Indoor Recreation Facility Master Plan - Halifax Regional Municipality

Indoor Recreation Facility
Master Plan
Halifax Regional Municipality
Joint Project of Recreation Tourism Culture
Real Property and Asset Management June 2004

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 - 2020 2
Table of Contents
Definitions................................................................................. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 7
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................... 24
1.1
Mandate................................................................... 24
1.2 Study Goals............................................................. 25
1.3 Study Methodology................................................. 25
2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................. 26
2.1 Benefits of Recreation............................................. 26
2.2 Facility Provision Methodologies........................... 28
2.3 Facility Standards.................................................... 29
2.4 Other Municipalities ............................................... 29
3. SITUATION ANALYSIS ....................................... 33
3.1 HRM Department of Recreation, Tourism and
Culture................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Organization.................................................... 33
3.1.2 Philosophy and Policies .................................. 33
3.2 Previous Studies and Action taken ......................... 33
3.3 Historical Overview of Indoor Recreation Facility
Provision in HRM............................................................... 38
3.4 Current Indoor Recreation Facility Provision......... 38
3.4.1 Facility Providers............................................ 38
3.4.2 Facility Classifications.................................... 39
3.4.3 Facility Retirement.......................................... 44
3.4.4 Facility Acquisition......................................... 44
3.4.5 Location of Facilities by Recreation District
MAPS ......................................................................... 44
3.4.6 Current Operating Information ....................... 51
3.4.7 Facility Management Systems ........................ 51
3.4.8 Facility Condition Summary........................... 52
3.4.9 Deferred Maintenance and Recapitalization... 52
3.4.10 Existing Capital Funding Strategies................ 53
3.4.11 Existing Operational Funding Strategies –
Grants and Reporting Responsibility.............................. 53
3.5 Projected Population Changes ................................ 54
3.6 Schools.................................................................... 54
4. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 56
4.1 Trends ..................................................................... 56
4.1.1 Aging Population ............................................ 56
4.1.2 Education/Activity/Salary Levels Correlation 56
4.1.3 Widening Gap Between The Haves and Have
Nots ......................................................................... 57
4.1.4 Increasing Diversity and Equity...................... 57
4.2 Leisure Behaviour Trends....................................... 57
4.3 Design Trends ......................................................... 59

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 3
4.4
Management Trends................................................ 60
5. INTERVIEWS AND CONSULTATION....................... 62
5.1 Public Meetings ...................................................... 62
5.2 Public Survey.......................................................... 62
5.3 Major Facility General Managers ........................... 63
5.4 Regional Councillors .............................................. 64
5.5 Recreation Staff ...................................................... 65
5.6 Special Interest Groups........................................... 66
5.6.1. Swim Nova Scotia Executive Director ........... 66
5.6.2. Diving Nova Scotia President & Technical
Representative................................................................. 66
5.6.3. Basketball Nova Scotia Executive Director.... 66
5.6.4. Soccer Nova Scotia Executive Director.......... 67
5.7 Written Submissions ............................................... 67
6. IRF MASTER PLAN KEY FINDINGS:........................ 69
7. GUIDING PRINCIPLES................................................ 72
7.1 Philosophy............................................................... 72
7.1.1 ”Service Delivery and Costing Model ............ 73
7.2 Recommendations................................................... 73
7.2.1 Compatibility with HRM Regional Planning and
Principles73
7.2.2 Partnerships..................................................... 73
7.2.3 Community Management Agreements ........... 73
7.2.4 Scale of Accommodation for Facility Location..
......................................................................... 74
7.2.5 Facility Types.................................................. 75
7.2.6 Recovery of Operating Cost............................ 76
7.2.7 Operating Cost Recovery Goals by Facility
Type ......................................................................... 77
7.2.8 New Schools ................................................... 77
7.2.9 Recreation Blueprint ....................................... 77
8. IRF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.............................. 81
8.1 Capital Funding Strategy ........................................ 81
8.2 Operational Funding Strategy................................. 81
8.3 Sections................................................................... 81
8.3.1 Section A Existing Facilities........................... 81
8.3.2 Section B Existing Commitments................... 82
8.3.3 IRF Development Strategy Section C Short-
Term Recommendations 2005-2010............................... 82
8.3.4 Section D Medium-Term Recommendations
2011 - 2015 ..................................................................... 83
8.3.5 Section E Long-Term Recommendations 2016 -
2020 ......................................................................... 84
Appendix A: Other Municipalities.......................................... 85
Appendix B: Recreation Blueprint.......................................... 89

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 4
Appendix C: Master Facility List ........................................... 94
Appendix D: Facility Condition Summary............................. 97
Appendix E: Actual Survey Questions & Report ................. 100
Appendix F: Major Facility General Managers.................... 104
Appendix G: Detailed Public Consultation Reports ............. 107
Appendix H: Halifax Regional Municipality Meetings with
Councillors............................................................................ 120
Appendix I: Project Charter.................................................. 124
Appendix J: Drive Time Maps for Multi-District/Multi-Use
Facilities................................................................................ 127
Steering Committee Members:
• Chair Bob Nauss, Regional Coordinator, RTC
• Peter Bigelow, Manager, Planning, RPAM
• Phillip Townsend, Manager,
Capital Projects, RPAM
• Norma MacLean, Community Development,
RTC
• Carol Davis-Jamieson, Health Promotions,
Sport and Recreation
• Betty Lou Killen, IRF Master Plan
Project Coordinator, RPAM
• Burke/Oliver Consultants LTD

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 5
Definitions
1
2
3
4
HRM
Council
RTC
RPAM
Halifax Regional
Municipality
Halifax Regional
Municipal Council
HRM Recreation,
Tourism and Culture
HRM Real Property
and Asset
Management
5 IRF Master Plan Indoor Recreation
Facility Master Plan
6
7
8
Multi-District/Multi Use
Facilities
Sport-Rental Facilities
Event-Rental Facilities
9 Community/Neighbourhood
Centres
Facilities that
provide a variety of
services to a large
geographical area.
Facilities that
provide indoor sport
services to citizens,
primarily on a rental
basis.
Facilities that
provide indoor sport,
event and spectator
services.
Facilities that
provide indoor
recreation services
to neighbourhoods
or communities.
10
11
12
Private Facilities
Proposed Facilities
HRSB
Private sector
facilities such as
fitness centres,
curling clubs, tennis
clubs, and golf
facilities
New facilities at
various stages of
development prior to
the implementation
of the IRF Master
Plan.
Halifax Regional
School Board
13 Regional Councilors Elected members of
HRM Regional
Council
14 Community Board An incorporated and
registered body of
volunteers dedicated
to the success of a
specific facility, and
legally responsible
to oversee in an
advisory capacity
the operations as a
direct extension of
the municipal role.
15 RFMP Manager HRM staff person
assigned to manage
the Indoor
Recreation Facility
Strategy

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 6
16
17
18
SEA
SST
IRFMP Committee
Service Exchange
Agreement between
HRM and HRSB
School Steering
Team HRSB/HRM
team assigned to
assessment of new
school development
HRM staff
committee
responsible for initial
assessment of
potential projects

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Indoor Recreation Facility Master Plan was commissioned
by Halifax Regional Council in February of 2003 in
recognition of the need to develop a strategic approach to the
provision of indoor recreation facility services.
A Steering Committee comprised of staff from HRM
departments of Real Property and Asset Management and
Recreation Tourism, and Culture, the Provincial Office of
Health Promotion and Recreation Division, and contract
personnel was formed to undertake the project. Burke/Oliver
Consultants Ltd was retained to assist the Committee.
The goal of the project was to identify indoor recreation facility
needs, develop facility priorities incorporating Halifax
Regional Municipality’s (HRM)’s demographics and growth
patterns, determine which Indoor Recreation Facilities (IRFs)
should be maintained, reconditioned, or retired and where new
facilities should be built in a coordinated Recreation Master
Plan over the next 15 years.
Extensive research was conducted including a thorough review
of existing municipal studies, 14 public consultation meetings,
an HRM - wide phone survey, and meetings with Regional
Councillors, Recreation staff, and Multi District Facility
managers. Meetings were also held with key stakeholders,
special interest groups – Basketball Nova Scotia, Swim NS,
Diving NS, and Soccer NS, other facility providers and the
Universities. An invitation was extended for written proposals.
Research was conducted into best practices in other
municipalities in Canada, trends in indoor recreation facility
development and provision, demographics and indoor
recreation activities. A master list of existing facilities was
developed, and facility operation results were reviewed.
The Steering Committee would like to gratefully acknowledge
all of the individuals and groups who participated so readily in
the planning process.
The study developed a system of classification and definition
of facilities by size and primary use. This, as done initially in
the 1998 HRM Major Recreation Complex Report by Burke
Oliver, will further explain the needs and uses of specific
facilities. The seven categories and definitions are:
Category 1
Category 2
Multi District – Multi Use Facilities
A facility, such as Dartmouth Sportsplex, Cole Harbour
Place or Sackville Sports Stadium that provides a
variety of services to a large geographic area
encompassing more than one district, in urban and
suburban situations, usually within a 20 to 30 minute
drive time. In rural situations, citizens would likely
drive 50-60 minutes to access this type of facility.
Sport Facilities
The primary focus for these facilities is the provision of
space for sport use, generally arenas. The majority of
use is sport rentals, while some time is allocated to nonsport
activities and programming, usually within a 20 to

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 8
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
30 minute drive time. In rural situations, citizens would
likely drive 50-60 minutes to access this type of facility.
Event Facilities
The primary focus for these facilities is the provision of
large-scale spectator events, sport or otherwise, i.e.:
Metro Centre, Halifax Forum Complex. These
facilities are generally located in proximity to highly
populated areas with good road access.
Community / Neighbourhood Facilities
These are facilities, such as the Beachville, Lakeside,
Timberlea Community Centre or the Sackville Heights
Community Centre where the local community can
congregate and enjoy basic services and programs. The
facility likely has a gymnasium, a multi-purpose room,
and some meeting rooms. In some cases, such as the
Needham Centre, there is also a small pool. The typical
users of these facilities live within a 5-10 minute drive
time in the urban and suburban areas. In rural areas,
these facilities are generally associated with schools,
churches, etc, and will likely require a longer drive to
access.
University and Military Facilities
These facilities are available to the public although the
primary users are their specific constituents, i.e.
members of the military and students. The University
facilities play a key role in indoor recreation service
Category 6
Category 7
provision, for all intents and purposes functioning as
Multi-District / Multi-Use facilities, when they are
accessible. Significant gaps in service would exist if
they were not available.
Non Profit Facilities
This category captures non profit indoor recreation
facilities provided by groups other than the
municipality; i.e.: service clubs, YMCA, etc. These
facilities fulfill specific needs that would otherwise be
addressed and fulfilled by the municipality.
Private Facilities
Private Sector facilities generate profit for the owners
by meeting a specific market need. Good examples are:
private fitness clubs, bowling centres, etc. As a result
of the mandate to fill gaps in service, the municipality
does not tend to participate in these market areas.
This study has focused on the first four categories of facilities.
IRF Master Plan Key Findings:
1) Role of the Municipality
Citizens consistently indicated that they regard the
Municipality as being responsible to provide key indoor
recreation facilities. Both the survey and the public
meetings indicated that citizens place a high priority on the
provision of:

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 9
Category 1 Multi-District Multi-Use Facilities
Category 2 Sport Facilities
Category 4 Community / Neighbourhood Facilities
as defined by the municipality.
2) Access to Schools
Citizens across the municipality took the opportunity
during the study to indicate their overwhelming frustration
regarding the lack of availability and cost of access to
schools during evenings and weekends. Much discussion
revolved around this topic, and there is strong support
across the municipality for the creation of more citizenfriendly
policies regarding evening and weekend access to
schools. It was clearly noted that schools often contain the
only recreation facilities in a neighbourhood, and are
funded through the municipal tax structure.
3) Multi-District Facilities
Citizens recognize that multi-use facilities of this type
cannot be located in every community, and have
consistently indicated that a 20-30 minute drive is
reasonable for access to facilities that would include pools
and arenas as well as other amenities. Our rural citizens
indicated that, although they would enjoy the benefits of
having this type of facility within a 20-30 minute drive time,
they recognize that is unrealistic. They indicated they
currently engage in a 50-60 minute drive time.
4) Existing Indoor Facility Infrastructure
HRM needs to devote more resources to the management
and preservation of the existing indoor recreation
infrastructure. Although existing facilities are operational,
additional financial resources need to be assigned to
facility upgrades and preventive maintenance.
5) Operating Cost Recovery
Concern was expressed that emphasis on high levels of
facility operating cost recovery is unduly influencing
recreation service delivery in Multi-District-Multi-Use
facilities, and in some cases Community / Neighbourhood
facilities. The mandate for 100% cost recovery is inherent
in most management / partnership agreements.
Stakeholders felt strongly that the municipality should take
a realistic approach to providing services at reasonable
rates in order to ensure access. Research into other
municipalities in Canada indicated that recovery of
operating cost was not the primary criteria in recreation
facility provision, regardless of whether the facility was
operated bys a municipality or under a partnership
agreement.
6) Scale of Accommodation - Standards of Provision
Research indicated that the use of standards for facility
provision based solely on size of population has generally
been abandoned in Canadian municipalities in favour of
provision based on identified need, in combination with

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 10
guidelines that define the types of facility investment a
municipality will make. In general, municipalities invest
most heavily in facilities that provide a variety of services
at a developmental user level. Trends indicate that the
development of Multi-District – Multi-Use facilities provide
convenient, enjoyable and cost effective service delivery
hubs. Funding participation from other sources is usually
required before facilities that support more advanced levels
of participation are considered.
7) Access to Services
HRM policy of accessibility to recreation services is not
being supported by current indoor facility provision
strategies. For the most part, facilities are required to
operate under a mandate of total cost recovery. This
means that the need to generate revenue is often greater
than the need to provide a basic service to citizens.
Management agreements with community boards do not
include provisions that support accessibility.
8) Management Agreements
Indoor recreation facilities in HRM are operated directly
by HRM and by community groups through management
agreements. It is expected that these forms of operation
will continue to dominate.
HRM needs to devote additional resources to the
supervision of management agreements with community
groups and to ensure that the agreements are equitable and
consistent. This will ensure that these important municipal
assets are being managed and utilized effectively and
appropriately and that the services they provides support
the overall goals of the municipality with regard to the
service provision mandate. These agreements need to more
effectively reflect the true costs associated with facility
operation.
9) In House Indoor Facility Operation
HRM’s management and accounting systems need to be
reorganized to treat municipally operated recreation
facilities as individual profit/loss centres. This will make it
possible to assess operating results for these facilities and
improve operational performance. A single point of
responsibility should be established for each facility.
Additionally, a facility asset condition plan needs to be
developed in order to facilitate more effective
recapitalization planning on an annual basis.
10) Recreation Areas
Recreation areas do not currently coincide with census
tracts with the result that an important planning tool -
population size and demographic analysis is lost.
- end IRF MP Key Findings -

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 11
IRF Master Plan Summary of Recommendations
will be done through the development of an objective
standardized evaluation tool.
Recommendation #1 (7.2.1) Compatibility with HRM
Regional Plan and Principles
The IRF Master Plan will attempt at all times to reflect the
guiding goals and objectives of the Regional Plan and to be
proactive in developing strategies to meet the needs of citizens.
Recommendation #2 (7.2.2) Partnerships
Non-municipal management and financing of recreation
facilities is encouraged assuming that the Municipality’s
approved mandates, service delivery models, and standards of
service will be increased or at least achieved and that there are
significant financial or other reasons to opt for non-municipal
management.
Recommendation #3 (7.2.3) Community Management
Agreements
a) Community Management agreements should be
standardized in order to ensure the best interests of the
citizens are being met.
b) HRM staff resources need to be allocated to the supervision
of community management agreements in order to develop
and manage responsibility and expectation criteria. This

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 12
Recommendation #4 (7.2.4) Scale of Accommodation for
Facility Location
demographics within a realistic catchment area to support
the proposed activities
The municipality recognizes and supports the importance of
recreation and leisure opportunities for our citizens. These are
the activities that connect our communities and create lasting
memories for our families. It is with this in mind that we
endeavour to ensure that the location of our facilities are
convenient and accessible for users, do not compete with
existing municipal facilities, and are as cost effective to operate
as possible.
3. New facility expansion will not be undertaken in
competition with existing facilities or services
4. Recreation facilities should be located on highly visible
sites that maximize access opportunities for citizens.
Where possible, they should be situated on mass
transportation routes
It is recommended that in every case, facility development
initiatives are filtered through the Facility Implementation
Model, thus ensuring the principles of the IRF MP are
maintained.
5. Prior to the development or acquisition of new space,
existing multi-district/multi-use facilities will be evaluated
for existing special opportunities that could accommodate
the service need
The following initial assessment takes place in Step One of the
FIM as primary filters:
1. Location of new facilities and expansion of existing
facilities will be determined through the FIM process in
concert with the Regional Plan
HRM commissioned the Arena Capacity Study that was
completed in November of 2001. It is recommended that new
arena facilities (category 2) be developed based on the
principles and recommendations of that report. Other category
2 facilities should be developed after careful analysis as per the
FIM as a decision making tool, and the content of this Master
Plan.
2. New facilities or existing facility expansion must have
significant existing or planned population with appropriate

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 13
Following are suggested criteria for population and drive time
relative to the Facility Implementation Model and the Regional
Plan.
These criteria are to be analyzed relative to existing municipal
and non-municipal facilities or the lack thereof, in conjunction
with the Facility Implementation Model and other aspects of
this report.
Direct competition between like facilities is not supported.
a) Critical population mass of 45,000-60,000 in a 20-30
minute drive time is required prior to the advancement of a
category 1 (Multi District – Multi Use) facility.
b) Category 2 (Sport) Sport facilities such as arenas, indoor
soccer facilities, etc are driven by sport interests rather than
general community need. 20 – 30 minute drive time is
required prior to the advancement of a category 2 facility.
c) Category 3 (Event) Event facilities are specialized in nature
and function, and require further study by the municipality.
These facilities draw users from across the regional
municipality and beyond, and must therefore advance only
after strong funding partnerships have been developed
d) Critical population mass of 10,000-15,000 and/or a 5-10
minute drive time is required prior to the advancement of a
category 4 (community / neighbourhood) facility.
Recommendation #5 (7.2.5) Facility Types
HRM indoor recreation facilities should focus on participation
rather than on speculating. Spectator and event facilities should
only be developed in conjunction with other partners such as
Provincial and Federal governments, Private Sector, etc.
Whenever possible, new facilities should be developed in
conjunction with existing facilities in order to maximize both
the convenience and enjoyment of citizens and economies of
scale in terms of operations. The municipality should respond
to trends in facility development by focusing its projects on the
development and enhancement of existing and new multidistrict
facilities, based on the criteria outlined in 7.2.4 – Scale
of Accommodation for Facility Location.
Recommendation #6 (7.2.6) Recovery of Operating Cost
a) Where possible and prudent, indoor recreation facility
components should be provided in multi-use centres and in
combination with other services such as libraries, municipal
offices, and service centres. Not only does this create a
more attractive, functional and convenient facility for the
users, but also it is more cost effective to operate.

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 14
b) Facility components and features that can increase revenue
generation should be included whenever possible.
c) Facilities should be scheduled to accommodate the needs of
the user while at the same time maximizing cost recovery
d) To ensure financial effectiveness it is critical that HRM
maximize the use of existing facilities before building new
facilities, including the usage of HRSB assets. HRM
should review and redefine existing policies around HRSB
facility scheduling and access in order to maximize usage,
and should enter into discussions immediately with HRSB
to assume responsibilities for the scheduling of school
facilities in the municipality.
Recommendation #7 (7.2.7) Operating Cost Recovery
Goals by Facility Type
a) It is recommended that a standardized criteria be developed
to establish the desired level of public subsidy by facility
category.
b) Capital maintenance (recapitalization) and/or development
costs of approved facilities will be the responsibility of the
municipality and other funding partners and will not be
included in the operational budgets of the facilities.
Recommendation #8 (7.2.8) New Schools
It is recommended that HRM’s SST role in determining need,
scope and priority of enhanced school facilities be managed
under the IRF Facility Implementation Model in the same
fashion as other facility development requests.
Recommendation #9 (7.2.9) Recreation Blueprint
It is recommended that the Recreation Blueprint (the guiding
principles for RTC) be enhanced to include specific strategies
in the following areas:
• A method to measure citizen benefits
• Quantifiable service level criteria
• Process for regular review of service level success
• Trends analysis in the decision making process
• Re-align the Recreation Areas to correspond with
electoral areas.
• A strategy to address the physical fitness levels and
needs of citizens
Recommendation #10 (7.3) Facility Development Process
It is recommended that the Facility Implementation Model
(FIM) be adopted as the process for decision making for new
facility development, existing facility expansion, facility
acquisition, and retirement. The success of this process is
dependant upon the cooperation and joint participation of RTC
and RPAM.

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 15
Recommendation #11 (8.2) Operational Funding Strategy
The effective implementation of the Master Plan requires
ongoing support. This support includes the IRFMP Manager as
well as changes to the accounting system to support the
recommendation for facility cost centres. The IRFMP
Manager will be a liaison between RTC and RPAM to ensure
expedient and consistent discussion and action with all
stakeholders. This position will also ensure that adequate
research and trends analysis takes place as part of the decision
making process. In addition, the IRFMP Manager will be the
HRM representative on SST’s and make recommendations to
Council regarding SST initiatives.
Recommendation #12 (8.3.3)
IRF Development Strategy
Section C Short-Term Recommendations
2005-2010 (projects are not listed in priority order)
a) It is recommended that HRM be strategically involved in
the analysis and review of needs for the new high school
project in Musquodoboit Valley
b) It is recommended that RTC immediately implement an
annual equipment expense category for community
operated programs in the Musquodoboit Valley, and review
the requirements for the training and development of RTC
program staff.
c) It is recommended that, as a high priority, HRM review the
business plan as presented by the Eastern Shore Recreation
Authority, and evaluate the feasibility of developing a
fitness centre for this community in the next fiscal period
(2005/06). This project, in Step 1 of the FIM, has been
identified by the community and the Councillor as a
priority. The IRFM committee will assess the proposed
project based on the degree to which it supports the
Guiding Principles, Philosophy and Recommendations of
the IRF Master Plan, and how it fits into the indoor
recreation infrastructure within it’s area. Although the area
does not appear to have adequate population to sustain a
full fitness centre, there appear to be other significant
reasons to pursue the analysis of this project; i.e.: drive
time to alternative facilities, community of need,
substantial indication of community support through the
RCMP, Community Health Organizations, other Non
Government Agencies, etc.
d) It is recommended that HRM conduct a full cost /benefit
review of consolidating services and office requirements
into the existing Eastern Shore Arena.
e) HRM Environmental Youth Centre. This project, currently
in Step 1 of the Facility Implementation Model (FIM), has
received some preliminary funding for needs analysis cost
shared between EMS, RTC, and the Province. The
committee will assess the proposed project based on the
degree to which it supports the Guiding Principles,

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 16
Philosophy and Recommendations of the IRF Master Plan,
and how it fits into the indoor recreation infrastructure
within it’s area. This proposed project, being a one-of-akind
in the municipality, does not fit the existing multidistrict
definition and would be a regional facility.
f) It is recommended that HRM undertake a thorough review
of the needs and requirements in the Prospect area and
move forward in an advisory role with the community
through the FIM process towards a community /
neighbourhood level facility.
g) It is recommended that HRM replace the existing
community recreation facility in District 2.
h) It is recommended that should the tri-pad ice facility not
move forward in Bedford, HRM initiate the development
an additional ice surface for the Bedford area.
i) It is recommended that HRM ensure that the existing
community facility in Bedford (Gerald Lebrun Centre) has
all maintenance requirements met in order to keep it
functioning.
j) It is recommended that HRM review IRF needs and
priorities in the Sambro area, including an evaluation of the
availability of local church facilities to meet the needs of
citizens.
k) It is recommended that a decision be made regarding the
request from the Spryfield Lions Club regarding the
acquisition of the Lions Arena.
l) It is recommended that HRM enter into a review of the
usage and cost recovery mandate of the Captain William
Spry Centre to assess enhanced opportunities for recreation
service delivery.
m) It is recommended that the Devonshire Arena be converted
for alternate usage upon the development of an additional
ice surface in HRM. Suggested usage is a regional indoor
skateboard park.
n) It is recommended that a detailed review of the
Needham/St Andrews/George Dixon centres be undertaken
to determine appropriate go-forward strategies, taking into
consideration the potential direction of the Bloomfield
location. This review will address facility expansion,
retirement and community accessibility relative to
programming and cost recovery mandates, as well as
mobility barriers in existing facilities.

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 17
o) It is recommended that careful observation of the
Dartmouth North area continue related to IRF’s and service
provisions, and that the RTC enter into a formal discussion
of the effectiveness of its services in this area regarding
cost recovery and accessibility mandates.
p) It is recommended that a review and analysis of space
usage at the BLT facility be undertaken to determine
maximum effectiveness. Analysis is also necessary re: the
lifecycle of the existing facility and anticipated future
requirements.
q) It is recommended that planning and development begin
regarding the construction of a community facility that
would meet the needs of the residents in the Dartmouth
East area, and would fill the existing gaps for a Boys and
Girls club in that area.

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 18
Recommendation #13 (8.3.3)
IRF Development Strategy
Section D Medium-Term Recommendations
2010 – 2015 (projects are not listed in priority
order)
a) Development of 2 new Category 4 (Community /
Neighbourhood) facilities
c) Expansion of 1 existing Category 1(Multi-District / Multi –
Use) facility
Based on the projected population growth as per 3.5, facility
development will likely take place in the following manner:
1 new multi district facility – suburbs
2 new community / neighbourhood facilities – suburbs
b) Expansion of 1 existing Category 1(Multi-District / Multi –
Use) facility
Recommendation #14 (8.3.3)
IRF Development Strategy
Section E Long-Term Recommendations
2016 – 2020 (projects are not listed in priority
order)
2 new community / neighbourhood facilities – rural commuter
shed
2 expansions of existing multi-district / multi-use facility
a) Development of 1 new Category 1(multi-District / Multi –
Use) facility
b) Development of 2 new Category 4 (Community /
Neighbourhood) facilities

Projected Facility Development
Rural
Suburbs
Rural
Commutershed
Urban
Core
0 10 20
Kilometers
Projected Facility Development 2010 - 2015
1 New Community / Neighbourhood Facility
1 New Community / Neighbourhood Facility
1 Expanded Multi-District / Multi-Use Facility
Projected Facility Development 2015 - 2020
2 New Community / Neighbourhood Facilities
1 Expanded Multi-District / Multi-Use Facility
1 New Multi-District / Multi-Use Facility

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 20
Facility Implementation Model (FIM)
The IRF Master Plan examined priorities for years 1-5 in
detail, and recommends responding to gaps identified through
the consultation process. It also recommended that the plan be
updated on a regular basis. The first update has been
tentatively scheduled for Year Three with subsequent updates
between Years 6-10 and 11-15.
The Plan proposes a Facility Implementation Model (FIM)
consisting of seven steps. Each potential project would
proceed through the model under the supervision of an IRF
Master Plan Manager. Entry into the process would be through
an initial assessment conducted by the IRFMP Committee.
It is recommended that any new development of IRFs take
place in concert with the Regional Plan after thorough needs
assessments, business plan development, and capital funding
strategy development through the FIM. It is expected that the
HRM would not be the sole funding source for all new facility
development. Based on projected population increases over the
next 15 years, it can be expected that HRM will need to invest
in up to four additional neighbourhood/community centres and
1 additional multi district/multiuse complex as well as
expansion of existing facilities. Location, components and
operating format are to be determined through the IRF Master
Plan process and are heavily dependant upon growth and
demographic patterns and the ability of the municipality
through the regional plan to influence them.

IRF Master Plan Facility Implementation Model
Primary Area of
Responsibility
IRF/RTC
1
IRF/RTC
2
RTC/IRF
3
RTC/IRF
4
RTC/RPAM
5
RPAM/RTC
6
RPAM/RTC
7
RPAM
RTC
AC
Comm.
Groups
Triage
IRF Manager
RTC Cap
RTC AC
RPAM CAP
Project
Charter
Project
Assessment
Project
Validation
Project
Definition
Project
Design &
Construction
Commissioning
and
Occupancy
Councillor
HRSB
Corporate
Mandate
Assessment
Identify
Project
Sponsor (CD)
Community &
Stakeholder
Consultation
Operating
Budget
Impacts
Functional
Guidelines
(Technical)
Milestone and
Critical Path
Development
Initial Identification of
Opportunity for New
Construction,
Acquisition or Retire
RTC Blueprint
Assessment
Identify Required
Info. Resources/
Costs
Internal/External
Feasibility/
Program Needs
Assessment
Capital Funding
Strategy
Development
and Approvals
Detailed
Budget
Approvals
RTC – Recreation
Tourism Culture
AC – RTC Area
Coordinator
RPAM – Real Property
Asset Management
Guiding
Principles
Assessment
Commission
Resources for
RFP/Needs
Assessment
Management
Model
Development
Board
Development
Council Decision
re Direction based
on IRF
Recommendation
Technical
Assessment
HRSB – Halifax
Regional School Board
Business
Plan
Functional
Plan
Identification of
Opportunity
Evaluation and Analysis
of Opportunity/Need
Steps 1-5 Project
Steps 6-7
Startup - Completion
Proposed Timeline
3 Year Total
Steps 1-4 (assuming there is an approved budget line for facility planning) 1 year Steps 5-6 1 year Step 7 1 year
1 2 3 4
5 6
7
Assess all proposed
IRF projects including
•New Construction
•Renovation
•Acquisition
•Retirement
Begin the formal
documentation of
the project
Detailed project
evaluation,
development, analysis
Assess for Capital and
Operating Costs impacts
Vetting and verification of the
Functional Plan. Guidelines will
provide detailed descriptions of
programs and facility components
RPAM becomes primary
responsibility and implements
their project process
RPAM is responsible
ongoing for technical,
while RTC has ongoing
responsibility for service
delivery
Council Approval Benchmarks

Halifax Regional Municipality IRF Master Plan 2005 – 2020 22

IRF Master Plan
IRF Financial Strategy – Capital Cost Projections 23

IRF Master Plan 24
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Indoor Recreation Facility Master Plan study has
developed a decision-making framework and strategic
priorities (short, medium and long-term) for the development,
maintenance, and divestment of Indoor Recreation Facilities
(IRFs).
This framework (model) is reflective of the desire to provide
citizens with IRFs in order to enhance their quality of life and
to foster community pride while ensuring that these needs are
met in a fiscally prudent manner through efficient use of
available resources.
Extensive research, trends analysis, and stakeholder
consultation have shaped the recommendations within this
report, from which several common themes have emerged.
Additionally, key findings in specific areas have been noted in
order to ensure that the recommendations are as representative
as possible of the IRF Principles as stated in the report,
together with the identified needs of the communities.
Any new development of IRFs will take place after thorough
needs assessments, business plan development, and capital
funding strategy development. It is expected that the HRM
would not be the sole funding source for new facility
development.
1.1 Mandate
The purpose of this study is to: identify, prioritize and plan
delivery of indoor recreation facilities, to identify which
facilities should be maintained, reconditioned, retired or built
over the next 15 years, and to create a framework for decision
making to address challenges and opportunities.
Deliverables in the study are to:
• Develop a Master Plan to meet existing requirements,
accommodate future growth, anticipate trends;
• Develop a policy on service levels;
• Establish a short term (1-5 years) and long term (6-15
years) facility priority list; and
• Determine the best options for HRM Facility Service
Delivery in terms of financial, administrative, and
geographic factors.
The timelines for this study were as follows:
• Data Gathering and Mapping – Summer and Fall 2003
• Public Consultation Meetings – Month of November
through to the first week of December 2003
• Recreation Public Values Survey – February 2004
• Meetings with Councillors – Early January 2004

IRF Master Plan 25
• Closure of Call for Written Submissions – February
2004
• Draft Service Levels – February 2004
• Draft Master Plan Public Open House Sessions –
Unscheduled to date
• Draft Report – June 2004
1.2 Study Goals
The municipality supports the development of healthy
communities through services and programs provided by
Recreation, Tourism and Culture (RTC) and Real Property and
Asset Management (RPAM). Through research and the public
consultation process, the study will develop principles to guide
the municipality in:
• Where new facilities need to be developed
• What type of facilities to build
• When to retire or re-designate old facilities
• What are cost-recovery expectations for facilities
In order to provide a framework for addressing these important
questions, the study will:
in order to assist staff when making recommendations
for new facility development;
• Develop a policy on service levels;
• Establish a short-term facility priority list for the next
five years;
• Establish a long-term facility priority that lists 6-15
years; and
• Develop a five-year financial plan.
1.3 Study Methodology
Extensive research was conducted including a thorough review
of existing municipal studies, 14 public consultation meetings,
an HRM wide phone survey, and meetings with Regional
Councillors, Recreation staff, and Major Facility managers.
Meetings were also held with key stakeholders, special interest
groups: Basketball Nova Scotia, Swim NS, Diving NS, Soccer
NS, Greater Halifax YMCA, other facility providers, and the
Universities. An invitation was extended for written proposals.
Research was conducted into best practices in other
municipalities in Canada, trends in indoor recreation facility
development and provision, demographics and indoor
recreation activities. A master list of existing facilities was
developed, and facility operation results were reviewed.
• Develop a framework for the decision-making,
development, and management of municipal facilities

IRF Master Plan 26
2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Background research was conducted to gain a perspective on
the recreation industry as a whole and the ways in which other
municipalities are dealing with indoor recreation facilities.
2.1 Benefits of Recreation
Socio-Economic Impact of Recreation and Leisure
There is a continuing national and international effort by
scholars and those involved in the delivery of leisure services
to demonstrate the beneficial economic and social impact of
recreation. In 1992, the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association
published a Catalogue of The Benefits of Parks and Recreation.
The Benefits Catalogue is distributed nationally and
internationally by CP/RA through a contractual agreement with
the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario and the support
of Fitness Canada and the Inter-provincial Sport & Recreation
Council. The preface to the catalogue reads in part; “To those
involved in the delivery of leisure services, recreation has
always been seen as a means to a bigger end” and, “regardless
of the organization with which people may work or the type of
recreational opportunities in which they are involved, it is clear
that this perspective and work is important and significant.”
Personal Benefits
- Active living, generally through the opportunity for
leisure is directly related to personal health (physical,
mental and social).
- Leisure opportunities for youth provide positive
lifestyle choices and alternatives to self-destructive
behaviour.
- Children’s play is essential to the human development
process.
- Regular physical activity is one of the very best
methods of health insurance for individuals.
- Fit senior citizens live longer, remain in their homes
longer and participate more fully in community life.
- Relaxation, rest and revitalization through the
opportunity for leisure are essential to stress
management in today’s busy demanding world.
The supportable benefits listed in the catalogue include:

IRF Master Plan 27
Social Benefits
- Leisure provides opportunities for community
involvement and shared management of resources.
- Integrated and accessible leisure services are critical to
the quality of life of people with a disability and
disadvantaged individuals.
- Leisure opportunities, facilities and the quality of the
local environment are the foundations of community
pride.
- Community recreation reduces alienation, loneliness
and anti social behaviours.
- Recreating together builds strong families, the
foundation of a stronger society.
Economic Benefits
- Pay now or pay later! Investment in recreation as a
preventive health service makes sense.
- A fit work force is a productive work force.
- Many studies have shown that financial investment in
recreation projects pay dividends throughout the
community - the return is always greater than the
original outlay.
- Economic development literature repeatedly stresses
the attraction of local quality of life in the decision to
move a firm to a new city. Parks and community leisure
services are primary considerations and measures in
such a move.
- The provision of meaningful and involving activities
for our young people really does deter costly, negative
behaviours (e.g. vandalism and petty crime).
Recreation and parks are significant economic generators in the
community·
• Recreation and fitness improve work performance -
increased productivity, decreased absenteeism,
decreased staff turnover, reduced "on the job"
accidents.
• Recreation and arts/culture attract businesses to the
community - prime economic development and
relocation magnets.
• Recreation, sports and arts/culture are the attractions
that draw tourism - the third largest and one of the
fastest growing industries in the world today.
• Recreation, fitness, sports and arts/culture are
significant economic generators on their own -
providing many jobs.
• Small investments in recreation, sports and arts/culture
often yield large economic returns - money generated

IRF Master Plan 28
by events, capital development and providing ongoing
services is spent several times in the community
This information, as compiled by CPRA in the “Benefits
Catalogue” was developed to promote a greater understanding
and use of the values and benefits associated with leisure
activities and services.
2.2 Facility Provision Methodologies
Municipalities have employed a variety of methods to provide
indoor recreation services to their residents. The following is a
discussion of three methods that represent a range of
approaches: In House, Partnerships with Community Groups,
and Contracting out to the Private Sector. These methods can
be employed in either development or operation, or in projects
where both development and operation is involved.
The main challenge to municipalities in the involvement of
partners in facility development and operation is to ensure that
the resulting facility meets the needs of residents and
appropriate standards of quality for a sound life cycle
investment, and that the project supports the service goals of
the municipality.
In House
The in house method
“… this strategy is supported because of the control it provides
for the municipal unit as it relates to both asset management
and service delivery by various municipal departments,
primarily the recreation department. Equity of access, and
accessibility in general are of primary concern, and this
management strategy allows for the integration of both
important components. Clearly, “this is the most suitable
option if there is a need to provide services/programs that may
need financial support.” 1
Partnerships with Community Groups
Partnerships with Community Groups are a common method of
indoor facility provision in municipalities of all sizes. The
partnership may include both facility development and
operation with the community group providing fund raising for
one or both. The degree of municipal involvement varies.
Contracting out to the Private Sector
“Management is ‘freed up’ to operate independently of the
municipality. This may present opportunities to improve
operational efficiency through such vehicles as alternative
service delivery, and to adapt a more commercial approach.
- The contract/agreement can be structured so as to
increase the reliability of the centre’s operating budget.
Where financial performance falls short of budget
projections the contractor would normally be liable for
the loss. Where an operational surplus is realized, the
contractor normally retains the excess, or it may be
reserved for capital purchases and improvements.
1 Department of Sport and Recreation - Western Australia
www.dsr.wa.gov.au/facilities/management.asp

IRF Master Plan 29
- Financial incentives are often built into the contract to
encourage the operator to succeed.
- The Municipality has minimal control over the day-today
operations of the facility
- There is the potential for reduced social benefit - the
operating partner may only offer profitable programs
and competitions and may disregard the social needs of
the broader community.” 2
2.3 Facility Standards
An internet search produced “Guidelines for Developing
Public Recreation Facility Standards” prepared by the Ontario
Ministry of Culture and Recreation Sports and Fitness Division
in 1976 which replaced an earlier document produced in 1973.
The forward to the report notes that:
• “no one plan or standard can be applied to every
community and they must be adapted to locally expressed
needs, to local values and interests and to local financial
capabilities.”
The document further suggests that each municipality large or
small needs a recreation plan. It also notes that:
• “following this planning process is not easy, but it is
important. There are no short cuts. It provides the key to
understanding what facilities are needed, when, how and by
whom they should be built or developed and where they
should be located. Once the plan is developed, it is
relatively easy to revise as needed, keeping it accurate and
relevant.”
2.4 Other Municipalities
The experience of other Canadian Municipalities in the
provision of indoor recreation services can be of assistance in
developing an appropriate approach for HRM. The following is
an overview of information received from across Canada.
Detailed information is contained in Appendix A.
Information was collected from St. John’s, Fredericton,
Ottawa, London, Mississauga, Toronto, Kitchener, Edmonton,
Surrey and Saanich.
The City of Mississauga was selected as it is a rapidly growing,
planned community. The City of Toronto was selected as it has
undergone amalgamation and is dealing with integrating
recreation services. The City of Surrey has a diverse ethnic
make up, the City of Kitchener is a smaller urban centre and St.
John’s and Fredericton are examples of Maritime communities.
The remaining cities have recently completed facility-planning
studies or, as is the case with the City of Edmonton, have well
documented school use agreements.
2 Department of Sport and Recreation - Western Australia
www.dsr.wa.gov.au/facilities/management.asp

IRF Master Plan 30
None of the municipalities contacted were assessing facility
provision based solely on population. All municipalities were
concerned about the impact that the adoption of a set standard
could potentially have upon municipal budgets as facility
provision includes both development and ongoing operations
cost. In general, municipalities are striving to provide quality
services in an equitable manner to their citizens despite a
restrictive financial climate. To reach their goals they are
entering into partnerships with other agencies, developing joint
use agreements with schools, reviewing the types of facilities
they provide, and attempting to provide and operate facilities
more efficiently.
The method in greatest use among the municipalities was a
recreation master planning process which took into
consideration: population, future growth, existing facilities,
traditional patterns of use in the community, the historical
approach to facility provision and budgeting of costs, driving
distances, current trends in recreation and the provision of
recreation services, and a public consultation process. Separate
feasibility studies were undertaken for specific facilities.
Requests for facilities are assessed in the context of the Master
Plan and feasibility studies commissioned if they fit identified
facility requirements.
The City of Mississauga provided a copy of their 1999 Future
Direction for Recreation and Parks study report that is the latest
phase of a planning process that began in 1983 with a
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The Master Plan was
updated in 1992 and augmented by public surveys in 1983, 86,
91 and 98.
The amalgamated City of Toronto has undertaken an inventory
of recreation facilities as a first step in the assessment of
provision targets. In 1990 the City of Kitchener updated its’
Facilities Master plan originally developed in 1975.
The City of Fredericton recently completed a master plan,
however, the City of St. John’s does not have a formal
planning process, as no new facilities, other than soccer
pitches, are being contemplated.
The Ottawa approach to funding is to direct municipal
financing toward those facilities and services that support
access to introductory programs and services, and broad based
activities that contribute to key benefits of community wide
health and wellness. Facilities that support these introductory
or core initiatives are generally found at the community and
neighbourhood level. Facilities that serve citywide and district
audiences with greater focus on intermediate and advanced
opportunities require proportionately more funding from nontax
sources.
The City of Ottawa was amalgamated in 2001, merging 12
former municipalities that had different philosophies and
approaches to funding and operating recreational facilities.
Some municipalities funded 80% of capital costs through
development charges, others had varying lower percentages
and two former municipalities, had no development charges,
funding them entirely through the property tax base. The city is
presently in the process of establishing a new Development
Charges By-law that would see new infrastructure pay 80% in
new growth areas, 45% where there is an existing population

IRF Master Plan 31
but slated for major new growth and 5% in older established
communities where infill development will occur. Through a
Long-Term Financial Plan presently being up-dated, they are
likely to adopt a pay-as-you go approach meaning the funds
(either development charges or reserves through the property
tax) must be in place prior to construction, eliminating the need
for debt charges. With respect to operating costs and facilities,
the amalgamated city had a similar 'uneven' spread of tax
subsidization and cost recovery through user fees. In some
instances, there is cross-subsidization of Parks and Recreation
programs, by other programs (e.g. fitness memberships
offsetting aquatics costs); while in other cases there is a straight
loss (staffing costs being higher than any revenues they might
bring in). Overall, however, the Parks and Recreation operating
budget is offset by user pay. Costs for Real Property and
Transport and Public Works are borne by the tax base.
In Saanich recreation centre operation is not based on
mandated cost recovery but focused on quality service.
Recovery rates change from year to year with a low of around
55% and a high of around 70%.
Combining a variety of services in a single multi-use facility
was regarded as generating higher use levels and reduced net
operating costs. The Edmonton report refers to studies done in
Burlington and Mississauga and notes, “Multi-use facilities are
becoming more common across Canada and in the Edmonton
region.” In London, “the recommendation to develop three
separate multi-purpose community campuses is based in part
on the recognition of the potential operating cost savings
associated with the development of various community
facilities as part of a single complex. It is also recognized that
by improving the level of service through the provision of
alternative recreational and community activities “under one
roof”, the opportunity exists to increase participation and use of
the facilities, thereby increasing revenue potential.”
Edmonton’s Joint Use Agreement
City of Edmonton’s Joint Use Agreement (JUA) is “a formal,
principle-based agreement”. It guides the three participants,
Edmonton Public Schools, Edmonton Catholic Schools, and
the City of Edmonton in planning, assembling, designing,
building and maintaining schools and parks.
Purpose: To ensure that sports fields, schools and recreation
facilities provide the greatest benefit and the best value to all
Edmontonians.
Outcomes:
• Makes schools and sports fields available to community
groups after school hours and City recreational facilities
(arenas, pools, etc.) available to children during school
hours.
• Prevents fragmentation of school and parkland in suburban
areas.
• Ensures school and parkland areas are large enough to meet
needs.
• Reduces the total area required when developing new
subdivisions

IRF Master Plan 32
Founding Principles
• Shared Use
That the school sites and recreation sites, facilities and
resources be shared.
• Co-operative Planning
That school sites and parks and recreation sites, and
facilities be cooperatively planned.
• Consultation
That the parties to the Agreement undertake ongoing
consultation with user groups during the lifetime of the
Agreement.
• Efficiency & Effectiveness
That the resources of the three parties and user groups be
efficiently used and extended for the maximum benefit of
the community.
• Shared Cost
That costs associated with the Agreement be fairly shared
among the three parties to the Agreement. User groups
may have to participate in basic operating costs of facilities,
and will be offered the opportunity to purchase or supply
enhanced levels of service and to participate in capital
improvements, if they wish to do so.
• Equal Partnership
That there be an equal partnership among the three parties
to the Agreement.
• Reserve Land Dedication
That all reserve land and funds generated in lieu of reserve
land (funds or lands generated through the disposal of
school buildings or infrastructure) be used solely for the
purpose of school sites and parks and recreation sites.

IRF Master Plan 33
3. SITUATION ANALYSIS
3.1 HRM Department of Recreation, Tourism and
Culture
3.1.1 Organization
The Department of Recreation, Tourism and Culture is
organized into six geographic areas. The Recreation Areas do
not coincide with census tracts making it difficult to assess
population and demographics for planning purposes.
Each area has an Area Coordinator. The Area Coordinator is
responsible for the overall delivery of recreation services
within their geographical areas. This includes assessing
requests and potential opportunities, prioritizing the work of
their staff accordingly, coordinating additional resources as
required and determining what service delivery approach is
most appropriate for different situations. The provision of
recreation facilities in communities is in direct relationship to
the provision of programs and services.
implementation of their programs, and are often the face of the
municipality in the community, operating on the front lines.
3.1.2 Philosophy and Policies
HRM’s Department of Recreation, Tourism and Culture’s
operating mandate and methodology is contained in the
“Recreation Blueprint “ of April 2003.
RTC Blueprint is included in Appendix B.
3.2 Previous Studies and Action taken
A number of studies have been commissioned over the last
10+/- years by community groups, associations, and the
municipality to evaluate specific needs and opportunities for
facility development. For the most part, the recommendations
and strategies have been carried out, or are in the process of
being reviewed.
Reports reviewed are:
The department has Community Developers who are involved
in community development projects that are generally large
and long term in scope. Department Programmers employ a
community development approach on projects that are
community based and/or program-related that can be
implemented during the normal scope of their program
development and delivery. Programmers can also utilize a
community development approach in the development and

IRF Master Plan 34
Bedford Parks and Recreation
March 1989
Implementation Strategy
Town of Bedford Recreational Needs
1995
Assessment Questionnaire
HRM Major Recreation Complex Final Report July 1988
Aging Building Audit Eastern Shore
July 1998
Community Centre
Dartmouth Artificial Field Recommendations
Athletic Field Servicing Strategy (indoor
component)
Dartmouth East Community Centre/Boys and
Girls Club
Needs Assessment Study Final Report January 1999
Captain William Spry Centre Spring 2000
Canal District Recreation Study July 2000
St Margaret’s Bay Progress Report December 2000
St Margaret’s Bay Expansion Report September 2001
Rocky Lake Recreation Association
October 2001
Community Sport and Lifestyle Complex
Business Plan
HRM Arena Capacity Study November 2001
East Dover Community Development Project January 2002
North Preston Recreation Facility Feasibility May 2002
Study
Mainland Common Recreation Study – March 2003
Summary Report
Public Facility Needs and Opportunities Study April 2003
– Capital District Society
Sir John A MacDonald High School
June 2003
Community Development Project
HRM IRF Questionnaire October 2003
Included in these reports were the following recommendations
as outlined in the Summary of Current Status chart.

IRF Master Plan 35
Summary of Current Status
Item Study
Date Recommendation Action Taken
1 Dartmouth East Community
Centre/Boys and Girls Club Needs
Assessment Study Final Report
01/99 Strong support for the development of a
community centre that would house the
programming needs of the Boys and Girls club
as well as providing a much needed community
centre concept.
100K 2004/05 allocated in the HRM
Capital Budget program and functional
plan design and tender process. One
million 2005/06 planned in the HRM
Capital Budget for construction.
2 St. John A. High School 06/03 Request by the Councillor and the Chair of the
SST Committee to revitalize the school
including the addition/construction of a new
community auditorium similar to the one at
Alderney Landing.
3 Mainland Common Facility Recreation
Study
03/03 Strong community support for a new recreation
facility for the western area of HRM and in
particular to:
Have it built on the Mainland Common
Clear preferences for leisure pool, childcare,
Centre, walking trails, variety of recreation
purposes and would buy a membership
This was reviewed and it was
determined that the need was
inadequate to justify the project at this
time.
Community committee in place
working with HRM
Infrastructure funding was planned.
Awaiting federal approval.
2004/05 design/tender stage
2005/06 construction Phase I
4 North Preston Feasibility 05/02 A satellite HRM outreach office
Design allows for future second floor
expansion
Gym/multipurpose room
Childcare/offices, etc.
Fitness/weight training
This project is under construction with
the opening targeted for July 15, 2004
and will include:
HRM Recreation office space
High school size gymnasium
Multi-purpose room
Fitness centre (weight room)
Employment office
RCMP Community Outreach Office
Capital District health space for clinics
20,000 square feet

IRF Master Plan 36
Item Study Date Recommendation Action Taken
5
3 million total cost
East Dover 01/02 Completed Report concluded not to invest the
requested money into the facility.
6 Canal District Recreation Study 07/01 Trails and outdoor spaces
Replacement recreation facility (for District 2) to
include two small multi-purpose
rooms/gymnasium for sport, i.e. basketball/user
pay fitness centre
500k 2004/05 planned in the HRM
Capital Budget and 500k 2005/06
planned for construction of this
replacement centre which will include:
HRM Recreation office space
High school size gymnasium
Multi-purpose room
Program rooms
Fund raising through area rate and
other sources are currently being
explored.
20,000 square feet
3.6 million estimated total cost
7 HRM Arena Capacity Study 11/01 a. Need additional ice surface and the area of
greatest need is Tantallon, Hammonds
Plains
Proposed additional ice surface be located
at St Margaret’s Bay facility is seen as a
TOP priority and HRM should not consider
closing any of its existing ice surfaces
unless another one is developed in the
Bedford area.
b. HRM should create a policy re equity of
access
c. HRM should create a web site for facility
managers to post available ice times
8 HRM Major Complex Study 07/98 10.1.1 - Walking trails open/wooded
10.1.2 - Regional recreation facility should be
developed on the Mainland Commons off
1.5 million 2003/04 allocated in HRM
Capital Budget
Approval for long-term borrowing
strategy subject to area rate approval
for the development of an additional
ice surface at the St. Margaret’s
Centre
Service Exchange Agreement with
HRSB addresses this recommendation
10.1.2 in development stage

IRF Master Plan 37
Item Study Date Recommendation Action Taken
Lacewood Drive. This facility should include
library/trails/ aquatic facility/fitness
outdoor/outdoor skating areas (ponds) /multipurpose
room
10.1.3 - St Margaret’s Arena and community
centre should be upgraded and expanded to
serve the Western Region
10.1.4 - New arena should be provided in
Bedford
10.1.5 - No further capital monies should be
spent on Northcliffe. If a new facility is built at
Mainland Commons, the Northcliffe should be
retired.
10.1.3 see item 7
Library Built, and Trails planning is
underway
Underway
This will be revisited if the private
project does not come to fruition

IRF Master Plan 38
3.3 Historical Overview of Indoor Recreation Facility
Provision in HRM
Prior to the 1996 Amalgamation, indoor recreation facility
development was different in each of the four distinct
municipal units - Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford, and Halifax
County. The key similarity among them was that indoor facility
development was slow and planning was of a short-term nature
with the exception of the recognition of the need for a facility
to service Clayton Park West. The result has been a reactionary
model of service provision, rather than one based on strategic
planning,
School facilities have been, and continue to play, key roles in
communities and neighbourhoods as gathering places for
citizens. As a result, when schools are retired from the
education system, municipalities have often acquired them to
fill a need for a community recreation centre. This is the case
with 10 or more of the 49 existing indoor recreation facilities.
Although situated nicely in terms of community access, these
facilities were not constructed or intended for recreation or
sport usage, and are often at the end of their lifecycle, and
frequently have poor structural standards.
To-date HRM (and its precursors) has played a relatively minor
role in the provision of large indoor recreation facilities. As a
result, these facilities have been developed by community
groups in relatively affluent areas using significant amounts of
community fundraising. Similar facilities have not been
developed in areas that are of a lower economic stature.
However, the municipality has recently taken a leadership role
in the development of a multi-district facility on the Mainland
Common. This role has included organizational assistance,
capital funding for research and construction, and a
commitment for an annual operating subsidy.
Management of many indoor recreation facilities has been
through Management Agreements or Leases with a Community
Board. The community group assumes responsibility for the
fiscal direction and well being of the facility. The Municipality
has responsibility for providing recapitalization funding on an
annual basis, upon the request of the community organization
and application approval. Without the development and
submission of standardized facility lifecycle plans, the
municipality has been in a reactionary mode which has resulted
in chronic under-recapitalization, potential depreciation of the
assets, and a potential increase in liability related to
recapitalization needs that go un-addressed.
The terms of these management / partnership / lease
agreements vary and a review is currently underway to lay the
groundwork for the development of a more consistent and
coordinated approach.
3.4 Current Indoor Recreation Facility Provision
3.4.1 Facility Providers
Indoor recreation facilities in HRM are currently provided by a
number of groups and institutions including: HRM, Halifax
Regional School Board (HRSB), three universities, the
Canadian Military, a Community College, the Municipality,

IRF Master Plan 39
not for profit agencies and societies, community groups and the
private sector. Each has their own goals regarding service
levels and operation. Facilities owned and operated by these
entities have been recognized in the study as they provide
essential components of the indoor recreation facility
infrastructure in HRM. However, the financial and operations
planning aspects of this study have been confined to the 49
recreation facilities currently owned by the municipality and to
planned facilities in which the municipality is expecting to
participate.
3.4.2 Facility Classifications
The IRF Master Plan Steering Committee has developed a
system of classification of facilities by size and primary
purpose. It is hoped this system will facilitate a more effective
evaluation of needs and priorities in facility development and
preservation. The master list of facilities is located in Appendix
C and each of the facilities is located on maps contained in
Section 3.4.5. Schools and private sector facilities have not
been included in the mapping exercise. Each facility has been
assigned a master number. Accurate and complete information
on existing facilities was not available and it is recommended
that the municipality complete an inventory of its recreation
facilities including civic address, complete square footage and
operating methodology.
Category 1
Multi-District/Multi Use Facilities
Multi-District/Multi Use facilities are facilities that provide a
variety of services to a large geographical area. The term
“regional” has often been used to describe these types of
facilities however, it was felt that Multi-District/Multi-Use
gave a clearer definition of the role these facilities play.
Owned by the municipality but operated autonomously from
the municipality by Community Boards, there are four existing
facilities that meet this definition. Although created through a
different capital and operational funding model, the proposed
Mainland Commons facility will be the 5 th such facility.
At present these facilities are required to recover 100% of their
operating, capital expansion and a percentage of their
recapitalization requirements through user fees as a result they
charge high user fees and rely on other sources of revenue such
as bingo, leasing and fundraising to meet their financial
requirements. The municipality does provide some operational
funding in the form of insurance, and they are encouraged to
approach the municipality for annual capital maintenance
funding. A modest budget allocation is made for these
facilities.
Facilities noted with an asterisk are operated by Community
Boards under management and community agreements.
Master # District
Facility Name
1* 20 Sackville Sports Stadium
2* 10 Dartmouth Sportsplex
3* 4 Cole Harbour Place
4* 16 St. Margaret’s Community Centre

IRF Master Plan 40
Category 2
Sport Facilities
Owned by the municipality, the majority of theses facilities are
operated by municipal staff, and fall directly under a budget
line in both the recreation and the Real Property Asset
Management budgets. Operating costs for the municipally
operated facilities are covered through a combination of
program revenues and funding provided through the general
tax rate. Capital funding is provided through the budget
process.
Operating costs for the facilities operated by Community
Boards are generally covered through program revenues and
fund raising. In some cases HRM provides partial operational
funding.
Master # District
Facility Name
5* 21 Bedford Lawn Bowling
Facility
21* 1 Eastern Shore Community
Area
22 1 Musquodoboit Harbour
Fitness and Lifestyle Centre
31* 12 Centennial Pool
38 8 Bowles Arena
39* 15 Centennial Arena
40 11 Devonshire Arena
41 9 Gray Arena
42 13 St. Mary’s Boat Club
Category 3
Event Facilities
These facilities are owned by the municipality and operated by
Community Boards, or in the case of the Pavilion, leased to the
private sector. Recovery of 100% of operating cost is a
primary goal of these facilities however the management
agreement for the Metro Centre states that the facility should
not be expected to recover 100% of its operating costs each
year as it generates economic benefit for the community as a
whole. These facilities generate revenue from a variety of
sources including bingo and potentially video lottery terminals.
Master # District
Facility Name
44 12 Metro Centre
45 11 Halifax Forum/Civic Arena
46 12 The Pavilion
Category #4 Community/Neighbourhood Centres
Owned by the municipality, the majority of these facilities are
operated by Community Boards through management
agreements.
These vital, service focused facilities provide easy access to
indoor recreation services at the local level. Primarily utilized
for programming and community meetings, these centres
provide for a venue to assist citizens in building stronger
communities through mutual involvement. There are currently
38 facilities of this type in the HRM.
Recent community/neighbourhood facility development in
HRM has been through management agreements with

IRF Master Plan 41
community boards. Community groups have been required
assume responsibility for 100% of operating costs although this
goal has not been met in all cases.
Master # District
Facility Name
12 14 Larry O’Connell
13 11 Isleville
16* 19 Upper Sackville Community Centre
18* 1 St. Terese Community Centre
20* 3 Porters Lake Community Centre
23 1 Ship Harbour Community Centre
26* 8 North Woodside Community Centre
27* 18 Harrietsfield/Williamswood Community Centre
29 23 Terence Bay Community Centre
30 11 St. Andrews Community Centre
47 12 George Dixon Centre
48* 8 South Woodside Community Centre
49* 10 Northbrook Community Centre
50* 1 Port Dufferin Recreation Centre
51* 1 Carrolls Corner Community Centre
52* 21 Bedford Youth Centre
53 5 Cole Harbour Community Centre – the Box
54 23 Hubbards Recreation Centre
55* 16 Rockingham Community Centre
56* 3 West Chezzetcook – Grand Desert Recreation
Centre
57* 23 Head of St. Margaret’s Bay/Boutiliers Point
Recreation Centre
58* 19 Beaver Bank Kinsac Community Centre
59* 1 Meaghers Grant Recreation Hall
60* 3 Lake Echo Community Centre
61* 3 East Preston Recreation Centre
62 3 North Preston Recreation Centre
63 2 Fall River Recreation Centre
64* 9 Dartmouth North Community Centre
65 22 Beachville Lakeside Timberlea Recreation Centre
66 19 Sackville Heights Community Centre
67 17 Chocolate Lake Community Centre
68 10 Findlay Community Centre
69 21 Gerald Lebrun Centre
70 11 Needham Recreation Centre
71 18 Captain William Spry Centre
72 16 Northcliffe Recreation Centre
87* 22 Wallace Lucas Community Centre
88* Riverline Community centre
89 The Adventure Earth Centre
Category 5
University and Military Facilities
Five military recreation facilities are currently available to
members of the general public. They include two ice arenas, a
pool, a gym and squash courts. Long-term access to these
facilities cannot be confirmed.
Universities play an important role in the delivery of indoor
recreation services to the general public, while addressing the
specific needs of their students as their main focus.

IRF Master Plan 42
Mount St Vincent University - Rosaria Student Centre
and Athletic Complex
This facility includes a double gymnasium with
spectator seating, a dance studio, multipurpose room
and a small fitness outdoor. From a programming
perspective, the university has a vibrant outreach
program and offers a multitude of recreational
programs to citizens such as preschool, day camps,
karate, group exercise, instructional programs, etc.
Members of the general public also have the
opportunity to purchase a membership to use the fitness
outdoor. The university is in the process of reviewing
its needs relative to athletic facilities.
Dalhousie University - Dalplex
This 180,000 square foot facility includes a 50,000
square foot field house with multiple courts, a 1/6 th mile
indoor track, golf driving range, portable bleachers,
rock climbing facility, and group exercise area, as well
as a large weight room, cardio plus outdoor, an 8 lane
50 metre pool, and a comprehensive child care and
activity area. The university also has an ice arena that is
used for both student athletics and community
programming. In addition, Dalplex staff offers a wide
range of programs and services beyond facility access
to the community. These include instructional programs
in sport, fitness and leisure activities, camps and after
school activities for children and youth, and aquatic
programs for all ages.
Category 6
Saint Mary’s University - The Tower
This facility includes a double gymnasium, group
exercise room, cardio conditioning outdoor, peak
performance weight room, four squash courts, a 1/11 th
mile indoor track, as well as a spa are that includes a
sauna and a steam room. In addition, there are programs
and services available to the general public in the areas
of leisure, dance, fitness and more.
Master # District
Facility Name
73 8 CFB Shearwater
74 11 CFB Stadacona
75 9 CFB Shannon Park
32 13 St. Marys – The Tower
34 13 Dal Arena
35 13 Dalplex
10 16 Mount Saint Vincent
University
33 13 St. Mary’s Alumni Arena
Non Profit Facilities
Other non-profit indoor recreation facility providers in the
HRM include Service clubs, Churches, Schools, the YM and
YWCA Community College and a hospital.

IRF Master Plan 43
Master # District
Facility Name
6 18 Spryfield Lions Arena
11 12 YMCA
24 7 NS Community College – Dartmouth
YMCA
25 8 NS Hospital Pool
36 12 YWCA
76 16 Soccer NS Indoor Facility, Mainland
Commons
77 20 Sackville Community Arena
78 19 Springfield Lake Recreation Centre
19 1 Chezzetcook Lions Club
43 23 Exhibition Park
17* 3 Lawrencetown Community Centre
Category 7
Private Facilities
As in any municipality, there are many private sector facilities
that have been developed in response to market need
assessments and entrepreneurial initiative. Some examples of
facilities in this category include fitness centres, curling
facilities, tennis clubs, and golf facilities.
Master #
7
Facility Name
Fairview Golf Centre
8 Atlantic Tennis Centre
9
Nubodys
16 Taiso Gymnastic Club/Sackville Leisure Centre
84 Curves and other Ladies only fitness facilities
85
86
Curling centres
Bowling centres
Category 8
Proposed Facilities
A number of new facilities are at various stages of
development and have been designated as Category 8.
1 Mainland Recreation Centre - Multipurpose facility
including pool, fitness centre, multipurpose room and child
minding is in development. Community consultation, has
been undertaken, Board of Directors formed, and monies
have been allocated.
2 St Margaret’s Facility Expansion including an additional
arena and gym project design is complete and ready for
tender.
3 Dartmouth Sportsplex Field House Expansion Project -
Business Plan has been developed. Initial discussions with
HRM Capital and RPS are underway. Consultation and
discussions with key stakeholders has taken place. A
written submission received for inclusion in the IRF Master
Plan.
4 Centre for the Sustainability of Youth Leadership Project -
Business Plan development underway. Consultation and
discussions with key stakeholders has taken place. Capital
has been allocated. Written submission has been received
for the IRF Master Plan.
5 Tri-pad Ice Surface to be located in the Bedford area –
Private Sector.

IRF Master Plan 44
3.4.3 Facility Retirement
Currently there is no formal process for facility retirement. At
present only one indoor recreation facility is slated for
retirement. The Northcliffe Centre is to be closed once the new
Mainland Common Recreation Centre is in operation.
The Devonshire Arena may be converted to other uses if a new
triple pad private sector facility is built in Bedford or upon the
development of an additional HRM ice facility if the private
sector project does not come to fruition.
Centennial Pool will likely be a candidate for closure if a new
50m pool is built.
3.4.4 Facility Acquisition
As previously noted, a number of existing recreation facilities
in the HRM system were acquired from other entities. The
most common acquisition has been schools and with the
continuing rationalization of the school system, additional
acquisitions are likely to be proposed. There is currently no
formal process for the consideration of facility acquisition.
3.4.5 Location of Facilities by Recreation District
MAPS
Maps show list of recreation facilities for the recreation area
only.

16
78
BEAVER BANK
58
Facilities
01 - Sackville Sports Stadium
05 - Bedford Lawn Bowling and Leisure Club
14 - Private - 3 Pad Arena
15 - Taiso Gymnastics Club & Sackville Leisure Club
16 - Upper Sackville Community Centre
51 - Carroll's Corner Community Centre
52 - Bedford Youth Centre
58 - Beaver Bank Kinsac Community Centre
59 - Meaghers Grant Firehall and Recreation Centre
63 - Fall River Recreation Centre
66 - Sackville Heights Community Centre
69 - Dr Gerald J LeBrun Recreation Centre
77 - Sackville Community Arena
78 - Springfield Lake Recreation Centre
87 - Wallace Lucas Community Centre
88 - Riverline Community Centre
87
16
66
78
Bedford/Sackville
58
TIMBERLEA
HAMMONDS PLAINS
LUCASVILLE
69
52
87
See
Inset
BEDFORD
5
SACKVILLE
66
1
77
15
14
LAKEVIEW
KINSAC
WINDSOR JUNCTION
63
FALL RIVER
FLETCHERS LAKE
WELLINGTON
GRAND LAKE
OAKFIELD
ENFIELD
OLDHAM
ELMSDALE LANTZ
88
DUTCH SETTLEMENT
MILFORD
51
CARROLLS CORNER
1
77
15
63
GOFFS
Mainland North
65
43
76
8 7
82
67
55
72
10
39
30
13
Mainland South
40
70
Peninsula 85 2
75
64
49
41
68
71 42
35
6
34
86
33
44
25 24
32
36
48
26
38
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
3
53
WAVERLEY
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
WESTPHAL
61
62
EAST PRESTON
DEVON
ANTRIM
WYSES CORNER
LAKE EGMONT
59
COOKS BROOK
GLENMORE
CHASWOOD
MIDDLE MUSQUODOBOIT
ELDERBANK
Bedford/Sackville
MURCHYVILLE
ELMSVALE
69
GREENWOOD
52
Mainland North
5
14
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
Inset for Bedford and Sackville Area
73
FERGUSONS COVE
HERRING COVE
SHEARWATER
MCNABS ISLAND COLE HARBOUR
EASTERN PASSAGE
COW BAY
17
LAWRENCETOWN
DEVILS ISLAND
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
Bedford - Sackville
Legend
Recreation Area Boundary
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport - Rental
Event - Rental
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
MINESVILLE
THREE FATHOM HARBOURSEAFORTH
60
LAKE ECHO
GRAND DESERT
PORTERS LAKE
20
19
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
GAETZ BROOK
56 22
21
18
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
CONROD SETTLEMENT
WEST PETPESWICK
EAST PETPESWICK
OSTREA LAKE
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
Cole Harbour Eastern Shore
HEAD OF JEDDORE
SALMON RIVER BRIDGE
MYERS POINT
MEAGHERS GRANT
UPPER LAKEVILLE
BROOKVALE
UPPER MUSQUODOBOIT
MILL LAKE
LINDSAY LAKE
HIGGINSVILLE
CARIBOU MINES
LONG LAKE
MOOSE RIVER GOLD MINES
PLEASANT VALLEY
LAKE CHARLOTTE
BEAVER DAM
DEAN
CHAPLIN
TEN MILE LAKE
COLLEGE LAKE
EAST LOON LAKE VILLAGE
LOON LAKE
GOVERNOR LAKE
University and Military
Other
Private
Proposed
0 1 2 4
Kilometers
PLEASANT POINT WEST JEDDORE
ENGLISH POINT
OYSTER POND
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
EAST JEDDORE
23
MOOSELAND
MARINETTE
TRAFALGAR
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004
CLAM BAY
SHIP HARBOUR

15
FALL RIVER
63
COOKS BROOK
LAKEVIEW
GOFFS
ANTRIM
LAKE EGMONT
CHASWOOD
GLENMORE
ELMSVALE
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
Cole Harbour Eastern Passage
WAVERLEY
WYSES CORNER
MIDDLE MUSQUODOBOIT
SOUTH SECTION
GREENWOOD
Legend
Recreation Area Boundary
MONTAGUE GOLD MINESNORTH PRESTON
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
24
3
53
WESTPHAL
See
Inset
62
61
EAST PRESTON
60
PORTERS LAKE
DEVON
59
ELDERBANK
MEAGHERS GRANT
MURCHYVILLE
BROOKVALE
HIGGINSVILLE
LINDSAY LAKE
UPPER MUSQUODOBOIT
Bedford/Sackville
CARIBOU MINES
MILL LAKE
DEAN
CHAPLIN
COLLEGE LAKE
LOON LAKE
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport - Rental
EAST LOON LAKE VILLAGE
Event - Rental
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
University and Military
Other
Private
Proposed
COLE HARBOUR
LAKE ECHO
20
CONROD SETTLEMENT
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
LONG LAKE
PLEASANT VALLEY
TEN MILE LAKE
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004
COW BAY
17
LAWRENCETOWN
MINESVILLE
19
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
GAETZ BROOK
22
21
MOOSE RIVER GOLD MINES
GOVERNOR LAKE
WEST PORTERS LAKE
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
GRAND DESERT
56
18
WEST PETPESWICK
SMITHS SETTLEMENT
LAKE CHARLOTTE
BEAVER DAM
TRAFALGAR
0 1 2 4
THREE FATHOM HARBOURSEAFORTH
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
HEAD OF JEDDORESALMON RIVER BRIDGE
Kilometers
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
EAST PETPESWICK
UPPER LAKEVILLE
Inset for Cole Harbour Area
MYERS POINT
OSTREA LAKE
OYSTER POND
ENGLISH POINT
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
WEST JEDDORE EAST JEDDORE
PLEASANT POINT
23
SHIP HARBOUR
Cole Harbour Eastern Shore
MOOSELAND
MARINETTE
MALAY FALLS
LOCHABER MINES
LISCOMBE SANCTUARY
62
CLAM BAY
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
LOWER SHIP HARBOUR
CLAM HARBOUROWLS HEAD EAST SHIP HARBOUR
MURPHYS COVE
SHEET HARBOUR
3
DEBAIES COVE
PLEASANT HARBOUR
53
61
LITTLE HARBOUR
TANGIER
Cole Harbour Eastern Shore
Cole
Harbour
17
Facilities
SOUTHWEST COVE
03 - Cole Harbour Place
17 - Lawrencetown Community Centre
18 - St Terese Community Centre
19 - Chezzetcook Lion's Club
20 - Porters Lake Community Centre
21 - Eastern Shore Community Arena
22 - Musquodoboit Harbour Fitness and Lifestyle Centre
23 - Ship Harbour Community Centre
50 - Balcom Samuel R Recreation Centre
53 - Cole Harbour Community Centre - The Box
56 - West Chezzetcook - Grand Desert Recreation Centre
60 - Lake Echo Community Centre
61 - East Preston Recreation Centre
62 - North Preston Receation Centre
SPRY HARBOUR SPRY BAY
POPES HARBOUR
A t l a n t i c O c e a n
WATT SECTION
MUSHABOOM
BEAVER HARBOUR
SHEET HARBOUR PASSAGE
SOBER ISLAND
MOSER RIVER
BARKHOUSE SETTLEMENT
PORT DUFFERIN
50
WEST QUODDY
EAST QUODDY
HARRIGAN COVE
NECUM TEUCH PACE SETTLEMENT
ECUM SECUM
MOOSEHEAD
ECUM SECUM BRIDGE
ECUM SECUM WEST
MITCHELL BAY

87
14
Facilities
04 - St Margaret's Bay Community Centre
07 - Fairview Golf Centre
08 - Atlantic Tennis Centre
10 - Mount Saint Vincent University
29 - Terence Bay Community Centre
39 - Centennial Arena
43 - Exhibition Park
54 - Hubbards Recreation Centre
55 - Rockingham Community Centre
65 - Beechville Lakeside Timberlea Recreation Centre
72 - Northcliffe Recreation Centre
76 - Soccer NS Indoor Facility - Mainland Common
82 - Mainland Common Recreation Centre
Bedford/Sackville
HAMMONDS PLAINS
LUCASVILLE
BEDFORD
69
5
52
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
Bedford
Basin
55
10
75
40
70
13
41
64
49
74
UPPER TANTALLON
STILLWATER LAKE
72
82
76
7
39
Peninsula
30
67
12
42
HALIFAX
LEWIS LAKE
TIMBERLEA
8
HEAD OF ST MARGARETS BAY
4
65
BEECHVILLE
43
71
INGRAMPORT
TANTALLON
HUBLEY
BOUTILIERS POINT
Mainland North
LAKESIDE
GOODWOOD
BLACK POINT
GLEN HAVEN
27
Mainland South
HUBBARDS
54
QUEENSLAND
FRENCH VILLAGE
HATCHET LAKE
SEABRIGHT
BROOKSIDE
GLEN MARGARET
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
Mainland North
St Margaret's
Bay
BAYSIDE
SHAD BAY
WHITES LAKE
Legend
BLIND BAY
Recreation Area Boundary
0 0.5 1 2
HACKETTS COVE
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport - Rental
Kilometers
BIG LAKE
PROSPECT BAY
TERENCE BAY
Event - Rental
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
University and Military
Other
Private
WEST DOVER
INDIAN HARBOUR
PEGGYS COVE PRESERVATION AREA
MCGRATHS COVE
EAST DOVER
PROSPECT
29
Proposed
LOWER PROSPECT
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004
PEGGYS COVE

74
36
44
31
47 37 37
46
33
32
FERGUSONS COVE
253
Peninsula
34
35
DUNCANS COVE
45
PORTUGUESE COVE
12
42
86
BEAR COVE
349
0 250 500 1,000
Meters
30
HALIFAX
67
HERRING COVE
HALIBUT BAY
6
349
71
KETCH HARBOUR
SAMBRO HEAD
BALD ROCK
Mainland South
27
8
43
HARRIETSFIELD
SAMBRO
306
3
GOODWOOD
WILLIAMSWOOD
BEECHVILLE
65
EAST PENNANT
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
Mainland South
SAMBRO CREEK
Legend
Recreation Area Boundary
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport LAKESIDE - Rental
Event - Rental
Mainland North
333
HATCHET LAKE
Facilities
06 - Spryfield Lions Arena
27 - Harrietsfield Community Centre
67 - Chocolate Lake Community Centre
71 - Captain William Spry Centre
86 - Adventure Earth Centre
WEST PENNANT
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
University and Military
Other
Private
Proposed
BROOKSIDE
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004

NORTH PRESTON
62
61
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
MINESVILLE
Dartmouth - Eastern Passage
Legend
Recreation Area Boundary
WAVERLEY
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport - Rental
Event - Rental
LAKE MAJOR
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
University and Military
Bedford/Sackville
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
Cole Harbour Eastern Shore
Other
Private
Proposed
LAKEVIEW
Facilities
02 - Dartmouth Sportsplex
24 - NS Community College - Dartmouth YM/YWCA
25 - NS Hospital Pool
26 - North Woodside Community Centre
38 - Bowles Arena
41 - Gray Arena
48 - South Woodside Community Centre
49 - Northbrook Community Centre
64 - Dartmouth North Community Centre
68 - Findlay Community Centre
73 - CFB Shearwater
75 - CFB Shannon Park
85 - Dartmouth Sportsplex Fieldhouse
WESTPHAL
3
Cole
Harbour
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004
LAWRENCETOWN
17
53
24
DARTMOUTH
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
COLE HARBOUR
COW BAY
41
64
68
Bedford
Basin
75
49
2
85
26
38
25
48
SHEARWATER
40
70
73
Mainland North
55
10
13
45
74
Peninsula
47
37
46
31
44
37
36
Halifax
Harbour
EASTERN PASSAGE
39
30
MCNABS ISLAND
0 250 500 1,000
Meters
DEVILS ISLAND

13
40
70
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
74
85
Halifax Harbour
Facilities
26
12 - Larry O'Connell
13 - Isleville
30 - St Andrew's Community Centre
31 - Centennial Pool
32 - St Mary's The Tower
33 - St Mary's Alumni Arena
34 - Dal Arena
35 - Dal Plex
36 - YWCA
37 - YMCA South Park St
37 - Community YMCA
40 - Devonshire Arena
42 - St Mary's Boat Club / St Mary's Lawn Bowling
44 - Halifax Metro Centre
45 - Halifax Forum Civic Arena Complex
46 - The Commons Pavillion
47 - George Dixon Recreation Centre
70 - Needham Recreation Centre
74 - CFB Stadacona
25
Halifax Regional Municipality
Recreation Facilities
Peninsula
Dartmouth Eastern Passage
Legend
Recreation Area Boundary
Multi-District/Multi Use
Sport - Rental
Event - Rental
48
Community/Neighbourhood Centres
University and Military
Other
Private
Proposed
47
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.03.30.01 Printed April 2004
37
31
44
45
46
37
36
0 100 200 400
Meters
Peninsula
39
30
12
34
33
32
35
Mainland North
42
67
86
Northwest Arm
Mainland South

IRF Master Plan 51
3.4.6 Current Operating Information
Operating information was collected from multi-district
facilities operated by management boards and for
community/neighbourhood and sport rental facilities operated
in house.
The information for the multi-district facilities appears to be
complete, however information for facilities operated by HRM
proved to be difficult to obtain as information is not currently
collected by facility, nor was it possible to identify the overall
cost of indoor recreation facilities. Operating information for
smaller community centres operated by Community Boards
was not available.
A review of the multi-district facility information indicated that
at least two of these facilities relied on other sources of revenue
such as leasing or bingo to meet their requirement to recover
100% of operating costs and capital. In another case, operating
expenses did not appear to reflect total costs normally
associated with the operation of a facility of its type and age,
bringing into question the amount of preventive maintenance
that was being carried out.
3.4.7 Facility Management Systems
Currently, the municipality is engaged in the management of
indoor recreation facilities through the following strategies:
a. Management of municipally owned assets by municipal
staff; and
b. Management of municipally owned assets by
management agreement or lease with a community
board.
The effectiveness of each of these strategies is currently
gauged by different benchmarks and deliverables. The trend
recently, and in particular with new facility development, is to
manage via management agreements or leases.
Management of Municipally Owned Assets by Municipal
Staff
This strategy is primarily employed in ice arenas,
neighbourhood and community centres that have been in place
for many years as opposed to new facilities. These are
traditionally service orientated, and play key roles for citizens
in the areas of recreation and leisure choices and opportunities.
Management of Municipally Owned Assets by Management
Agreement or Lease with a Community Board
Over the past 20 years the municipality has entered into
partnerships with community groups for the purpose of:
• Providing an enhanced level of service to it’s constituents;
• Providing an effective vehicle for community ownership;
and
• Maximizing the opportunity for community level funding.
These partnerships have had common themes, and have
represented facility development projects from capital
development to operation. Unfortunately the municipality has
not had a uniform approach to the development of these

IRF Master Plan 52
agreements with the result that there is a wide range of
agreements in place. These differences represent potential
inequities in terms of expectations from both the community
boards and the municipality. Although it is difficult and
perhaps unnecessary to cookie-cut agreements, it is important
to have consistency in the agreements in order to promote
organized access to necessary resources, and appropriate
opportunity for reporting and accountability.
RPAM, with other Business Unit Stakeholders, is currently
reviewing the policy framework for facilities under
management and operating agreements. Some Community
Boards are having financial difficulties in meeting all of their
expense obligations. These agreements were initiated by
various business units throughout HRM over the years and
there have been several inconsistencies in approach in such
areas as liability insurance, the management of payroll,
conditions around subsidies and lines of responsibility, extent
of capital support, and others. Inconsistency and lack of
continuity creates an unacceptable level of financial risk to
HRM, such that immediate intervention is warranted in specific
areas, notably financial management, legislative compliance,
and human resources management. Under the current
organizational structure RPAM is responsible for facility
management agreements. There is not a link, nor is there
currently the appropriate resources within RTC for the purpose
of ensuring adequate service delivery evaluation.
The first step in the RPAM review was an inventory of all
agreements and conditions within the agreements. The second
was the development of standard operating procedures to
approach these agreements, the design of a new agreement
template, and the view/revision of policy frameworks. The
greatest challenge to date has been access to data from HRM
departments - this maybe partially due to lack of information
management systems or methodologies. Significant changes
are anticipated as a result of establishing awareness of cost and
issues and a move towards rationalization and strategic
management of resources.
Additional studies taking place in both Finance and RPAM
departments will likely bring forth recommendations to
Regional Council for the introduction of policy and procedures
governing the development, approval, and funding to nondepartmental
service providers and for public reporting that
identifies the type, scope, and cost of municipal assistance to
non-departmental service providers, including eligibility,
decision-making process, outcomes and public benefit.
3.4.8 Facility Condition Summary
Project staff prepared a detailed review of existing city owned
facilities which is contained in Appendix D. Facilities are
currently in operable condition, however, ongoing maintenance
and upgrades are required to maintain them. The lack of a
strategic plan has led to the retention or addition of facilities
without a corresponding increase in budget.
3.4.9 Deferred Maintenance and Recapitalization
Due to budget constraints in recent years, preventative
maintenance of recreation facilities has been deferred and

IRF Master Plan 53
normally routine maintenance items are being paid for through
recapitalization rather than through annual operating budgets.
Real Property currently estimates that an additional $850,000
should be included in annual operating to cover routine
maintenance and preventative maintenance items to help
preserve the asset and to maintain operational efficiencies.
3.4.10 Existing Capital Funding Strategies
Funding new construction, renovation and some maintenance is
done in an ad hoc manner. Funding for new development is
made available from:
a) generation of area rate revenues
- potential of sizable revenues depending on the
size and affluence of the community
b) partnership funds from senior levels of government
- Sport and Recreation Division, NS Office of Health
Promotion: requests for capital support are
accommodated through the Recreation Facility
Development program. Eligible applicants can
apply for up to one-third of project costs. Annual
requests total on average $1million to $1.5 million
with total funding approvals averaging $300,000. to
$500,000.
- Canada/Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program – This
current program ends in 2006
c) fund development from citizens
- the trend has been to require citizen groups to
commit capital fund raising of $1,000,000. or
more
d) contribution from the municipality
- with no formal process in place funding when
possible has been available on a per project
basis.
Capital maintenance planning has been difficult at best, with
annual requests in excess of $3.7 million, with a maximum
budget available of $1.6 million. This under-funding places a
tremendous burden on the assets of the municipality and
doesn’t allow for any forward planning.
Appendix D details the Current Capital Maintenance
Requirements of Facilities.
3.4.11 Existing Operational Funding Strategies – Grants
and Reporting Responsibility
Operational funding for HRM operated facilities is provided
under the department of Recreation Tourism and Culture, from
the general tax rate, area rates and through revenues derived
from facility operations.
Operational funding for facilities under management
agreements is provided primarily through revenue from facility
operations and community fund raising, and in some cases area

IRF Master Plan 54
rates. HRM does provide some operational funding under the
management agreements. The HRM contribution varies
according to the agreement.
3.5 Projected Population Changes
Population projections by District are being prepared as part of
the Regional Planning exercise that is currently underway.
Draft information indicates that growth to the year 2026 in the
urban core is expected to be 10,000, Suburban areas 48,000,
Rural Commuter shed 39,000 and Rural areas 2000 for a total
of approximately 100,000.
Existing recreation areas do not coincide with census tracts so
it was not possible to assess current population size or
demographics or to project population/demographics.
3.6 Schools
School facilities play a critical role in communities. They are
the outdoor of educational pursuits for children and youth, are
key employment and volunteer hubs for members of the
community, and are important recreation venues after hours.
Depending on the level of school, elementary, middle, or high
school, facilities available for community recreational use
differ in size, number, availability and, in some cases, cost.
There is often an opportunity for the enhancement of
recreational facilities when a new school is being planned, and
the municipality plays a role as a member of the School
Steering Team (SST) Committee in this process
Affordable access to school facilities continues to be
unsatisfactory and has been identified as a key finding of this
study.
A joint committee of HRM and HRSB has been working
toward the approval of a Service Exchange Agreement between
these two entities. Two important aspects of the SEA are 3.0
Intent and 8.2 Facility Scheduling as follows:
3.0 Intent
“The intent of this Service Exchange Agreement (SEA)
is to formalize the exchange of services between HRM
and HRSB respecting the use of each parties’ facilities.
This SEA provides schools with access to HRM’s
inventory of facilities (athletic fields, sports courts,
pools, arenas, playgrounds, etc.) while providing HRM
Recreation Programming with access to school facilities
to offer community based recreation programs during
non-school hours. Additionally, both parties
acknowledge the importance of their role within the
many communities of HRM and endeavour to
maximize community access to facilities wherever and
whenever possible.
The primary objectives of the SEA are to:
• Establish a mutually beneficial approach to
facilities, services and programs
• Document the agreed services, responsibilities
and conditions for the relationship

IRF Master Plan 55
• Identify the most critical applications and
services that require resources
• Provide an opportunity to review service
delivery in order to manage expectations
• Establish a collaborative process to continually
address the needs for facility use of both parties
as well as the facility needs of the general
public”
8.2 Facility Scheduling
The provincial government has recently indicated that it
is considering legislation to make school facilities
available for youth programming at reduced cost.
In order to provide a single service window opportunity
for the citizens of HRM to access facility bookings
HRSB will provide to HRM, upon its determination of
requirements based on historical booking data provided
by HRSB. The amount of revenue collected, actual to
actual, will be transferred by HRM to HRSB on a
quarterly basis. In order to ensure a seamless transition
of service to users, HRM would provide booking
services for HRSB within the policies, procedures and
guidelines outlined by HRSB. The change in service
provider would be promoted through a joint venture.”
As per this SEA, there is recognition and desire on the
parts of both HRM and HRSB to work toward the
facilitation of an enhanced opportunity for community
to have their needs met, and it is recommended through
this SEA study that both HRM and the HRSB strive
toward a similar agreement.

IRF Master Plan 56
4. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Following are some trends in areas that will influence the
planning, development, positioning and types of new Indoor
Recreation Facilities in HRM.
4.1 Trends
4.1.1 Aging Population
Forecasts contained in “Canada’s Aging Population” a joint
publication of Health Canada and the Interdepartmental
Committee on Aging and Seniors” indicated that by 2021
21.3% of Nova Scotians will be 65 years of age or older as
compared with 13.2% in 2001. Population projections for
HRM indicate approximate 1% growth per year, or an
additional 100,000 citizens by the year 2026.
HRM represents 40% of the population in NS. It is therefore
anticipated that 20% of the HRM citizens will be 65 years of
age or older by the year 2021.
4.1.2 Education/Activity/Salary Levels Correlation
a. There is significant information substantiating the
correlation between education, salary levels, and activity
levels. The recent City of Edmonton Trends Analysis
Report states:
“Levels of participation in physical activity have been
found to be positively correlated with levels of education.
Increasing levels of education in general should result in
increased levels of physical activity.” 3
b. In addition, there has been substantial research done by the
IHRSA regarding discretionary spending, salary levels, and
participation in fitness clubs. Their research states, “the
average health club member has a household income of
$76,000. This compares with an average of $60,300. For
the general survey public.” 4
c. Additionally, “more than one-half of all health club
members (55%) hold a four-year degree. People with
advanced degrees comprise 25% of all health club
members.” 5
d. The recent review completed by HRM, the Mainland
Common Recreation Study, completed in February of 2003
clearly outlines that the likelihood of an individual to be
physically active and/or purchase a membership at a fitness
centre dramatically increased in relation to their education
and income levels.
In Halifax, discretionary spending per capita for recreation,
sport and/or fitness activities is “$3,350. per household” 6
3 Edmonton Community services – Urban Parks Master Plan Leisure &
Recreation Trends Analysis
4 IHRSA Trends Report October 2003
5 IHRSA Trends Report October 2003
6 Statistic Canada web site

IRF Master Plan 57
4.1.3 Widening Gap Between The Haves and Have Nots
a. Those who are over 50 control 60% of Canadian wealth -
and this is accelerating dramatically. The parks and
recreation industry cannot continue to treat seniors as
disadvantaged (by offering discounts for example) and
must come up with strategies to change this pattern.” 7
b. “People with a household income in excess of $75,000
account for 46% of all of the Health Club members.” 8
c. “The level of physical inactivity decreases as education
levels increase (64% among those with less than secondary
graduation versus 51% among university and college
grads.)” 9
4.1.4 Increasing Diversity and Equity
a. “Our society is becoming more diverse, both in terms of
ethnic backgrounds, culture, and abilities. There are more
people with special needs now than in the past. We need to
embrace and serve all members of our society.” 10
b. Changes and development in girls and women’s sport has
created a greater need for sport-specific facilities
traditionally reserved for male usage i.e. hockey arenas.
Opportunities exist for substantial development in ice
sports for girls and women thereby enhancing the fitness
level of this specific segment of the community. This
opportunity, however, is not without its challenges.
c. “Comments received from user groups of inequity in access
to arena facilities. Sport groups who serve primarily girls
and women complain that they get unequal treatment in the
allocation of prime time hours.” 11
4.2 Leisure Behaviour Trends
Time and again, walking, gardening, hiking, and water
activities appear as four of the top five preferences for physical
activity by adults. Predictions indicate (Brian Johnston,
December 07/01) “certain kinds of facilities are in the decline
while others are becoming more popular.”
In Decline
Arenas
Curling rinks
Senior centres
Sports fields
Potential Growth
Pools (including leisure pools)
Theatres
Trails
Natural areas/gardens
7 Brian Johnston, Parks and Recreation Ontario Lunch and Learn Series,
December 07/01
8 IHRSA Trends Report October 2003 Catherine Masterson McNeil, Editor
9 Canadian Fitness & Lifestyle Research Institute - Survey 2001
10 Brian Johnston - IBID
11 Burke/Oliver Halifax Regional Municipality Arena Capacity Report
November 29, 2001

IRF Master Plan 58
Growth in the 50+ age group is illustrated by the following:
1) 60% of our seniors are inactive, and don’t want to be
active. It Hurts! Arthritis and joint pain is a leading
complaint. Walking clubs and water classes are popular and
are low impact. Strength training is crucial for adults but is
vital for older adults who strive for ongoing normalcy in
life.
2) “Stronger people have better health outcomes,” noted Dr
David Buchner, Chief of CDCs Physical Activity and
Health Branch and renowned gerontologist, at the National
Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion.
3) “The CDC/ACSM recommends that all adults should
accumulate at least 30 minutes of mild/intense physical
activity on five or more days of the week. Aerobic
endurance, strength, balance and flexibility exercises
should all be part of a physical activity program for older
adults.” 12
4) “The proportion of those physically inactive increases with
age. Sex related differences are most apparent among older
adults, where 67% of women are inactive and 55% of
men.” 13
5) Statistically, with the exception of a few sports in Canada,
we are experiencing a decline in organized sport. The trend
for adults is clearly from organized (structured) to
unorganized (informal). “Twice as many Canadians now
own in-line skates, and in Alberta, for example, over the
past 20 years, the proportion of households involved in
minor hockey has gone from 40% to 18%.” 14 “In 1998,
34% of Canadians 15 years of age and over participated in
organized sport, a decline from 45% in 1992.the most
popular sports, in order of decreasing popularity in 1998
were golf, hockey, baseball and swimming, compared to
hockey, downhill skiing, swimming and golf in 1992.” 15
6) As reported by Geoffrey Godfrey, “one of the main
complaints of Canadian adults about daily life is not having
enough time. 60% of Canadians polled in 1996 said their
leisure time had shrunk. As a result, “time savers” such as
fast food restaurant and drive through windows are
booming.” 16 This trend when applied to recreation is
referred to as time deepening, and may include some of the
following:
• Speeding up an activity: using a golf cart instead of
walking
14 Brian Johnston, IBID
12 National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
(Physical Activity Helps Seniors Age).
13 National Population Health Survey - 1998/99 Canada
15 City of Edmonton Trends Analysis Report
16 Geoffry Godfrey, Dr., Penn State University School of Hotel Restaurant
and Recreation Management

IRF Master Plan 59
• Multi-tasking: watching TV, reading during the
commercials while running on the treadmill
• Scheduling leisure activities within very tight time
lines i.e. piano lessons - half hour for supper-soccer
practice for an hour-followed by a trip to the library
before it closes.”
• Time deepening often produces the opposite of what
one might desire from recreational activities.
7) Another clear trend in Canada is to provide organized
leisure opportunities at a fairly high service level for fair
compensation. “The general public has a greater
recognition and understanding of the value of leisure in
improving the quality of life. Participants have an
expectation that recreation facilities will be developed and
equipped to a reasonably high standard.” 17
8) The city of Edmonton, along with other urban centres is
finding it “more difficult to attract volunteers to help with
coaching, administration, and maintenance. The effect has
been for fewer volunteers to do more work, and to have
greater reliance on paid staff.” 18
17 City of Edmonton Trends Analysis Report
18 City of Edmonton Trends Analysis Report
4.3 Design Trends
Municipalities are responsible to their citizens to provide the
highest level of service possible in all areas. The design of the
facility, whether or not it is multi-dimensional or single
purpose, it’s access and proximity to other amenities, together
with its effectiveness in meeting the needs of the clients will
determine the fiscal success of the facility. Ensuring that
proposed facilities and enhancements are appropriate and
fiscally sound becomes as much a part of the design process as
does the needs and market analysis.
Multipurpose Facilities
1) “In recent years Canada has followed the lead of the
United Kingdom and Western Europe in the
development of centralized multipurpose facilities as
opposed to either smaller ‘neighbourhood” centres or
single purpose buildings such as swimming pools or
arenas as stand alone units. The reasons for this are
both economic and social. From an economic point of
view a larger multipurpose building is more efficient to
operate than a number of smaller separate buildings.
Management, programming, and maintenance staff are
centralized and equipment costs are reduced resulting in
overhead costs that are less than in single units on
different sites. In a social sense, these larger multi
faceted buildings provide almost a town square
environment, a gathering place for people of all ages
and a variety of interests. When fully developed, the
modern multipurpose leisure facility is more than a

IRF Master Plan 60
recreation centre, it is a focal point of community life,
offering a wide variety of leisure opportunities from
very active to very passive, from the excitement of
sporting games to simply reading, watching or learning
new skills.” 19
2) “Facility planning is emphasis on market-driven
standards...one stop shopping multi-use and multigenerational
facilities...increased activity among
females and seniors has implications on facility
design.” 20
3) “Multi-purpose facilities are preferred over single
purpose facilities, efforts shall be made to enhance
existing facilities and to create multi-purpose facilities
in areas of deficiency.” 21
4) Australia, being a convenience-oriented society as
described by the authors of its recent Recreation
Planning Framework document, has identified a
number of trends relative to this topic, which are
reflective of HRM as well. “They are:
a. create a warm and inviting atmosphere and ensure
longevity by installing good quality fittings and fixtures
b. provide a social area
c. focus on minimizing supervisory costs by designing
multi-functional service areas
d. emphasis safety
e. provide adequate parking, lighting, security
f. provide for future expansion in the design
g. accommodate different levels of competition i.e. minor
sports/recreational activities/ higher level competitive
(local/social, provincial, national/international)
h. mix of shallow leisure/recreational water with deeper
programmable water space
i. include revenue generating activities such as spas and
saunas” 22
4.4 Management Trends
19 Cornwallis Regional Aquatic/Wellness Project needs Assessment and
Financial Feasibility Study (Burke/Oliver February 2000)
20 City of London, Ontario Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan,
January 27, 2003.
21 City of London, Ontario Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan,
January 27, 2003.
Municipalities throughout North America and beyond, strive
toward the delicate balance between cost effective management
and maximum service delivery. However, in many instances,
22 Trends in Sport and Recreation Planning Framework for West North
Tasmania, June 2001

IRF Master Plan 61
they are caught in the trap of high expectations at the
community level and a desire to meet those expectations, while
being faced with substantial fiscal restraint and resource
elimination. It has therefore become a priority in terms of
facility management, to be as creative and as multi-tasked as
possible in order to maximize the service delivery for citizens.
The Cornwallis Regional Aquatic/Wellness Project Report
states: “some municipalities are turning to arms length
commissions, the private sector or community groups to
operate recreation facilities rather than do it themselves with
municipal employees.” This trend has evolved as a result of
high labour costs associated with municipal employees,
coupled with expectations for high levels of operating cost
recovery.
According to the City of Ottawa People Services Facility Study
of arch 2003,:
“Where additional facilities are recommended, it does not
necessarily mean that the City must be the provider, rather that
these facilities are required within the public domain. Ice
facilities provided through a 3P process, or collaborating for
space in partnership with an agency such as at the YMCA or
other such community organizations.“ 23
Clearly, some basic principles exist that lend themselves nicely
toward success in the area of fiscally prudent facility
management. They are:
23 City of Ottawa Facility Study Overview and Executive Summary
a. Utilize economies of scale through careful consideration of
roles and responsibilities of staff within existing facilities,
and certainly in the onset of new facility development;
b. Utilize alternative service delivery methodologies
whenever possible through partnership agreements (MAs)
with community groups and/or private sector; and
c. Maintain a market driven philosophy regarding pricing
levels for inventory such as programs, services, and rentals.
d. “Government is seeking to deliver leisure programs and
services in the most cost effective manner. It is becoming
increasingly more popular to contract leisure service
delivery to commercial and community organizations. “ 24
e. “The opportunity for engaging in partnerships with the
private and not for profit sectors to develop and operate
facilities and programs should be fully investigated. By
relieving the City of the fiscal responsibility to meet facility
costs...the resources of the City can be more effectively
deployed.” 25
24 Urban Planning and Design Criteria 3 rd Edition
25 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

IRF Master Plan 62
5. INTERVIEWS AND CONSULTATION
5.1 Public Meetings
Fourteen public meetings were held in strategically selected
community locations across the Municipality. Rather than
hosting the public consultation meetings in areas where there
are adequate facilities, in particular multi-district facilities,
locations were selected on the following criteria:
• Areas with minimal community recreation facilities,
where citizens needed to have opportunity to speak to
the Steering Committee regarding their needs
• Areas where there was inadequate information available
to staff regarding indoor recreation facility requests,
Attendance at the meetings varied from three or four people to
as many as 250. The Steering Committee was encouraged by
the reasonableness of the citizens, and the fact that there was
clearly no expectation to have sport/fitness/recreation venues
on every corner. On the contrary, citizens were concerned
about basic quality of life issues and were quite prepared to be
part of a strategic planning process that would define and
verify specific needs.
5.2 Public Survey
Five recreation related questions were included in the Halifax
Metro Quarterly Survey for the first quarter of 2004 was
conducted by telephone between February 2 and 14, 2004.
Among all eligible respondents contacted, the rate of interview
completion was 14 percent. Completion rate is calculated as the
number of cooperative contacts (468) divided by the total of
eligible numbers (3,325). The total sample size was 402 and
the overall margin of error was 4.9%. Results at to be
considered accurate to within plus or minus 4.9% in 95 out of
100 samples. The questions and detailed results are contained
in Appendix D.
Public Survey Findings
Question 1 – Small Neighbourhood Centres
86 % of respondents (346 of 402) completely (41%) or mostly
(46%) supported HRM providing small indoor recreation
centres that include facilities such as meeting and multipurpose
rooms on a neighbourhood or community basis.
Detailed accounts of each are contained in Appendix E.

IRF Master Plan 63
Question 2 – Large Multi District Centres
89% of respondents (357 of 402) completely (49%) or mostly
(41%) supported HRM providing a limited number of large
indoor recreation complexes that include facilities such as
arena and pools on a regional basis, similar to the Dartmouth
Sportsplex, Cole Harbour Place or the Sackville Sports
Stadium.
Question 3 – Drive Time
206 of the 402 respondents indicated that 20-30 minutes would
be the maximum acceptable drive time to access a large indoor
recreation complex such as the Sackville Sports Stadium,
Dartmouth Sportsplex, Cole Harbour Place. Another 114
respondents indicated that 15-19 minutes would be the
maximum acceptable drive time. The mean maximum
acceptable time in minutes to travel by vehicle to a regional
indoor recreation complex was 21.5 minutes.
Question 4 – Indoor Recreation Facilities as a Priority
80% of respondents (321 of the 402) indicated that it is critical
or important for HRM to provide indoor recreation facilities as
a priority, keeping in mind there are many different demands
for HRM. 80% of respondents thought that providing indoor
recreation facilities should be a critically important (12%) or
important but not critical priority for the HRM.
Question 5 – School Usage
45% of respondents (215 of 402) indicated some level of
dissatisfaction with their current level of access to school
gymnasiums and meeting spaces for recreational purposes
during non-school hours, since respondents were not asked if
they actually used school facilities, the level of dissatisfaction
among actual users is higher than 45%.
5.3 Major Facility General Managers
A meeting was held on November 4 th , 2003 with the GMs of
the existing multi-district facilities to discuss the intent and
scope of the IRF Master Plan.
The meeting was very positive. Comments indicated that they
felt the project was worthwhile and would be an excellent
vehicle for assisting in decision-making and priority setting.
The global trend of multi-purpose facilities was discussed
including acknowledgement of the economic and social
benefits of providing areas for citizens to congregate. The GM
of the Dartmouth Sportsplex took the opportunity to present
plans for a proposed field house project including comments
regarding the value of building a venue such as this adjacent to
an existing facility from an economies of scale perspective
rather than building it in a stand alone location. It was
determined that subsequent opportunities for networking
among the managers would be worthwhile.
Further to this meeting, a memo was circulated to these
individuals on February 10, 2004 asking for specific

IRF Master Plan 64
information related to the operation of these multi-district
facilities and the Manager of Cole Harbour Place was
interviewed
Complete review of the results of the meeting, memo response
and the interview is contained in Appendix F. The following is
an overview of main issues.
The cost of preserving the asset and the lack of adequate
funding from the owner (HRM) to carry out this activity was a
significant issue for facility managers.
Some managers were concerned about meeting their financial
commitments in the face of changing conditions such as the
loss of bingo revenue due to the ban on smoking,
Cooperation among facilities rather than competition and a
more needs driven approach to facility development were also
mentioned.
5.4 Regional Councillors
Regional Councillors were briefed on the results of the public
meetings in a series of 6meetings conducted between January
28 and February 9 2004.
As key stakeholders, it was important to have an opportunity to
share information and comments with these elected decision
makers. The Steering Committee wanted to discuss the
following key issues, and ask for advice/comments/ideas
regarding both the issues presented and any other items that the
councillors felt were relevant to the IRF Master Plan.
Key Issues Discussed:
1) Lack of access to school gymnasiums by general public
2) Concerns regarding lack of support for existing
facilities
3) Concerns regarding user fees and the barriers they
create to participation
4) Existing capital funding strategies and concerns
regarding the need for additional capital commitment
from HRM for recapitalization and new facility
development
Appendix F detailed reports on Councillor meetings.
The Councillors brought forward a number of project
suggestions specific to their respective communities that are
being reviewed by staff. There is a clear understanding of fiscal
challenges and a genuine desire on the part of elected decision
makers to respond to needs in a fiscally prudent manner. The
following were noted as pertaining to overall policy issues,
Access/Equity
• Recreation is rated as very important, not necessarily by the
councillors as individuals, but by the constituents
• There is a social problem re programs and facilities that are
too expensive for people to use. This issue needs to be
highlighted.
• Providing equitable access to services is in the common
good
• There needs to be a mechanism in place to address the
concerns of the people we haven’t heard from

IRF Master Plan 65
• Area rates and community fund raising – no equity if the
population base is small
Access to Schools
• Gymnasiums need to be accessible by the community
• School usage is a huge issue – we should be working to
resolve this
• We need to have better access to the schools. This would
be a better strategy rather than building our own
community centres
• We should be taking over the management of the school
facilities
Funding
• Deed transfer tax may be an avenue to pursue for additional
funding – we should max this out
• Deed transfer tax is a possible funding source
• HRM needs to have a long-term capital funding strategy for
the development and recapitalization of facilities
• There should be a capital reserve account for facilities
• Area rates and community fund raising – no equity if the
population base is small
• Projects are funded through the sale of land account, but we
are not generating a lot of extra dollars to meet the needs
• Council needs to be challenged to find the necessary dollars
Planning
• We should be doing land banking for development of
future recreation facilities
• We need an overall plan for facility development so that
there aren’t debates at council
• Request for staff to rationalize a decision-making process
• It is time HRM stepped up to the plate and took
responsibility for building facilities
• Before we build more, we need to manage our existing
• The regional facilities should be treated differently
• Set regional priorities based on council approval
• We need to make available the operating and capital dollars
to make these things happen
• There is a requirement for sustained – consistent funding
5.5 Recreation Staff
Meetings were held on December 17, 2003 and January 20,
2004. The goal of these meetings was to ensure that staff had a
clear understanding of the purpose, scope, and importance of
the IRF Master Plan relative to their responsibility areas, and to
gather and share information. Areas discussed were:
a. Overview of the scope, focus, timelines, outcomes of the
IRF Master Plan
b. The role of the Area Coordinator in the IRF MP
c. Public Consultation Process
d. Facility Questionnaire Gaps
e. Demographic Information/User Profiles
f. Telephone Survey Questions

IRF Master Plan 66
g. IRF Table of Contents
h. Meetings with Councillors
i. Initial Findings
j. Questions and Answers
Many staff members took the opportunity to speak to Steering
Committee members directly regarding additional information
relative to their area facilities. Their ongoing interest, expertise
and support have been exceptional, and the Committee has
endeavoured to keep them abreast of the progress of the
project.
5.6 Special Interest Groups
As an important part of the consultative process,
representatives from indoor sport associations were invited to
meet with members of the Steering Committee to present their
concerns or suggestions. Each of the sports was asked to
submit their most previous annual reports. None have been
received.
5.6.1. Swim Nova Scotia Executive Director
The ED indicated that the sport is vibrant and dynamic, and is
providing a competitive outlet for hundreds of youth and adults
across Nova Scotia. There are significant concerns relative to
their ability to grow their sport associated with facility
deficiencies. Specifically, it is felt by Swim NS that the
existing 50 meter pools (Centennial and Dalplex) do not meet
the basic standards necessary to allow Swim NS to host
national events. There was also significant discussion regarding
their wish to have the facility at the Mainland Common meet
their needs with the development of a 50-meter pool.
5.6.2. Diving Nova Scotia President & Technical
Representative
The technical representative and the president expressed their
serious concerns regarding the lack of appropriate facilities in
Nova Scotia for the development of this sport. Specifically, the
lack of an effective 50-meter pool with a 3 and 5-meter board,
along with a bubble machine are the limiting factors. There are
currently 60-80 participating club members in the HRM area. It
was felt that this number could grow as much as 25% if the
appropriate facilities were made available, and there was
significant discussion regarding the fact that as a new
development, the Mainland Commons Recreation Complex
should house the necessary facility to allow for the growth of
this sport.
5.6.3. Basketball Nova Scotia Executive Director
As with the public consultation meetings, the main concern
expressed by the ED was regarding the cost and availability of
school gymnasium space. There are 30 thousand people
playing basketball in Nova Scotia, with approximately 70% of
those in registered programs in the HRM. There is a need for
development of new programming for the 5-8 year olds, as
well as for the ages 18-29 who are not competing in the
university and college leagues. In addition, Basketball NS feels
it would have more opportunity to meet the needs of the
citizens if it were offering programs in a consolidated location,

IRF Master Plan 67
and support the development of a field house project. This
would provide better opportunities for offering both
recreational and elite training camps, and would provide some
important economies of scale relative to staffing and equipment
access.
5.6.4. Soccer Nova Scotia Executive Director
The ED has indicated that there is a need in the HRM for two
additional indoor soccer facilities. The facility currently
located at the Mainland Commons is operated by Soccer NS,
and was co-funded approximately $125,000 by Soccer NS.
Soccer has been identified as a growing sport, and the
alternative indoor facility at Exhibition Park, is inadequate and
unavailable during some prime usage times. It was indicated
that Soccer NS is not in a position to fund a capital project and
would support HRM fully in a decision to develop two
additional facilities.
5.7 Written Submissions
The consultative process included a request for written
submissions from citizens, groups, or special interest
communities. The following is a list of submissions received
and a brief outline of their content.
Terrain Group Inc
Re: Rocky Lake Development
This submission was presented on behalf of a team of
landowners and the Non-Profit Land Development Company
(Terrain Group Inc) who are involved with the planning and
ultimate development of a major recreational facility to be
located in Bedford. The submission requests an opportunity to
meet with representatives to discuss how these facilities may
be incorporated into the overall plan for HRM, and hopefully
phase the development in a fashion that reflects needs that have
been identified by the Non-Profit Land Development
Company.
Susan Tirone and Tracy Powell
Re: New Indoor Recreation Centre for Sambro Area
At this time, residents do not have access to a public space for
year round physical, cultural, and social activity in their
community. There are many letters of support included in the
submission from school children, business owners, educators
and others who wish to indicate their support. The need in this
community is amplified by the fact that the existing elementary
school does not have a gymnasium.
Prospect Road and Area Recreation Association
Re:
New Indoor Recreation Centre
The lack of a community recreation centre has been identified
by residents of this area as the main barrier to program and
service delivery. These issues are compounded by lack of
public transportation. The mandate of this group is to increase
recreational opportunities for residents of all ages by providing
activities that will promote and improve health and well being.
The PR&ARA has taken pro-active steps to use a portion of the
recreation Area Tax Rate funds to develop a fund for use in
securing additional funding for a community centre.

IRF Master Plan 68
First and Second Lakes Regional Park Planning Committee
Re: First and Second Lakes Regional Park Planning
Opportunity – A Wellness and Recreation Focus
The scope of this joint committee was facility and open space
planning, for the long term, in conjunction with the Second
Lake Provincial Park. The report (on file), provides a “vision”
as a concept plan as it was understand that the greater
community will have to provide additional input to develop
such an area. Consolidating active recreation and passive
recreation opportunities in an area would be cost effective and
environmentally friendly.
Mary MacIssac
Re:
Devonshire Arena
Devonshire rink is an important part of the North End
community. If you believe this facility is underutilized, please
give the kids a chance to prove you wrong. It’s the perfect
place to let kids be kids. Have more after school skates and
advertise them. Have a “skate dance” like Needham pool has a
“splash dance”. Perhaps work with the Phys Ed teachers at
local schools so that they will bring their classes to the rink.
J. Terry Smith, Ph.D.
Re: Proposal for More Aquatic Programs for Seniors
and those with Motion and Mobility Problems
“I want to make a plea for more programs that will benefit
people, especially seniors, who have chronic problems with
movement or mobility. I am currently in discussions with the
person who created the MS aquafit program at the Sackville
Sports Stadium and a neurologist specializing in multiple
sclerosis with a view to designing and conducting a scientific
study of benefits of regular, long term aquafit exercises for
people with MS. It would be a great advantage if the
recreation department of HRM would agree to be involved.”
Jordan Barnes and Friends
Re:
Petition for Skate Park Facility in Fall River
This submission is a request support for the construction of an
outdoor skate park in Fall River like the one in Cole Harbour.
“We want a safe place to have fun.” Right now the kids use
the sidewalks and parking lots to practice. There are 57 names
on the petition. Nb This written submission was received by
the Steering committee, and was referred to the appropriate
department for outdoor facility development.

IRF Master Plan 69
6. IRF MASTER PLAN KEY FINDINGS:
1) Role of the Municipality
Citizens consistently indicated that they regard the
Municipality as being responsible to provide key indoor
recreation facilities.. Both the survey and the public
meetings indicated that citizens place a high priority on the
provision of:
Category 1 Multi-District Multi-Use Facilities
Category 2 Sport Facilities
Category 4 Community / Neighbourhood Facilities
as defined by the municipality.
2) Access to Schools
Citizens across the municipality took the opportunity
during the study to indicate their overwhelming frustration
regarding the lack of availability and cost of access to
schools during evenings and weekends. Much discussion
revolved around this topic, and there is strong support
across the municipality for the creation of more citizenfriendly
policies regarding evening and weekend access to
schools. It was clearly noted that schools often contain the
only recreation facilities in a neighbourhood, and are
funded through the municipal tax structure
3) Multi-District Facilities
Citizens recognize that multi-use facilities of this type
cannot be located in every community, and have
consistently indicated that a 20-30 minute drive is
reasonable for access to facilities that would include pools
and arenas as well as other amenities. Our rural citizens
indicated that, although they would enjoy the benefits of
having this type of facility within a 20-30 minute drive time,
they recognize that is unrealistic. They indicated they
currently engage in a 50-60 minute drive time.
4) Existing Indoor Facility Infrastructure
HRM needs to devote more resources to the management
and preservation of the existing indoor recreation
infrastructure. Although existing facilities are operational,
additional financial resources need to be assigned to
facility upgrades and preventive maintenance.
5) Operating Cost Recovery
Concern was expressed that emphasis on high levels of
facility operating cost recovery is unduly influencing
recreation service delivery in Multi-District-Multi-Use
facilities, and in some cases Community / Neighbourhood
facilities. The mandate for 100% cost recovery is inherent
in most management / partnership agreements.
Stakeholders felt strongly that the municipality should take
a realistic approach to providing services at reasonable
rates in order to ensure access. Research into other

IRF Master Plan 70
municipalities in Canada indicated that recovery of
operating cost was not the primary criteria in recreation
facility provision, regardless of whether the facility was
operated bys a municipality or under a partnership
agreement.
6) Scale of Accommodation - Standards of Provision
Research indicated that the use of standards for facility
provision based solely on size of population has generally
been abandoned in Canadian municipalities in favour of
provision based on identified need, in combination with
guidelines that define the types of facility investment a
municipality will make. In general, municipalities invest
most heavily in facilities that provide a variety of services
at a developmental user level. Trends indicate that the
development of Multi-District – Multi-Use facilities provide
convenient, enjoyable and cost effective service delivery
hubs. Funding participation from other sources is usually
required before facilities that support more advanced levels
of participation are considered.
7) Access to Services
HRM policy of accessibility to recreation services is not
being supported by current indoor facility provision
strategies. For the most part, facilities are required to
operate under a mandate of total cost recovery. This
means that the need to generate revenue is often greater
than the need to provide a basic service to citizens.
Management agreements with community boards do not
include provisions that support accessibility.
8) Management Agreements
Indoor recreation facilities in HRM are operated directly
by HRM and by community groups through management
agreements. It is expected that these forms of operation
will continue to dominate.
HRM needs to devote additional resources to the
supervision of management agreements with community
groups and to ensure that the agreements are equitable and
consistent. This will ensure that these important municipal
assets are being managed and utilized effectively and
appropriately and that the services they provides support
the overall goals of the municipality with regard to the
service provision mandate. These agreements need to more
effectively reflect the true costs associated with facility
operation.
9) In House Indoor Facility Operation
HRM’s management and accounting systems need to be
reorganized to treat municipally operated recreation
facilities as individual profit/loss centres. This will make it
possible to assess operating results for these facilities and
improve operational performance. A single point of
responsibility should be established for each facility.
Additionally, a facility asset condition plan needs to be

IRF Master Plan 71
developed in order to facilitate more effective
recapitalization planning on an annual basis.
10) Recreation Areas
Recreation areas do not currently coincide with census
tracts with the result that an important planning tool -
population size and demographic analysis is lost.

IRF Master Plan 72
7. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Guiding principles address issues associated with the overall
philosophy and approach to the provision of recreation
services, and the management, funding and financing of
facilities. These principles are included to more fully develop
the IRF Model and to address important issues associated with
the implementation of the IRF Model. These are also principles
that define the municipality’s relationship with user groups.
7.1 Philosophy
All communities are important and valuable and should feel a
sense of connection and support from HRM.
HRM understands and respects the geographic and sociodemographic
diversity and responds to the needs of the citizens
in a fiscally prudent manner
Trends in the field, carefully balanced with the desires of
citizens, will be given careful consideration in order to develop
accurate and appropriate priorities and strategies as they relate
to indoor recreation facilities.
The main focus of HRM’s recreation services delivery as
expressed in the Recreation Blueprint is on introductory level
programs.
“CRS has determined that the program emphasis will
be on offering introductory level programs. The
philosophy is that citizens should have access to learn a
variety of skills at an introductory level. If citizens then
choose to invest in or pursue a particular skill in more
detail, they could then register with a more specialized
agency.”
HRM’s priority target groups are children and youth
“Needs are also determined based on priority target groups.
Through trend analysis, needs identification, Council requests,
and participation in several provincial and national initiatives,
CRS has determined that children and youth are priority target
groups. To ensure emphasis is placed on this target group, a
Youth Strategy has been developed and implemented
throughout the unit.
HRM has prided itself as a service organization in its ability to
provide services and support to individuals in an inclusive and
accessible manner. This includes but is not limited to
accommodating support for participation, and providing
direction and leisure counselling.

IRF Master Plan 73
7.1.1 ”Service Delivery and Costing Model
As demonstrated in the diagram, HRM’s primary role in indoor
recreation facilities is the provision of mass participation
programs at the introductory level. User costs at the
introductory level are minimized through tax based operating
subsidies. As skill levels increase, costs increase and other
service providers become involved.
7.2 Recommendations
7.2.1 Compatibility with HRM Regional Planning and
Principles
The viability and effectiveness of this Master Plan depends in
large part on other plans and strategies within the Municipality.
Specifically related to the Regional Plan, the development,
enhancement and maintenance of indoor recreation facilities
should be done in such a way as to compliment desired growth
patterns and to strengthen the Municipality as a whole.
The IRF Master Plan will attempt at all times to reflect the
guiding goals and objectives, of the Regional Plan and to be
proactive in it’s methodology when developing strategies to
meet the needs of the citizens.
7.2.2 Partnerships
Non-municipal management and financing of recreation
facilities is encouraged assuming that the Municipality’s
approved mandates, service delivery models, and standards of
service will be increased or at least achieved and there are
significant financial or other reasons to opt for non-municipal
management.
7.2.3 Community Management Agreements
Community Management Agreements should be standardized
to ensure that the best interests of the citizens are being met.

IRF Master Plan 74
HRM staff resources need to be allocated to the supervision of
community management agreements.
Community Boards should be required to submit annual
operating plans and budgets to HRM for review. These plans
should include proposed activities and expected participation
as well as financial forecasts. Annual financial statements
should be provided to HRM in a timely manner. HRM review
should ensure that facilities are being properly maintained and
that the services they provide support the overall goals of the
municipality with regard to the provision of indoor recreation
services. The management agreements need to more
effectively reflect the true costs of operating the facilities and
may include a transfer of funds to assist the operation, in
recognition of the costs of complying with municipal service
goals.
As per Section 3.4.7 and 4.4, it is recommended that an
objective, standardized evaluation tool be developed in order to
assess the accuracy and effectiveness of the agreement in place
at each facility.
7.2.4 Scale of Accommodation for Facility Location
The municipality recognizes and supports the importance of
recreation and leisure opportunities for our citizens. These are
the activities that connect our communities and create lasting
memories for our families. It is with this in mind that we
endeavour to ensure that the location of our facilities are
convenient and accessible for users, do not compete with
existing municipal facilities, and are as cost effective to operate
as possible.
It is recommended that in every case, facility development
initiatives are filtered through the Facility Implementation
Model, thus ensuring the principles of the IRF MP are
maintained.
The following initial assessment takes place in Step One of the
FIM as primary filters:
1. Location of new facilities and expansion of existing
facilities will be determined through the FIM process in
concert with the Regional Plan
2. New facilities or existing facility expansion must have
significant existing or planned population with
appropriate demographics within a realistic catchment
area to support the proposed activities
3. New facility expansion will not be undertaken in
competition with existing facilities or services
4. Recreation facilities should be located on highly visible
sites that maximize access opportunities for citizens.

IRF Master Plan 75
Where possible, they should be situated on mass
transportation routes
5. Prior to the development or acquisition of new space,
existing multi-district/multi-use facilities will be
evaluated for existing special opportunities that could
accommodate the service need
HRM commissioned the Arena Capacity Study that was
completed in November of 2001. It is recommended that new
arena facilities (category 2) be developed based on the
principles and recommendations of that report. Other category
2 facilities should be developed after careful analysis as per the
FIM as a decision making tool, and the content of this Master
Plan.
Following are suggested criteria for population and drive time
relative to the Facility Implementation Model and the Regional
Plan.
These criteria are to be analyzed relative to existing municipal
and non-municipal facilities or the lack thereof, in conjunction
with the Facility Implementation Model and other aspects of
this report.
Direct competition between like facilities is not supported.
a) Critical population mass of 45,000-60,000 in a 20-30
minute drive time is required prior to the advancement
of a category 1 (Multi District – Multi Use) facility.
b) Category 2 (Sport) Sport facilities such as arenas,
indoor soccer facilities, etc are driven by sport interests
rather than general community need. 20 – 30 minute
drive time is required prior to the advancement of a
category 2 facility.
c) Category 3 (Event) Event facilities are specialized in
nature and function, and require further study by the
municipality. These facilities draw users from across
the regional municipality and beyond, and must
therefore advance only after strong funding partnerships
have been developed
d) Critical population mass of 10,000-15,000 and/or a 5-
10 minute drive time is required prior to the
advancement of a category 4 (community /
Neighbourhood) facility.
7.2.5 Facility Types
HRM indoor recreation facilities should focus on participation
rather than speculating. Spectator and event facilities should
only be developed in partnership with other entities.
Whenever possible, new facilities should be developed in
conjunction with existing facilities in order to maximize both
the convenience and enjoyment of citizens and economies of
scale in terms of operations. The municipality should respond
to trends in facility development by focusing its projects on the
development and enhancement of existing and new multidistrict
facilities, based on the criteria outlined in 7.2.4 – Scale
of Accommodation for Facility Location.

IRF Master Plan 76
HRM’s primary goal in the provision of indoor recreation
facility services should be an equitable supply of introductory
level activities across the municipality. A wide range of
introductory level services should be in place before higher
levels of service in any one activity or in any one community
are contemplated. If higher levels of service are desired in a
particular community, alternate sources of capital and on going
operating funding should be secured before a facility is
developed.
For example, HRM arena facilities should focus on
accommodating minor sport, learn to skate and recreational
skating programs. Therefore ice surfaces should not exceed
200’ x 85” ft, spectator capacity should not exceed that
required to accommodate parental viewing and change room
sizes and numbers should be limited to that required to
accommodate males and females on average size teams.
Larger ice surfaces, increased spectator capacity, large home
team change rooms, and associated support services should be
considered only if a community partner is willing to take on the
additional financial burden or if a business case can be made
for their inclusion in the overall system of facilities.
HRM’s indoor aquatic facilities should focus on learn to swim,
recreational swimming, aquatic fitness, rehabilitation, lifeguard
training and aquatic competition at the basic level. The needs
of “the learn to swim” program and recreational swimming are
not well accommodated in competition style pools as they
require warmer and shallower water. Aquatic competition
capacity should be limited to 6 lanes x 25m, spectator capacity
should be limited to that required for parental viewing, deep
water should be limited to that required to teach basic diving
and life saving skills. Features such as waterslides that enhance
revenue generation should be included before features that
hinder revenue generation such as additional deep water.
Additional competitive aquatic elements such as more lanes,
warm up capacity, 50m courses, increased spectator capacity,
diving beyond 1 m and increased deep water should be
considered on the same basis as arenas.
Gymnasiums included in HRM facilities should have entry
level sports as their primary focus.
7.2.6 Recovery of Operating Cost
Where possible and prudent, indoor recreation facility
components should be provided in multiuse centres and in
combination with other services such as libraries, municipal
offices and service centres to reduce operating costs and
increase visibility and revenue generation potential.
Facility components and features that can increase revenue
generation should be included when ever possible.
Facilities should be scheduled to accommodate the needs of
users while at the same time, maximizing cost recovery. The
best opportunity for highest revenue generation is prime time.
In periods of low demand, facilities can and should be used for
any acceptable community program (such as the Service
Exchange Agreement with the HRSB). However, priorities for
scheduling should be clearly indicated so that users recognize
they may be displaced if new higher-level demands
materialize.

IRF Master Plan 77
To ensure financial effectiveness it is critical that HRM
maximize the use of existing facilities before building new
facilities, including the usage of HRSB assets. HRM should
review and redefine existing policies around HRSB facility
scheduling and access.
7.2.7 Operating Cost Recovery Goals by Facility Type
Multi-district/multi use, sport and event facilities should strive
to maximize operating cost recovery and be designed and
constructed to best enable them to meet this goal. They must
however, support HRM’s policies of accessibility, and should
be compensated for doing so. Neighbourhood and community
level facilities will strive to recover all direct program costs.
Overhead costs for these facilities are the responsibility of
HRM.
It will be the goal of the municipality to provide and maintain
(capital maintenance only) indoor recreation facilities of every
definition, based on careful needs analysis and review, as per
this Master Plan. Operationally, facilities will strive to reach
their appropriate cost recovery levels. It is recommended as
per item 3.4.11 and Key Findings #5 and #8, that there be
standardized criteria developed to establish the level of public
subsidy as per specific facility category. This is a crucial
component as it reflects both the municipality’s needs for fiscal
responsibility as well as community level ownership and
support of the facility.
Capital maintenance (recapitalization) and/or development
costs will be the responsibility of the municipality and other
funding partners, and will not be included in the operational
budgets of the facility
7.2.8 New Schools
It is recommended that HRM’s SST role in determining need,
scope and priority of enhanced school facilities be managed
under the IRF Facility Implementation Model in the same
fashion as other facility development requests.
7.2.9 Recreation Blueprint
It is recommended that the Recreation Blueprint (the guiding
principles for RTC) be enhanced to include specific strategies
in the following areas:
• A method to measure citizen benefits
• Quantifiable service level criteria
• Process for regular review of service level success
• Trends analysis in the decision making process
• Re-align the Recreation Areas to correspond with
electoral areas.
• A strategy to address the physical fitness levels and
needs of citizens
Facility Development Process
New facility development, existing facility expansion, facility
acquisition and retirement should follow a well defined process
with built in reviews to ensure equality of access and
development for all citizens. A proposed process is shown in
the Facility Implementation Model in the Executive Summary.

IRF Master Plan 78
The success of this process depends upon the cooperation and
joint participation of RTC and RPAM. RTC is responsible to
identify and define needs for indoor recreation facility
programs, services and facility components, and RPAM is
responsible to provide and maintain suitable physical plants to
accommodate them. Therefore RTC would be responsible for
Steps 1 – 5 of the process, and RPAM would be responsible for
Step 6. Step 7 would be a joint responsibility as would
ongoing operation.
The basis of this process is the recreation area. Each proposed
project would be input at the recreation area level.
Opportunities/Sources
There are a number of potential sources for indoor recreation
project opportunities: Community groups, RPAM, the Regional
Plan, Councillors, HRSB and HRM RTC staff. RTC has a well
documented methodology for the identification of program
needs that can be used as a model in the identification of indoor
recreation facility projects.
Area coordinators are actively involved in program needs
assessment, are well versed in the process and are ideally
situated to act as the input point for projects in their areas.
Step 1 - Triage Committee
Recognizing that the number of proposed projects will most
likely exceed available resources it will be necessary to engage
in an assessment process before any substantial amount of
limited resources are assigned to any given project.
A staff Triage Committee will be responsible to access all
proposed IRF projects including new construction, renovation,
acquisition or retirement.
The Committee would consist of the Chair – IRF Master Plan
Manager, and senior personnel from RPAM, RTC. The
committee would be supplemented by the Area Coordinator
and the Community Developer from the area in which the
project would be located.
Perceived community need can be brought forward by an
individual or group. The perceived need could also be brought
forward by a councillor, or by a private sector individual. This
is usually done through a phone call to an HRM staff member
in either RTC or RPAM, or impromptu at a community
meeting.
Action – Individual initiating the discussion is directed to call
the RTC Area Coordinator.
RTC Area Coordinator arranges to meet with the individual
who initiates the discussion in order to outline the process. The
RTC Area Coordinator tells the individual what they will need
to know, and how the decision making process works, and
indicates that they should call the IRFMP Manager to set up a
meeting when they have the initial information gathered. The
RTC Area Coordinator calls the IRFMP Manager to indicate
the status of the initial contact and the basic perceived need.
Action – RTC AC gives the proponent the Project Description
Outline.

IRF Master Plan 79
Project Description Outline
1. Basic description of the project – what is it?
2. Who is the proponent?
3. What community need (s) does it address
4. Who will use it and why?
5. Who will operate it?
6. Who will fund it – capital and operating?
Assessment Criteria
1. To what extent does the project support the long-term
regional plan?
2. Does the project meet the corporate mandate for RTC
service provision either from a municipal perspective or
from an anticipated partnership perspective?
3. Are funding partners identified?
4. Is an organized community group supporting and / or
taking a leadership role?
5. Does the proposed project offer facilities that support
equity of access – does it offer activities that are equally
of interest to males and females?
6. Will the proposed project offer access for persons with
disabilities?
7. Will the proposed project duplicate existing services
within its catchment area?
8. Are there any extenuating circumstances that would
pre-empt any of these previous criteria?
The decision to advance to the Facility Implementation Model
or decline the project takes place based on Step 1. Further
evaluation in the FIM allows for ongoing appropriate
communication and decision-making regarding the outcome of
the proposed project.
Step 2 Project Charter
The Project Charter begins the formal documentation of the
project. The first task will be to appoint a Project Sponsor who
will guide the project through the development process. The
most likely candidate for this position is the Community
Developer assigned to the area in which the project would be
located. The project sponsor will be responsible, in
consultation with the IRFMP Manager, for identifying
information requirements and resources (internal and external)
required to assess the project, funding amounts and sources,
and for commissioning resources. Appendix I provides a
Project Charter currently used by RPAM that can be modified
to meet the needs of RTC.

IRF Master Plan 80
Step 3 Project Assessment
Project Assessment covers a variety of activities from
community/stakeholder consultation and feasibility studies to
management model, business and functional plans, and project
costing. In the case of facility retirement or acquisition,
technical assessment of the physical plant will also be required.
At this stage any potential partnerships will be identified and
assessed. Including the development of a community board if
required.
Step 4 Project Validation
At Step 4, the project is assessed for capital and operating cost
impacts. Funding sources and strategies are identified and the
project is presented to Council for approval to proceed.
Step 5 Project Definition
Once the project has received approval, the final step under
RTC will be the development of Project Definition to guide the
design and construction process. Project definition includes the
development of Functional Guidelines, which provided a
detailed description of programs and facility components,
spaces and requirements.
Step 6 Project Design and Construction
At Step 6, responsibility shifts from RTC to RPAM with
continued involvement of RTC as the “customer” for RPAM
services. By this stage, the project is well defined and RPAM
can proceed through the normal design and construction
phases.
Step 7 Commissioning and Occupancy
Step 7 involves joint responsibility and the beginning of the
ongoing relationship between RTC and RPAM in the
operational phase. RPAM is responsible for the technical
commissioning of the physical plant while RTC will be
responsible for
Support Requirements – Recreation/Other Departments
A management position should be established to oversee the
IRF Master Plan. In addition to having responsibility for on
going management of the Master Plan, this person would be
the liaison between RTC and RPAM, Chair of the Triage
Committee, have ongoing responsibility for the supervision of
management agreements and be the HRM representative on the
School Steering Team responsible to make recommendations
to Council.

IRF Master Plan 81
8. IRF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The development strategy for the IRF Master Plan is provided
in IRF Financial Strategy table in the Executive Summary. It
excludes any new event facilities as it has been assumed that
facilities of this type would not be developed through RTC.
Capital funding from other sources has been identified in blue
and operational funding items in green. Projects identified in
this current fiscal year have been approved by Council. Other
projects listed have been referred to the Facility
Implementation Model at various recommended steps.
8.1 Capital Funding Strategy
In order to expedite this Master Plan and subsequent HRM
initiatives in the areas of recapitalization, expansion and new
facility development the municipality will need to place higher
priority on recreation.
It is estimated that since amalgamation an average annual
shortfall of $850,000 in recapitalization of recreation facilities
has created a total accumulated shortfall of $6,800,000. This
shortfall is responsible for the municipality’s current inability
to provide the kind of accessible, safe, energy efficient and
visually pleasing community facilities HRM citizens have
clearly indicated they expect to have access to in their
communities.
8.2 Operational Funding Strategy
Operational funding will be required for Item 10 Plan support
throughout all planning periods if the Master Plan is to be
successful. Plan support includes the IRFMP Manager as well
as changes to the accounting system to support the
recommendation for facility cost centres. The IRFMP
Manager will be a liaison between RTC and RPAM and will
fill a significant void in ensuring expedient and consistent
discussion and action with all stakeholders. This position will
also ensure adequate research and trends analysis takes place as
part of the decision making process, and as stated earlier, will
be the liaison for HRM on SST committees with the HRSB for
the purpose of making recommendations to Council.
Regular updates will be required to ensure that the IRF Master
Plan remains viable and can be adapted to changing situations.
8.3 Sections
8.3.1 Section A Existing Facilities
Operation and preservation of the existing indoor recreation
infrastructure is the first priority of the Strategy. The first four
items under this category deal with facility upgrades and
preservation and are carried with RPAM budgets. Suggested
amounts have been developed by RPAM and have been
escalated and carried throughout the entire planning period.
The fifth item covers on going operation under RTC. Amounts
for this activity have not been included as it was not possible to

IRF Master Plan 82
determine current net expenditures hence no longer term
planning could be undertaken.
8.3.2 Section B Existing Commitments
Four projects are currently underway and have been included
in the current budget process. Expenditures for these projects
have been approved and are projected into Year 1 of the shortterm
time period.
8.3.3 IRF Development Strategy Section C Short-Term
Recommendations 2005-2010
a. It is recommended that HRM be strategically involved in
the analysis and review of needs for the new high school
project in Musquodoboit Valley
b. It is recommended that RTC immediately implement an
annual equipment expense category for community
operated programs in the Musquodoboit Valley, and review
the requirements for the training and development of RTC
program staff.
c. It is recommended that HRM review the business plan as
presented by the Eastern Shore Recreation Authority, and
evaluate the feasibility of developing a fitness centre for
this community in the next fiscal period (2005/06).
d. It is recommended that HRM conduct a full cost/benefit
review of consolidating services and office requirements
into the existing Eastern Shore Arena.
e. HRM Environmental Youth Centre. This project, currently
in Step 1 of the Facility Implementation Model (FIM), has
received some preliminary funding for needs analysis cost
shared between EMS, RTC, and the Province. The
committee will assess the proposed project based on the
degree to which it supports the Guiding Principles,
Philosophy and Recommendations of the IRF Master Plan,
and how it fits into the indoor recreation infrastructure
within its area. This proposed project, being a one-of-akind
in the municipality, does not fit the existing multidistrict
definition and would be a regional facility.
f. It is recommended that HRM undertake a through review
of the needs and requirements in the Prospect area and
move forward in an advisory role with the community
through the FIM process towards a community /
neighbourhood level facility.
g. It is recommended that HRM replace the existing
community recreation facility in District 2.
h. It is recommended that should the tri-pad ice facility not
move forward in Bedford, HRM initiate the development
an additional ice surface for the Bedford area.
i. It is recommended that HRM ensure that the existing
community facility in Bedford (Gerald Lebrun Centre) has

IRF Master Plan 83
all maintenance requirements met in order to keep it
functioning.
j. It is recommended that HRM review IRF needs and
priorities in the Sambro area, including an evaluation of the
availability of local church facilities to meet the needs of
citizens.
k. It is recommended that a decision be made regarding the
request from the Spryfield Lions Club regarding the
acquisition of the Lions Arena.
l. It is recommended that HRM enter into a review of the
usage and cost recovery mandate of the Captain William
Spry Centre to assess enhanced opportunities for recreation
service delivery.
m. It is recommended that the Devonshire Arena be converted
for alternate usage upon the development of an additional
ice surface in HRM. Suggested usage is a regional indoor
skateboard park.
n. It is recommended that a detailed review of the
Needham/St Andrews/George Dixon centres be undertaken
to determine appropriate go-forward strategies, taking into
consideration the potential direction of the Bloomfield
location. This review will address to facility expansion,
retirement and community accessibility relative to
programming and cost recovery mandates, as well as
mobility barriers in existing facilities.
o. It is recommended that careful observation of the
Dartmouth North area continue related to IRF’s and service
provisions, and that the RTC enter into a formal discussion
of the effectiveness of its services in this area regarding
cost recovery and accessibility mandates.
p. It is recommended that a review and analysis of space
usage at the BLT facility be undertaken to determine
maximum effectiveness. Analysis is also necessary re: the
lifecycle of the existing facility and anticipated future
requirements.
q. It is recommended that planning and development begin
regarding the construction of a community facility that
would meet the needs of the residents in the Dartmouth
East area, and would fill the existing gaps for a Boys and
Girls club in that area.
8.3.4 Section D Medium-Term Recommendations 2011 -
2015
The medium term covers years 6–10. Based on current
population projections and information, it has been anticipated
that the municipality will need to invest approximately $8m in
two new neighbourhood and community centres and $8m in
existing facility expansion over the five-year period. The
nature and location of these developments will need to be
determined through the planning process.

IRF Master Plan 84
8.3.5 Section E Long-Term Recommendations 2016 - 2020
The long-term covers years 11-15, ending in 2020. Based on
current population projections and information, it has been
anticipated that the municipality will need to invest
approximately $20m in a new multi-district facility, $10m in
two new neighbourhood and community centres and $10m in
existing facility expansion over the five-year period. The
nature and location of these developments will need to be
determined through the planning process.

IRF Master Plan 85
Appendix A: Other Municipalities
The experience of other Canadian Municipalities in the
provision of indoor recreation services can be of assistance in
developing an appropriate approach for HRM. The following is
a review of information received from across Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario
This Facility Study completed by People Services in March
2003, provided a “model for future facility provision that
balances services and programs within these facilities, and
opportunities to maximize financial efficiency.” The city of
Ottawa approached their review process by compiling four
separate reports.
Phase One – Planning Context and Gap Analysis Report
Phase Two – Business Plans for Priority Legacy Projects
Phase Three – Market and Needs Assessment
Phase Four – The Final Report (proposed facility delivery
model)
Key features of the report included:
a. The development of a hierarchy of facility development
that addresses capital and operational funding. The
Ottawa approach to funding is to direct municipal
financing toward those facilities and services that
support access to introductory programs and services,
and broad based activities that contribute to key
benefits of community wide health and wellness.
Facilities that support these introductory or core
initiatives are generally found at the community and
neighbourhood level. Facilities that serve citywide and
district audiences with greater focus on intermediate
and advanced opportunities should require
proportionately more funding from non-tax sources.
b. At the community and neighbourhood 1 levels,
facilities of the same type for example two arenas,
should be located together if this contributes to
significant cost efficiencies and/or programming
advantages.
c. Facilities should be scheduled in order to ensure the
highest and best use in prime time, and can be used for
any acceptable community programs otherwise.
Priorities for scheduling should be clearly indicated so
that users recognize they may be displaced if higherlevel
demands materialize.
d. One of the department’s service delivery objectives is
“plan, develop and implement recreation and culture
programs with partners.” Although this objective was
framed with respect to program and service
delivery…the intent is applicable to facilities as well.
Non-municipal management and financing of recreation
facilities is encouraged assuming there are advantages
for doing so i.e. management flexibility and/or financial
benefits.

IRF Master Plan 86
Saanich, British Columbia
A Parks and Recreation Master Plan, completed by
Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Ltd. in
October 2001, was undertaken to assess current services, to
identify the needs of the residents, and to translate that
information into a program that reflects local preferences and
values.
Key aspects of the report included:
a. Endorse the concept of “core” facilities within the four
community recreation centres, ensuring the inclusion of
large open recreation areas, multi-purpose gymnasium,
administrative/support services, areas for arts and
cultural activities to serve the needs of youth and
seniors, and the growing interest in health and wellness
services.
b. Establish a facility capital reserve fund to cover the cost
of basic facility improvements.
The Director of Finance for the District of Saanich indicated, “
the SCP and other recreation centres we operate is not cost
recovery mandated but focused on quality service. We do
however; achieve the highest combined Parks and Recreation
recovery rate in the province of BC at 55%. Each of the centres
is different and recovery rates change from year to year with a
low of around 55% and a high of around 70%. Capital funding
is separate, and we do try to focus on pay as you go. Large
upgrades or expansions are debt financed and funded
separately through a global debt charge budget.”
Edmonton, Alberta
This Facility Master Plan – Leisure and Recreation Trends
Analysis, completed by the City of Edmonton Community
Services in October of 2002. This study was undertaken in
order to project the demographics of Edmonton into the years
2015 and 2025 and discuss the implications of demographic
change in light of trends in leisure participation, citizen
expectations, recreation as a promoter of community and
individual health, and trends in facility design and
development.
Key aspects of the report included:
a. Multi-use facilities are becoming more common across
Canada as in the Edmonton region. New facilities have
opened or will open in Strathcona County, Fort
Saskatchewan and Spruce Grove. Plebiscites held in the
five municipalities supported construction and the
resulting tax increases to fund operations. Support for
these facilities is attributed to the desire for economic
development in communities and because there is a
demand for facilities since few have been built in the
past two decades due to fiscal restraint.
b. The Apex Centre, a multi-use facility in Colorado has
been described as a “magnet centre”, where activities
are consolidated and families have participation choices
and for operators, there are economies of scale.
c. The city of Burlington favours multi-use facilities
because there is more critical mass, potential for better

IRF Master Plan 87
economies, higher visibility, greater customer service
and more opportunity for partnerships.
d. The municipality of Mississauga believes that
multipurpose facilities address the shortness of time
that many people express. Multiple activities provide
convenience and people will travel for the value added
experience of a high quality facility.
e. In Saskatoon, a partnership with the city, the health
district, the Tribal Council, and the Metis Urban Self-
Government Council has resulted in the development of
a facility designed to respond to community services
demands of the inner city. Its goal is to improve the
quality of life and health status for children, youth,
young adults and families.
London, Ontario
This report, prepared by Monteith Planning Consultants, IBI
Group, Ian Seddon Planning Services, JF Group, Leger
Marketing in January of 2003, establishes priorities and
policies to guide the delivery of recreation and leisure services,
parks and open spaces, programs, and facilities within the City
of London to the year 2017.
Key aspects of the report included:
a. Despite the city’s recent successes, the quality and
quantity of many of London’s recreation facilities
are deficient and are not adequately meeting the
leisure-needs of its current citizens, let alone future
populations. The considerable shortage and poor
condition of facilities can be attributed to a lack of
new facility development, coupled with insufficient
reinvestment in existing facilities. The result is a
“triple whammy.”
• Not only must the city address long-standing
deficiencies within established areas that have
few or no facilities, but
• It must also work proactively to meet the needs
of its growing population base, and
• Still continue to keep existing facilities
functioning.
b. There are a number of sources of funding for the
recommended capital projects that include the
following:
• Reserve funds that relate to parkland acquisition
in the City of London;
• Obtain debenture financing in each year where
capital expenditures are required;
• Fund part of the capital costs in each year from
general revenues, to the extent possible;
• Obtain funds from Development Charges;
• Enter into partnership arrangements with public,
not-for-profit, and/or private sector developers

IRF Master Plan 88
and operators of facilities whereby the partners
share in the capital costs of development.
c. The recommendations of the Master Plan adhere to
the principle of cost minimization throughout the
recommended facility development program, which
strikes the appropriate balance between community
need and the role of the city as a principle provider
of recreation services in the City of London.
The recommendation to develop three separate
multi-purpose community campuses is based in part
on the recognition of the potential operating cost
savings associated with the development of various
community facilities as part of a single complex. It
is also recognized that by improving the level of
service through the provision of alternative
recreational and community activities “under one
roof”, the opportunity exists to increase
participation and use of the facilities, thereby
increasing revenue potential.

IRF Master Plan 89
Appendix B: Recreation Blueprint
HRM Culture, Recreation and Tourism
RECREATION BLUEPRINT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to combine the primary decisionmaking
information in Community Recreation Services into one
source. By establishing one source of information for staff to
reference, it is hoped that this piece will improve the decision
making process by increasing clarity as to the overall direction of the
unit. In addition to this document, which provides detailed
information on each of the categories, a summary document has been
developed to provide a “quick reference” source for staff.
VISION
A vision for an organization is meant to be a compelling and
motivating picture of what an ideal organization would look like. It
is not meant to describe the current scenario or organizational
environment but rather to highlight a point in time for all staff to
work toward. The following vision was developed by staff of the
former Parks and Recreation business unit and adapted for
recreation based on the recent HRM restructure which separated
Parks and Recreation into different business units.
Community Recreation Services is renowned as a world leader for
facilitating quality, inclusive and innovative recreation and leisure
opportunities; indoor and out. All of our programs and services are
market driven and affordable and promote holistic and healthy
lifestyles.
Our programs, services, and facilities are a reflection of our diverse,
talented, and dedicated staff that value and respect the uniqueness
and character of each HRM community and neighbourhood. Our
work impacts on the health of all HRM communities where parks,
recreation, sport, fitness, art, and culture are essential to the personal,
social, economic and environmental well being of all.
Successfully acting on recreation issues that affect communities,
staff lead or champion results through partnering, active citizenship,
and building on the strengths of our urban and rural communities and
cultures. We are continuing to build caring, vibrant, and liveable
communities throughout HRM.
MISSION
A mission is a statement of the fundamental purpose of an
organization and answers three questions:
Who is our primary client?
Why does the organization exist?
What must we do to serve our clients and to satisfy the longer term
purpose of the organization?
The following mission has been developed to guide all of the
activities, planning and evaluation in Community Recreation
Services:
Community Recreation Services enriches the lives of HRM residents
and communities by facilitating and/or providing quality inclusive
leisure services, facilities, and programs.
VALUES
Values are defined as an individual’s principles, standards, or
judgment of what is valuable or important in life. From an
organizational perspective, values are statements that summarize
what is of primary value or importance to staff as a whole. The
following list of values was developed by staff. It does not identify
every value that is of importance to individual staff but rather
highlights those values that have been identified by staff as being of
primary importance to Community Recreation Services.

IRF Master Plan 90
Customer satisfaction is our number one value. We nurture ongoing
relationships with citizens and continually strive to exceed the
expectation of our citizens;
We are driven by the needs of the unique communities across HRM
and continually seek input into our planning and program delivery;
We support our staff by investing in their professional development
and recognize their collective efforts;
We are committed to sustainability and fiscal responsibility;
We value open dialogue and teamwork and believe in a supportive,
respectful, ethical and diverse work environment;
We believe in universal access to recreation services with measures
in place to address barriers - geography, gender, race, income, ability
and otherwise;
We value the contribution and support of partnerships.
CORPORATE SCORECARD
In the spring of 2001, HRM embarked upon a Performance
Measurement Initiative of which a Corporate Scorecard was one
component. As part of the Corporate Scorecard process, each
individual business unit was tasked with collecting and analyzing
performance measurement data, the first step of which was
identifying Strategic Outcomes and Client Benefits. These are listed
in the following two sections of this document. In summary, the
many outcomes and indicators that business units developed during
the process of developing the scorecard have been grouped into four
general themes:
Healthy, Sustainable, Vibrant Communities;
Safe Communities;
Excellence in Service Delivery;
Excellence in Governance.
These themes are meant to drive the structure and delivery of the
municipality and help in assessing the performance of the HRM
Corporation as a whole. The majority of Strategic Outcomes, Client
Benefits and associated indicators in Community Recreation
Services apply to the first and third themes listed above.
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
As defined in the HRM Performance Measurement process, Strategic
Outcomes are the broad consequences that an organization hopes to
achieve or influence with its programs and services. Usually,
strategic outcomes cannot be targeted by or exclusively influenced
by one program or individual. Community Recreation Services plays
a role in working toward each of these outcomes but is not the sole
contributor to achieving the outcome.
Healthy citizens
Child and youth development
Support citizen involvement by creating volunteer opportunities and
assisting volunteer groups
Enhance service delivery through the development of partnerships
Desirable and attractive places to play and live due to recreation
programs and services
CLIENT BENEFITS
As defined in the HRM Performance Measurement process, Client
Benefits are those opportunities provided directly and exclusively by
the organization that are viewed by the public as a benefit.
Generally, from the client’s point of view these benefits answer the
question “What do I get from this program or service?”
Appropriate programs that meet community needs
Affordable programs
Opportunities to access recreation programs and services
Opportunities to engage in life long learning and develop skills
Opportunities for enjoyment, relaxation, social interaction, and stress
reduction

IRF Master Plan 91
SERVICE LEVEL CRITERIA POLICY
Policy Statement
Recreation programs and services in HRM is based on specific
fundamental service level criteria. These criteria (listed in detail
below) encompass areas such as community scanning, partnership
assessment, needs analysis, and target group identification. Any
potential or existing recreation program or service in HRM should be
assessed based on its alignment with these criteria.
Use of This Policy
This policy will be enacted upon staff identification of the
requirement for a new recreation program or service and/or a request
from a community for a new program or service. The policy may
also be employed by staff of Recreation, Culture and Heritage to
assess the relevance of any existing recreation program or service.
Use of Service Level Criteria
It is difficult to quantify consistent guidelines that accurately identify
service levels throughout Community Recreation Services. While
guidelines to identify the level of service required in communities
throughout HRM should employ some data analysis, the process
should also emphasize the qualitative characteristics that define
communities. These characteristics include demographics, historical
development patterns, culture, lifestyle trends, socio-economic
status, will of residents, partnership opportunities, and the
availability of other service providers. Due to the many qualitative
factors that contribute to recreation needs in different communities, it
is difficult to develop and apply a service level formula or minimum
numerical standards. Therefore, a holistic approach that assesses a
combination of factors will be employed to ensure that service level
guidelines apply accurately and equitably across different
communities. This approach will provide a reflection of community
preferences and need, will be reasonably attainable, and will be
reviewed regularly. Although service level guidelines will provide
some direction and offer a means of evaluation, they will exhibit the
flexibility required to respond to the varying recreation needs of
different communities in HRM.
SERVICE LEVEL CRITERIA
To ensure their relevance, all potential Community Recreation
Services (CRS) programs and services and, where desired or
appropriate, existing programs and services must be developed
and/or assessed utilizing the following service level criteria:
Identification and Assessment of Need/Demand
Needs, emerging needs and trends are identified directly by staff or
through staff interaction at the community level. Once a need has
been identified by staff or by the public, staff assess its applicability
to the CRS mandate, mission, vision, strategic outcomes / client
benefits, and values to determine whether it is a potential “fit”.
Scan for Other Service Providers
Staff assess other similar service agencies in their area / community
to determine if a similar program or service is being provided by
another agency or if the specific program or service could be
provided by another agency. If so, the agency should be consulted
about the possibility.
Sole Service Providers
Similar to the above step, staff determine the level of service by
assessing whether or not CRS is the sole service provider within any
given area. If there is not an agency or partner available in a specific
community to meet an identified need and CRS has the resources and
the mandate to provide a program or service, then the program or
service should be operated by CRS.
“Gap Filling”
CRS acts as a “gap filler”. If there is an identified lack of a certain
type of recreation (i.e. cultural or sport programs) within any given
community, staff should attempt to fill the void, if the resources are
available and the identified gap fits the CRS mandate. Where this is
the case, staff strive to ensure that the community is serviced with a

IRF Master Plan 92
basic level of programming especially in high need areas with a high
density of children and youth.
Assess Partnership Opportunities
As part of a community development approach, staff assess the
viability of offering a specific program through partnership. For
example, the St. Margaret’s Bay Arena has a facility to house a
fitness class. Instead of CRS offering the program directly, staff
assist the arena group with the marketing of the program and the
training of the instructor. The program “belongs” to the St.
Margaret’s Bay Arena Association, thereby enhancing community
ownership. CRS does not accrue the revenue but neither does it
incur the expenditures associated with the program.
Another example of an evolving partnership is the former summer
playground program. Where a need is identified for a playground
program, staff work with a community group to operate the program
and provide short-term assistance to the group in the form of
promotions, staff training and program evaluation. Staff do not
operate these programs directly.
Urban, Suburban, and Rural Considerations
There are geographical variations between urban, suburban and rural
areas with respect to recreation. Recreation is a community-based
service and therefore these variations provide for differing levels and
types of programs and services across HRM. Access to facilities is
one factor that can influence level of service differently in different
areas. For example, CRS often has to rely on renting schools, church
halls, community halls, etc in rural areas because of limited access to
HRM-owned recreation facilities. This access issue can influence
decision-making on the development and delivery of potential
programs and services.
Relationship to High Need Areas
Using available demographic information and trend analysis in their
community, staff within each of the six geographies should identify
high need areas. These areas should be examined for their recreation
requirements as well as the potential of a recreation intervention
addressing issues specific to the area. An example of a high need
area could be a high-density area with a high population of children
and youth (i.e. mobile home parks or housing units). High need
areas also include geographically isolated communities, areas with
high vandalism or crime rates, or areas of modest means.
Priority Target Groups: Children and Youth
Needs are also determined based on priority target groups. Through
trend analysis, needs identification, Council requests, and
participation in several provincial and national initiatives, CRS has
determined that children and youth are priority target groups. To
ensure emphasis is placed on this target group, a Youth Strategy has
been developed and implemented throughout the unit.
Other Priority Groups
CRS prioritizes programs and services for those persons who may be
at risk, in need or have a special need or a disability and ensures
access for these groups. Access is defined as the removal or
reduction of barriers caused by distance, language, culture, age,
gender, finances, lack of skill or knowledge, or physical obstacles.
Cost Recovery and Revenue Formulas
Similar to other municipalities throughout Canada, approximately
one-third of the CRS budget is recovered through revenues from
programs and rentals. The achievement of revenue greatly
influences CRS’s level of service but revenue is not always the sole
consideration. Although CRS strives to recoup direct costs for direct
programs, many programs, especially those for children and youth in
high need areas, need to be subsidized. Adult and senior programs
are generally full cost recovery on direct costs, unless social
obligations override this formula. Most high cost/low return
programs have been eliminated except where they can be justified as
fulfilling a social obligation or where CRS is identified as the sole
service provider.
In cases where money from another source (i.e. grant money) can be
accessed to enhance new or existing programs and services,

IRF Master Plan 93
particular attention should be paid to the long-term financial
sustainability of any new initiative or pilot program.
Introductory Programs
CRS has determined that the program emphasis will be on offering
introductory level programs. The philosophy is that citizens should
have access to learn a variety of skills at an introductory level. If
citizens then choose to invest in or pursue a particular skill in more
detail, they could then register with a more specialized agency.
April 23, 2003

IRF Master Plan 94
Appendix C: Master Facility List

IRF Master Plan 95
MASTER FACILITY LIST
Master Facility Names
Number
1 Sackville Sports Stadium
2 Dartmouth Sportsplex
3 Cole Harbour Place
4 St. Margarets Community Centre
5 Bedford Lawn Bowling Facility
6 Spryfield Lions Arena
7 Fairview Golf Centre
8 Atlantic Tennis Centre
9 Nubodys
10 Mount Saint Vincent University
11 YMCA
12 Larry OConnell
13 Isleville
14 Private 3-Pad Arena
15 Taiso Gymnastic Club / Sack Leisure Centre
16 Upper Sackville Community Centre
17 Lawrencetown Community Centre
18 St. Terese Community Centre
19 Chezzetcook Lions Club
20 Porters Lake Community Centre
21 Eastern Shore Community Arena
22 Musquodoboit Harbour Fitness & Lifestyle Centre
23 Ship Harbour Community Centre
24 NS Community College - Dartmouth YMCA YWCA
25 NS Hospital Pool
26 North Woodside Community Centre
27 Harrietsfield Community Centre
28 Williamswood Community Centre
29 Terence Bay Community Centre
30 St Andrews Community Centre
31 Centennial Pool
32 St. Marys - The Tower
33 St Mary's Alumni Arena
34 Dal Arena
35 Dalplex
36 YWCA
37 YMCA
38 Bowles Arena
39 Centennial Arena
40 Devonshire Arena
41 Gray Arena
42 St. Mary's Boat Club
43 Exhibition Park

IRF Master Plan 96
44 Metro Centre
45 Halifax Forum / Civic Arena
46 The Pavilion
47 George Dixon Centre
48 South Woodside Community Centre
49 Northbrook Community Centre
50 Port Dufferin Recreation Centre
51 Carrols Corner Community Centre
52 Bedford Youth Centre
53 Cole Harbour Community Centre - the Box
54 Hubbards Recreation Centre
55 Rockingham Community Centre
56 West Chezzetcook - Grand Desert Recreation Centre
57 Head of St. Margarets Bay/Boutiliers Point Recreation Centre
58 Beaver Bank Kinsac Community Centre
59 Meaghers Grant Recreation Hall
60 Lake Echo Community Centre
61 East Preston Recreation Centre
62 North Preston Recreation Centre
63 Fall River Recreation Centre
64 Dartmouth North Community Centre
65 Beachville Lakeside Timberlea Recreation Centre
66 Sackville Heights Community Centre
67 Chocolate Lake Community Cente
68 Findlay Community Centre
69 Gerald Lebrun Centre
70 Needham Recreation Centre
71 Captain William Spry Cente
72 Northcliffe Recreation Centre
73 CFB Shearwater
74 CFB Stadacona
75 CFB Shannon Park
76 Soccer NS Indoor Facility, Mainland Commons
77 Sackville Community Arena
78 Springfield Lake Recreation Centre
79 Curves and other Ladies only fitness facilities
80 Curling Centres
81 Bowling Centres
82 Mainland Common Recreation Centre
83 St Margarets Bay Facility Expansion
84 Private 3-Pad Arena Complex
85 Dartmouth Sportsplex Fieldhouse
86 Centre for the Sustainability of Youth

IRF Master Plan 97
Appendix D: Facility Condition Summary
Indoor Recreation Facilities Questionnaire Summary (16/43 responding)
Name of Facility Age Components Issues Type of roof Structural Problems Potential for
Expansion
Springfield Lake Rec Centre 40 Main Hall Asphalt shingles cracked floors see p 5
Upstairs Lounge Boiler replaced 2000
Kitchen Air exchanger 1995
Outdoor Deck
Storage
Upper Sack Rec Facility 6 Community Hall need a water conditioner asphalt shingles outside brick is loose see p 9
Washrooms/showers Cracked mortar
No storage Oil tank replaced 2003
Northcliffe Centre 30+ Pottery room leaks in window tar & gravel cracked walls see p 5
Pool & basement air quality problem
Preschool room
Classroom
Change rooms
Gray Arena 27 arena Leaks in roof and walls Metal repaired roof 2002 n/a
Hot water tank replaced 2002
Furnace replaced Aug 2002
St Andrew Rec Centre 50-60 gymnasium extreme hot/cold temps Unknown
Seniors room lack of air circulation See p 5
Preschool room
Craft room
Housing
Training room
3 offices
2 community offices
St Margaret’s Centre 15 arena with seating 400 metal cracked walls see p 5
Multi-purpose room 350 cracked floors
Lions den cracked foundation
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 98
Indoor Recreation Facilities Questionnaire Summary (16/43 responding)
Name of Facility Age Components Issues Type of roof Structural Problems Potential for
Expansion
Captain William Spry Centre 18 Public library Asphalt shingles replacing carpet in lobby see p 5
Wave pool with tile
Sauna Clock damaged by Juan
Meeting rooms (4) Parking lot entrance
Tenants Offices
Multi Service Office
Staff offices
Fitness Centre
Porters Lake Community Centre ? Kitchen Need change rooms Asphalt shingles need new roof see p 5
Main Hall Need new flooring lower level
Washrooms (1 accessible) Leaky roof
Bar (6x6) cracked floors
Comm. Policing office
Lower hall
Storage room ongoing vandalism
Lawrencetown Community Facility ? Main hall Asphalt shingles cracked floors see p 5
Dining hall with kitchen Smelly water
Bar
Small storage
Outdoor amenities
Dartmouth North Community Centre 8 Public library no showers or change rooms leaky room see p 5
Rec office replaced flooring in activity room furnace repaired Oct 03
(attached site audit) Cap & RCMP office HVAC repaired June 03
Activity room Refrigerator repaired Nov 02
Air quality issues (?) (Temp?)
Building has ants
Toilets back up when heavy rains
Roof damage after JUAN
St Mary=s Boat Club 98 Hall Asphalt shingles Cracked walls see p5
Kitchen 12'x14' Tar and Gravel Cracked floors
Office 12'x14' Walls & window casings are rotten
Outside deck Water damage in lower level (JUAN)
Boathouse Kitchen walls and floor rotten
Washrooms and showers
Indoor Recreation Facilities Questionnaire Summary (16/43 responding)
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 99
Name of Facility Age Components Issues Type of roof Structural Problems Potential for
Expansion
Centennial Arena 37 Rink Metal roof ongoing upkeep through annual see p5
submissions to HRM for capital
4 dressing rooms
Meeting room
Public viewing area
Seating for 2300
Larry O=Connell Centre 35 program space rats in the spring Windows replaced in 2003 no.
Washrooms kids spray doors with paint metal? Doors need to be replaced
Storage for minor sports
Isleville Studio 30+ multi-purpose room 38x28 parking is inadequate tar and gravel it is unknown whether or not no
Storage space (16) the furnace and oil tank has been
Washrooms (2 ) inspected
Need a rain gutter
Windows need maintenance
Needham Centre 25+ Pool 17.5mx10m(capacity 80 people) there are many Asphalt shingles need increased air flow see pg 5
Gym full court wood floor 86x50 leaks in the building Tar & gravel on the lower level
Multipurpose room 39x19 Cracked walls & rust particles found in pool
Boardroom 45x14 foundation graffiti on building
Preschool space 100x19 Drainage piping has problems
Offices (5) Windows are not all operational
Washrooms (4) Not wheelchair accessible on the 1,3,4th
Dance studio 30x19 floors or to the pool
Storage room
George Dixon Centre Unknown Preschool room leaky roof Parking is a concern
Youth room graffiti on the walls
Games room
Multi-purpose room
Craft room
Gym
Cole Harbour Activity Centre / The BOX 60+ Large open room basement floods asphalt shingles siding needs repair no
Small office area overall condition is poor
Washroom
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 100
Appendix E: Actual Survey Questions & Report
Final Commissioned Questions
for
Halifax Indoor Recreation Facility Master Plan Project
Halifax Regional Municipality (n =400)
HRM is developing a long-term strategy for the provision of indoor recreation facilities. One step in the process was a
series of 13 public meetings held at locations across the Municipality in November, December, and early January. During
these meetings residents from across HRM indicated some preferences for how indoor recreation facilities should be
provided. We would now like to ask your opinion about indoor recreation facilities in HRM. Please keep in mind that, for
the most part, these questions do not directly discuss cost issues.
READ AND ROTATE QUESTIONS 1 AND 2
1.All things considered, do you [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER] HRM providing a series of small indoor neighbourhood
or community recreation centres that include facilities such as meeting and multipurpose rooms? CODE ONE ONLY
1 completely support
2 mostly support
3 mostly oppose, or
4 completely oppose
VOLUNTEERED
8 Don=t know/No answer
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 101
2.All things considered, do you [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER] HRM providing large indoor regional recreation
complexes that include facilities such as arenas and pools, similar to the Dartmouth Sportsplex, Cole Harbour Place, and
the Sackville Sports Stadium? CODE ONE ONLY
1 completely support
2 mostly support
3 mostly oppose, or
4 completely oppose
VOLUNTEERED
8 Don=t know/No answer
3Given the cost of providing larger regional indoor recreation complexes, these facilities cannot be located in every HRM
community. Knowing this, what would you consider to be the maximum acceptable time, in minutes, to travel by vehicle to
a regional indoor recreation complex?
RECORD AN EXACT NUMBER B PROBE TO AVOID ACCEPTING A RANGE
RECORD EXACT NUMBER, IN MINUTES: ________________ minutes
________________________]
97 Don=t use such facilities
98 Don=t know/No answer
99 Other/Depends [SPECIFY:
4.Some say providing indoor recreation facilities should be a priority for HRM. Keeping in mind there are many different
demands for HRM funds, do you think providing indoor recreation facilities should be a [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER]
HRM priority?
CODE ONE ONLY
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 102
1 Critically important
2. Important but not critical
3. Not very important, or
4. Not at all important
VOLUNTEERED
8 Don=t Know / No Answer
5.Are you [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER] with your current level of access to school gymnasiums and meeting spaces
for recreational purposes during non-school hours?
CODE ONE ONLY
1 completely satisfied,
2 mostly satisfied,
3 mostly dissatisfied, or
4 completely dissatisfied
VOLUNTEERED
8 Don=t know/No answer
Key Findings
Question 1
86 % of respondents (346 of 402) completely (41%) or mostly (46%) supported HRM providing small indoor recreation centres that
include facilities such as meeting and multipurpose rooms on a neighbourhood or community basis.
Question 2
89% of respondents (357 of 402) completely (49%) or mostly (41%) supported HRM providing a limited number of large indoor
recreation complexes that include facilities such as arena and pools on a regional basis, similar to the Dartmouth Sportsplex, Cole
Harbour Place or the Sackville Sports Stadium.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 103
Question 3
206 of the 402 respondents indicated that 20-30 minutes would be the maximum acceptable drive time to access a large indoor
recreation complex such as the SSS/DSP/CHP. Another 114 respondents indicated that 15-19 minutes would be the maximum
acceptable drive time. The mean maximum acceptable time in minutes to travel by vehicle to a regional indoor recreation complex
was 21.5 minutes.
Question 4
80% of respondents (321 of the 402) indicated that it is critical or important for HRM to provide indoor recreation facilities as a
priority, keeping in mind there are many different demands for HRM.80% of respondents thought that providing indoor recreation
facilities should be a critically important (12%) or important but not critical priority for the HRM.
Question 5
45% of respondents (215 of 402) indicated some level of dissatisfaction with their current level of access to school gymnasiums and
meeting spaces for recreational purposes during non-school hours. Since respondents were not asked if they actually used school
facilities, the level of dissatisfaction among actual users is higher than 45%.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 104
Appendix F: Major Facility General Managers
A meeting was held on November 4 th , 2003 with the GM’s of the existing multi-district facilities to discuss the intent and scope of the
IRF Master Plan.
The meeting was very positive. Comments indicated that they felt the project was worthwhile and would be an excellent vehicle for
assisting in decision-making and priority setting. The global trend of multi-purpose facilities was discussed including
acknowledgement of the economic and social benefits of providing areas for citizens to congregate. The GM of the Dartmouth
Sportsplex took the opportunity to present plans for a proposed field house project including comments regarding the value of building
a venue such as this adjacent to an existing facility from an economies of scale perspective rather than building it in a stand alone
location. It was determined that subsequent opportunities for networking among the Managers would be worthwhile.
Further to this meeting, a memo was circulated to these individuals on February 10, 2004 asking for specific information related to the
operation of these multi-district facilities and the Manager of Cole Harbour Place was interviewed
Question 1
Given the fiscal challenges facing each of us in the facility management field, what do you feel is the role and responsibility of the
municipality in:
a) providing regional (multi-district) facilities such as yours, and
b) operating regional (multi-district) facilities
a) SSS One of the key directions for HRM is developing communities. HRM, with the support of the community, needs to be
the backbone in providing regional (multi-district) facilities that meet the demands of each market. HRM’s role is to identify the need,
provide the due diligence and cost benefit analysis so the financial needs can be met, and oversee the management of the facility.
a) DSP n/c
b) SSS HRM should play a more active role in operating the facilities with input and advise the community through local
boards. This would ensure all regional (multi-district) facilities are working together, efficiently and effectively, taking advantage of
experience, knowledge base, and economies of scale as well as ensure responsibility and accountability.
b) DSP Provide the facility with the ability to grow and improve. Council has changed the rules regarding smoking, which has
had a major impact on the business plan, and the ability to pay back capital expansions.
Question 2
Is there a specific role/support that you feel the municipality could play to help ensure your ongoing success?
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 105
a) SSS There should be a facility management umbrella at HRM to guide and encourage all facilities to work together to meet
community needs and not in competition of each other. Under such an umbrella there would be economies of scale, sharing of
resources, knowledge and experience, procurement advantages, bench marking, pricing consistencies, etc.
b) DSP HRM should improve in their capital investment role. There needs to be a more consistent fund for recapitalization
projects on an annual basis. HRM should also look at ways to provide operating support in utilities.
Question 3
How effective is the integration of non-essential or specific support venues in your facility (such as physio clinics, concessions, etc)
for the purpose of alternative revenue generation and should this trend be continued?
a) SSS Non essential or specific support venues are effective if they are complimentary and provide revenues to support the
facility. The SSS expansion was over built and more market research was needed to ensure the viability and cost effectiveness of
support venues. Venues should be pursued with solid market research and financial analysis.
b) DSP Yes. These items are revenue generating and support the facility, in particular, concessions. They also help to create, as
much as possible, synergy that leads to the success of your facility.
Question 4
Is the decline in participation in bingos an issue that concerns you relative to your cost recovery mandate at present?
a) SSS No, the Sackville Sports Stadium does not rely on bingo revenues.
b) DSP As discussed earlier, the DSP has a serious concern about this, and feels that the fact that the municipality issued a nonsmoking
bylaw actually has changed the rules in the middle of the game for the DSP. It has dramatically affected revenues and will
continue to do so. There will likely be a serious impact within three years. The bingo players can’t smoke, and that takes the fun out
of it for them
Question 5
Citizens have told us that they are willing to travel for 20-30 minutes to access a facility such as yours. Does this claim fairly represent
your clients, or do your stats indicate something different?
a) SSS Yes the SSS is a regional (multi-district) facility that draws citizens living a 30 minute drive away.
b) DSP This clearly depends on the services they are accessing. Members, and fitness centre participants travel about 15
minutes, swimming lessons 20 minutes, bingo players hockey players and event participants will travel 30+ minutes, and the Pirates
Cove market will travel upwards to 30 minutes.
Question 6
Is there a specific project or situation that you would like to address relative to the Indoor Recreation Facility Master Plan?
a) SSS HRM needs to ensure the facilities are managed and operated not only responsibly, but that the management are
accountable. HRM cannot continue to be reactive, they need to be proactive to ensure the facilities are built to meet community needs,
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 106
and are operated with standard organizational model with fiscal controls in place.
b) DSP Field house ñ this project is a perfect mix for the DSP. The proposed tri-pad project in Bedford will have a negative
impact on the DSP. The prices are similar, and the DSP will loose 80K per year. If there are more tournaments, then fine, but they
will likely take existing tournaments away from existing facilities that means that we will all loose. This is a non-profit operation and
there is concern about the unwillingness of HRM to support fees. Some of the existing facilities undercut our prices to lure clients
away. This hurts our bottom line.
Cole Harbour GM Interview
The GM of CHP indicated CHP are not affiliated with HRM in any manner other than that they lease the building from the
municipality and that HRM provides insurance. He notes that although there is a clause in the lease agreement that commits HRM to
match dollar for dollar any capital upkeep required to preserve the asset, HRM has not lived up to their end of the bargain. CHP feels
that they are managing a $20 million asset on behalf of HRM and that somewhere between .5% and 1% of the value of the building
should be committed on an annual basis for upkeep of the building’s infrastructure. He expressed his appreciation for the level of
cooperation CHP receives from Design Services in addressing small capital repairs and recognizes that this lack of funding support for
building upkeep is an institutional challenge over which staff has little or no control. He noted that although CHP and other HRM
owned facilities operated by arms length boards or commissions are required to stand in the queue for infrastructure money, the same
restraints do not seem to apply to the Metro Centre.
CHP operates on a break even or better basis every year. They do this by responding directly to users needs, acting decisively and
placing a lot of emphasis on cost control. As 65% of costs are staff related, and about 25% are utility costs, these two areas receive the
greatest attention in the cost control effort.
The recent decline in bingo revenue has had an impact upon CHP however; management feels this is simply another operating
challenge that must be overcome through alternate programming.
The greatest concern expressed by the GM was the cost of preserving the asset and the lack of adequate funding from the owner to
carry out these responsibilities.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 107
Appendix G: Detailed Public Consultation Reports
Musquodoboit Valley - Bicentennial Centre, Middle Musquodoboit, November 12/03
Indoor recreation opportunities are focused in school gymnasiums. The Musquodoboit Valley Education Centre has a "double gym";
Musquodoboit Regional High School has a single gym and the Dutch Settlement Elementary a small gym typical of elementary
schools. Access fees are $40.00 per hour with a 4-hour minimum booking required. The school facilities tend to be booked every day
from 4 PM to 7 PM.
According to a school Principal and two active volunteers who attended the meeting, the driving forces behind the recreation programs
in the school gymnasiums are the teachers and principal of one of the schools along with community volunteers. It would appear that
much of the activity is dependant on the goodwill and volunteer efforts of this very small group. Some programs such as table tennis
have been active for some 29 years.
To save on facility rental fees the school principal or teachers offer recreation programs such as an after school or evening program
booked by them as educators.
Other than facility rental fees, the greatest cost is incurred in providing transportation to events outside the community or visits to
facilities such as indoor pools or arenas which do not exist in the Middle Musquodoboit area.
While the system is coping in Middle Musquodoboit, it is fragile. It is highly dependant upon a small group of volunteers and
individual programs can suddenly collapse when key leaders move out of the area. A case in point was a wrestling program that had
45 to 50 youths enrolled and had to be abandoned when the coach left.
Many of the recreation programs are also highly dependant upon the goodwill of the individual school principal and/or custodian.
Driving times involved in getting to and from facilities in a rural area, the lack of public transportation, the low population density and
the relatively high cost of access to the schools ($160.00 per evening) all contribute a scenario that could suddenly collapse if school
"insiders" were to retire or be transferred and replaced by people who were not as dedicated to bringing recreation programs to the
community. That scenario is as true for an arts and craft class as it is for minor basketball.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 108
The Way Ahead
Local volunteers would like to see HRM Recreation more involved in the development of human resources at a local level. This would
mean assistance and support for Leadership Development programs in all areas of recreation programming and Coaching Certification
programs for sport programs.
When asked to establish priorities the volunteers identified the following as being most important.
1. Improved access to school facilities including week ends.
"They are our schools-we want community access"
2. Lower fees for rental of school facilities.
3. Improved staff support to develop qualified leaders and strengthen programs.
"We need a single point of contact who can deal with a wide variety of issues"
4. Equipment grants.
The volunteers who attended the meeting suggested that travel of up to 20 minutes by car is considered reasonable to access regular
programming. Many people are traveling to Truro or the city to access particular facilities.
Outdoor facilities that came up during the discussion included the need to repair the dugouts at the local ball field that were damaged
during Hurricane Juan and the possibility of an outdoor swimming pool.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 109
Sheet Harbour Area - Duncan MacMillian High School, Sheet Harbour, November13/03
Sheet Harbour is a 90 minute drive from major facilities such as Cole Harbour Place or the indoor pool in Truro therefore
transportation is an issue. Community programs tend to be cantered on the church hall that has bowling lanes, a multi-purpose room
and a part-time HRM Recreation office. Other programs such as karate, cadets and a walking group use the gymnasium at Duncan
MacMillan High School. There is a library in Sheet Harbour however; an indoor pool that served the area was closed in 1983.
As with Middle Musquodoboit, Sheet Harbour area residents find the school gyms difficult to access. They would like to see more
activities in the school gyms including badminton, basketball and perhaps indoor soccer. A key issue for area residents is providing a
"safe place for kids to play"
There is a community initiative to establish a fitness centre in Sheet Harbour. A Business Plan has been developed and submitted to
HRM and two sites for the centre identified. Both are in existing buildings. Over 50 people attended the public meeting and
unanimously endorsed the project. Some see the HRM sponsored fitness centre at Musquodoboit Harbour as a model. There is also the
possibility of establishing offices for physiotherapy and massage in association with the proposed fitness centre.
Among the over 50 community members who attended the public meeting, the proposed fitness centre was without a doubt the
number one priority. In the short term it is the recreation issue that should receive the most attention of HRM Recreation.
In the longer-term, area residents would like to see school access improved and the existing swimming pool examined to see if it could
be brought back in to operation. Some believe that facilities such as a curling club or racquet facilities should be considered.
Community Development through a stronger recreation system is seen as a long-term priority.
Musquodoboit Harbour Area - HRM Customer Service Room - Musquodoboit Harbour, November 17/03
Musquodoboit Harbour is the location of the HRM office that serves the area. It is also the location of an HRM operated fitness centre
and the Eastern Shore Arena.
Much of the discussion focused on improvements that are needed to the Eastern Shore Arena and the possibility of renovating and
expanding that building to serve as a multi-purpose recreation centre for the area. There is a 1998 Condition Assessment on file which
addresses needed improvements totalling $1.5 million.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 110
The current management of the Eastern Shore arena would like to see a 5 year plan developed which would have the capital
improvements made, perhaps move the fitness centre from its current location to the arena and further develop the site. They note that
there is land available on the site for expansion.
On the short term, management is trying to expand the range of programs offered at the facility. Some program initiatives such as a
learn to skate program have been very well received. Others, such as indoor skateboarding and other proposed summer uses for the
arena require an initial capital infusion that is difficult to come by.
At present a portion of the operating costs are raised through bingo which brings in $10,000-$15,000 annually.
Those attending the meeting noted that the school gymnasium in the area is booked every weekday evening. They noted that on
weekends rental cost for the gym is $30 per hour with a minimum 4 hour booking.
There is a need in the area for meeting space for community groups. The ideal space would also provide storage for the groups that
would alleviate the need for volunteers to continually transport their equipment.
There was interest expressed in a curling facility and martial arts space. There are no existing studies that identify the level of
interest in these activities.
Overall those attending felt that the focus for the future should be on children's and youth programming. They also noted that
Leadership Development is very important in rural areas and that certified instructors and coaches are needed.
The group felt that most people in the area would travel for 20-30 minutes by car to access recreation programs and that there was a
general willingness to pay for quality recreation experiences.
Porters Lake/Lake Echo Area - Porter’s Lake Community Hall, November 18/03
The Porters Lake, Lake Echo area is served by a series of small community centres including the HRM owned Porters Lake
Community Hall. The closest major indoor facilities are the Eastern Shore Arena that is within about a 15-minute drive and Cole
Harbour Place that is about 25 minutes away.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 111
Gymnasium time in the area is at a premium although access to the gym at the Lakeview school is reasonably priced at $7.50 per hour
without the minimum 4-hour booking block required at other schools.
All of the community centres that serve the area are small. Many were community owned at one time but have been turned over to
HRM. There is a perception among some that although HRM has assumed ownership of these buildings, the municipality has not
demonstrated a strong sense of ownership particularly as it relates to facility maintenance and upgrades. There is also very little
operating assistance provided by HRM and the volunteers who administer the sites are feeling the stress. Bingo attendance in the area
has dropped over recent years and this is adding to the burden on the volunteers to raise operating funds by other means.
There is a need in the community for more meeting spaces for community groups. There is also a lack of storage space in the existing
community centres.
Other expressed interests included curling, arena, pool and fitness facilities. There was also a need expressed for washrooms
accessible from the exterior in the community centres that are associated with playing fields or other open spaces.
Those who attended the meeting felt that, on the short term, efforts should be made to upgrade the existing community halls and in
some cases undertake modest expansion of programs to address specific needs such as meeting spaces. Over the longer term, the
group suggested that a site be acquired for a larger multi-purpose facility that will be needed as the area grows and the existing
community centres reach the end of their useful life expectancy. The preferred site for a future recreation centre would be in vicinity
of Exit 20.
Goodwood-Dover West Chebucto - Brookside Jr High Prospect Road, November 20/03
There was a very large turn out at this meeting. The area recreation committee had encouraged residents to come to the meeting "in
support of a community centre for the area".
Area residents expressed frustration that there are very limited indoor recreation opportunities in their area. Some complained that
although they pay taxes to HRM, they receive very few services in return. Some participants suggest that they don't get services
because the area has a small population, but the area doesn't grow because there are limited services including recreation.
They would like to see better, more consistent access to school gymnasiums, access to insurance programs for community groups and
the development of a multipurpose community centre to serve the area.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 112
Suggestions for components to be included in a recreation centre ranged from very large items such as an arena and indoor pool to
more modest proposals similar to the North Preston model that would include a dance studio, meeting rooms and community group
storage space.
Area residents are currently traveling to reach recreation facilities such as arenas and indoor pools. The driving time for some can be
as little as 20 minutes to reach the swimming pool at the Northcliffe Community Centre or 30 to 40 minutes to the wave pool at the
Captain William Spry Centre. The closest arena is the St. Margaret's Arena, a 30 to 45 minute drive.
There is an HRM staff review that suggests that upgrading the East Dover Community Centre would alleviate some of these concerns.
Other suggestions include examining what would be required to gain access to the facilities at Exhibition Park and the Fire Station.
Sackville/Windsor Junction/Waverly/Fall River - Lockview High School, November 24/03
This meeting was well attended with people coming from the Fall River area in particular. Much of the discussion focused around the
need for gymnasium, meeting and activity spaces for community groups. Although arena and swimming pool programs are important
to people in the area, they tend to live within a 20-minute drive of the Sackville Sports Stadium, and the LeBrun Centre, and a 35-
minute drive of the St. Margret's Centre or the indoor soccer facility on the Mainland Common.
Access to the school gymnasium at the P3 Lockview High School is seen as very expensive at $75.00 per hour with a 3-hour
minimum booking. Participants noted that the rent for the school gym in Enfield is only $25.00 per hour. Other school gyms tend to be
small and not well suited to minor sport such as basketball, volleyball or indoor soccer.
There was some concern expressed that the development of a 3 ice surface complex in Bedford would lead to the closure of existing
HRM arenas. The closure of the HRM facilities would force people to use the private sector facility, a facility that is expected to have
ice rental rates considerably higher than HRM. They also felt that the development of that complex would preclude the Fall River area
from ever having an arena of their own.
One suggested approach to the provision of indoor facilities in the area would be to locate them in association with schools and
playing fields. There seems to be support for a neighbourhood "walk to, bike to" type of development. To many people a model
facility would include a full sized gymnasium complete with spectator space and plenty of storage. The gym could be programmed for
community groups throughout the day as well as evenings and weekends. Another suggestion was to include office space for
community groups and minor sport providing a permanent home for these organizations.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 113
There were several suggestions for outdoor facilities including a skateboard park and a 60-acre mixed-use park closer to the Sackville
area.
Bedford/Hammonds Plains - Basinview School, November 26/03
Suggestions and concerns included issues such as the impact of the proposed 3-rink project on user fees, the need to provide accessible
community centres close to home and the barriers to accessing gymnasium time in P3 schools.
Specifically, concern was expressed that should the 3 rink project come on stream, HRM would close existing arenas forcing users to
rent time from the private sector. It is anticipated that the private sector will charge considerably more for ice time than the
municipality and that the cost to participate in ice sports will increase. Similar concerns were expressed related to the cost of renting
gym time in the P3 school in the area. The school charges $50 per hour and requires a minimum 4-hour booking. Users also suggested
that they don't feel particularly welcome at the P3 schools.
Residents also noted that existing community facilities such as church halls are aging. They suggest that HRM be aware of this and
take it into account when developing long-term strategies for recreation facility provision.
While it is recognized that most people would prefer to have their recreation facilities close to home, travel time of 20 to 30 minutes to
access sport or program specific venues is acceptable.
Growing sports in the area include basketball and soccer both of which need improved access to indoor facilities. It is anticipated that
the new Kingswood school will alleviate some of this demand.
Spryfield/East Chebucto - Captain William Spry Community Centre, November 27/03
A number of recreation issues are of concern in the area. These include access for all - in particular, access for those families who may
described as the "working poor", the distance that area residents must travel to access recreation opportunities, the lack of public
transit to facilitate that travel, and what some perceive to be a lack of investment in recreation infrastructure in Mainland south.
Existing facilities in the area include the CWSCC, the Lion's Arena and the Chocolate Lake Recreation Centre as well school
gymnasiums and church halls.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 114
The Sambro area has neither a school gym nor a community centre and is relatively far away from recreation facilities that serve this
area of HRM.
Some at the meeting suggest that HRM take a holistic approach to the delivery of recreation services, promote the educational and
social value of participation and keep access fees to a minimum.
Area residents noted that although there are a number of church halls, fire halls and other meeting spaces in the area, access is often
inconsistent, with the needs of the host venues taking priority over community groups who rent these facilities.
Existing facilities such as the Spryfield Lions Arena are in need of upgrades and there is some doubt that the Lion's Club can afford
the cost of these improvements. There is also some concern related to the role of the Captain William Spry Community Centre in the
recreation delivery system. Some believe that the facility should focus more of its time and resources on the delivery or facilitation of
recreation programs and less on other services as now appears to be the case.
The subject of access to school gymnasium facilities is also a concern in the Spryfield area. One suggestion is that in future a different
approach be taken to school gym provision. Rather than a "gyms in schools", the approach should be "gyms ON schools". The nuance
being that the public should not have to rely on the school system for access during non school hours because the design of the school
locates the gym on the interior of the building. In the "Gyms ON schools" approach, the gym would be added to the school building
and accessed from a public access point on one side and a school access on the other. Use would be shared.
Gaps in recreation facilities and services in the area include, the lack of a multipurpose community centre or even a school gymnasium
to serve the Sambro area, programs for older adults, an indoor facility for lacrosse, improved leadership development, transportation in
those areas without public transit and making all recreation venues accessible to persons with disabilities.
Distance and travel time to access recreation opportunities was also discussed. Generally it was felt that facilities should be available
within 20 to 30 minutes of home. It was noted that for specific needs a 30-minute drive was not extraordinary. For example, although
the Spy centre has a swimming pool that is well suited to many aquatic activities, others, such as the Sackville Sports Stadium pool
provide specific facilities and services for persons with particular types of disabilities. In that case a 30-minute drive is considered
acceptable. In the case of Sambro, the community lies within a 20 to 30 minute drive of a larger area that has no indoor recreation
facilities and should be considered as a possible site for a small multi-purpose recreation centre.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 115
Peninsula Halifax – Needham Centre, December 1/03
Meeting participants describe the area as a mixed income community that is close to the core of the former City of Halifax. The
recreation infrastructure is aging and in the case of both the Devonshire Arena and the Needham Community Centre, in need of capital
improvements in the near future.
Some concerns of area residents include a lack of services for youth who are not interested in organized sport, improved services for
older adults and the cost to access recreation services.
Specifically, parents and youth at the meeting indicated a need for an indoor facility that could house skateboarding, bikes and perhaps
a climbing wall. One vision is a youth centre that accommodated these activities as well provision for music and local bands. Teens in
attendance saw the facility as a converted arena or perhaps something about half that size. Teens and parents suggested that access
fees of $5 per visit or a monthly fee in the order of $35 would be acceptable for such a facility. They noted that two private sector
facilities that were providing some of these services had closed due to their inability to meet current building and fire safety
regulations.
Although the Needham Centre is an older facility, it is valued by area residents and is seen as the major focal point for indoor
recreation services in the area. Over the longer term, renovation and expansion of Needham on the existing site as highly desirable. On
the short term, the availability of resources to maintain the building are important.
HRM staff at the meeting indicated that user fees should not be a barrier to participation. They note that they have unwritten access
and opportunity provisions within the existing system and that no resident is turned away because they cannot afford to register for
programs. There was some consideration given to encouraging HRM to create a more formal set of written guidelines regarding this
issue.
Other needs in the community include fitness and social activities for older adults. Some participants noted that the current crop of
"seniors" are a more active group than their predecessors and that more challenging and activity based programs would be required in
the future.
There was a suggestion that somehow a more comprehensive catalogue of recreation activities and opportunities be developed for the
public. The best vehicle for information sharing is not clear, but the goal would be to have all services regardless of which agency or
group were providing them to be accessible in one location or in one publication.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 116
Dartmouth North - Dartmouth North Community Centre, December 3/03
Much of the discussion focused on the cost of participating in recreation programs and the cost to rent facilities. Both individuals and
group representatives indicated that fees and charges are a barrier to participation in Dartmouth North.
At an individual level it was noted that a children's admission to recreational swimming at the Dartmouth Sportsplex, the closest
public swimming pool, is about $5.00. Bus fare to the facility is $1.50 each way. Total $7.50 per child. To ride the water slides is an
additional $2.00 for youth. For many families in this area of HRM, access fees at this level represent a very real barrier to
participation.
Others at the meeting indicated that community groups who sponsor or organize recreation activities including youth programs are
spending a great deal fund raising to pay facility rental fees or purchase equipment. They feel that their time would be better spent
actually working on the programs.
Youth who attended the meeting indicated that joining organized sport teams such as hockey or soccer is expensive. Adults noted that
the cost to access fitness facilities is also a challenge for many people.
There are recreation facilities in the Dartmouth North area suitable for active recreation programs. The John Martin School has a
gymnasium, the Dartmouth North Community Centre has a multipurpose room and the Northbrook Elementary School has a small
gym. Area residents are concerned about making the best use of these resources to meet the needs of the community. Many felt that
rental fees and program costs are the most significant barrier to the delivery of needed programs.
Passive recreation opportunities are also of interest in this area and in particular opportunities for youth. There was a Youth Centre
that served the area however it has closed. Two suggestions that arose were converting the Dartmouth North Fire Hall into a Youth
Centre when it becomes surplus to the needs of the Fire Department or organizing after school drop in programs in the school gyms.
One youngster suggested that a free pass to the after school drop in program be awarded to those students who do their homework
assignments.
To many at the meeting it appears that there is an imbalance between HRM's capital program for recreation facilities and the funding
provided for program delivery. They feel that it is not enough for HRM to provide facilities. The municipality must ensure that the
facilities are programmed to meet the needs of the community and that fees and charges are not a barrier to participation.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 117
Beechside/Lakeview/Timberlea – Ridgeview Middle School, December 8/03
The Beechside/Lakeview/Timberlea area is relatively close to a number of major recreation facilities. Most residents are within a 15 to
20 minute drive to the Northcliffe Recreation Centre, 25 minutes to Centennial Pool and 20 minutes to the St. Margaret's Community
Centre. BLT Community Centre also serves the area.
Participants in the meeting agreed that traveling 15 to 20 minutes by car to reach a major recreation facility is reasonable. They did
note, however, that they would like to have more meeting spaces close to home as the BLT Community Centre is operating at
capacity. One proposed solution would be to move some of the provincial services currently housed at BLTCC to another location.
Another proposed solution would be to build a new community centre with meeting spaces, a small library, classrooms and a
gymnasium. A gymnasium is required because community groups find renting the gymnasium in the new P3 school very expensive.
Rental rates are quoted as $225 for a 3 hr. minimum booking on week day evenings.
Participants noted that such a centre would encourage and support a sense of community. A good location for a new community centre
would be somewhere in the vicinity of Exit 3 on the number 103 highway. In the long-term, some participants felt that the centre
could be expanded to include an indoor pool and an arena.
Dartmouth/Cherry Brook - Graham Creighton School, December 10/04
The tone of the meeting may best be described as one of frustration. The small group of participants noted that although the need for a
community centre in the area has been well documented and that a number of planning studies have been done in the area, they are
still without a community centre. They also believe that HRM contributed capital when the Graham Creighton School was built to
provide a better gymnasium and include a community room, however the resulting facility is not meeting their needs.
Those in attendance noted that space in the church hall is booked to capacity and the community hall that was built as part of the
Graham Creighton School is too small for many activities. They also noted that access to the gym at the school is expensive
particularly on week ends when the rental fee is $35.00 per hour with a 4 hour minimum booking Community groups must also
provide insurance when using school facilities and this is an added burden.
To a large extent those who attended the meeting feel that the lack of a community centre detracts from a sense of community, that
they must go out of the area to find suitable meeting and activity spaces, and as a result, financial resources that would be better spent
in the immediate area are being spent elsewhere. They note that the Cherry Brook area is a long established community with a deep
sense of community and that a recreation centre would foster growth and encourage younger people to stay in the area.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 118
Specifically the group suggested that they need a community centre that would accommodate after school programs and tutoring,
banquets, weddings, arts and crafts, programs for seniors, wellness and fitness programs as well as church programs and perhaps a day
care. They noted that there is an old school in the area and its site would be a good location for a community centre.
Halifax - Queen Elizabeth High School, December 11/04
A small group met at Queen Elizabeth High School to discuss the need for indoor recreation facilities in the urban core of HRM.
Several people representing a group that is promoting the establishment of skateboard facilities were present as well an executive
member of a Master's Swimming program and a member of the public who would like to see a Cole Harbour Place type facility in the
city centre.
The skateboard group suggests that their sport is growing and is particularly popular among people who chose not to participate in
organized sport. This lack of a formal structure is an inherent part of the sport but is also a detriment to gaining a voice when it comes
to lobbying for public funds for skateboard facilities.
The group would like to see an indoor facility somewhere on a public transit route in the city. They believe that people would be
willing to travel to a central location and pay user fees in the range of $5.00 per visit or $40.00 per month. They noted that should
HRM choose to close an existing arena, such a building would be an ideal site for an indoor skateboard facility.
A representative of the Master's Swim Club that operates out of the Centennial Pool indicated that the Master's programs throughout
HRM are booked to capacity and that there is a shortage of pool time available for training. The representative was provide with the
contact information for the Needham Community Centre as there is likely time available for rent at the Needham Pool.
It was also noted that over the long-term, Centennial Pool will reach the end of it's life expectancy and will require a major upgrade or
replacement.
Dartmouth East - Prince Andrew High School, January 14/04
Residents of this area of HRM have reasonable access to Cole Harbour Place, Shearwater and a number of meeting spaces in
churches, the canoe clubs, and a community college. There are arena facilities in the area however they tend to be run down. What
they do not have is a local community centre. As with other neighbourhoods in HRM, many participants in this meeting felt that a
local recreation centre would provide a focal point for their community.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 119
Participants noted that this area is not of a homogeneous demographic character. It is a mix of middle, upper middle and lower income
families, of younger families, and mature adults. This mixed neighbourhood character suggests that while some can afford to travel to
facilities outside of the immediate area and pay user fees or membership fees at the rates common in the major facilities, others
cannot. In this context it was noted that the trend in facility development within HRM seems to be that areas that can raise "seed
money" for new facilities are the ones where new facilities get built. Less affluent areas that cannot raise a million dollars or more are
getting left out when it comes to recreation facility development.
Many of those attending the meeting felt that a community centre that offered meeting/activity spaces for groups such as Guides,
Cubs, seniors and other community groups should be provided. The centre would include small meeting rooms for groups of 10 to 20
people and a larger community space suitable for social events in the 80 to 100-person range. A good location for such a facility
would be in the area of Prince Andrew High School.
On a larger scale there were suggestions that included an indoor soccer facility and indoor pool. There was also a suggestion that a
Teen Drop In Centre be considered for the area. In this context it was noted that there is a fire hall in the area that may become
available in the next five years.
There were several suggestions related to programs or improvements in program delivery that are needed in the area These included
nutrition programs for young mothers, provision of mini basketball equipment, a review of gymnasium scheduling policy which has
adults tying up the early evening hours that are better suited to children's programming because "they had those hours last year" and a
schedule of user fees that subsidizes children's activities.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 120
Appendix H: Halifax Regional Municipality Meetings with Councillors
Regional Councillors
Regional Councillors were briefed on the results of the public meetings in a series of six meetings conducted between January 28 and
February 9, 2004,
As key stakeholders, it was important to have an opportunity to share information and comments with these elected decision makers.
The Steering Committee wanted to discuss the following key issues, and ask for advice/comments/ideas regarding both the issues
presented and any other items that the councilors felt were relevant to the IRF Master Plan.
Key Issues Discussed:
1) Lack of access to school gymnasiums by general public
2) Concerns regarding lack of support for existing facilities
3) Concerns regarding user fees and the barriers they create to participation
4) Existing capital funding strategies and concerns regarding the need for additional capital commitment from HRM for
recapitalization and new facility development
Meeting #1 January 28, 2004
In attendance: Deputy Mayor Streatch, Councillors Hendsbee, Snow
Councillors Comments:
• Create an additional ice surface and storefront library with fitness centre and community rooms
• Gymnasiums need to be accessible by the community
• Deed transfer tax may be an avenue to pursue for additional funding – we should max this out
• We should be doing land banking for development of future recreation facilities
• What is the definition of a regional facility
• We need to harmonize the area rates in the fall river area
• HRM needs to have a long term capital funding strategy for the development and recapitalization of facilities
• There should be a capital reserve account for facilities
• Recreation is rated as very important, not necessarily by the councilors as individuals, but by the constituents
• There is a demand on outdoor facilities
• We should be taking over the management of the school facilities
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 121
Meeting #2 January 26, 2004
In attendance: Councillors Meade and Rankin
Councillors Comments:
• Discussion regarding the Prospect area request. There isn’t the population for an area rate to build a multi-use facility in this
area.
• North Preston facility is a model to propose to the community
• 6800 population fro Goodwood to Peggy’s Cove
• We need an overall plan for facility development so that there aren’t debates at council
• Request for staff to rationalize a decision making process
• Project is recreation and sport…not culture
• With limited funds, the money ought to go to facilities that are regional i.e. skateboard park, swimming, etc
• The political reality is that the citizens have to travel. You might have a tot-lot in your area, but have to travel for more
facilities
• As churches and schools close, there is more of a need placed on the municipality to provide meeting and community spaces
just as a simple result of less square footage available as inventory at the community level for these types of activities.
• Providing equitable access to services is in the common good
• It is time HRM stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for building facilities
• Area rates and community fund raising – no equity if the population base is small
• Projects are funded through the sale of land account, but we are not generating a lot of extra dollars to meet the needs
• Council needs to be challenged to find the necessary dollars
Meeting #3 January 29, 2004
In attendance: Councillors Harvey, Goucher, Johns
Councillors Comments:
• Rocky Lake Tri-pad will happen, and then there will be a development of an indoor facility for soccer and basketball
• Basketball needs a place to play
• Basketball pays $75-80k per year currently for gym time
• There has been $500K fundraised to date for this project, which will be starting this year.
• After it is constructed it will be turned over to the HRM – turnkey.
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 122
• Before we build more, we need to manage our existing
• The regional facilities should be treated differently
• Deed transfer tax is a possible funding source
• Set regional priorities based on council approval
Meeting #4 February 2, 2004
In attendance: Councillors Walker, Hum, Mosher
Councillors Comments:
• People from Fleming Heights go to East Preston to play basketball
• School usage is a huge issue
• We need to have better access to the schools. This would be a better strategy rather than building our own community centres
• There needs to be a mechanism in place to address the concerns of the people we haven’t heard of
• We need to make available the operating and capital dollars to make these things happen
• The price of programming is good at the Chocolate Lake Recreation Centre.
• There is a social problem re financial barriers to equitable access. This issue needs to be highlighted
• Fairview/Clayton Park needs a recreation / Youth Centre for the teens. This has been asked for by the community, and needs
to be addressed.
• There is a requirement for sustained – consistent funding
• There needs to be an addition done on the centennial arena for meeting rooms – need this for skating schools, videos, etc. It
could also be used as a drop in centre during the down time.
• East Coast Boxing – perfect for a drop in
• Need an outdoor skate park at Cpt. William Spry at JL High School and the principal wants funding to create it
• We need change rooms for artificial turf fields
• We need an outdoor skate park at Fairview Jr High between the school and the tennis courts
• The soccer community tells us they want additional indoor facilities and these could be combined with lacrosse
• The Spryfield arena needs a lot of work. We should be taking care of this
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 123
Meeting #5 February 5, 2004
In attendance: Councillors Heatherington, Cooper, Cunningham, Smith
Councillors Comments:
• There has been discussion regarding the construction of a community centre adjacent to the community college
• There has been some discussion regarding the development of a youth centre at the Mt Hope fire station when it closes
• School usage is a huge issue – we should be working to resolve this
• Tallahassee – HRM pays a portion annually toward the operating costs. This is a cost avoidance exercise
• South Woodside – look at this facility. There should be gym and community access on the outside of the facility
• Lakeloon – Cherry Brook – the school location has been rejected…the catchment area is 300 +/-
• What is the future status of the NS Hospital surplus buildings are there any discussions underway with the Province
• The report should be submitted to EMT, then to council with a detailed plan for funding for the first 1 – 5 years.
• Suggestion to have the funding represents a 3-year plus 3 additional years (for a total of 6 years.)
Meeting #6 February 9, 2004
In attendance: Councillor Fougere
Councillors Comments:
• Gymnasium time and access is at a premium
• Basketball, floor hockey, and volleyball in particular seem to be popular recreational activities for all age groups
• There will be a fairly serious space problem if the Bloomfield gym is closed, because there are space issues currently. That
will only make the problem worse.
• The universities play a key role in providing services in the Halifax area for residents. They have great facilities and are very
open to citizens using them regularly
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 124
REAL PROPERTY and ASSET MANAGEMENT
PROJECT CHARTER
1.0 Project Identification
Project Name
Description
Project Sponsor
Project Delivery
Project Team
Resources
2.0 BUSINESS REASONS FOR PROJECT
The business reasons for the project include:
•
3.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES (PURPOSE)
The objectives of the project are to:
•
4.0 PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of the project includes:
•
Appendix I: Project Charter
5.0 KEY PROJECT DELIVERABLES
The key deliverables for this project included:
• an outline implementation plan. This plan will be phased if necessary.
6.0 MILESTONE DATES
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 125
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Event/Milestone
Charter Signed
Date Due
7.0 Key Issues
Severity
Description
Severity: High, Medium, Low
8.0 RISKS
Severity
Description
Severity: High, Medium, Low
10.0 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been made in documenting this charter:
•
11.0 PROJECT’S CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS (MUST BE MEASURABLE)
This project will be successful with:
•
12.0 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
The following factors will help the project along the way:
•
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 126
• Identification of funding source
•
13.0 SIGN OFF
Project Sponsor:
Date:
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

IRF Master Plan 127
Appendix J: Drive Time Maps for Multi-District/Multi-Use Facilities
a. Sackville Sports Stadium
b. Dartmouth Sportsplex
c. Cole Harbour Place
d. Proposed Mainland Common Recreation Centre
F:/docs/reports/IRF Questionnaire Summary

ENFIELD
WYSES CORNER
MEAGHERS GRANT
OAKFIELD
OLDHAM
WELLINGTON
GRAND LAKE
BEAVER BANK
KINSAC
FLETCHERS LAKE
GOFFS
DEVON
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
FALL RIVER
SALMON RIVER BRIDGE
SACKVILLE
WINDSOR JUNCTION
PORTERS LAKE
CONROD SETTLEMENT
GAETZ BROOK
SMITHS SETTLEMENT
HEAD OF JEDDORE
MYERS POINT
LAKEVIEW
WAVERLEY
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
ENGLISH POINT
LUCASVILLE
NORTH PRESTON
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
WEST PETPESWICK
EAST PRESTON
OSTREA LAKE
HAMMONDS PLAINS
BEDFORD
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
LAKE ECHO
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
EAST PETPESWICK
WEST JEDDORE
LAKE MAJOR
INGRAMPORT
UPPER TANTALLON
HEAD OF ST MARGARETS BAY
STILLWATER LAKE
LEWIS LAKE
Bedford
Basin
DARTMOUTH
WESTPHAL
MINESVILLE
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
WEST PORTERS LAKE
GRAND DESERT
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
PLEASANT POINT
BOUTILIERS POINT
BLACK POINT
TANTALLON
TIMBERLEA
COLE HARBOUR
LAWRENCETOWN
SEAFORTH
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
SEABRIGHT
HACKETTS COVE
INDIAN HARBOUR
GLEN HAVEN
FRENCH VILLAGE
GLEN MARGARET
WEST DOVER
BIG LAKE
HUBLEY
BLIND BAY
MCGRATHS COVE
PEGGYS COVE PRESERVATION AREA
SHAD BAY
BAYSIDE
PROSPECT BAY
WHITES LAKE
LAKESIDE
BROOKSIDE
BEECHVILLE
HATCHET LAKE
GOODWOOD
HARRIETSFIELD
HALIFAX
WILLIAMSWOOD
FERGUSONS COVE
HERRING COVE
HALIBUT BAY
BEAR COVE
SHEARWATER
MCNABS ISLAND
Halifax
Harbour
PORTUGUESE COVE
DUNCANS COVE
EASTERN PASSAGE
DEVILS ISLAND
COW BAY
Atlantic Ocean
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
HRM Multi-District
Recreation Facilities
Coverage Area - Travel Times
Sackville Sports Stadium
Coverage areas were determined using an
average vehicle travel speed of 50 km/hr.
0 1 2 4
Mainland Common
Sackville Sports Stadium
Dartmouth Sportsplex
Cole Harbour Place
Sackville Sports Stadium 20 min.
Sackville Sports Stadium 30 min.
PEGGYS COVE
EAST DOVER
PROSPECT
TERENCE BAY
SAMBRO HEAD
KETCH HARBOUR
SAMBRO
Kilometers
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.05.06.05 Printed April 2004
EAST PENNANT
BALD ROCK

ENFIELD
WYSES CORNER
MEAGHERS GRANT
OAKFIELD
OLDHAM
WELLINGTON
GRAND LAKE
BEAVER BANK
KINSAC
FLETCHERS LAKE
GOFFS
DEVON
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
FALL RIVER
SALMON RIVER BRIDGE
SACKVILLE
WINDSOR JUNCTION
PORTERS LAKE
CONROD SETTLEMENT
GAETZ BROOK
SMITHS SETTLEMENT
HEAD OF JEDDORE
MYERS POINT
LAKEVIEW
WAVERLEY
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
ENGLISH POINT
LUCASVILLE
NORTH PRESTON
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
WEST PETPESWICK
EAST PRESTON
OSTREA LAKE
HAMMONDS PLAINS
BEDFORD
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
LAKE ECHO
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
EAST PETPESWICK
WEST JEDDORE
LAKE MAJOR
INGRAMPORT
HEAD OF ST MARGARETS BAY
UPPER TANTALLON
STILLWATER LAKE
LEWIS LAKE
Bedford
Basin
DARTMOUTH
WESTPHAL
MINESVILLE
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
WEST PORTERS LAKE
GRAND DESERT
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
PLEASANT POINT
BOUTILIERS POINT
BLACK POINT
TANTALLON
TIMBERLEA
COLE HARBOUR
LAWRENCETOWN
SEAFORTH
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
SEABRIGHT
HACKETTS COVE
INDIAN HARBOUR
GLEN HAVEN
FRENCH VILLAGE
GLEN MARGARET
WEST DOVER
BIG LAKE
HUBLEY
BLIND BAY
MCGRATHS COVE
PEGGYS COVE PRESERVATION AREA
SHAD BAY
BAYSIDE
PROSPECT BAY
WHITES LAKE
LAKESIDE
BROOKSIDE
BEECHVILLE
HATCHET LAKE
GOODWOOD
HARRIETSFIELD
HALIFAX
WILLIAMSWOOD
FERGUSONS COVE
HERRING COVE
HALIBUT BAY
BEAR COVE
SHEARWATER
MCNABS ISLAND
Halifax
Harbour
PORTUGUESE COVE
DUNCANS COVE
EASTERN PASSAGE
DEVILS ISLAND
COW BAY
Atlantic Ocean
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
HRM Multi-District
Recreation Facilities
Coverage Area - Travel Times
Dartmouth Sportsplex
Coverage areas were determined using an
average vehicle travel speed of 50 km/hr.
0 1 2 4
Mainland Common
Sackville Sports Stadium
Dartmouth Sportsplex
Cole Harbour Place
Dartmouth Sportsplex 20 min.
Dartmouth Sportsplex 30 min.
PEGGYS COVE
EAST DOVER
PROSPECT
TERENCE BAY
SAMBRO HEAD
KETCH HARBOUR
SAMBRO
Kilometers
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.05.06.05 Printed April 2004
EAST PENNANT
BALD ROCK

ENFIELD
WYSES CORNER
MEAGHERS GRANT
OAKFIELD
OLDHAM
WELLINGTON
GRAND LAKE
BEAVER BANK
KINSAC
FLETCHERS LAKE
GOFFS
DEVON
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
FALL RIVER
SALMON RIVER BRIDGE
SACKVILLE
WINDSOR JUNCTION
PORTERS LAKE
CONROD SETTLEMENT
GAETZ BROOK
SMITHS SETTLEMENT
HEAD OF JEDDORE
MYERS POINT
LAKEVIEW
WAVERLEY
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
ENGLISH POINT
LUCASVILLE
NORTH PRESTON
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
WEST PETPESWICK
EAST PRESTON
OSTREA LAKE
HAMMONDS PLAINS
BEDFORD
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
LAKE ECHO
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
EAST PETPESWICK
WEST JEDDORE
LAKE MAJOR
INGRAMPORT
UPPER TANTALLON
HEAD OF ST MARGARETS BAY
STILLWATER LAKE
LEWIS LAKE
Bedford
Basin
DARTMOUTH
WESTPHAL
MINESVILLE
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
WEST PORTERS LAKE
GRAND DESERT
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
PLEASANT POINT
BOUTILIERS POINT
BLACK POINT
TANTALLON
TIMBERLEA
COLE HARBOUR
LAWRENCETOWN
SEAFORTH
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
SEABRIGHT
HACKETTS COVE
INDIAN HARBOUR
GLEN HAVEN
FRENCH VILLAGE
GLEN MARGARET
WEST DOVER
BIG LAKE
HUBLEY
BLIND BAY
MCGRATHS COVE
PEGGYS COVE PRESERVATION AREA
SHAD BAY
BAYSIDE
PROSPECT BAY
WHITES LAKE
LAKESIDE
BROOKSIDE
BEECHVILLE
HATCHET LAKE
GOODWOOD
HARRIETSFIELD
HALIFAX
WILLIAMSWOOD
FERGUSONS COVE
HERRING COVE
HALIBUT BAY
BEAR COVE
SHEARWATER
MCNABS ISLAND
Halifax
Harbour
PORTUGUESE COVE
DUNCANS COVE
EASTERN PASSAGE
DEVILS ISLAND
COW BAY
Atlantic Ocean
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
HRM Multi-District
Recreation Facilities
Coverage Area - Travel Times
Cole Harbour Place
Coverage areas were determined using an
average vehicle travel speed of 50 km/hr.
0 1 2 4
Mainland Common
Sackville Sports Stadium
Dartmouth Sportsplex
Cole Harbour Place
Cole Harbour Place 20 min.
Cole Harbour Place 30 min.
PEGGYS COVE
EAST DOVER
PROSPECT
TERENCE BAY
SAMBRO HEAD
KETCH HARBOUR
SAMBRO
Kilometers
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.05.06.05 Printed April 2004
EAST PENNANT
BALD ROCK

ENFIELD
WYSES CORNER
MEAGHERS GRANT
OAKFIELD
OLDHAM
WELLINGTON
GRAND LAKE
BEAVER BANK
KINSAC
FLETCHERS LAKE
GOFFS
DEVON
MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR
FALL RIVER
SALMON RIVER BRIDGE
SACKVILLE
WINDSOR JUNCTION
PORTERS LAKE
CONROD SETTLEMENT
GAETZ BROOK
SMITHS SETTLEMENT
HEAD OF JEDDORE
MYERS POINT
LAKEVIEW
WAVERLEY
HARTLIN SETTLEMENT
ENGLISH POINT
LUCASVILLE
NORTH PRESTON
HEAD OF CHEZZETCOOK
WEST PETPESWICK
EAST PRESTON
OSTREA LAKE
HAMMONDS PLAINS
BEDFORD
MONTAGUE GOLD MINES
LAKE ECHO
WEST CHEZZETCOOK
EAST PETPESWICK
WEST JEDDORE
LAKE MAJOR
INGRAMPORT
HEAD OF ST MARGARETS BAY
UPPER TANTALLON
STILLWATER LAKE
LEWIS LAKE
Bedford
Basin
DARTMOUTH
WESTPHAL
MINESVILLE
MIDDLE PORTERS LAKE
WEST PORTERS LAKE
GRAND DESERT
EAST CHEZZETCOOK
PLEASANT POINT
BOUTILIERS POINT
BLACK POINT
TANTALLON
TIMBERLEA
COLE HARBOUR
LAWRENCETOWN
SEAFORTH
EAST LAWRENCETOWN
THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
SEABRIGHT
HACKETTS COVE
INDIAN HARBOUR
GLEN HAVEN
FRENCH VILLAGE
GLEN MARGARET
WEST DOVER
BIG LAKE
HUBLEY
BLIND BAY
MCGRATHS COVE
PEGGYS COVE PRESERVATION AREA
SHAD BAY
BAYSIDE
PROSPECT BAY
WHITES LAKE
LAKESIDE
BROOKSIDE
BEECHVILLE
HATCHET LAKE
GOODWOOD
HARRIETSFIELD
HALIFAX
WILLIAMSWOOD
FERGUSONS COVE
HERRING COVE
HALIBUT BAY
BEAR COVE
SHEARWATER
MCNABS ISLAND
Halifax
Harbour
PORTUGUESE COVE
DUNCANS COVE
EASTERN PASSAGE
DEVILS ISLAND
COW BAY
Atlantic Ocean
LOWER THREE FATHOM HARBOUR
HRM Multi-District
Recreation Facilities
Coverage Area - Travel Times
Mainland Common
Coverage areas were determined using an
average vehicle travel speed of 50 km/hr.
0 1 2 4
Mainland Common
Sackville Sports Stadium
Dartmouth Sportsplex
Cole Harbour Place
Mainland Common 20 min.
Mainland Common 30 min.
PEGGYS COVE
EAST DOVER
PROSPECT
TERENCE BAY
SAMBRO HEAD
KETCH HARBOUR
SAMBRO
Kilometers
HRM does not warranty any information shown on this plan.
#04.05.06.05 Printed April 2004
EAST PENNANT
BALD ROCK