Ontario secondary schools.

Another area of consideration is the movement towards extreme sports. This is primarily an American phenomenon that is driven to a certain degree by television coverage. A number of communities, Lakeshore, London, Niagara Falls, and other communities, in their Master Plans, had community groups approach them with respect to developing motocross courses, extreme bicycle venues and related activities. For over a decade, skateboarding activities within formal skateboard parks have been of increasing interest and many municipalities have introduced them. The City of Sarnia has constructed an in-ground bowl. Many municipalities are moving towards making permanent investments in these outdoor facilities. Some requests are being received by communities for indoor skateboarding facilities. This service however has tended to evolve within the private sector domain.

The growth in extreme sports is tentative due to the liability issues from injuries, the potential need for supervision and the level of attraction is variable on an activity by activity basis, often very narrow in scope. Therefore, the ability of a Municipality to engage raises questions around accessibility, and trying to serve broad-based activity interests across the community.

The trend data around sports activities suggests that there will be continuing demand for ice due to fundamental shifts in the demand for ice access amongst the female, disabled and skating populations. There is also structural change occurring around sports fields. The transition of women's hockey and soccer into adult age groups, both in terms of competitive and recreational participation, will probably follow similar patterns to what has occurred in terms of men’s hockey and baseball. These trends become significant in terms of investment alternatives, which would put an increasing focus on soccer field development, and related supports and ancillary services. Increased demand for gymnasium time is also anticipated for youth and adult basketball and volleyball, along with emerging use such as cricket, rugby and extreme sports.



THE RISE OF ARTS, CULTURE AND CRAFTS

Over the last fifteen plus years, there has been a notable increase in the development and delivery of arts and culture services. Many communities have built performing arts centres, such as Burlington, Guelph, Chatham, Sarnia, Windsor and all throughout the GTA.

Also, there has been significant expansion of choral and community level artistic and performance opportunities. Additionally, there has been increasing visitation to professional theatres in Toronto, Niagara on the Lake and Stratford, along with considerable expansion of summer theatre in Cambridge, St. Jacobs, Petrolia, Grand Bend, Port Stanley and numerous other locations.

The rise of arts and culture, along with crafts, emerges from several trends. With an aging population and over 30% of the population being empty nesters and / or retired, there is a considerable pool of individuals who can pursue or get involved with arts and cultural activities. There is also a greater appreciation for arts and culture as people become older and have had more life experiences.

Another factor involves a maturing society. As a society gets older, arts and culture become a more significant part of the quality of life. This perspective also engages younger adults and youth. Also with elementary, secondary and post-secondary education systems providing more experiential and learning opportunities around arts and culture, younger generations are being exposed to these opportunities and are engaging at higher levels.

A further dimension of arts and cultural services development has been the significant economic impact analysis that has been completed by the Federal and Provincial Governments. This analysis demonstrates that arts and cultural experiences are significant economic drivers within any community, support tourism and broader economic development goals, and an enhanced quality of life.

The spectrum of arts and cultural activities ranges from neighbourhood initiatives to professional events; these could include art galleries, performing arts centres, dance and choral groups, electronic media, and a host of other perspectives.

It is apparent that having a well-rounded and balanced set of diverse experiential opportunities for arts and culture is important in building inclusive communities where there is an array of community activities that meet the needs and interests of all residents, well beyond the traditional focus on sports.

In terms of crafts, there has been a resurgence in activities that were more traditional in previous eras, such as quilting, painting, woodworking, photography and related activities. Some communities have a broad array of these groups, while other communities focus on one or two. In Burlington, they have seven guilds that work out of the same building, while in Kitchener and Waterloo there is a common woodworking centre for older adults to serve both communities.

In terms of leisure as an important component of community life, ensuring that there is a reasonable set of opportunities and experiences involving arts, culture and crafts is important to a significant portions of the population.

Another dimension of arts and culture is public libraries. They have long served the reading, child and youth programming needs of many generations. Libraries are increasingly moving into digital services and the notion of the virtual library. Public libraries, through their collections and programs, provide an important dimension of leisure services, whether it is recreational reading, mom and tots programs, literacy supports, research or simply reading the newspaper. They form an integral part of the overall leisure services network within any community and are important, as well as highly valued services, by younger and older populations.



FACILITY QUALITY

One of the fundamental transitions of the last twenty years has been the qualitative leaps that recreation / leisure facilities have experienced in municipal, YMCA and other related venues. The large multi-use complex, the twin pad and quad ice facility and the tournament / competitive level quality of many recreation facilities and community centres has been widely evidenced. For example, when one community builds a state of the art facility, then other communities start to look at that facility as the new standard.

The Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex and RIM Park in Waterloo, the Western Fair Fourplex in London; the YMCAs in Toronto, Mississauga, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Goderich; and many other venues are being visited and seen as the new standard.

One of the consistent considerations with the "boomer generation" is their high expectations around quality. Therefore, arenas with large dressing rooms, showers, warm viewing areas and many ancillary supports are commonplace. Larger arena, multi-use complexes are incorporating food courts, rather than simple canteens. Older recreation facilities are being repositioned to contemporary standards at significant capital investment costs.

One of the long-term planning considerations is the need to determine what level of quality new facilities should be developed at and how do existing facilities compete and avoid being overlooked in terms of current uses/users moving to newer facilities. Sometimes this trend also needs to be assessed on a regional market basis where neighbouring municipalities are building significant new leisure facilities that could be used by other municipalities' residents.

With increased facility quality comes increased initial capital costs, as well as increased on-going maintenance and operational costs. Therefore, these investments become more significant in terms of their total cost implications.

As marketing and user preferences becomes a more critical part of the choices people make in terms of investing their leisure dollars, facility quality becomes important and the rates and fees structure around these facilities tends to increase. Sometimes, as rates and fees for users increase, quality expectations also increase. It is not uncommon now that when arena fees go up in some municipalities that adult leagues, who typically played after 10 p.m., to midnight, now want more preferential times at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. due to the level of fees that they are paying and the aging of their participants. A wide array of impacts can emanate from these trends and the associated costs that track with enhanced facilities.

Another consideration in terms of facility quality and increased fees is that the private sector can become more involved in the service delivery model if a profit potential exists. This was a powerful argument undertaken in the mid-1990s involving arenas. However, the latest round of private sector investment in public arenas has had challenges with many being either for sale, having gone bankrupt or operating under trusteeship, such as in London, Cambridge, Oakville and other centres. Norfolk experienced this as well in some programming areas and enhanced recreation facilities.

TOURISM AND SPORT TOURISM

One of the interesting trends within the leisure services sector has been the merging of tourism strategies with parks, recreation, culture and related services development and delivery. Increasingly, particularly as facility quality increases, the opportunity to attract day visitors and overnight tourists increases via tournaments, shows, meets and special events. One dimension of this has been the development of a market segment within tourism called sport tourism. Sport tourism involves tournaments, meets and other similar events that bring individuals and teams from out of town into the community for one or more days.



There has been a long history of local soccer, baseball and hockey tournaments; swim, as well as track and field meets; and related activities. What is increasingly occurring beyond this level is municipalities interested in pursuing larger provincial, national and international events, such as the World Under 17 Hockey Tournament, the Ontario Games, the Ontario Senior Games and many other such events. Cities like London, Brantford, Ottawa, Halifax, Brandon, Red Deer, Saskatoon and Kamloops represent cities that have become very aggressive in the sport tourism sector and Norfolk County has been a major venue for these markets.

The drive to sport tourism, as an increasingly marketed and municipally supported enterprise, results from the potential economic and related employment impacts that this type of activity can bring to the community in terms of room, food, retail, gas and other sales. They also are, at the minor sports level, popular amongst non-profit organizations due to their potential fundraising capacity for the host organizations. Increasingly, major municipal park and recreation facility development is being rationalized based on their sport tourism capacity in conjunction with the regular activity use supported by the facility or service.

ENVIRONMENT

Over the last ten to twenty years, and in particular the last several years, the world’s concern in regard to the environment, particularly climate change, has substantially increased. Significant growth in political priority has been placed on environmental issues and needs. For municipalities generally, and leisure services specifically, this trend has considerable connectivity.

One of the considerations which has occurred over several decades is the Municipality’s role in the preservation of identified environmental land areas. Recently, the City of London passed a by-law that all woodlots would now become open space. The Town of Fort Erie has identified numerous parcels of land outside of the Official Plan that have potential environmental / open space priority. Other communities are increasingly reconsidering ravine lines, water courses, forested areas, wetlands, shorelines and related areas for public acquisition and conservation, either directly by the Municipality or through partners, such as local Conservation Authorities or the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Conservation Authorities typically now do not have the budgets to pursue the acquisition and management of all the parcels of land that municipalities are becoming engaged with. This engagement often is not derived from the Municipality itself, but from community advocates who form various coalitions in order to create community awareness and political support for the preservation of specific sites.

It is anticipated, that municipalities over the next twenty plus years, will have an increasing stewardship role in the protection, conservation and day-to-day management of a variety of environmental areas. Some of these areas will be able to sustain little if any human activity, while others will become significant open space and park activity venues.

Another dimension of the environmental consideration, relates to facility design. There are increased expectations that municipalities will use the latest environmental technology in facilities in order to both set an example, as well as to save operating costs. Many municipalities have been active in energy reduction programs that require significant up front capital investments. Other municipalities have taken leadership roles, such as Activa in Kitchener and Burlington, to undertake pilot and development programs in their buildings to test environmentally friendly technology or to be demonstration sites. One initiative involves establishing Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standards for all recreation and cultural facility development.

Increased consideration is also being given to public transit and community trails as ways to reduce carbon emissions and to enhance fitness. The development of trails is gaining increased attention



as not only a recreation resource, but also as an alternate form of active transportation. Therefore, the development of trail master plans and investment in trails has been a growing priority for many municipalities which links to health, transportation and environmental benefits. With walking being one of the most popular recreational activities, and its direct linkage to health, fitness and other benefits, trails take on a multi-benefit perspective that is closely linked to sustaining healthy, living environments focusing both on ecological and personal well-being.

Beyond these specific considerations, is the notion of a healthy and sustainable community living environment. These principles, concepts and strategic directions are increasingly important in the making of community service decisions.

Other impacts from climate change include the use of irrigation for sport fields, shade cover for dugouts and field use restrictions/limits to sustain natural turf.

Therefore, the conservation of more natural areas, the expansion and increased promotion of trails and trail usage, increasing expectations on facilities being environmentally friendly and the reducing of environmental impacts from day-to-day parks and recreation operations is a significant growing trend and community expectation. This trend has definable capital and operating cost implications that are generally seen as important investments in enhancing the health, environment, liveability and sustainability of a community.

Another environmentally aligned trend is the ‘grow local’ movement which focuses on growing and/or purchasing significant portions of one’s food close to home. One dimension of this trend has been the establishment of community garden plots on public or private lands supported by water sources, plot allocation layouts, etc. Users reflect various priorities, such as gardening as a hobby/interest, grow local beliefs, food security and food affordability. A number of churches and other non-profits have also engaged by providing surplus/unused lands. Key challenges are water sources, theft/vandalism and accessibility. Also connected to this trend is the growing emergence of community kitchens that are often part of settlement programs.

COMMUNITY, HEALTH, EDUCATIONAL, SOCIAL AND POLICY SERVICES INTEGRATION

Another trend that is occurring in the leisure services operating environment is the integration of education, social, health and leisure services, sometimes in conjunction with policing services. Increasingly, more holistic servicing strategies are emerging that look at all the needs of a family or an individual in their totality. As a result, many social services organizations, such as Children's Aid, Children's Mental Health, etc., look to the Municipality and other leisure service providers to deliver services that their clients can participate in. In many cases, often expecting reduced access costs due to affordability concerns and the clinical treatment benefits of leisure participation.

Also, what emerges from this integration strategy on a broader front is the movement towards wellness on physical, emotional and social levels. However, this is increasingly evolving into the youth and teen services areas. Many of the teen initiatives in various municipalities have leisure components but connect with broader services in terms of employment, mental health, youth justice and other linked service areas.

Therefore, the ability to work within a broader context rather than pure leisure philosophy and perspectives is increasingly important to deliver the right services at the right time to various target audiences. Halton Social Services now operates two neighbourhood programs in Burlington that have on-site recreation components.



USER FEES, CHARGES AND AFFORDABILITY

A number of municipalities are increasingly looking to user fees and charges for leisure services to fund a higher proportion of the costs of services delivery operations. On the cost side, municipalities are also looking more at the total cost of services delivery, involving department and corporate overheads, long-term repair and rehabilitation costs, etc. On the revenue side, some rates and fees policies identify a specific coverage revenue target for children's / youth services, with usually a higher one for adult services. However, many municipalities still do not have a defined cost structure as a baseline to develop their user fees.

Today, more detailed discussions are occurring on what the role is of the users in funding a higher proportion of facility access/use costs, especially specialized facilities with high costs and more limited participation profiles, e.g.: municipal golf courses, fitness centres, etc. This is a key strategic question that has profound political considerations, influences the grants and subsidies provided by a Municipality to various user groups and represents a significant challenge in terms of key principles. Some of these principles include affordability, accessibility, enhanced resident health, a balanced set of participation opportunities and investing community tax dollars wisely and fairly.

Some other communities have been undertaking efforts to develop a sound cost understanding of services delivery and are recognizing the challenges of structurally changing this dimension of leisure services delivery. Overall, many of the fees charged have no real foundation, as well have evolved on an ad hoc basis and are not connected to each other by a set of principles or a unifying strategy or policy framework.

As fees and charges increase in value and complexity, affordability concerns have risen as a barrier to participation and equitable access. Many communities are developing policies on facilitating affordable access by ensuring discounted fees for youth and targeted populations, or providing a fund, alone or together with community groups, that subsidize individuals and families who have affordability challenges and who would benefit from recreation participation. The Low Income Cut Offs (LICO) are often used as a threshold for providing financial support.

Chatham-Kent, London, Kitchener and Burlington are all communities, along with others, that are providing such supports. These supports are provided on the basis of equitable access, inclusion and to maximize the health and wellness, personal development, social and community benefits derived from leisure activity participation involving parks, recreation and culture services.

MARKET SEGMENTATION / SERVICES DIFFERENTIATION

One of the business components that is emerging into the leisure services operating environment is the recognition that the population is not generic or homogeneous as to what activities they wish to undertake and at what participation / quality levels. Increased target audiences or market segmentation strategies are emerging. As an example, participation can often now be tracked on the following levels of interest:

Experimental, general interest;

Hobby / specialized interest;

Competitive / elite interest and skills development.

Each of these levels has various degrees of intensity, cost and user preparedness to pay user fees and participation. They also have different levels of facility quality and capacity requirements. These range from the amount of seating that is available for competitive and tournament oriented activities, to the fact that unorganized recreational baseball can occur on school board or other less developed and maintained baseball fields.



The tendency in many municipalities has been to deliver services on a more generic basis. However, changing facility quality expectations results in a question as to whether all facilities need to be developed at a high end or whether different levels of facility development should occur in terms of quality and capacity supported by different levels of user fees. This is a changing consideration, in that historically municipalities have charged a common level of user fees for ice, fields, etc. An increasing trend is to consider charging different fees and rates based on the quality of the facility, with potential premiums being charged for the time slots that are most in demand. This is more of a business model and also focuses on different levels of intensity, interest and ability to pay.

The repositioning of the market to a more targeted approach may also result in changes to two of the other trends identified in this report related to user rates and fees as well as facility quality.

LEISURE SERVICES DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY STRATEGY

Input received from community members, municipal staff and Councils, as well as the trends and analysis within the leisure services sector at the municipal level, indicate potentially substantive change in terms of how leisure services will be developed and delivered in the future. The expectation that a Municipality is the centre point for leisure services delivery, involving programs, facilities, coordination, special events, etc. is changing, as municipal operating environment changes relative to overall service responsibilities (e.g. aging infrastructure) fiscal constraints and other factors emerge relative to the use priorities of available resources. In concert with these changes, are market-based changes in terms of the types and numbers of leisure interests that people wish to pursue; the level of interest they wish to pursue them at; their preparedness to pay user fees of a higher order; and trends towards increased participation by the private, non-profit and other service providers. Some examples include, rock climbing; private arenas; sports and fitness centres; specialized programs delivery, such as hockey schools, private sector adult leagues, etc.

The operating environment for leisure services at the municipal level is also changing with increased connectivity between sports, recreation, arts, culture, heritage, tourism and economic development; movement towards facilitated access and information resources for all leisure services; and consumer demands for more one window / coordinated accessibility to services.

Of increasing concern to a community is the ability of community members to reasonably access leisure services related to costs, varying interests, locations, ability / skill levels, etc. As the leisure services delivery system gets more complex and user fees become more prominent, access issues become more significant. Therefore, efforts to reduce costs by gaining cost economies through partnerships, mergers and conjoint / joint venture activity are more evident. As an example, YMCA Canada reports that local YMCAs now have over one hundred municipal servicing partnership and / or direct delivery agreements.

What these changes lead to is a vision of an integrated leisure services delivery strategy that builds on the strengths of all services providers in a community and which uses all the community's resources to achieve positive outcomes in terms of each participant's personal development and the quality of life in the community. This is a holistic strategy that also needs to connect with education, health, social services, tourism, economic development, policing and other initiatives, as leisure services do not exist in isolation within a single community or within broader regional markets.

The trend towards a more integrated community-based leisure services strategy, that can achieve trust between service providers; establish strong leadership; and uses cooperative and collective efforts that focus on consumer interests and needs, practical financial realities, reasonably



universal accessibility and ongoing services evaluation, is the service delivery model that will support future success.

VOLUNTEERS AND LEISURE SERVICES DELIVERY

Another emerging strategic theme and challenge for municipalities is the sustainability of volunteer service organizations as important service providers and partners. Volunteer organizations have a long and valued history in the delivery of an array of leisure services. However, increasing concerns are being raised about the sustainability of these organizations, particularly from a financial perspective, as operating and capital costs rise to significant levels, and their ongoing ability to recruit committed and / or skilled volunteers becomes increasingly challenging. A loss of capacity and service from this sector would greatly impact the availability of leisure services. Therefore, municipalities will need to examine various options, inputs and roles that it may be in a position to undertake in order to maximize the supports available to voluntary organizations in order to sustain, and if possible, enhance their present capacities. Governance and technical training, marketing and analytical supports, advocacy initiatives, volunteer recognition, grants acquisition, and other activities and services could be considered based on individual group needs.

There are also a number of trends that are influencing the availability of and the level of participation of volunteers. There has been a trend in recent years for volunteers to become more project-focused rather than engage in longer-term involvement. However, reports from non-profit organizations who deliver continuous services speak to the challenges of attracting volunteer Board of Directors and operational support volunteers where the need is more for continuing, longer-term commitments. This trend speaks to the challenges that are evident where people are looking to volunteer on a targeted basis and know what their defined commitments are.

Another consideration is that many of the leisure services and community supports that exist have evolved on the basis of a few key volunteer players, some who have provided twenty to thirty or more years of leadership. However, succession is becoming an increasing challenge for some non-profit organizations and community groups, especially where it is not evident that there is the leadership commitment and support necessary to replace those individuals who are moving on. This generational transition in volunteer leadership and commitment is a challenge in sustaining the range of community services that are offered in communities across Canada.

There is also the increasing challenge around accountability and “red tape” involved with volunteering. Organizations, especially those involved with youth, often now often require police checks, costing anywhere from $25.00 to $50.00 per check. Other volunteers are concerned about accountability of working with youth and the negative public exposure that can occur. More and more not-for-profit community organizations need to undertake complex evaluation and reporting programs associated with government which creates more paperwork and less time associated with program and organizational development and delivery. The changing nature of the volunteer environment is becoming a potential constraint.

The final consideration is that many volunteers are highly educated, have been involved in supervisory or managerial leadership and have a host of experiences. Therefore, how they are treated, valued, recognized, trained and supported becomes important as the experience of volunteer increases. Many not-for-profit organizations and community groups do not have a tradition or a capacity to adapt to some of the changing profile considerations of volunteers.

Volunteers continue to be critical to the development and delivery of leisure services. However, their availability, development, use, recognition, recruitment, succession and related considerations, as well as changing preferences around their commitment and interests, needs to be effectively addressed and responded to in order to sustain a strong and vibrant volunteer pool in support of a broad array of accessible and affordable leisure services.



URBAN DESIGN AND INTENSIFICATION

Parks and open space provisioning is, and will be more so in the future, influenced by key land use development trends occurring in urban centres in Ontario. The Ontario Government has approved a Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area that will over time see 40% of new residential development occurring in developed areas and only 60% in greenfield zones by 2015. Although Norfolk County is not subject to this legislation, many of the development requirements are trends that are being seen throughout Ontario. This strategy will result in a growing amount of infilling and intensification of densities in currently developed areas and will be prevalent across the Province over the next ten to fifteen years. Some of these projects will be small infills while others will involve the demolition of existing land uses, sometimes involving industrial or commercial converting to residential.

Unlike the historical development of the last five decades which tended to be large tracks of greenfields where parks, open spaces, trails and facilities could be integrated into the overall design process through secondary plans, and land could be acquired at a rate of 5% dedication, the new projects will have other implications for leisure services.

The first implication will be higher densities, resulting in more people living in the same land area. As a result, leisure services provisioning standards may not be adequate. As the number of residents goes up in a defined area, the current park and open space areas may not be adequate to meet a denser and larger population with less private green space.

Second, many of the developments that will be occurring are out of scale, it will be challenging to acquire adequate land for a park or an open space or facility area or an effective trail connection. The tendency will be to accept cash in lieu of land, however, land costs may be escalating in these areas and the ability to purchase land may be restrictive.

The third consideration is sourcing adequate land as intensification occurs. Pressure will exist on municipalities to attempt to utilize lands at schools, especially if closures are involved; to buy plots of land that maybe have been abandoned or are unused such as former industrial sites; and to utilize hydro rights-of-ways, church properties or other semi-public domain lands for leisure services.

The urban intensification strategy is in its early life stage. Over the next several decades, as intensification grows and potentially increased intensification is regulated, the ability to source adequate leisure services lands/spaces will be increasingly challenging compared to how these resources evolved in the previous decades. Therefore, municipalities will need to be vigilant in looking at land acquisition opportunities related to school closures, possible sites that are turning over, and the use of non-traditional sites.

Also what may need to be considered are new forms of venues within emerging developments. This could include rooftop parks, on-site playgrounds, garden areas and other developments within site development plans. This would potentially place more of an onus on the developer to provide venue opportunities within the development, placing less pressure on municipalities to provide global or generic areas. However, these types of solutions will not likely resolve considerations related to sports fields whether for competitive or recreational use, large open greens for non-programmed use, trail connections and related resource requirements.

Another consideration within this trend is the evident move towards urban design and place-making design standards. Most municipalities are in the process of developing or have developed urban design standards and place-making criteria as a means to significantly upgrade the urban design fabric of their communities. Many of these initiatives involve development of public transit nodes surrounded by commercial and high density residential development; the bringing of residential



homes to the street line; the use of back lanes; and numerous other strategies. These strategies involve land use, architecture, transportation and in many cases, parks and recreation resources. In some cases, the concept of the self-contained neighbourhood or community is emerging, where people work, play, shop and recreate within their local community.

In some communities, there has been an embracing of the “open green” concept where within a subdivision, a one or two acre park is developed with roads on four sides and then houses on the opposite sides of the road. These parks typically are neighbourhood parks with no sports fields. They can provide playgrounds, sun shelters, pathways, garden areas and open play spaces. Some concerns have been raised about the utility of these spaces, the need to cross streets on all four sides to access them and the potentially more limited use that they may be able to offer.

The urban design standards will not only have significant potential impacts on the exterior design of the buildings, but will also shape parking, trail access, streetscape alignment and other design perspectives. One of the major targets within the urban design strategy is parking lots. The general intent is to bring buildings to the street line and have parking less visible and intrusive.

Urban intensification and design trends will have important considerations related to parks, open spaces and community trails, and also in terms of the design and positioning of major recreation facilities. Strategies to respond to the impacts of these trends will be important in ensuring adequate venues and design perspectives associated with leisure facilities and services.

COMMUNITY TRAILS

For over thirty years, communities have been developing trail systems throughout their geographic areas. These trails have utilized hydro rights-of-way, waterfront public lands, linear ravine systems, direct purchases of land, as well as linkages and acquisition of land through the Planning Act in new development areas. Community trails have become one of the most popular and sought after development initiatives within communities. Initially, walking and jogging-type activities were the prominent use. In more recent years, cycling, rollerblading and other uses have emerged in force.

The design of trails has advanced significantly, in terms of hard surfaces to support wheelchairs and bicycle use, rest areas to support older aged users and the concept of connecting destinations so that a linked network evolves. These destinations often involve schools, large parks, attractions, commercial areas, waterfronts, special environmental features and a host of other community resources.

In the last ten years, trail master plans have become common amongst municipalities and are often linked to bicycle master plans and other transportation systems plans.

One of the most significant trends of the last five to ten years has been the linking of community trails to broader linear transportation network planning as a component in these networks. As a result, community trails are increasingly taking on a role as an alternate transportation resource in combination with the fitness, recreational and related activities that have traditionally been the value basis for these resources.

With the development of the broader network system, and also with the integration of trails between municipalities, particularly in regional government areas, has come the notion of a three tiered trail system:

The spinal corridors that are the primary transportation routes;

The local trails that connect neighbourhood and other destinations within communities;



The specialty trails that are theme-based, such as the Chrysler Greenway, Essex County TransCanada Trail, many waterfront trails and those associated key geographic features, such as the Bruce Trail along the Niagara Escarpment.

Community trail development is evolving, and needs to be considered in all new and renewal development occurring within communities as both a recreational experience that sustains leisure interests, fitness and related activities, as well as providing alternate transportation opportunities.

In addition, as trails become more multi-use, involving everything from cyclists training for marathons to seniors walking for health, comes the need to better manage trail utilization to reduce conflicts and to provide trails on a year-round basis. Trail conflicts have existed where bicyclists have collided with trail users, often seniors. As a result, strategies have evolved, such as yellow lines to separate use or to have two track trail systems in heavy use areas. Also evolving, are the development of trail heads, the use of tea rooms and other services along the trails and the maintenance of trails in the wintertime to facilitate year-round utilization. Many cities have been approached by groups who have asked Councils to maintain the trails on a year-round basis so that users can sustain their fitness regimes and facilitate ongoing alternate transportation access.

As the role of trails evolves and utilization grows, trails will become an increasingly important resource that will need continuing investment, maintenance and management to sustain their value and effective use and benefits.

COLLABORATION, PARTNERSHIP AND JOINT VENTURES

The use of partnerships and joint ventures has come to dominate many of the discussions around future leisure services delivery. They are seen as a service delivery strategy that uses all the resources in the community, allows organizations and individuals with expertise and capacity to more effectively deliver service, expands service opportunities within the community and potentially achieves greater cost efficiencies through economies of scale and more coordinated / integrated delivery efforts.

Norfolk County has developed some partnerships as a leisure services delivery strategy. This notion of partnerships and joint ventures, involving the public, private and non-profit sectors, as well as community-based groups, is widely seen from the research and input as a vital leisure service delivery strategy now and in the future.

In terms of strategies, the use of partnerships, joint ventures and 3 Ps, and the expansion of their role and application in delivering major leisure facilities, is a strategy that will need to be examined in all services initiatives. This should be a check list question for each project as to potential partner’s identification, feasibility and desirability. However, the challenges with partnerships, in terms of risk, sustainability, mutual benefit and value for investment, needs to be continually assessed.

Partnerships are also evolving in different contexts. As one example, YMCAs now have over one hundred municipal partnerships and joint ventures in the delivery of leisure services in Canada. The Town of Goderich in 2005 / 2006 entered into a partnership with the Sarnia / Lambton YMCA to build and operate the new South Coast Recreation Complex involving an indoor pool, arena, walking track, gymnasium and fitness centre, along with operating all the Town sports fields, a second arena and leisure programming. YMCAs are also moving into significant partnerships with the City of London on Northeast Recreation and Aquatics Centre and have undertaken similar initiatives in the City of Sarnia, along with the City of Waterloo on a new multi-use complex. In the City of Niagara Falls, a new recreation complex was built by the City and the YMCA in partnership, which houses a YMCA, Branch Library and the City’s Parks and Recreation Offices.



Many different types of partnership models are evolving, both in terms of leisure programs and facilities. There are ongoing efforts to consider different ways of delivering services than traditional municipal only approaches. Financial constraints and the increasing spectrum of leisure services interests results in collaboration, partnerships and joint ventures representing important strategies in responding to an ever changing operating environment.

ROLE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION/COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Municipalities have traditionally held significant responsibility for the development and delivery of leisure services within their communities. This has been generally undertaken for leisure services through a Department of Parks and Recreation / Community Services, and local Library, Museum, Art Centre and related Boards who are funded in whole or in part by the local Municipality.

The municipal role over many years has been as direct funder, developer and operator of leisure facilities and programs. In more recent years, there has been some contraction of the role in leisure services delivery for some municipalities. Some municipalities, such as Niagara Falls, have opted to allow non-profit, community-based, private enterprises and others to undertake more of a role in leisure programs delivery in order to expand services, reduce competition and to use all the resources available within the community. Other municipalities, due to the growth in leisure services and changes in the market and fiscal realities associated with those services, have tended to focus their role on community development, facility capital development and operations and coordination / facilitation activity related to marketing, information provision / referrals and related supports to the overall leisure services network in the community.

Roles of municipalities can sometimes be prioritized around the following:

To identify the leisure needs and interests of the community, along with the provision of information / education on and facilitating access to leisure services;

To act as a facilitator and broker in bringing together partners, including the Municipality, to develop and operate facilities, programs and events in the best and most flexible manner possible in meeting the leisure needs of residents, which are consistent with the strategic directions and priorities of the department and the Municipality;

To assist in the preparation of leisure facility proposals, business plans, event programs, grant applications and related tasks within potential partnerships by supporting organizational and technical development and other capacity building initiatives;

To be directly involved in leisure services delivery when a partnership or third party provider is not viable, is too risk intensive or no other service provider(s) exist to deliver a leisure service that has demonstrated need in the community and meets the service delivery criteria established.

CAPITAL AND OPERATING FINANCES

For the last decade, considerable change has occurred within the context of capital and operating finances for major parks and recreation facilities. For the last ten years or more, targeted senior government recreation and culture grants for leisure facilities have not been as available though some opportunities have opened up in recent years via infrastructure, rural development, culture and other granting programs. For decades, these grants contributed up to one third of capital costs via Wintario and other programs. In more recent years, fundraising, direct financing, Development Charges, municipal grants, corporate sponsorships and other strategies have become significantly more important in funding major parks and recreation facilities and development.



Beyond the loss or limiting of capital grants, the capital funding environment has continued to change significantly. Amendments to the Development Charges Act in 1999 and subsequent rulings have reduced the application of this capital funding source for new resources. The definition of eligible facilities has been reduced, e.g.: no cultural facilities, a redefinition of the service level has lowered the thresholds for the funding of future facilities needed to support population growth in the community, and there is a 10% arbitrary capital cost reduction, along with a penalty for overcapacity. As a result, Development Charges, which have been a primary source for parks and recreation facilities capital funding, especially in faster growing communities, can have a reduced role under the current legislation.

Another capital financing strategy that has begun to emerge has been the use of capital surcharges. The City of Burlington was one of the first to utilize this for the development of the Appleby Ice Centre. In this case, there is a $45 plus surcharge on each hour of adult ice and a $16 plus surcharge on each hour of youth ice. The surcharges are used to pay off the City debenture used to build the facility. Pickering and Oshawa are also utilizing surcharges, the latter at $8 per hour. The Township of Strathroy-Caradoc has introduced a surcharge of $3 for all ice hours rented and the County of Haldimand has a surcharge on only the new Caledonia Community Recreation Centre’s ice but not its' other three arenas.

Other municipalities, e.g.: Stratford, have looked at surcharge applications for both new capital development and long-term renewal / rehabilitation. Burlington has subsequently used this model for a new soccer field and has developed a 7% surcharge on all rental revenues for the Tansley Woods Recreation Centre. Norfolk County applies a 5% capital surcharge. Broadening the use of surcharges is being discussed though it has moved slowly over the last ten years. It does represent another form of capital funding that is user-pay focused. However, it does have some implications in terms of:

High cost capital facilities, such as indoor pools, require sensitivity in terms of any surcharges as user fees could become too high and user volume is needed in order to reduce operating deficits due to the high fixed operating cost nature of these facilities;

Surcharges can create affordability concerns, impact volunteer groups, etc.;

Fairness and equity considerations emerge if surcharges are used on some facilities and not others.

Fundraising and corporate sponsorships, including naming rights have become an increasing source of capital funding for larger recreation and leisure facilities. The opportunities to name facilities, to fund specific rooms or equipment, along with traditional cash donations have become increasingly important. However, the overall fundraising environment is increasingly competitive as not only the leisure services sector, but many sectors are competing for funds on a daily basis, such as health, education and others. Within the context of fundraising, corporate sponsorships have grown significantly which results in a changing relationship with corporate funders who take a stronger marketing and visibility-based approach to their contributions towards a particular project or program. Also, sometimes they wish to contribute value-in-kind as a displacement for direct funding. Fundraising may not always work as a strategy and securing and retaining volunteers to drive a fundraising campaign is a concern due to community volunteer fatigue. Fundraising can be a goal but does not come with a guarantee. It has enhanced application for joint venture initiatives where there may be significant shared outcomes.

There is now a wider mix of capital funding sources applied to leisure facility initiatives than in the past. Where major facility initiatives were once funded from two or three sources, it is likely in the future, that they will require four, five and six sources. This direction will create stronger partnership needs and a greater risk orientation related to creative financing approaches.



From an operating perspective, increases in user fees have become a growing strategy over the last decade for all municipalities. Most municipalities have increasing expectations that user fees will continue to move between 60% and 80% coverage of a department's total budget and even higher over time.

Increasing onus is being put on users to fund facility operations. As these funding formulas become more sophisticated, they begin to include not only direct costs, but also allocated corporate and indirect administrative costs, capital maintenance reserves and capital upgrading charges

EVALUATION

Municipalities are moving into the area of services evaluation that are more comprehensive, data and input-based and which will become a key component in establishing servicing priorities/core services and resource allocations. Some municipalities have instituted a regular three year resident survey on twenty-five or more service themes, which gauges the value residents place on services through a gap analysis approach involving the level of satisfaction versus level of importance. This process identifies outcomes related to utilization levels, value held for the service and overall importance to residents.

The notion of evaluation has become increasingly apparent in all public and other service sectors as expectations grow for outcomes and restraint exists on the availability of public resources. Best practices and evaluation programs are supportive to continuous improvement approaches in ensuring that resource decisions and operations are consistent with the real, demonstrated needs and interests of residents.

Evaluation of leisure services has become increasingly apparent now and for the years ahead. Both existing and new parks and recreation facilities and services will be influenced more and more by these evaluation strategies and their outcomes. As a result, leisure services will increasingly need to be targeted on specific needs that are demonstrated by community members, support specific outcomes that benefit those that have the needs and will need to be flexible and adaptable to the changing uses and applications that will occur within the population.

MULTI-USE / MULTI-PARTNER FACILITIES

The multi-use concept for major parks and recreation facilities has been available and used for many years both as a concept and in practice. Multi-use leisure facilities have more critical mass, potentially better operating and capital economies of scale, higher visibility and greater customer service potential by creating a single access venue. However, they also tend to result in larger facilities that move to a district and municipal-wide servicing perspective, potentially reducing neighbourhood / local area level presence and roles. There can be some significant trade-offs.

Multi-use facilities have been identified from the research as a strategy in developing major leisure facilities in many municipalities, such as with joint venture operators and public libraries. It is a strategy that is the basis for a partnership oriented facility development model.

USE OF SCHOOLS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY

Currently, some community-based leisure programs and activities occur within schools owned and operated by local school boards. Bill 160 reshaped school management and operations, including the cost of maintaining schools, how surplus schools are disposed of and other key considerations. In June 2004, the new provincial government of the day announced $20 million provincially to facilitate increased affordability access to school-based facilities. This program was renewed in late 2006 and continues.



The community use of schools user fees were recast between 1995 and 2004 to reflect a true cost accounting approach compared to the previous more free / low cost access model. This resulted in reduced use of schools and pressure for more municipal facilities due to affordability issues by community service providers. If school use were to be eliminated, it creates a need to develop new community centres and related facilities often with gymnasiums.

Another community use of schools relationship issue is the development of campuses or the attachment of community facilities to schools. Future campus strategies will need to be assessed for balance, vulnerability and risk before being entered into due to increasing school closures and anticipated schools or undeveloped school sites that are not needed are being sold off. School boards also benefit from joint school and park development and have relied on adjacent parkland to fulfil school green space, play space and sport and physical education curriculum.

Due to school closure policies and directions of school boards, the building of additions to schools for community facilities is potentially a less supportable strategy then it was fifteen to twenty years ago. A preferred strategy in this regard may be to develop multi-use facilities with other partners if longer-term sustainability is evident. If access to schools can be reasonably achieved and sustained, it represents an affordable and preferable strategy for providing selected indoor and outdoor activity spaces.

With respect to non-specialized facilities, school resources continue to represent one approach as they are the most widely distributed resources for the provision of leisure programs in the community. They are flexible, service many neighbourhoods and represent a potentially more cost efficient approach.

In terms of a strategic direction, access to schools should be a preferred delivery strategy under the following conditions:

Local area / neighbourhood servicing strategies for leisure programs for both programmed and non-programmed activities;

By improving relationships between the users and the onsite school staff to enhance access and participant experiences;

Pursuing the development of specialized facilities with schools with caution, particularly existing schools in areas with declining student enrolment;

Examining opportunities for campus relationships between the school boards and park and recreation facility providers, ensuring that there is a reasonable contingency plan, if school development does not proceed or if a school closure occurs.

GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE LEVELS

Community leisure facilities have different servicing scales and impacts, and thus serve different geographic service zones. As an example, arenas and community centres often serve larger geographic areas that represent clusters of neighbourhoods, i.e.: a district or a whole municipality. At the local area / neighbourhood level, facilities can often involve an elementary school, a clubhouse or small community room facility or related resource.

As leisure services move to larger and more multi-purpose facilities, and as user expectations grow as to quality and intensity of the services offered, there has been a move to larger facilities that results in more district and municipal-wide level servicing. The likelihood of fewer neighbourhood / local area oriented facilities could result, due to their smaller market areas, higher operating costs for standalone facilities and other factors.



What is important is not to lose the context of local area servicing related to both programmed and non-programmed activity. Some input was received during the consultation process about the move towards more intensively programmed facilities and the possible loss of free form / non-programmed-based recreational and leisure activities especially in local areas.

Operating local centres, is a higher operating cost strategy but can provide local area servicing opportunities potentially augmented by the use of available elementary schools, often using both Public and Catholic schools. Other local area services can also be offered via churches, club facilities and related facilities. This continues to be the best strategy for the delivery of local area leisure services. However, it does have important challenges outlined previously. Such a strategy will require sustaining access to some centres and school facilities, with potential municipal assistance to user organizations.

Balancing Rehabilitation with New Development

Another strategy consideration is whether parks and recreation facility initiatives become focused on new facility development or the redevelopment of existing facilities via additions, renovations, venue renewal and related changes. The strategies around this particular consideration will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. It will also be dependent on what partnerships are available and what resource transitions are occurring at the time related to the types of uses, level of need and funding that is available. It may be that rehabilitation with expansion is a less capital intensive strategy than new construction if no land costs are incurred and if better economies can be achieved operationally.

As a strategy, new leisure facility initiatives should be evaluated as to what options are available to achieve the facility in the context of rehabilitating and readapting an existing facility or venue. Balancing new facility and venue development with existing facility and venue rehabilitation should be part of an evaluation framework related to parks and recreation facilities development.

CAPITAL FACILITY MAINTENANCE

One of the often forgotten dimensions of leisure facility ownership is the ongoing capital maintenance of facilities with respect to the replacement of major components, such as chillers in arenas, filters and pumps in indoor pools, roofs in community centres, park playground equipment and sports field infrastructure. Over a twenty year period, considerable capital rehabilitation can be required. Portions of these costs are sometimes paid for from reserves contributed from annual budgets. However, other supports are usually required due to the magnitude of the project and limitation of reserves. Since these projects often do not involve expansion or renovations, but rather capital replacement and maintenance, they typically are not candidates for fundraising or partnership approaches.

One of the key recognized trends is that many public bodies have significant capital maintenance and reserves deficits that will put increasing pressure on operating budgets in order to sustain these facilities and venue resources. The utilization of pro-active reserve funding approaches for capital renewal, self-sustaining debt coverage and other financing strategies should be incorporated.



SUMMARY The following material summarizes the trends and strategies perspectives:

An aging population profile is evolving, but there will not necessarily be an absolute decline in youth numbers. Therefore, a need to have a more balanced services delivery focus that moves beyond a strong youth orientation focus since the 1960s;

The ability to address, both through the principle of inclusiveness and participation, the needs and impacts of a changing ethno cultural mix within the population. A mix that will have other types of interests based on their traditions and experiences, as well as will want, in some areas, to adapt to Canadian leisure activities. Education, communications, engagement and focused contact with these communities represent important strategy considerations.

Other trends are as follows:

Increased participation of females in sports, particularly related to girl’s and women’s adult hockey;

Expected growth in soccer at both the youth and adult levels;

Increased interest in extreme sports and specialized sports, such as year-round outdoor ball hockey, more skateboarding facilities, etc.;

Some declines in baseball, racquet sports and related activities;

Potential interest in multi-culturally related activities, such as cricket.

Ever increasing expectations amongst users relative to facility quality, driven both by consumer and fee expectations, as well as what is being developed in other communities. This has significant capital and operating cost implications;

The increasing merger of sport and cultural tourism with parks and recreation services facilities and operations as one of the key rationales and points of investment;

An increasing interest in the environment and the conservation of key environmental features, such as water / wetlands, woodlots, ravines, etc., which often brings additional lands and management responsibilities to a Municipality;

An increasing emphasis on energy efficient facility and venue designs, using LEED Standards as a baseline;

The growing importance and value for arts, culture and heritage as part of a healthy and creative city and in support of changing resident values and population characteristics;

The increasing integration of community, health, education, social and policy services relative to holistic servicing strategies, often led by health units and both public and community-based social service providers;

The increasing sophistication, emphasis on and impact of user fees and rental rates development relative to how they are prepared, their fairness and equity, transparency; and the ability to develop them in a meaningful and consistent way;



The growth in market segmentation and services differentiation between recreational use, higher skill interests and other types of uses that define different market niches and varying types of expectations and levels of needs amongst participants;

The increasing role of not-for-profit, private sector and community organizations in the delivery of leisure services and the potentially changing role of municipalities with a greater emphases on facilitation and community development;

The growing use of partnerships, joint ventures and community engagement as a basis to facilitate services development and delivery;

The increasing use of a wider array of capital and operating financial sources to support services delivery, including corporate sponsorships, community fundraising, senior government grants, etc.;

The increasing emphasis on the evaluation of services delivery to ensure that the right services are being delivered within the appropriate frameworks and with the desired outcomes;

The increasing emphasis on multi-use facilities and the potential to use more of the community’s facilities in terms of institutions, schools, clubs / associations, etc.;

The growing emphasis to balance the need for the rehabilitation of aging facilities in conjunction with the development of new facilities, along with the importance of ensuring adequate resourcing for ongoing capital facility maintenance, renewal and serviceability.

SPECIFIC ACTIVITY TRENDS INTRODUCTION

The following material provides some perspectives and insights on trends that are influencing participation in selective recreation and leisure activities that will have influence on the future development alternatives and priorities for Norfolk County, Parks, Facilities and Recreation Master Plan.

Participation in various recreational and sport activities is driven by two key perspectives:

Population Growth as the population grows or declines, the absolute number of people available to participate in any activity also changes. Norfolk County is forecasted to continue to experience some mixed population growth involving a higher proportionate of seniors / retirees and some younger families in new development particularly in communities closer to the lake and in Simcoe.

Participation Rate this participation growth or decline factor is based on resident’s interest in participating in a specific recreational or sport activity. There are many influences that drive the impacts on participation, such as an aging population with proportionately fewer younger members within the demographic profile; the growing number of new Canadians within the



population who have not experienced the same recreation and sport activities, such as recent immigrants and ice-based activities; contemporary/cultural popularity of certain activities; the cost of participation, as well as the convenience of schedules and venue availability; and the emergence of new activities or modified current activities that increase the diversity of choices that people have for participation; economic downturns that could reduce people’s discretionary income to pay the fees for participation; and a host of other influences.

Because of the wide range impacts and influences on recreation and sports participation, the participation rates tend to be dynamic over relatively short periods of time.

INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TRENDS

Baseball

Minor baseball has experienced one of the most significant participation transitions, greater than for most recreation activities. In the ten years after the Toronto Blue Jays last won the World Series, registration in minor baseball in Ontario declined between 30% and 60% across many municipalities, except in the Niagara Region and Windsor-Essex where there is considerable affinity to the border areas with the United States and a strong culture for baseball exists. Over the last ten years, Baseball Ontario has undertaken a significant marketing and community development effort to renew baseball. This effort has resulted in increased registrations of over 30% compared to the lows experienced in the early 2000s. However, the registrations have not come back to the levels of 1992 and 1993 or likely will.

Registrations have been impacted by a number of factors:

The evident declining youth populations in rural Ontario and smaller communities, as well as in populations in communities up to 100,000 people outside of the Greater Toronto Area;

Soccer’s significant increase in popularity has resulted in a number of youth moving to soccer from baseball or not participating in baseball at all as they come of age to participate;

A significant portion of the youth age cohorts involve new Canadians who have had no baseball exposure or experience and do not know the sport;

Preference by some parents to have their children participate in higher aerobic-based activities for health and fitness purposes.

The general perspective is that baseball registration could increase based on population growth but will experience little or no participation rate increases within the population as the key influencing factors of an aging population and declining youth cohorts, the increasing number of new Canadians proportionality and other factors will influence the choices made by families.

In terms of adult baseball, the following is identified:

The once popular and very dynamic men’s and women’s fastball leagues have declined significantly, especially in rural and smaller communities where these leagues were once very popular. There are many small communities that have lighted fast ball



diamonds that are not used or are significantly underutilized. This has been driven by the aging population and the continuing movement of younger adults from the rural areas to urban centres for education and employment;

In terms of slow-pitch, there has been a decline in overall participation. This decline has been mitigated to some degree by the increasing segmentation of the sport in terms of competitive and recreational leagues, competitive and recreational mixed leagues, age-based leagues and other strategies that have sustained the sport to a degree. However, growth is likely connected primarily to population growth. The major boom in slow-pitch activity occurred over the last twenty-five to thirty years and was highly influenced by the “boomer” generation that constitutes 32% of Ontario’s population. This generation is now fifty to sixty-five years of age. One half of this generation is fifty-five to sixty years of age. Therefore, for the next five to ten years there will be a pool of players for slow-pitch from this generation but it will likely continue to diminish as this large cohort ages. Younger adults will continue to play slow-pitch, however there tends to be fewer of them in the population proportionately and immigration drives population growth. Also, with the rise of adult soccer, there may be a reduced number of people within the younger cohorts that select slow-pitch.

Ice Activities

Boy’s Minor Hockey has been one of the strongest culturally-based activities in Canadian society. Registrations through Hockey Canada at one time were in excess of 500,000 individuals. However, Boy’s Minor Hockey has experienced declines in recent years due to three key factors:

The reduced number of children in the population, both proportionally in terms of absolute numbers, especially in rural communities, smaller towns and related geographic areas;

The fact that population growth is driven by the influx of new Canadians who primarily come from the Middle East, the Far East, South America and Africa where ice-based sports have little or no presence, and therefore, there is no cultural affinity to participate in or an understanding of these activities;

Increasing costs to support a child in minor hockey due to equipment, ice, registration and related costs, as well as injury concerns by some parents.

Hockey Canada has a program to grow registration, particularly within new Canadian communities. Major work is being undertaken in this area as there is an evident understanding of the implications to the sport and Canada. One example would be the South London Minor Hockey Association which had the largest Minor Hockey Association in London with 1,200 children. Over a five year period, some 20,000 new Canadians moved into the White Oaks area, this along with an aging population in what was once mostly a young family’s area of London, caused registration to decline to less than 500 children.

Girl’s Minor Hockey continues to grow. It historically has grown by about 15% a year and 30% after Olympic years. Growth has been ongoing for over a decade and has been a significant part of the driving force to expand arena capacity across Ontario. Growth has settled to lower levels but is influenced significantly by:

Population growth;

Young females continuing to take an interest in the sport, especially as stereo-typical expectations have changed around girl’s participation in hockey.



Girl’s hockey will continue to grow above population growth but likely not at the levels experienced through the 2000’s. It will also be influenced by the ability of Hockey Canada and others to engage with new Canadian communities.

Ringette has experienced significant declines as girl’s hockey has increased. At one time there was speculation that Ringette would devolve completely but this is not the case. Most Ringette programs in Ontario are now developed at a regional basis in terms of team formation which has allowed the sport to continue and still be viable in some areas. The amount of ice time utilized has declined significantly over the last ten years but still represents an ongoing activity for young females. The influences on its participation levels will be primarily marginally upward in terms of population growth and downward in terms of the impact of growth in girl’s hockey.

Adult hockey is moving in two directions. Men’s adult hockey continues to be strong-based on the market segmentation strategies that now find under thirty-five and over thirty-five teams, under fifty and over fifty teams and the emergence of the over seventy year old teams. This type of segmentation keeps some players involved longer than would happen if they had to play with younger players.

However, participation levels are declining as the aging population occurs. The strength of the adult participation over the last twenty-five to thirty years has been the result of the “boomer” generation as discussed in the section on baseball. With the “boomers” now being fifty to sixty-five years of age, fewer will be participating and there are fewer younger people in behind to offset those retiring from the sport. Also the emergence of an increased proportion of new Canadians within the adult population who have had no exposure to hockey, will also have an impact over the next ten to fifteen years.

Therefore, men’s hockey will likely see a diminished participation level due to:

Aging population and the “baby-boomer” demographic impacts;

The increasing number of new Canadians proportionately in the population;

Other choices that people have for participation;

A growing population will mitigate some of the potential declines on a limited basis.

For women’s hockey, growth is projected, both based on population growth and participation growth. As with men’s hockey some twenty-five to thirty years ago, some young females who play girl’s hockey will want to continue participating at adult levels. The emergence of adult female hockey leagues is evident in many communities and is growing. This will likely be a significant trend over the next twenty years as the participants will not be from the boomer generation but will be from the X and Y generations. However, the increasing number of adult new Canadians in the population will mitigate the overall level of growth that will be experienced.

Figure skating in its various forms has relatively stable participation. It will be primarily influenced by population growth as participation levels are influenced by the proportion of youth in the population and the growing number of children who are new Canadian and come from ethno-cultural communities.

The Learn to Skate and the developmental programs should remain relatively stable and could experience some growth if new Canadian children participate at younger ages in these types of programs. Culturally, figure skating has had some exposure to new Canadians, especially from the Far East where it has a following but has limited exposure in Africa, South America and the Middle East.



Population growth and some interest amongst new Canadians will likely result in stable or marginally higher levels of participation.

Other ice sports, such as sledge hockey activities for specialized populations, will continue to grow however, the proportionality of these populations in the overall population is small and many new

Canadians who have children or adults with disabilities would have little or no exposure to ice-based sports to influence their choices.

Soccer

Soccer has and will continue to grow substantively over the next decades in regards to both male and female participation and youth and adult engagement. The primary influences for these outcomes are as follows:

Population growth;

Significant participation in soccer by new Canadians in their homelands;

Increasing T.V., media and other coverage of soccer on a world scale, as soccer becomes a main stream sport activity;

At the recreational and competitive levels for youth and adults, the low cost to participate;

The aerobic/fitness value of soccer participation;

The increasing organizational capacity at the local level for youth and adults, enhanced soccer facilities being developed, and the emergence of indoor soccer to create a twelve month a year playing opportunity.

Youth soccer for boys and girls is experiencing growth due to both population and new Canadian influences. The participation of children and young adults has carry-over value into adult leagues which are growing significantly, being similar to adult hockey over the last twenty to thirty years.

Of all the sport oriented recreational activities, soccer will experience the greatest growth across a spectrum of ages, gender, ethnicity, affordability and related perspectives.

With significant participation growth and market segmentation in the adult leagues, i.e.; under thirty-five and over thirty-five, etc., similar to what occurred a number of years ago for adult hockey, the result will be continued higher levels of play as the current youth players age. Soccer will not be influenced by the aging population as the “boomer” generation was not significantly engaged in soccer. Adult soccer is more based on the X and Y generations and higher penetration rates amongst younger generations.

Growth rates of 5% to 15% could occur for at least another five to ten years and then move towards more stabilization. Growth will be dependent on venue availability, time of play and accessibility to play and population demographics. Also, the current movement to a year round play and to being a mainstream activity etc. indicates strong growth perspectives.

In terms of indoor play, this is comparable to hockey were summer ice and play became a major activity approximately twenty years ago and has continued but to a lesser extent in more recent years. Not all the outdoor soccer players will transition seasonally to indoor play, however a number will, and there will be increasing demand for indoor facilities to support year round play growth in this sport.



Other Field Sports

There is an array of field sports that also operate in municipal park facilities. These include minor football, field hockey, cricket, field lacrosse, disk sports and others. Some are long established activities and others are emerging ones.

Minor football is a long established activity. However, it did experience significant declines through the 1990s as soccer participation grew significantly. There has been stabilization and some growth through the 2000s. Its future growth will be primarily related to population growth rather than participation increases. This is influenced by:

The soccer choice option that is increasingly popular, especially amongst the growing number of new Canadians who would have no football experience or exposure;

The proportion of children in the youth population;

The higher costs to play football due to the equipment requirements.

There will be some growth related to population increases but not likely significant growth in terms of needing more venues though additional venues may be required over time if population growth drives that particular need.

Field lacrosse is a relatively unknown sport though there is a small following. This sport can utilize other outdoor playing fields. It appeals to people who have a specialized interest in lacrosse. It tends to be less popular than box / arena lacrosse. It is not anticipated to have any significant growth and may experience some declines. Indoor lacrosse, on the other hand could grow due to both population growth and the emergence/profile of the National Lacrosse League. Arena lacrosse uses arenas off season and no new venue needs are seen.

Cricket is a sport that is currently organized on a broad regional basis, primarily played Sunday afternoons by new Canadian populations. With the emergence of two world class cricket pitches in Brampton, as well more modest pitches in the Waterloo Region, Burlington and other areas, this sport does continue to show some growth. Its growth is not population growth but based on new Canadians, primarily from the Indian sub-continent. With the continuing migration from these areas to Canada, participation in the sport will likely grow but modestly. It is not anticipated that there will be substantive growth like soccer but there will be some growth. Where venues are not available, increasing requests for specialized venues or placing a cricket pitch over two parallel soccer fields will likely increase.

Currently, the organizationally infrastructure for cricket is not at a level that will advance the sport significantly in the short term, but like soccer and other sports, this could change over the next decade.

Disk sports are organized but have a niche market presence. It appeals particularly to young adults. Some have identified it as an emerging sport and it has over 200 participants in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It also has outdoor and indoor components. It is a recreational activity that has both physical and social dimensions. Its growth will be influenced by population growth amongst the X and Y generations as it has little presence amongst the “boomer” generation. It is also a sport that would have limited experience or exposure amongst new Canadians. However, its low cost to participate, social dimensions and physical activity could result in some growth. Growth would likely be both by population increases as well some limited participation increases.

Rugby is a long standing sport that is primarily a niche orientated activity in secondary schools. However, the emergence of women’s rugby in the Ontario and the Canada Games, and continuing male adult activity will result in some expansion in this sport. Its key influences are:



Population growth, some of which comes from countries such as England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and other areas where rugby has popularity;

The low cost of participation;

The high aerobic/fitness value;

The notable/historic social dimensions within the rugby culture.

Overall, it will likely remain a more niche-oriented sport with a limited following that could be influenced by population growth to a marginal growth level.

Trails/Walking

With the increasing emphasis on healthy lifestyles, walking has grown amongst all population generations as an important activity. The use of trails continues to grow substantively, as do participants in mall/arena walking. Walking will continue to grow for the following reasons:

The low cost to participate;

The multiple routes and alternatives available to create diversity and interest;

The ability to walk alone, with friends, in small groups or larger entities;

The availability of indoor and outdoor walking facilities that support year round participation no matter what the weather;

The ability to undertake the activity anytime of the day or day of the week;

The noted health benefits of walking in terms of muscle development/tone, aerobic support, etc.;

The ability to walk no matter what one’s ages if mobile.

Track and Field

Track and field is a long standing activity within Canadian society. This is a sport that has limited competitive activity relative to several meets a year but significant need for training facilities. There are also outdoor and indoor dimensions to the sport.

Growth in this sport is primarily driven by population growth. Participation growth is influenced by:

Low cost to participate;

The high value of the fitness and aerobic activity;

Periodic high exposure levels due to the Olympics, Pan Am, and other Games that influences participation.

Impacts on track and field participation are:

The emphasis on the amount of training for the number of meets;

The need for good coaches and venues;

The overall low visibility of the sport.



There will be some growth due to population increases. Participation is not high due to the participation alternatives available to participants and the fact that track and field tends to be associated with high schools and universities, though there are community-based clubs as well.

Gymnastics

This is an activity that has transitioned to dedicated facilities, often within club environments. With the declining number of youth and the emergence of new Canadians proportionately in the population, gymnastics will not likely show much growth beyond population growth. Also, the amount of equipment and specialized set ups generally position this type of activity within club environments with the more “learn to” gymnastic programs hosted in public gymnasiums.

Gymnasium Sports and Fitness

Gymnasium sports for youth will continue to be evident but not likely grow substantially as the portion of this population stabilizes in terms of volume and changes in terms of cultural demographics. Basketball and volleyball are popular programs and have shown growth over previous years but has been more stabilized. Population growth will likely drive most of the increases for these particular activities.

On the adult side, there has been increasing activity in adult volleyball and basketball leagues, as well as the emergence of the new adult recreation and social clubs that can have registrations up to 6,000 people a year in some centres. Floor hockey, yoga, basketball, volleyball, all-sports and related programs have attracted up 2,000 participants for seasonal cycle.

It is anticipated that the X and Y generation will participate in these sports heavily as fitness is a big part of their quality of life priorities. Growth could be in the 5% plus range for another five plus years.

Organized fitness activity has increased substantially over the last decade, with a particular emphasis on boomer, X and Y generations. Going to a health club and/or participating in specialized fitness classes, Pilates, etc. has increased significantly. There have been a significant number of program variants that have emerged, as has the phenomena of “boot camps” in public parks. There is likely going to be continuing interest in these types of activities and fitness centres as population growth occurs. In terms of fitness programming, this is very much driven by the latest fitness packages that emerge and often is more targeted to female participants although many male participants are also involved. Some of these fitness programs occur within health clubs, many occur within community recreation facilities, as well as YMCAs, hotels/motels and other centres that have fitness equipment or programming space.

Demand for fitness programs is likely to continue to grow as it is not dependent on the “boomer” generation as it is on the X and Y generation and the emerging technology generation.



SUMMARY In summary, the following trends by activity could be experienced:

Soccer, across gender and ages, will grow both based on population and participation rate growth. One could anticipate a minimum 5% to 10% annual compounded growth rate, possibly, for at least five and likely ten or more years. The growth in soccer will occur both in terms of outdoor and indoor activities with the greatest growth potential on an outdoor seasonal basis;

Minor hockey will likely stabilize / decline in many rural locations. Any growth would be primarily based on population growth with the one caveat being how Hockey Canada’s program positions the sport within ethno-cultural communities and whether offsets for the increasing costs to participate can be achieved;

Girls hockey will continue to grow, probably not at the 15% per year level, but likely more in the 3% to 5% range for the next decade;

Adult hockey will likely diminish as “boomers” get older and there are fewer offsets to take their places in the adult leagues, though there could be increased growth amongst female adults for at least ten more years or longer. Adult male leagues could decline in the 5% to 10% range in the next number of years while the female adult leagues will likely grow at 3% or higher a year on average;

Figure skating and related activities will likely grow based on population growth at potentially 1% or 2% per year unless something comes into the operating environment that changes the participation levels;

Baseball will likely grow more related to population growth in the youth categories. Some recovery has been achieved since the low ebb in the middle 2000s and the offset that soccer and other sports are causing. Adult baseball will likely continue its decline, potentially 3% to 5% a year as the aging population transitions out of physical activity and there are fewer adults who will have an interest in this sport due to the proportionality of new Canadians driving population growth;

Minor football, lacrosse and similar sports will likely be relatively stable with some impacts from population growth;

Rugby could achieve some growth beyond population growth as it has become more pronounced in multi-sport events, such as the Canada and the Ontario Games. It will not be significant in comparison to soccer;

Walking will continue to be a growth activity, especially as the “boomers” age out and utilize this activity in retirement for all the reasons cited in terms of easy access and participation, indoor and outdoor activities, etc.;

Track and field will experience growth primarily due to population growth and some increased growth due to health and fitness and related perspective growth. It is not anticipated to be substantial;

Gymnastics will grow primarily based on population growth. The emergence of dedicated facilities delivered by clubs will support the higher end training and development programs. Some recreational activity within public gymnasiums could



occur but is complex due to the need for equipment, equipment storage in the building, and set up and tear downs which typically is best undertaken in the club environments;

Gym sports will have varied experiences driven partly by population growth but also by the declining number of young people for volleyball and basketball. Basketball does have a stronger position amongst some ethno-cultural populations, particularly from South America, the Mediterranean and Far East populations. In terms of youth sports, basketball will likely grow above population growth but volleyball will parallel population growth. For adults, one would anticipate growth in adult gymnasium sports in terms of basketball and volleyball, and also with the emergence of the newer adult social and recreation clubs that have become popular and have significant registrations and are playing sports such as floor hockey, all-sports, etc. The emergence of young adult to middle adult age sport and recreation clubs that operate on a multi-sport basis could show increased growth, well above population growth, placing increasing demand on gymnasiums and outdoor play spaces;

Fitness in terms of both fitness centres and fitness programs (fitness classes, yoga, Pilates, etc.) will continue to show growth, especially as new fitness program elements come into the environment. These activities have gained significant support amongst X and Y generations, particularly Y generation populations who place a higher emphasis on quality of life and healthier outcomes. These types of activities will grow by more than average population growth projections.



10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND STRATEGIC THEMES

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS COMMUNITY PROFILE Norfolk’s future population growth will come from the in-migration of middle-age and older residents moving from outside the County. However, the continued out-migration of young adults will somewhat negate the future growth. There will be sufficient designated residential lands to accommodate the forecasted population growth. The County’s management of population growth will focus on the urban centres, specifically Simcoe and Port Dover.

The complexity of the County’s features and taking into effect the County’s aging profile, will require a more balanced service delivery that will meet the needs of older active seniors with the needs of the youth.

MAJOR FACILITY UTILIZATION PROFILES

Arenas

All six arenas are single ice pad facilities built thirty or more years ago. They have been well maintained. Twin pad arenas today are significantly more efficient to operate, 20% to 25%, and less costly to build by about 25%. Future considerations when arena replacement needs to be considered should focus on twin pad arenas due to their operational efficiencies and preference by tournament and program operators.

There is significant non-prime time hours available in the arenas though the amount has diminished by 2013 to 85.5 hours per week, increasing from 23.1% utilization in 2010 to 34.7% utilization in 2013.

In 2010, 81.7% of prime time hours were utilized across the six arenas which has dropped marginally to 79.4% in 2011 and 79.0% in 2013. In 2013, there was approximately 85.5 prime time hours available weekly, universally later evening hours and early morning hours on Saturday and Sunday. The Tri-Centura Arena has the highest utilization rate for prime time, 98.2% in 2013. Talbot Gardens was second at 83.3%. The lowest prime time utilization rates in 2013 were at the Simcoe Recreation Centre, 69.5%. Langton and Port Dover Arenas in the lower 70% range and the Delhi Arena in the 78.7% range.

Delhi, Langton, Port Dover and Simcoe Recreation Centre all had declining prime time utilization between 2010 and 2013, with Langton having the highest reduction from 81.6% prime time utilization to 72.9%. The data suggests that there are significant hours available on a prime time basis, and that there is no latent demand to warrant consideration for additional ice resources in Norfolk at this time.



Baseball Fields Total ball field utilization has declined from 1,003 reservations in 2010 to 878 reservations in 2013, down 125 uses per year or 12.5%. The Courtland, Langton, the Dover Wood and Arena A in Port Dover, Cedar Park A and B in Simcoe and Walsingham fields represent fairly low utilization diamonds. The Delhi Arena, Kinsmen A in Port Dover, the Lions fields 1, 2 and 3 and Memorial in Simcoe represented high use fields.

Some reconfiguration of ball diamonds could be considered in the future if diamond utilization continues to decline at the levels that are being indicated over the last three years. However, they are influencing factors, such as Baseball Ontario’s drive to increase youth baseball and several strong baseball programs that are already operating within Norfolk County.

Picnic Shelters Picnic shelter use has increased from 107 reservations in 2010 to 135 reservations in 2013. Simcoe Kinsmen, Courtland, Port Rowan Arena and Simcoe Lions all have over 20 reservations per year. For the other four facilities, three picnic shelters had six uses per year and one had eleven reservations per year.

PARKS AND RECREATION FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS

Financial Operating Profile For 2011 to 2013, total revenues for the Parks and Recreation Services grew from $2.831 million to $2.898 million. Approximately 25% of revenues each year were from recreation and 75% was associated with parks and facilities. The largest generator of revenue were the arenas at $1.460 million, approximately 50% of total revenues.

Expenditures for parks and recreation services have increased from $8.872 million in 2011 to $9.665 million in 2013, up $793,000. Labour costs constituted 50% or more of the service delivery cost structure for the recreation area, plus for concessions, cemeteries, property management and forestry.

On a net basis, the County invested $6.014 million in 2011, in 2012 $6.027 million and $6.766 million in 2013 on a net operating basis. The largest points of investment were for the arenas that ranged in the $1.5 million area each year, as well as parks which were just marginally less.

The coverage ratio, that is the percent of total earned income over the total cost to deliver the service, has consistently ranged around 31%, requiring approximately a 69% contribution from the County to deliver the total range of services offered. On a net per capita cost basis, the range of services on a net basis incurred $95.63 in 2011, $98.25 in 2012 and $107.05 in 2013.

The County of Norfolk has undertaken significant investments in its parks and recreation services. Some of these levels of investments reflect the nature of the dispersed services delivery model; the significant array of indoor and outdoor parks and recreation opportunities, and the quality of the facilities which are generally well maintained.

Capital Expenditures In 2011, $510,000 in capital was expended on parks and recreation assets, which significantly increased in 2012 to $2.07 million and $1.23 million in 2013. In 2011, the dominant expenditures



were for the arenas. For 2012 and 2013, there was significant expenditures across a wide range of venues and uses.

The 2014 to 2023 Capital Forecast Plan for Parks and Recreation identifies expenditures ranging from $50,000 in 2022 to $1.26 million in 2015 and various sums for all the other years, totalling $3.406 million over the period. Refrigeration, spectator areas and ice surfaces represent over $1 million of the projections with $500,000 on an annualized $50,000 basis to be spent on playground replacements.

No new facilities are identified in the capital forecast.

Capital Funding Resources The Parkland Reserve Fund had an opening balance in 2013 of $167,392, which will be used for the significant investments outlined and will be reduced it to $7,496 by 2024. Most of the funds within this reserve will be expended through the 2013-2024 Capital Program.

The Parks and Recreation Development Charges Fund had an opening balance of $335,932 in 2013 and is forecasted to have a closing balance of $765,757 by 2024. The years 2017 through to 2022 are forecasted to have negative balances due to an outflow of planned investments. The developer contributions are identified at $123,373 in 2013, and forecasted to grow each year by a modest amount to $264,800 in 2024.

The General Capital Replacement Reserve (equipment for all departments) had an opening balance of $300,152 in 2013 but is forecasted to be in a negative position thereafter. The General Building Reserve (all County buildings) had an opening balance of $1.561 million in 2013 and is forecasted to have a closing balance in 2024 of $5.020 million with annual levy contributions ranging from $188,100 in 2019 to $2.834 million in 2024.

SERVICE DELIVERY Parks and Recreation services are delivered generally through three service provider categories – community non-for-profit organizations / institutions that are extremely active across the community and have been for decades in terms of both fundraising, program delivery and site operations; the private sector, with much of their activity connected to the tourism industry and the waterfront areas; and the County which has assumed a significant array of programs and parks and recreation venues.

Each service category has a key role to play in the delivery of programs and services. The County is the primary provider of park and recreation venues and special sites, such as trails, open spaces, nature preserves, etc.

Community organizations, including school boards, Conservation Authorities and Provincial Parks also operate major institutions and venues across the County which provide a wide array of recreational activities and are key providers in the total mix of services available to the residents of Norfolk.

The Community Services Department’s Parks and Recreation Division is divided into five operating units including parks and recreation operations, forestry and cemeteries, trails development / business marketing, aquatics and community programs which identifies the wide array of responsibilities and services that it is responsible for.



There is a significant staffing complement involving full time, part time and seasonal, casual and student staff who undertake the operation of all the recreation facilities, parks and open space sites, and program delivery. The organizational structure focuses on the key service delivery units for parks, facilities and recreation and has been evolving over the last number of years reflecting emerging priorities and new initiatives such as trails, marketing and other perspectives that have changed within the operating environment.

VOLUNTEERS Volunteers, either as individuals or part of a larger group, are essential to building a healthy and cohesive community. The provision of organized sports, arts and culture, trail development and environmental stewardship are key areas where volunteer commitment is recognized. With the volunteers aging, combined with the younger generation’s time commitments, volunteer sustainability is becoming an increasingly important concern. Maintaining and enhancing the support systems for volunteer individuals and organizations will continue to be a priority.

PARKS AND TRAILS Norfolk County has a total of 335.4 acres of parkland, which is considerable for a rural community with a population of just over 63,000. Norfolk’s natural heritage plays a key role in the abundance of parkland.

Norfolk’s urban centres are well positioned with the amount of community parks totaling 231 acres, resulting in 7.54 acres per 1000 population. Community – athletic parks have the highest amount of parkland at 160 acres. This park category consists of a mix of sports fields, play areas, tennis/multi-use courts and open space. Additional amenities include lawn bowling, skateboarding, splash pads and ball hockey. Community – nature parks have the second highest amount of parkland at 47.8 acres. This category consists of forests and watercourses that stay in their natural existence. Community – special purpose parks have the lowest amount of park acreage at 22.7. These special purpose parks tend to be small in size with features such as memorials and gazebos and serve as meeting places for special events and ceremonies.

There is a deficiency in neighbourhood parks, as they fall considerably short of the recommended standard, with a total of 43.5 acres spread across 6 urban centres, resulting in 1.4 acres per 1000 population. This deficiency is consistent across the urban communities where the recommended standard is 2.5 acres per 1000 population and the recommended size is 5 acres. A 10 year Capital Budget program has been set to address existing playgrounds, including upgrades/replacement of aging infrastructure, as well as improving creativity and accessibility.

Trail opportunities continue to be a high community priority. This is particularly relevant as walking is popular, highly valued and enjoyed by all age groups and is the number one recreation activity of the active senior population. Future trail development through new subdivision development, connecting neighbourhoods, connecting communities, as well as connecting tourist destinations, to the downtown areas continue to be important.



TRENDS An aging population profile has evolved, but there will not necessarily be an absolute decline in youth numbers. Therefore, there will be a need to have more balanced service delivery focuses that moves beyond strong youth orientation.

A significant growth in walking and use of trails, which will likely continue, is connected to the increased focused on health, well-being and fitness.

The ability to address, both through the principle of inclusiveness and participation, the needs and impacts of a changing ethno-cultural mix within the population, who have various interests based on their life experiences, but will also want to adapt to Canadian leisure activities, will be important.

Increasing participation by people with disabilities, females, and new Canadians in sports and leisure activities will occur.

Some stabilizing or declines in baseball, hockey and other activities are anticipated with growth in soccer and some specialized activities, including seniors programs.

There are increasing expectations associated with the quality of facilities, multi-use approaches, partnership development strategies and other formats for services delivery.

User fees are becoming an increasingly important part of the service delivery model, but affordability concerns continue to grow for those with limited financial means.

There is a growing need to rehabilitate aging facilities in balance with new facilities to maximize operating efficiencies, capital investments and enhanced outcomes for users and the community.

A growing range of parks and recreation services, as new formats for sports emerge for different age groups and new activities become popular, are driven by access to more global information available on parks and recreation activities.

Technology will play an ever increasing role in both recreation activities as well as in the marketing, operations and management of parks and recreation services delivery and planning and evaluation.

STRATEGIC THEMES RECREATION FACILITIES There is no immediate identification of increased prime time ice requirements in the short term in Norfolk. Future arena discussions should consider the viability of arena closures as they age with replacements by twin pad facilities due to their efficiency and program enhancements where feasible.

Baseball reservations have been declining. Some realignment of ball fields could be considered in higher use communities. Overall, the total number of fields appears to be adequate but increased youth participation based on provincial initiatives, sport tourism and other factors need to be analyzed on an ongoing basis.

Recreation facilities are generally well maintained, however many facilities are aged and have accessibility (AODA) and operating deficiencies and other challenges, such as the Seniors Centre.

There is a significant array of community centres across the County, many emanating from the local communities over the years. Some are significantly utilized, while others have noticeably less



utilization. There is a need to tract utilization levels and ongoing operating and capital costs, especially for older facilities, to determine whether it is feasible to sustain the number of community centres that currently exist as population volumes shift, demographics change and operating perspectives evolve.

Centralizing major recreation facilities can deliver operating efficiency, marketing and program destination benefits. However, these strategies in and of themselves do not necessarily serve dispersed communities well like the County of Norfolk with its six urban centres, and the localized traditions and legacies that need to be considered and respected.

PARKS AND TRAILS

Community parks are well supplied with at least one in each urban centre. Several rural centres also accommodate a community park.

Existing neighbourhood parks are generally well maintained, however the infrastructure is aging with creativity and accessibility issues. New neighbourhood park development should require a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1000 population and consist of a minimum of 5 acres in size. Linkages to previous and future neighbourhood development areas and the downtown areas are important.

Trails are highly valued by residents. Improved trail connectivity to downtown centres, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, community to community and beyond will continue to be a priority. New trail development connecting waterfront areas and other tourist destinations to the urban centres will improve opportunities for cycling day trips, access to shopping and schools, tourism and fitness.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Currently, the Forestry and Cemeteries Division of the Parks, Facilities and Recreation Department has the principal responsibility for overseeing a technically diverse system that includes:

The ownership and management of public forests

Revenue generation from public forests

Oversight of private forest alteration through a forest conservation by-law

Oversight of private woodland alteration or removal in the agricultural domain through a tree-cutting by-law

Oversight of the urban tree canopy with respect to conditions attached to Planning Act approvals, especially with respect to plans of subdivision and site plan approvals.

CEMETERIES

Cemetery management boards have a historical significance in Norfolk County, however their members are aging and/or experiencing burnout, with no succession plan in place. In addition, cemeteries are becoming more complex and expensive to run. In a number of instances, cemetery boards do not have the resources to continue their service to the community. A strategy to transfer the cemetery board’s management to the County, with objectives for consistency and efficiencies, will be a priority.

Cremation services have a potential to generate revenue. A cost analysis of the current supply of in-ground cremation lots, the provision of a columbarium, as well as a marketing strategy has the potential to improve sales.



An aging population as well as a movement towards cremation interments will have an impact on future cemetery inventory. There is no immediate need for cemetery expansion at Oakwood or the rural County owned cemeteries in the short term – next 5 to 10 years. Oakwood cemetery is projected to have available lot sales past the next 20 years.

WATERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS Norfolk community waterfronts and natural areas are unique assets that have economic tourism impacts, attract retirees and can offer vital specialized resident recreation opportunities. Harnessing these capacities in a balanced framework will be a growing economic and quality of life benefit and advantage for Norfolk County.

SERVICE DELIVERY An effective three category service delivery model exists in Norfolk involving community organizations / institutions, the private sector and the County. Each have distinctive roles and deliver specific initiatives. The County does not need to be the sole provider of parks and recreation services, but has a significant role in parks and recreation facilities, services planning and development, facilities maintenance, community consultation, volunteer development and related key areas. Sustaining the capacity of community organizations need to be a priority for the County.

The current County service delivery approach is via dispersed services across urban and most other areas. Though more expensive to operate, it reflects the evolution and legacy of the County’s history and is highly valued by residents related to accessibility, sense of place and ownership and community identity. Centralization of services may need to be considered in some areas. Recognition will need to be achieved that not all current facilities and venues are sustainable in the future due to changing demographics, levels of capital reinvestment, need for operating efficiencies and declining utilization levels.

PROGRAMMING AND SERVICES DIRECTIONS The County and the Province are undergoing important transitions in their demographics towards an aging, older population. Early years and children / youth programs will be an important direction and a continuing priority for the County and many community service providers. Programs for people over 55 years of age, segmented by sub age groups and interests, will continue to increase and will likely need to be more active based, innovative, challenging, attractive and not focused primarily on social recreation programming.

VOLUNTEERS Sustaining valued volunteers into the future as a vital capacity and community builder, through recruitment, training and recognition. This is a growing and challenging priority that needs to be addressed effectively in order to sustain the range of services currently provided and the local services delivery model.

FINANCES Norfolk has invested approximately $100 per capita in recent years in the net costs for parks and recreation operations reflecting a significant investment for a wide range of services, venues and programs. This per capita costs is higher than for concentrated communities reflecting the dispersed nature of the service delivery model and reflecting the demographic and community development model within Norfolk.

With approximately 30% of parks and recreation operating costs covered by earned income, Norfolk will need to consider a comprehensive review of user fees and rates on an ongoing basis



that balances cost of delivery recapture levels and competitive market pressures. There is evidence from the consultation of people utilizing facilities in other communities that may have lower user costs.

There is a multi-year capital investment forecast in place which is primarily focused on the maintenance of existing facilities and venues, with some multi-year replacement programs, such as for playgrounds or trails development. There are some limited capital resources in the Parks and Recreation Development Charges which can only be attributed to investments that reflect new population growth. There are no new major facilities identified in the capital forecasts at this time.



APPENDIX A – NORFOLK COUNTY PARK LAND INVENTORY, PARKS AND RECREATION OVERVIEW MAP

NORFOLK COUNTY PARKS CATEGORIES - Revised December, 2014This data is based on Norfolk Park Inventory and Park Maps as provided by the County.Revisions are based on park categories as described in the Norfolk County Official Plan + Community Park sub-categories.

Community Name Acreage Park TypeBill's Corners Bill's Corners Park 0.773 Neighbourhood Bill's Corners Bill's Corners Park 0.175 NeighbourhoodBloomsburg Bloomsburg Park 0.587 Street Island - removeCourtland Courtland Lions Community Park 13.519 Community - AthleticCourtland St.Ladislaus Park 1.225 Community - NatureDelhi Barnard Subdivision Park 0.2 Parkettes Delhi Benson and Hedges Sports Park 8.003 Community- AthleticDelhi Centennial Park 6.655 Community - NatureDelhi Connaught Avenue Parkland 1.959 UndevelopedDelhi Delcrest Ball Field/Park 2.32 Neighbourhood Delhi Delhi Lions Park 1.796 Neighbourhood Delhi Delhi Sports Park 9.399 Community - AthleticDelhi Fairview Heights Park 0.763 NeighbourhoodDelhi Kinsmen Park (Delhi) 0.433 ParkettesDelhi Memorial Park (Delhi) 0.992 Community - SpecialDelhi Quance Park (E) 8.517 Community - NatureDelhi Quance Park (W) 2.066 Community - NatureDelhi Sovereen Street Parkland 0.065 ParkettesDelhi Sovereen Street Parkland 0.035 ParkettesFairground Houghton Park 2.636 NeighbourhoodLangton Langton Sports Park 7.468 Community - AthleticPinegrove Pinehurst Park 2.965 NeighbourhoodPort Dover Cockshutt Road to Goldenmeadow Drive 0.121 Walkway - removePort Dover Denby Road Park 3.537 Community - NaturePort Dover Dover Landing Storm Water Pond 3.175 SWP - removePort Dover Emily Street Island 0.051 Street Island - removePort Dover Grace Street Park 0.231 Road allow - removePort Dover Green Belts 0.431 Road allow - removePort Dover Harry Misner Memorial Park 5.974 Community - AthleticPort Dover Heritage Park 0.119 ParkettesPort Dover Kinsmen Park 4.856 Community - AthleticPort Dover Lakeview Park 1.299 NeighbourhoodPort Dover Lift Bridges (1) 0.548 Rd Side Mtnce - RemovePort Dover Lift Bridges (2) 0.415 Rd Side Mtnce - RemovePort Dover Lift Bridges (3) 0.688 Rd Side Mtnce - Remove

Community Name Acreage Park TypePort Dover Lynn Park 3.56 Community - NaturePort Dover Lynn River Heights Storm Water Pond 3.208 SWP with trail Port Dover Magnolia Drive SWP 1.413 SWP - removePort Dover Memorial Park (Port Dover) 0.153 Comm. - Special PurposePort Dover Memorial Park (Port Dover) 0.133 Comm. - Special PurposePort Dover Memorial Park (Port Dover) 0.398 Comm. - Special PurposePort Dover Misnar Dam (1) 0.271 Rd Side Mtnce - RemovePort Dover Misnar Dam (2) 0.236 Rd Side Mtnce - RemovePort Dover Misnar Dam (4) 0.209 Rd Side Mtnce - RemovePort Dover Newport Lane to Ravine 0.111 Walkway (trail connect)Port Dover Newport Lane to Sommerset Park East 0.111 Walkway (trail connect)Port Dover Newport Lane to Sommerset Park West 0.07 Walkway (trail connect)Port Dover Oakwood Park 2.241 Neighbourhood Port Dover Percy Ryerse Park 2.89 Neighbourhood Port Dover Port Dover Area Arena Ball Park 6.829 Community - AthleticPort Dover Powell Park 0.987 Comm. - Special PurposePort Dover Ryerse Island 0.348 Comm. - Special PurposePort Dover Silver Shadow Way 0.088 WalkwayPort Dover Somerset Park 5.011 Neighbourhood Port Dover Somerset Stormwater Pond 3.749 SWP - with trailPort Dover Somerset Stormwater Pond 1.891 SWP - with trailPort Dover Vaughn Survey NeighbourhoodPort Dover Woodhouse Acres 1.46 Neighbourhood Port Rowan Community Centre park 0.967 Community - AthleticPort Rowan Community Park 4.996 Community - AthleticPort Rowan Port Rowan Marina / Lion's Park 7.992 Comm. - Special PurposePort Rowan Port Rowan Optimist Park 1.921 Community - AthleticPort Rowan Port Rowan Park 0.151 Lakeshore ParksPort Rowan Port Rowan Park 0.125 Lakeshore ParksPort Rowan Port Rowan Park 0.052 Lakeshore ParksPort Rowan Port Rowan Park 0.988 Lakeshore ParksPort Rowan Water Tower Park 5.773 Community - NatureSimcoe Aligator Tug 4.116 Community - NatureSimcoe Ashton Park 0.865 ParketteSimcoe Bowling Green 1.165 Community - AthleticSimcoe Briarwood Acres Park 3.585 Neighbourhood Simcoe Clifton Park 7.129 Community - NatureSimcoe Colonel Stalker Park 9.145 Community - Athletic

Simcoe Crestlynn 3.22 Neighbourhood Simcoe Don Shay Memorial Park 12.471 Community - AthleticSimcoe Evergreen Heights Park 2.034 Neighbourhood

Community Name Acreage Park TypeSimcoe Golden Gardens 1.82 Neighbourhood Simcoe Grigg Drive SWP 19.842 SWP - removeSimcoe Holmewood Park 4.503 NeighbourhoodSimcoe Kinsmen Park (Parking Lot) 0.839 Community - AthleticSimcoe Kinsmen Park (Simcoe) 2.594 Community - AthleticSimcoe Lions Ball Park 13.42 Community - AthleticSimcoe Lynndale Heights Park 8.134 Community - AthleticSimcoe Lynwood Linked Open/NaturalSimcoe Memorial Park 7.568 Community - AthleticSimcoe Norfolk Soccer Park 40.102 Community - AthleticSimcoe Patterson Street Park 0.223 Community - NatureSimcoe Percy Carter Park (N) 0.238 Community - NatureSimcoe Percy Carter Park (S) 1.337 NeighbourhoodSimcoe Simson Park 0.745 ParketteSimcoe Skate Park 0.248 Community - AthleticSimcoe Summit Circle 0.265 Street Island - removeSimcoe Sutton Walkway 23.678 Linked Open/NaturalSimcoe Trail behind Shellburg 2.054 Linked Open/NaturalSimcoe Water Tower Park 0.637 Comm. - Special PurposeSimcoe Waterworks Ball Park 2.62 Neighbourhood Simcoe Wellington Park / Grant Anderson Park 10.678 Comm. - Special PurposeSimcoe Westwood Acres 4.99 NeighbourhoodSimcoe Yeager Avenue SWP 1.588 SWP - removeSt. Williams Lions Community Park 6.235 Community - AthleticTeeterville Womens Institute Hall 1.152 Comm. - Special PurposeTurkey Point Quaker Street Parkland 0.211 ParketteTurkey Point Turkey Point Park 2.515 Comm. - Special PurposeVaughn Survey Kathryn Walk (Vaughn Survey) 0.536 open - no valueVaughn Survey Vaughn Survey Park 1.065 ParketteVittoria Lamport Park 0.734 ParketteVittoria Thompson Memorial Park 1.646 Community - AthleticVittoria Vittoria Parkette 1.101 open - no valueWalsh Walsh Community Center 5.781 Comm. - Special PurposeWalsingham Community Center Park 5.033 Community - AthleticWaterford Audrey S. Hellyer Sports 7.514 Community - AthleticWaterford Blue Line Mill 0.297 Comm. - Special Purpose

Waterford Lingwood Park 0.637 open - no valueWaterford Lions Park (Waterford) 0.342 Neighbourhood Waterford Old Dump Parkette 3.473 Linked Open/NaturalWaterford Yins Park 2.73 Neighbourhood Windham Ctre Community Park 30.065 Community - Athletic



APPENDIX B - FOCUS GROUP, PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

FOCUS GROUP Questions 1: When you look at Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation today in Norfolk, in your perspective, what is working well? What are the strengths?

Question 2: What is not working in Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation that needs to be addressed? Gaps in services? Other concerns and issues?

Question 3: Looking ahead 10 years, what is going to be different in trends and changes in Norfol that we need to start planning for?

Question 4: What do you think are the priority needs of Norfolk community in the next…5 years, 5-10 years and 10+ years?

Club is growing, and Water temp. is too warm; 10 lane pool – 50 m length; Allows ability to host Provincial / National meets;

No specific lockers / office space for swim club – their own space to call home.

Viewing area is good. Air temp. is too warm; Ability to control the temperature;Air quality; More lanes;Limited by lanes – can’t host swim meets; Provision for diving, syncho, water polo, etc.;Pool time is not good; Weight room / dryland facility; Ability to cross-train, andReliability is not good – staff members not showing up has been an issue in the past;

Flexibility – domed facility?

Short staffed;Facility itself – old and dated, andNo dedicated dryland facility.

Staff are experienced and well trained- good certification programs;

Staff / Budget - time; Youth facility – indoor (laser tag, rockwalls, etc.); Drop the hiring freeze – Council needs to be aware that jobs are worth it;

Program development; Old facilities – Senior Centre BMX / Skateboard Park; Need a new facility – one stop shop;Different areas – offer a lot across the County; Pool can’t handle demand of the community; Aging population – young seniors; Need a succession model for staff – the next generation;Natural / Beautiful areas – free recreation; No indoor walking facility; Money is leaving Norfolk County for youth sports; Youth / Senior activities and facilities, andJumpstart and kidsport – offered to low income / financially burdened families; Funding is through child services – only offered to programs that offer child care

No training / gym facility – weight room; Change the name of the Seniors Centre – 50+ residents don’t want to attend and play cards;

Disconnect between management and facility staff;

Community facilities 100% cost recovery is impossible to meet, programs are being given up because you can’t meet requirements

Financially – how do we maintain the youth;

Lack of facility storage space; Arts community – community arts centre or artist co-op;Air quality – aquatic centre specifically, andMarketing and advertisement.

Artistic workshops – stain glass, painting, etc.; Communication / marketing; Tourism boom; Take into consideration the aging population – providing specific facilities

Education and workshops – lectures, and Lack of area to display / promote art use in vacant County building space;

Aging population – more educated population (arts and fine dining);

Active recreation;

Tourism – studio tour (once a year). Visual arts – concern with losing space (currently renting from the County);

Health focus – exercise for the brain and body; Tourism;

Facility access – aging facilities and accessibility is a concern; People moving here are going to change the landscape – how do we meet their needs, and

Infrastructure for recreation – is it all needed / can we budget support;

Space and the right type of space for arts and culture; Location of new senior’s facility and cost of services. Family needs – schedules and cost to meet their needs - subsidization (affordable recreation policy), seniors friendly - not being used, no volunteer network

Improvement of integration between libraries and recreation;Arts and culture organizations are too small for such a wide spread area, andIntegration between arts and the County.

Good arenas – well maintained and clean; Silver Lake – Rowing club, nobody knows who owns it; Equality – bigger centres keep getting everything;Good parks – nice across the County, smaller communities are maintaining themselves;

MNR – major issue with them; Volunteers;

High school hockey has become well known Haven’t had commercial fishing there in 10 years; Agricultural employment;Rails for trails initiative, and Tendency to blame Council; Movement to centralized facility but what happens to all the other

facilities?Canoeing / camping – passive recreation. Inconsistency of who you work with; Need to keep facilities open and running, and

No clear line with who is responsible for what – specifically in dealing with County Council.

Access to the waterfront.

Experienced, knowledgeable staff; Issues with facility harmonization (halls specifically); Aging population - need to be sure we are planning for this; Facilities for the aging population, and

Affordable, sustainable facilities and programs; Lack of consistency with fees and amenities (community based model would be a great concept);

Lifestyle / Quality of life (waterfront access, hiking/walking trails); Relocate the existing senior centre in Simcoe.

Bridge the communities; Aging workforce - front line staff; Industry (jobs) – what is the County going to do to support this, and

Number of facilities and inventory available; Aging facilities - ice rinks keep getting upgrades but the facility is still old;

Amount of facilities compared to actual users.

An above average trail system, and Aging demographics (ability to adopt);

‘Political will’ - hit or miss depending on the topic and community backing.

Accessibility in facilities for seniors and users with disabilities.

Arena staff; Confusion in scheduling Not computer based, one person on staff handles it);

Older; Twin pad arena, provides ability to host competitions;

Port Dover facility; No access to scheduling software for users; no communication when changes are made, amendments are made but nobody is notified, constant errors with billing, One person booking six arenas isn’t adequate;

Adult hockey – aging demographic; Converting facilities to accommodate needs, and

Ice time consistency (Port Dover); Pool – lack of access; Adult figure skaters; Accessibility issues.Flexibility to cancel ice with 72 hour notice; Inability to host competitions – need twin pad, and Influx in low income – only in select communities;County oversees all facilities consistently across the County (all arenas);

Awarded one company to run the concessions – groups aren’t allowed to bring in food during events, Exclusive contract, could be fined if caught bringing in food

Lacrosse is on a downward path, and

Work well with other clubs, and Port Dover amalgamation of figure skating club – could see it happening in the future.

User groups that cine together for utilization purposes.Satisfied with facilities, and Enrollment is down; Old timers will be status quo; Multi-use facility in Simcoe;Ice Users - West

Aquatic Users

Aquatics and Program Staff

CSD Division Managers

County Management

Ise Users - East

Arts and Cultural Organizations

Happy with hours. It costs more to skate versus less for soccer; Youth numbers will not increase much; DO NOT CLOSE arenas in other communities, people will go outside County because it is closer than Simcoe, Schools use arenas – cannot but to Simcoe;

The cost is holding us back; Need to decrease cost so all families can participate; Need year round ice in Langton and Delhi, and losing younger talent to bigger centres because ice is not provided, and

Need ice earlier; mid-august, have to go outside the County to get an appropriate early start, Simcoe Rec. Centre starts early but full schedule;

German and other minorities are potential ice users, and Langton arena upgrades: PA system, washrooms and accessible viewing.

Need a year round ice facility; The arena is the only winter sport, should be community focused, builds social skills, active lifestyles.

Delhi referee room is too small;Need to review ice allocation policy to ensure fairness to figure skating;Need to have consistent shinny ice and coordinated by the County, andLangton arena does not have the facilities to host large special events/competitions.

A little bit for everybody – diversity; Not one person in charge for managing volunteers for the whole County – hard to schedule/meet with each section / area within the County;

Prepared for retirement / aging population – lifestyle is different - More demanding retirement group when dealing with volunteering

New development – continued interest from the community;

Introduction of online registration – headed in the right direction, and

Venues that are affordable, large enough and accessible; Keeping up with social media, and Keeping up with the surrounding communities, and

Volunteering is acknowledgeable. Transportation is a barrier from a volunteer perspective; Youth leaving – could a community college keep people around? County volunteer manager – summer camps, etc. all require a coordinator.

Aquatics – limited facility access and ability to find lessons, and

Inclusive recognition of County wide volunteers.Trail system is working very well – continuously growing; Limited indoor facility space (indoor soccer, etc.); Aging population; Centralized facility;Exceptional staff; Therapeutic pool demand – been talking about this being a need

in the community since 2006;Healthy – fit and active lifestyle; Working with community groups;

Festivals and free family events; Aquatics has a major demand, leading to no time for maintenance – staff are having to come in after hours to complete;

How do we maintain the youth to re-build the work force and community;

Ability to attract large events – sports tourism;

Aquatics – having to turn away groups due to demand; Aging population growth vs youth leaver the County; Affordable activities; Get out of old facilities/venues;Community partnerships; Passive recreation demand; Broadening the sense of physical literacy; Staff who can focus on government grants and funding

opportunities;Parks – river system (Wellington Park); Old infrastructure – not worth continuously putting in the money; Change will be key – dog parks, pickleball, etc.; Development of Wellington Park – Master Plan;

Wide County but staff is nicely spread out; Wide County – how do we engage the rural community; Can we embrace modernization?;Facilities – excellent conditions; Underused park space; Libraries – re-purpose or involvement (how can they be

involved?);Natural environment, abundance of infrastructure and lots of programs, and

No overall central Norfolk County identity; Number of facilities – do we need as many down the road;

Solid foundation with OADA – compliance officer, etc. Don’t partner well enough with education programs; Additional curling facility – seems to be significant demand right now;

Need for business division to work in partnership with parks; Focus should be on lakefront property – purchase when available;

Booking system is great but needs a much better structured system – are we using it correctly or is it even the right system for the County (currently there is only one person on staff who understands it completely), and

Need to develop with affordability in mind;

Poor communication between departments and each level of management.

Community gardens;

Exercise stations along the existing trail system;Incorporation of cemeteries along the trails system – parks and open space integration;Arts – community artist involvement, andOADA – key issue

Aquatics (75-80% of registration is online); Marketing brochure – need a broader distribution; Focus on health – how do you offer something County wide; Accessibility in the next 5 years;Arena’s in all communities; Communication and consistency of level of service – division to

division;Dealing with a decline in baseball fields and arenas; Maintenance – trails and beautification;

Trail system; Gap between customer service in each major community; Becoming a senior / retirement community; Targeting parks in regards to maintenance based on use;Staff; Lack of program in schools; Mennonite population is growing on the west end of the County,

andNeed for a multi-use facility – need to include life skill opportunities;

Marketing brochure; Update to maintenance equipment; Impact of volunteers – lack of and ability/requirement to volunteer (insurance/background checks);

Amount of programs that are offered – from toddlers to seniors (indoor and outdoor);

Not enough staff to cover the entire County;

Wide variety of customer service stations, and Need to identify parks and open space based on use per maintenance;

Good partnership with community groups (Lions Club, Fair Board, etc.)

Updating parks for accessibility – playgrounds, etc.;

Confusion in programs for the community;Part time workers vs full time workers – policy issue;Trails – Forestry currently does maintenance (an arborist is currently responsible for mowing the trails), andNo County ran gym/fitness facility.

Number of parks, locations and conditions; Better use of space; Aging population with no industry to keep people; Identify what are needs are / capacity to maintain;Good ration of facilities to population; Lack of staff to maintain everything; Offer services in a cost effective way, and Creative use of space / re-use of space, andTrail system; Need to define what lead hands do – succession management

plan needs to be in place;Active population – trails. Need to look towards the future.

Community involvement / partnership; Large amount of cemeteries in the County – contracting out is not the answer (no vested interest);

Staff – experienced; Maintaining fall surfacing – recommendation to upgrade to a rubberized system;

Active and passive recreation, and Number of parks and facilities – liability;Offering a wide group of activities – large choice. Contraction in ice use – underutilized;

Facility booking system – not advertising available ice to surrounding communities (72 hour cancelation policy);

Parks and Facilities - Front Line Staff

Parks, Facilities and Recreation

Norfolk Organization of Volunteer Administrators

Parks and Facilities - Lead Hands

Lack of input or meeting with / of purpose – management does not talk to the lead hands;Aging infrastructure – not looking towards the future;Lead hands deemed an essential service (winter months) but don’t have the staff to support;Not doing anything to sell empty ice, andSchool board agreement.

Swim programs; Amount of money spent on upkeep of facilities without expanding.

Health, fitness and wellness;

Access to rinks; Fitness – active lifestyle, andFacilities are run well, and Indoor tracks for walking and jogging.County staff is good – front line staff.Trails system and active transportation – making trails accessibly for everybody (OADA);

Health / Social services – cost recovery programs (currently don’t allow for a sliding scale or discounts);

32% of subsidized housing is seniors – age and income based;

Recreation programming is evolving to the needs of the community – responsive to the demographics;

No overall policy for a subsidized level from a County Finance Department standpoint;

Hope for reinvestment in urban areas – walkable communities;

Approach of parks and recreation to suit the needs of the community – need to ensure that in the future we are flexible for those needs (Senior Centre on Pond St. is a perfect example), and

Currently dealing with open space / parks the same way we did 25 years ago – spaces need to evolve, ways of being less costly to maintain;

Need for an assessment of what is now / later – looking towards the future;

Council participation with organizations – leverage / grants. Aging infrastructure; Strategic planning process;Outgrown facilities;Outdated playground equipment;

Wellington Park; Large spread our community – most facilities are located in Simcoe;

A lot more seniors; Having things for the youth – outdoor pools;

Trails – extension across the County; Transportation from small communities to large – Ride Norfolk doesn’t work; Other associations have their own system

Younger generation moving out; Seniors, and

Quarterly Magazine – good marketing showing a broader menu of activities offered;

Existing facilities have barriers – Talbot Garden lift has issues, Pond Street facility doesn’t have a proper maintenance program;

Tourism – beaches, trails, etc.; A lot of County owned facilities – close down and open centrally located facilities.

Council – listen and are open, and Issues with repairs and cleaning of facilities; Affordability in recreation (hockey, soccer, etc.), andPark space / Open space as a part of development projects. Facilities are not accessible; Dealing with the economy.

No access to waterfront or beaches for people with disabilities, andBeaches aren’t being cleaned properly.

Facilities – no issues with renting; Money – operating budgets; Plan for the seniors; Seniors and seniors centres;Upper level management is good to work with; Red tape involved in renting a community centre: liquor license,

insurance, bartenders;Retirement destination; Trail system – maintaining will be a key in the future, and

Great volunteers – always willing to pick up the slack; Accessibility: access for certain hours, if left open 24 hours then they are vandalized

Exercise programs; Accessibility – OADA compliance for all facilities and parks.

Each community has something; Geese issue, and Existing parks could be retrofitted; pickleball, bocce ball etc.;Professional athletes out of this area; Communication in the community; Less physically active sports;Lack of traffic – easy access; Amphitheater for events, andService clubs are great, and Trail system.Lion’s Club Park – 17 years old and still in excellent condition.Soccer facilities; Washroom facility is required; Aging demographics; youth sports weakend, more active older

adults;Full size soccer field with lights and irrigation, and

Renovated soccer building in 2012 by volunteer fundraising; Line making material is stored in same building as concession stand;

Multi-use facility should keep in mind: summer sports to use during winter months, non-competitive recreation activities;

Indoor soccer facility.

Draw from the entire County; Hockey is catered to; outdoor sports have higher enrolment but arenas get more attention;

Simcoe is too far to drive from all points of the County;

Soccer enrollment is up; Indoor facility is required; Delhi industrial park is a good location;Require one good full sized soccer field with lights and irrigation; Trees are in the way of expansion, should be moved before they

get too big;Skilled coaches are needed, pay head coach, volunteer base is diminishing (self-centered generation), cannot compete with large centres.

Upgrade existing soccer field; Lights on east field need replacing (Delhi); Play one sport year round – soccer.Ball diamonds are used to full extent; Volunteers line fields and roll;There is good access to Staff – Staff are praised for their good work;

Grass maintenance is contracted out, and could be better maintained, contractor is not cutting/maining to the proper standard (weeds growing along fence line, different lengths of grass), prefer County staff as they are more receptive to requests, and

School board (public and catholic) use fields, and Would like season to start mid-April.Benson and Hedges soccer field built in the early 1970s has great value.Lion’s Club Park – 3 diamonds, all is great shape; Simcoe – running out of space; Aging population – 60-70% of residents in Port Dover are from

out of town;Infrastructure; 10 year plan for Simcoe should include one field;

Parks are well maintained; Can’t book other diamonds due to agreements in place; Wyndham is drawing from a large area of sports; Kid sized diamond in Port Dover, and Staff is easy to work with; Simcoe needs one more regulations size diamond; Challenge with who is next, management and parents, and Diversity in sports, just for fun focus in Wyndham.Wyndham is self-maintained – they do their own maintenance; Port Dover – issues with medical clinic construction, need a t-ball

field;Concern with getting kids active.

Port Dover trails are good, and Indoor facility – can’t book schools for winter use as they are consistently full

Washroom facilities – Lion’s Club Park only.Strong local communities, a community within a community; Parks/Rec Services is a venue – not an attraction; Economic development – small business community needs to be

a focus;Stop putting money into infrastructure, and

Financial support; Age of facilities; not necessarily the facility itself, but rather the design

Can we create destinations to draw big growth, and Surplus park space needs to be utilized.

BIA – aesthetics, gateway; No facility to host a large event; can't feed large quanities, no major kitchen for catering services

Is there a way to keep agriculture that is grown here to stay here

Downtown centred parks – used for events; Upkeep of facilities and on-going maintenance;Trail system; Active seniors walking facility;Property available for expansion – not land locked; Who does what / who owns what issue – programs;Co-operative value between agencies, and New subdivision development – requiring community services to

do the maintenance on 5% of park space;Fair board – unique organization. Developer charges (requirements) are reinforced, and

Lack of a transportation system.

Private Providers - Fitness

Services Clubs

Sports Field

Sports Field Users

Senior Leadership Team

Seniors and Accessibility Committee

Tourism, BIA, Board of Trades, etc.

Collaborative nature within the community – County resources; Maintenance – issue now and will only become worse in the future;

Aging population – retirees coming Accessibility;

Trails development coordinator position is key; Weed control; Planning for tourism; Gathering space – gazebo in Wellington park;Fortunate to have the green space Responsibility with maintenance – confusion; What we see now, is what we will get in the future – no major

change foreseen for the future, andMake use of parks;

Rotary trail – connection to health services; One indoor pool – always booked; Community gardens – health unit Adult playground / fitness stations;Volunteers; Water fowl problem in Simcoe, and Amenities along trails – public washrooms is critical, andCommunity services staff – recreation programs, and No trail maintenance in the winter. Connections from trails to City centres – to be part of the active

transportation plan.Online registration programsTrails are paved in Simcoe, Linvalley as an example; Port Dover has the best tennis courts, however Simcoe is lacking

quality;Rock-climbing; Environmental issues; roadside litter, abandoned buildings.

Trail connectivity, and Tennis is not as popular as in the past and possible they could re-develop into multi-use courts (basketball/ball hockey);

Use abandoned buildings for youth activities – opportunity to create jobs for youth: skateboarding, trampolines, basketball.

Port Dover has the only track in the County. Sidewalks should not be salted/sanded in the winter for pedestrian use;

Community band (music) Multi-purpose courts;

It is a long way to drive to Simcoe from other parts of the County; Bike lanes;

Schools do not have sufficient recreation facilities; Job opportunities;Football is only available in Port Dover up to age 12, after which they have to make the trip to Brantford;

Extra-curricular activities; chess club and giant book club

Roads are not biker friendly and the County should look at installing bike lanes;

Arenas (10 years), and

It is a long drive and an inconvenience to get to any activity; Mega-use facility (10 years).There is no gym in Waterford;Libraries are outdated;Litter along roads, andAbandoned buildings are an eyesore and should be cleaned up.

Turkey Point has good trails and community garden, and Wooden skate park (Simcoe) is not in good shape – risk management issue, and underutilized, boards are in poor shape (youth are taking it upon themselves to fix problems), staff not aware of proper maintence standards.

Risk taking sports; rock climbing, ropes course, stand up paddle boarding, kayaking, sailing.

Look at privatizing/public owned partnerships;

Port Dover skate park is well used however bowl is too small. Grass cutters are spraying rocks, etc. on the courts (tennis, skate park).

Skateboarding is potentially to become an Olympic sport (future), and

Brand names (sponsors) are available to donate in various ways, and

Healthy living: active adults in the outdoors, enjoyment and social interaction in a more physical environment

Put Norfolk on the map: community focus, volunteers, skate park designed by users, country setting, family oriented

Youth Groups

Youth Groups - Extreme Sports

Trails and Pathways

OPEN HOUSE Questions 1: When you look at Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation today in Norfolk, in your perspective, what is working well? What are the strengths?

Question 2: What is not working in Parks, Trails, Facilities and Recreation that needs to be addressed? Gaps in services? Other concerns and issues?

Question 3: Looking ahead 10 years, what is going to be different in trends and changes in Norfol that we need to start planning for?

Question 4: What do you think are the priority needs of Norfolk community in the next…5 years, 5-10 years and 10+ years?

Trails; Pool is too short and too warm; Decrease in younger population; Create a unified team to address these issues;Our history - built and natural; Attrition rate of volunteers; Lower cost facilities; Sports need a voice;Diversity of sports; Cost is a barrier; Declining school enrolment; Cut all youth prices in half for the next 15 years;Integrated trails; Recreation does not exist to make money; Increased economic decline; Cost recovery policy;Well supported in arenas; Huge geographic area with small population base; Increase in soccer with lower costs; Beautify parks;Maintenance and upkeep is above par; Is cost recover needed/appropriate for kids programs; Seasonal worker does not contribute (live outside community); New seniors centre;Volunteerism; Indoor practice facilities needed; Parks and recreation needs to be a political priority; Keep all facilities until plan to replace;After school activities; Recreation as teaching places; Boomers going grey; Model successes from elsewhere;Arenas (6) 1 utility pad; Volunteer burn out; Young people and free time; Measurable reporting/metrics;Partnerships working; Co & SB's need to be coordinated; Future health costs; Consistency and continuity over time;Recreation as an economic driver; Lack of communication between departments; Future ability to pay; Pride in sports & culture of recreation, and Headquarters of Canadian Bird Studies; Staff schedules (weekends); SB/Co liaison; Sports and recreation 'council'.Best ball parks around (not all maintained by County Staff); Parks are under-utilized; Managing liability;Turkey Point has good trails and community garden, and Parks need marketing; Football increase 400% in 3 years;Port Dover skate park is well used however bowl is too small. 72 hour notice; Pickleball;

Need to optimize utilization Poor community participation due to lack of communication (facebook, twitter), and

Cost recovery idealism getting in the way; Cost of advertising is a barrier. Too many 'doing their own thing';Need coordination, and Stadium field is needed.

Our history (e.g. rail lines); Have not consistently maintained facilities and rails; Aging population requires seniors facilities; FIVE YEARSForestry, Carolinian and faunal species (e.g.. Long Point); Government off backing; Ontario Disability Act (not only access but programs); Support small business;Agricultural recreation (e.g.. Corn maze, fishing and boating); Looming centralization of facilities; See the future and make it happen; Dollars to accommodate existing programs;Uniqueness to County; Scarcity of volunteers (aging vs. non-recruitment of x generation) Higher expectations; Lynn River Valley masterplan;Festivals (e.g.. Christmas Panorama and Fairs); Population loss means less asset base; Visionary thinking required; Community engagement;Water based recreation (e.g.. rowing, dragon boats); Efficiencies with individual facilities; Rest areas along trails; Keep facilities in shape;The 'destination'; New residents want new facilities; Recreation facilities; Replace seniors facility;Shopping deficit; The things I enjoy are falling apart; Interpretive materials; Facilities in each community (which to keep, cost effective). Community vs. county identity; The system is under-utilized; Grand River Conservation Authority vision;Tour de Norfolk' Access to water (especially on County property); More leisure time; FIVE - TEN YEARSEat and drink Norfolk, and Snow boards; Part time summer residential community (are facilities built for them?); Access to water facilities (requires beach maintenance);Peer directed outcomes. Operation costs vs. capital dollars; Changes due to health (no insurance therefore here more); H&W based facilities;

Piece meal development; Multi purpose facility (all aspects of society and age groups); Seniors Olympics (need inclusiveness, do not centralize);The benefits of long term planning; Culturally home grown now (will this change?); Multi-plex (similar to Fergus);Waterway use as setting for festivals; Seasonal workers do the same activity year round;Return rowing to Silver Lake and Waterford ponds; Expand/provide more opportunities or people will go elsewhere; TEN - TWENTY YEARSGeese at Wellington Park (mechanical options); Danger of over programming, and Think outside the box (what is hot in terms of money);Litter, graffiti; Festival pees and valleys. Need younger rate payers;Maintenance; Market natural features (greenspace and Carolinian forest), and Regard to public property; Less government interference. Garbage limits on private condos (therefore dumping, where does the problem start, limited services, requires enforcement resources and model);Community foundations and pool capital, and No longer Port Dover vs. Waterford.

Open House #1

Open House #2



APPENDIX C – NORFOLK COUNTY CEMETERY INVENTORY AND INTERMENT ANALYSIS

NORFOLK COUNTY OWNED CEMETERIES

CEMETERY AREA

Oakwood Cemetery Central

ACTIVE RURAL CEMETERIES

1 Bethel Cemetery - Nixon Central Inter Only

2 Teeterville Cemetery East BOARD

3 Hartford Baptist Cemetery East

4 Bayview Cemetery West BOARD

5 Clear Creek Cemetery West BOARD

6 Cultus Cemetery West BOARD

7 Glen Meyer Baptist Cemetery West

8 Goshen Baptist Cemetery West BOARD

9 Jericho Cemetery West Inter Only

10 King Lake Cemetery West BOARD

11 Port Royal Cemetery West Inter Only

12 Salem United Church Cemetery West Inter Only

13 Ukranian Greek Orthodox Cemetery West

14 Silver Hill Cemetery West BOARD

15 Courtland Baptist Cemetery West BOARD

16 Walsh Baptist Cemetery West

17 Hemlock Cemetery West Inter Only

18 Jackson Cemetery West Inter Only

19 Marston Cemetery West Inter Only

* Soon to be assumed by the County

INACTIVE/ABANDONNED RURAL CEMETERIES

1 Mills Cemetery Central

2 Old Windham Cemetery Central

3 Pott's Cemetery Central

4 Norfolk County Home Cemetery Central

5 Doan's Hollow Cemetery East

6 McQueen Cemetery East

7 Mount Hope Cemetery East

8 Rockford United Church Cemetery East

9 Sovereign Cemetery East

10 Round Plains Baptist Church Cemetery East

11 Villa Nova Cemetery East

12 Zion Cemetery East

13 Miller/Boomer - cemetery on farm of J. Hill East

14 Bell Mill/Bostwick Cemetery West

15 Bethel Brethren In Christ Cemetery West

16 Cranberry (Taylor) Cemetery West

17 Dick's Hill Cemetery West

18 Glenshee Cemetery West

19 Hazen Cemetery West

20 Jacksonburg Cemetery West

21 Lt. Col. Arthur Pratt Burial Place West

22 Morden Cemetery West

23 Pinegrove Baptist Church Cemetery West

24 Sipprell Cemetery West

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

1 Bethel Methodist

2 Bloomsburg Baptist Chruch Cemetery 3 Bookton Cemetery 4 Courtland United Cemetery 5 Culver-Collver 6 Delhi Cemetery7 Evergreen Cemetery - Lynedoch8 Fairview Cemetery - Forestville9 Franklin-Fairview Cemetery

10 Greenwood Cemetery11 Baptist Hillcrest Cemetery12 Johnson Cemetery - St. Williams13 Kelvin Cemetery14 Knowles (Carholme) Cemetery15 Langton Baptist Cemetery16 Lynnville Cemetery17 Mt. Pleasant Cemetery18 Newkirk Cemetery19 Normandale Cemetery20 Old Colony Mennonite Church Cemetery21 Our Lady of Lasalette RC Cemetery22 Port Dover Cemetery23 Sacred Heart Cemetery - langton24 St. John's Anglican Cemetery25 St. Mary's Cemetery26 St. Peter's Lutheran Rhineland Cemetery27 St. Ladislaus Roman Catholic Cemetery 28 Vanessa Cemetery29 Vittoria Baptist Cemetery30 Vittoria United Church Cemetery31 Walsh United Church Cemetery32 Wilsonville Cemetery33 Windham Centre Cemetery34 Woodhouse United Church Cemetery35 Wycombe Cemetery

NORFOLK COUNTY 5 YEAR INTERMENT ANALYSIS

5 YEAR INTERMENT ANALYSIS ‐ FULL BODY / CREMATION

Cemetery 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 Yr Average

Full / Crem Full / Crem Full / Crem Full / Crem Full / Crem Full / Crem

Oakwood 78/51 83/88 60/57 66/72 68/61 71/66

Bayview 5/11 2/9 4/6 1/9 12/8 5/7

Bethel Methodist 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Clear Creek / Berger 0/1 1/1 0/0 0/1 0/1 0/1

Courtland Baptist na na 3/1 1/3 ?? n/a

Cultus United 7/4 9/7 3/2 5/5 3/1 5/4

Glen Meyer Baptist 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Goshen 0/0 1/0 2/0 0/0 2/0 1/0

Jackson 0/0 0/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Jericho 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/1 0/.5

Kinglake 0/2 2/0 1/0 1/0 0/1 1/.5

Hartford 0/1 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Marston 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Port Royal 0/0 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0

Salem / Atherton 1/1 1/0 2/1 0/0 0/0 1/0

Silver Hill NA NA NA 2/0 4/3 n/a

Teeterville NA NA NA 3/2 0/2 n/a

Ukrainian Greek Orthodox 1/0 0/0 1/2 2/1 1/2 1/1

Walsh Baptist 1/0 0/0 1/0 0/2 0/3 .5/1

TOTAL INTERMENTS 93/72 98/108 77/70 81/93 90/83 85.5/84

NORFOLK ACTIVE CEMETERIES – COUNTY PRIVATE

47

NORFOLK COUNTY HIGHWAY 24 EAST

NORFOLK COUNTY ROAD 19 EAST

COCKSHUTT ROAD

HIGHWAY 3

HIGHWAY 59

NORFOLK COUNTY ROAD 23


LAKESHORE ROAD

McDOWELL ROAD EAST


COUNTY LINE

ST JOHN'S ROAD WEST

ELGIN COUNTY

OXFORD COUNTY

HALDIMAND COUNTY

BRANT COUNTY

NIXON ROAD

BRAN

TFOR

D ROAD

Delhi

Walsh

NixonSimcoe

Cultus

Kelvin

Renton

Langton

Fernlea

Vanessa

Bealton

Vittoria

Lynedoch

Wyecombe

Courtland

Waterford

Hillcrest

Lynnville Bloomsburg

Normandale

Port Dover

Port Rowan

Long Point

Walsingham

Glen Meyer

La Salette

Villa Nova

Port Ryerse

Forestville

Silver Hill

Teeterville

Wilsonville

Turkey Point

St. Williams

GilbertvilleNorfolk West

Fisher's Glen

Norfolk North

Bill's Corners

Windham Centre

Bill's Corners

South Middleton

Green's Corners

Booth's Harbour

Messiah's Corners

5

1

6

9

2

4

3

7

8

5554

53

52

51

5049

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

15

19

13

18

20

14

12

10

16

11

17

®Norfolk County Active Cemeteries

0 4 8 12 16 202Kilometers

Map ID # Cemetery Name 911 Address1 Baptist Hillcrest Cemetery 638 Charlotteville Road 12 Bayview Cemetery 127 Front Road3 Bethel (Bethlehem) Cemetery 1138 Windham Road 144 Bethel Methodist Cemetery 853 Colonel Talbot Road5 Bloomsburg Baptist Cemetery 292 Old Highway 246 Bookton Cemetery 238 Norfolk County Road 19 West7 Clear Creek Cemetery 1417 Lakeshore Road8 Collver-Culver Cemetery 678 Culver Road9 Courtland Baptist Church Cemetery 85 Talbot Street10 Courtland United Church Cemetery 133 Talbot Street11 Cultis United/Laycocks Cemetery 738 6th Concession Road ENR12 Delhi Cemetery 205 James Street13 Evergreen Cemetery 8 Evergreen Lane14 Fairview Cemetery 698 Charlotteville Road 115 Franklin-Fairview Cemetery 1034 2nd Concession Road16 Glen Meyer Baptist Cemetery 28 Norfolk County Road 2117 Goshen Baptist Cemetery 736 Goshen Road18 Greek Orthodox Cemetery 1325 Charlotteville West Quarter Line Road19 Greenwood Cemetery 273 Duncombe Road20 Hartford Cemetery 35 Cemetery Road21 Hemlock (Houghton) Cemetery 358 Lakeshore Road22 Jackson Cemetery 1222 Colonel Talbot Road23 Jericho Cemetery 1258 Forestry Farm Road24 Johnson Cemeter-St. Williams 29 Neal Lane25 Kelvin Cemetery 912 Burford-Delhi Townline Road26 Kinglake Cemetery 1281 North Road27 Knowles (Carholme) Cemetery 2461 Norfolk County Road 4528 Langton Baptist Cemetery 21 Albert Street29 Lynnville Cemetery 1268 Windham East Quarter Line Road30 Marston Cemetery 163 10th Concession Road31 Mount Pleasant/Pleasantview Cemetery 52 Concession Street32 Newkirk Cemetery 4137 Lakeshore Road33 Normandale Cemetery 45 Spooky Hollow Road34 Oakwood Cemetery 35 Potts Road35 Old Colony Mennonite Church Cemetery 376 Carson Side Road36 Our Lady of La Salette R.C. Cemetery 88 La Salette Road37 Port Dover Cemetery 309 Blueline Road38 Port Royal Cemetery 2777 Lakeshore Road39 Sacred Heart Church Cemetery 24 Albert Street40 Salem United / Atherton Cemetery 462 Highway 341 Silver Hill Cemetery 18 Charlotteville Road 842 St. John's Anglican Cemetery 879 Norfolk Street South43 St. Ladislaus R.C. Cemetery 106 Talbot Street44 St. Marys Cemetery 271 Fourteenth Street West45 St. Peters Lutheran Cemetery 2151 1st Concession Road STR46 Teeterville Cemetery 721 Ellington Lane47 Vanessa Cemetery 1974 Brantford Road48 Vittoria Baptist Cemetery 1661 Old Brock Street49 Vittoria United Church Cemetery 1557 Old Brock Street50 Walsh Baptist 1338 Turkey Point Road51 Walsh United Church Cemetery 957 Charlotteville Road 552 Wilsonville Cemetery 456 Concession 3 Townsend53 Windham Centre Cemetery 862 Windham Centre Road54 Woodhouse United Church Cemetery 2164 Norfolk County Highway 24 East55 Wyecombe Cemetery 2376 East Quarter Line Road