Parks Plan: Guiding Principles
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-26623.pdf
Parks Plan: Draft Parks Classification System
Park Types Description
Typical
Size
Examples
DESTINATION
Parks with unique or
exceptional features,
specialized recreation
amenities and/or major
events which are
promoted to tourists
from outside Toronto.
Varies,
depending
on key
features and
amenities;
typically
over 15
hectares.
Toronto Island, High Park (multiuse); Rouge Park (natural
heritage); Edwards Gardens /
Toronto Botanical Garden,
Toronto Music Garden
(horticulture); Centennial Park
(sports and special events)
CITYWIDE
Parks with unique or
exceptional features,
specialized recreation
amenities and/or major
events which draw users
from across the city.
Varies,
depending
on key
features and
amenities;
typically
over 15
hectares.
Earl Bales Park, East Point Park,
Western Waterfront Park System,
Sunnybrook Park, Bluffer's Park,
Eglinton Flats
DISTRICT
Larger parks with a
wider range of features
and recreation amenities
(primarily sportsoriented) which draw
users from beyond the
local community.
Typically 5 -
15 hectares.
Amesbury Park, Riverdale Park
East, L'Amoreaux Park South, Jack
Goodlad, Stan Wadlow Park ,
Eglinton Park, Memorial Park
COMMUNITY
Large neighbourhoodtype parks but with a
wider range of features
and recreation amenities
(including active uses not
typical of a
Neighbourhood Park)
which draw users from
the local community.
Typically 3 –
5 hectares.
Cummer Park, Stephen Leacock
Park, Monarch Park, Don Russell
Memorial Park , Dufferin Grove
ParkDevelopment of a City-wide Parks Plan 19
Parks Plan: Draft Parks Classification System
Park Types Description
Typical
Size
Examples
NEIGHBOURHOOD
Small parks offering a
range of features and
recreation amenities
oriented to local users.
Typically 0.5
- 5 hectares.
Bickford Park, Burrows Hall Park,
Roding Park , Cloverdale Park
PARKETTE
Very small parks with
limited amenities and
user draw; includes
traffic islands,
boulevards and road
allowances maintained
by Parks, Forestry &
Recreation.
Typically
under 0.5
hectares.
Twenty-eighth Street Park, Frank
Stollery Parkette, Wilson Heights
Parkette, Raleigh Parkette
GREENWAY
Linear parkland that
focuses on trail use
(recreation and
transportation) with
associated amenities to
support that use.
Typically in utility
corridors, road rights-ofway, lost creeks.
Typically 10
to 30 m
width,
length
varies.
CP PS Lead rail -trail, Belt Line
Trail, CN Leaside rail-trail, Lower
Don Trail, Lake Shore Blvd. east
north side R.O.W
Monday, July 18, 2011
parks forestry and recreation 2011 report, KEY PARKS ASSETS
parks forestry and recreation 2011 report
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-35402.pdf
Richard Butts
Deputy City Manager, Cluster B
January 28, 2011
KEY PARKS ASSETS
1,512 named parks
• 7,527 hectares of citymanaged parkland /
greenspace
• 77 water play/splash pads
• 51 outdoor artificial ice
rinks
• 2 ski and snowboard
centres
• 5 public golf courses
• 5 ferry boats
• 835 sports fields
• 630 tennis courts
• 818 playgrounds
• 8 greenhouses
• 3,084 hectares of turf
mowed
• 17 Children’s Gardens
• 51 Community Gardens
• 1,674 Allotment Garden
plot
Urban Forestry Branch – Service Profile:
– Tree Care Maintenance
– Tree Protection
– Tree Planting
– Tree Policy & Planning Review
– Special Projects – Asian Long Horn Beetle
Urban Forestry Branch – Key Assets and Outputs:
– 3.4 million trees in 7,527 hectares of parks and
ravines
– 6 million trees on private property
– 144 tree species in Division’s database
– 45,000 tree inspections per year
– 60,000 trees pruned per year
– Over 14,000 caliper trees and over 100,000 small
trees and shrubs planted annually
Staff reports coming forward
– Early in 2011
• Parks Plan progress report and
consultation strategy in March 2011http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2453741831395021283#
• Emerald Ash Borer Strategy in March 2011
– Remainder of the Term
• Parks Plan Final Report in Nov. / Dec. 2011
• Ongoing implementation of Parks Plan
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-35402.pdf
Richard Butts
Deputy City Manager, Cluster B
January 28, 2011
KEY PARKS ASSETS
1,512 named parks
• 7,527 hectares of citymanaged parkland /
greenspace
• 77 water play/splash pads
• 51 outdoor artificial ice
rinks
• 2 ski and snowboard
centres
• 5 public golf courses
• 5 ferry boats
• 835 sports fields
• 630 tennis courts
• 818 playgrounds
• 8 greenhouses
• 3,084 hectares of turf
mowed
• 17 Children’s Gardens
• 51 Community Gardens
• 1,674 Allotment Garden
plot
Urban Forestry Branch – Service Profile:
– Tree Care Maintenance
– Tree Protection
– Tree Planting
– Tree Policy & Planning Review
– Special Projects – Asian Long Horn Beetle
Urban Forestry Branch – Key Assets and Outputs:
– 3.4 million trees in 7,527 hectares of parks and
ravines
– 6 million trees on private property
– 144 tree species in Division’s database
– 45,000 tree inspections per year
– 60,000 trees pruned per year
– Over 14,000 caliper trees and over 100,000 small
trees and shrubs planted annually
Staff reports coming forward
– Early in 2011
• Parks Plan progress report and
consultation strategy in March 2011http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2453741831395021283#
• Emerald Ash Borer Strategy in March 2011
– Remainder of the Term
• Parks Plan Final Report in Nov. / Dec. 2011
• Ongoing implementation of Parks Plan
PF&R services important and why
3.10.i. City Parks/Recreation and Community Centres
Parks and Recreation were listed as separate services but discussed together by most participants
Important and Why
• The City of Toronto's parks, recreation services,
and community centres were identified as an
integral part of the city. The issues of greatest
concern were maintaining these publicly-run
services and ensuring the services and spaces
are kept affordable, accessible, and responsive
to the needs of the community.
• Connected to this are the significant impacts on
quality of life and social well-being that these
services provide. This includes making the city a
great place to live, keeping our population
healthy (and therefore reducing the impact on
health care), making the city beautiful, keeping
the city cleaner and greener, and bringing
people together.
• Many participants noted that the needs of the
most vulnerable should be a priority in these
services areas – for example, youth, seniors, and
low income families.
• This last point was reiterated by a number of
participants who suggested that providing youth
with opportunities to get involved in recreation and
community centre programs reduces the chances
of crime and its associated social and econ
3.10.i. City Parks/Recreation and Community Centres
Parks and Recreation were listed as separate services but discussed together by most participants
Important and Why
• The City of Toronto's parks, recreation services,
and community centres were identified as an
integral part of the city. The issues of greatest
concern were maintaining these publicly-run
services and ensuring the services and spaces
are kept affordable, accessible, and responsive
to the needs of the community.
• Connected to this are the significant impacts on
quality of life and social well-being that these
services provide. This includes making the city a
great place to live, keeping our population
healthy (and therefore reducing the impact on
health care), making the city beautiful, keeping
the city cleaner and greener, and bringing
people together.
• Many participants noted that the needs of the
most vulnerable should be a priority in these
services areas – for example, youth, seniors, and
low income families.
• This last point was reiterated by a number of
participants who suggested that providing youth
with opportunities to get involved in recreation and
community centre programs reduces the chances
of crime and its associated social and economic
costs.
Who Should Provide Service
• Comments on parks, recreation and community
centres focused on the importance of
maintaining the services themselves – there
were fewer comments on exactly who should
deliver those services.
• For many people, it is important that parks,
recreation, and community centre services
continue to be delivered by the City of Toronto
for reasons including maintaining quality and
accessibility.
• A comparable number of participants felt that at
least some activities could be contracted out or
managed by volunteer community groups – this
included parks maintenance and garbage
collection.
• One smaller theme that emerged was the need to
consider community access to Toronto District
School Board pools, and how those partnerships
are managed and paid for. In general, maintaining
or increasing access to these pools was the most
common thread amongst these participants.
How to Pay for Service
• User fees were discussed in light of these
services – a number of participants were against
any user fees for parks or recreation programs
and facilities in order to keep support
accessibility and equality; others felt that user
fees could be introduced or raised in some areas
if they are affordable to the user.
• Other less common suggestions to financially
support these service areas included an increase
in community centre rentals to private groups
and leveraging more development fees/Section
37 funds; only a few participants suggested
sponsorship agreements with private companies or
leasing space in parks to private businesses.
• Numerous participants were comfortable paying
increased property taxes to support these services
because they felt it would help promote the
liveability of the city. A small number of
participants were against this idea.Page | 34
Service Level/Quality or Other
• Of all the comments received on service levels
for parks, recreation, and community centres,
the issue of highest importance was the upkeep
and maintenance of these spaces: litter,
disrepair, and the need for upkeep of green
spaces were very common themes amongst
comments on service levels for these areas.
• Another area of note was the need to maintain
and/or increase facilities including green space,
parks, pools, community gardens, and the
associated programming.
• Included in this category were comments on the
Welcome Policy, which the strong majority of
participants felt needed to be maintained, with any
reviews of this policy going toward increasing the
outreach, accessibility, and efficacy of this
initiative.
• Though not a key item for most participants, some
did express concern over dog parks and whether
the City is directing a disproportionate amount of
resources towards this activity. A smaller number
used their feedback form to share their support for
these spaces.
Participant Quotes
• If we want to compete with New York, London and Paris, then we need to invest in transit, the
waterfront and our parks. People don't visit Paris because it's balanced its budget, people visit to see the
great museums and parks.
• It is very difficult to provide excellent services without increasing revenue - the important part is that the
money be used sensibly and not squandered.
• Our cities parks are a vital resource, as are all our public/outdoor spaces. Waterfront development has
been slow, but the last few years it has been really tremendous - keep it up! The Toronto Island needs
continual investment, same for community recreation. Our ski hills, golf courses, ravines, urban forest -
they all need to be led by city. I think we're doing a good job - I'd like to see us do a great job!
• The Parks and Recreation programme fees are far too low. They surely cannot be recouping costs. I
understand and support keeping programme fees lower for seniors, but others should be able to pay
their way, this is despite the fact that I have 2 young children in city programs.
• Please have "optional services" provided by the city covered by user fees. This includes pools, recreation
centres and fitness classes.
Parks and Recreation were listed as separate services but discussed together by most participants
Important and Why
• The City of Toronto's parks, recreation services,
and community centres were identified as an
integral part of the city. The issues of greatest
concern were maintaining these publicly-run
services and ensuring the services and spaces
are kept affordable, accessible, and responsive
to the needs of the community.
• Connected to this are the significant impacts on
quality of life and social well-being that these
services provide. This includes making the city a
great place to live, keeping our population
healthy (and therefore reducing the impact on
health care), making the city beautiful, keeping
the city cleaner and greener, and bringing
people together.
• Many participants noted that the needs of the
most vulnerable should be a priority in these
services areas – for example, youth, seniors, and
low income families.
• This last point was reiterated by a number of
participants who suggested that providing youth
with opportunities to get involved in recreation and
community centre programs reduces the chances
of crime and its associated social and econ
3.10.i. City Parks/Recreation and Community Centres
Parks and Recreation were listed as separate services but discussed together by most participants
Important and Why
• The City of Toronto's parks, recreation services,
and community centres were identified as an
integral part of the city. The issues of greatest
concern were maintaining these publicly-run
services and ensuring the services and spaces
are kept affordable, accessible, and responsive
to the needs of the community.
• Connected to this are the significant impacts on
quality of life and social well-being that these
services provide. This includes making the city a
great place to live, keeping our population
healthy (and therefore reducing the impact on
health care), making the city beautiful, keeping
the city cleaner and greener, and bringing
people together.
• Many participants noted that the needs of the
most vulnerable should be a priority in these
services areas – for example, youth, seniors, and
low income families.
• This last point was reiterated by a number of
participants who suggested that providing youth
with opportunities to get involved in recreation and
community centre programs reduces the chances
of crime and its associated social and economic
costs.
Who Should Provide Service
• Comments on parks, recreation and community
centres focused on the importance of
maintaining the services themselves – there
were fewer comments on exactly who should
deliver those services.
• For many people, it is important that parks,
recreation, and community centre services
continue to be delivered by the City of Toronto
for reasons including maintaining quality and
accessibility.
• A comparable number of participants felt that at
least some activities could be contracted out or
managed by volunteer community groups – this
included parks maintenance and garbage
collection.
• One smaller theme that emerged was the need to
consider community access to Toronto District
School Board pools, and how those partnerships
are managed and paid for. In general, maintaining
or increasing access to these pools was the most
common thread amongst these participants.
How to Pay for Service
• User fees were discussed in light of these
services – a number of participants were against
any user fees for parks or recreation programs
and facilities in order to keep support
accessibility and equality; others felt that user
fees could be introduced or raised in some areas
if they are affordable to the user.
• Other less common suggestions to financially
support these service areas included an increase
in community centre rentals to private groups
and leveraging more development fees/Section
37 funds; only a few participants suggested
sponsorship agreements with private companies or
leasing space in parks to private businesses.
• Numerous participants were comfortable paying
increased property taxes to support these services
because they felt it would help promote the
liveability of the city. A small number of
participants were against this idea.Page | 34
Service Level/Quality or Other
• Of all the comments received on service levels
for parks, recreation, and community centres,
the issue of highest importance was the upkeep
and maintenance of these spaces: litter,
disrepair, and the need for upkeep of green
spaces were very common themes amongst
comments on service levels for these areas.
• Another area of note was the need to maintain
and/or increase facilities including green space,
parks, pools, community gardens, and the
associated programming.
• Included in this category were comments on the
Welcome Policy, which the strong majority of
participants felt needed to be maintained, with any
reviews of this policy going toward increasing the
outreach, accessibility, and efficacy of this
initiative.
• Though not a key item for most participants, some
did express concern over dog parks and whether
the City is directing a disproportionate amount of
resources towards this activity. A smaller number
used their feedback form to share their support for
these spaces.
Participant Quotes
• If we want to compete with New York, London and Paris, then we need to invest in transit, the
waterfront and our parks. People don't visit Paris because it's balanced its budget, people visit to see the
great museums and parks.
• It is very difficult to provide excellent services without increasing revenue - the important part is that the
money be used sensibly and not squandered.
• Our cities parks are a vital resource, as are all our public/outdoor spaces. Waterfront development has
been slow, but the last few years it has been really tremendous - keep it up! The Toronto Island needs
continual investment, same for community recreation. Our ski hills, golf courses, ravines, urban forest -
they all need to be led by city. I think we're doing a good job - I'd like to see us do a great job!
• The Parks and Recreation programme fees are far too low. They surely cannot be recouping costs. I
understand and support keeping programme fees lower for seniors, but others should be able to pay
their way, this is despite the fact that I have 2 young children in city programs.
• Please have "optional services" provided by the city covered by user fees. This includes pools, recreation
centres and fitness classes.
core services review public onsultation
C o r e S e r v i c e R e v i e w
P u b l i c C o n s u l t a t i o n
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-39538.pdf
Appendix B to the City Manager's
Report on the Core Service Review
C o r e S e r v i c e R e v i e w
P u b l i c C o n s u l t a t i o n
what is necessary; what's not
P u b l i c C o n s u l t a t i o n
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-39538.pdf
Appendix B to the City Manager's
Report on the Core Service Review
C o r e S e r v i c e R e v i e w
P u b l i c C o n s u l t a t i o n
what is necessary; what's not
parks forestry and recreation
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-39537.pdf
City of Toronto
Core Services Review
Standing Committee Summary
Parks and Environment
public consutation
good numbers
City of Toronto
Core Services Review
Standing Committee Summary
Parks and Environment
public consutation
good numbers
private tree bylaw
Private Tree Bylaw - Intent and Process
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-37698.pdf
Private Tree Bylaw
Toronto’s Urban Forest represents 10.2 million trees with a
structural asset value of $7 Billion
6.1 Million of these
trees are on private
property
Authority:
City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 813, Article III provides
authority for the protection of trees on private property
Private tree bylaw approved by City Council on September 30,
2004
Intent:
Provides a standardized and equitable approach to protecting
the City’s urban forest
Ensures the ongoing health and well being of the City’s urban
forest
Increases awareness of the environment as well as aesthetic
and economic benefits of trees
Supports the City’s Official Plan, which recognizes the important
contribution of trees to the quality of life in Toronto.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-37698.pdf
Private Tree Bylaw
Toronto’s Urban Forest represents 10.2 million trees with a
structural asset value of $7 Billion
6.1 Million of these
trees are on private
property
Authority:
City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 813, Article III provides
authority for the protection of trees on private property
Private tree bylaw approved by City Council on September 30,
2004
Intent:
Provides a standardized and equitable approach to protecting
the City’s urban forest
Ensures the ongoing health and well being of the City’s urban
forest
Increases awareness of the environment as well as aesthetic
and economic benefits of trees
Supports the City’s Official Plan, which recognizes the important
contribution of trees to the quality of life in Toronto.
core services
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-36612.pdf
Service Review Program, 2012 Budget Process and MultiYear Financial Planning Process
Date: March 8, 2011
To: Executive Committee
From:
City Manager
Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Wards: All
Reference
Number:
P:\2011\Internal Services\FP\Ec11008Fp - AFS#12350
1. Core Service Review
The City is facing difficult decisions in 2012 and future years to meet its budget challenges. To
support City Council's 2012 budget deliberations, the City Manager will undertake a Core
Service Review of all services delivered by City divisions and agencies. The City Manager will
use third party expertise to assist with the Core Service Review as required.
A Core Service Review will assist City Council in its 2012 budget deliberations by:
Developing an inventory of all services, service levels and service standards;
Defining which services are legislated, core and discretionary, and identifying the role the
City plays in each service (for example, deliverer, funder, regulator etc.);
Benchmarking services and service levels against a range of comparable jurisdictions;
Service Review Program, 2012 Budget Process and MultiYear Financial Planning Process
Date: March 8, 2011
To: Executive Committee
From:
City Manager
Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Wards: All
Reference
Number:
P:\2011\Internal Services\FP\Ec11008Fp - AFS#12350
1. Core Service Review
The City is facing difficult decisions in 2012 and future years to meet its budget challenges. To
support City Council's 2012 budget deliberations, the City Manager will undertake a Core
Service Review of all services delivered by City divisions and agencies. The City Manager will
use third party expertise to assist with the Core Service Review as required.
A Core Service Review will assist City Council in its 2012 budget deliberations by:
Developing an inventory of all services, service levels and service standards;
Defining which services are legislated, core and discretionary, and identifying the role the
City plays in each service (for example, deliverer, funder, regulator etc.);
Benchmarking services and service levels against a range of comparable jurisdictions;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)