Mar 26, 2004 I forgot to include my Table 1. It is now added to the bottom of this page.

My letter to the Mayor and council:

To the Mayor and Council    John R. Meale
City Hall, Belleville    49 North Park Gardens
    Belleville, Ontario    
    Mar 18, 2004

SUBJECT: RELOCATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION OFFICES

I have been quite disturbed that the city would even contemplate spending well in excess of $1 million for new offices to accomodate only 12 Parks and Recreation department staff at the Quinte Sports Centre. I was surprised to learn that there had been a consultant's report completed in 2003 that recommended such a move ("City of Belleville Parks and Recreation Administration Office Location Review" prepared by the JF Group). I was quite appalled at the decision making process and the conclusion of this report. The former Corbyville location wasn't evaluated even though a comprehensive upgrade at that site would only cost about 25% as much. Director Doug Moses was very co-operative in providing a copy of the 2003 report and discussing the proposed modifications to the Sports Centre as presented at the February 2004 council meeting. Many of the features would certainly remedy some deficiencies of the centre and enhance the building. But these have little to do with providing administrative space for the Parks and Rec staff. The report does show that more than additional seats and boxes should be included in any plan to upgrade the QSC.
    The site evaluation process in the 2003 report seems so seriously flawed that I felt I must write a dissenting view. I hope my attached report may be useful if only to encourage the members of council to do their own critical review of the 2003 report.

John R. Meale
Belleville        

COMMENTS ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE LOCATION REVIEW March 2003 Final Report
 as prepared by the JF Group,  Monteith Planning Consultants and MacLennan Jaunkains Miller Architects
These comments prepared by John R. Meale March 18, 2004

General
    The report seems to confuse the functions of the department based on the current situation after amalgamation of the old city of Belleville and Thurlow Township. What does the Parks and Recreation department have to do with collecting taxes or selling dog tags? This satellite office approach was set up as a concession to the residents of the old Thurlow Township under amalgamation and Parks and Rec staff seem to have taken on these additional responsibilities. If the Parks and Rec offices are to be moved from Corbyville it appears this is no longer considered to be of primary importance. In fact if this new facility is to still be a rural satellite city office it is questionable whether any of the 4 locations included in the report fully meet that requirement; clearly none but the Quinte Sports Centre even come close. And if this is an important requirement then why isn't the existing Corbyville location also included in the study. The cost for upgrading the facility is much less than the cost of the Quinte Sports Centre alternative as presented.
    The study objective rightly points out that in evaluating the alternative sites particular attention should be paid to the cost implications. I would take this to indicate that cost considerations should be given more weighting than the other items given a 3 weighting. In my analysis I have assumed the cost factor to be 3 times as important as those other factors.
I recognize that the Quinte Cultural Centre is no longer an alternative. I have included it to show what I think the decision should have been in March 2003. It just further highlights the folly of the previous council in killing an exceptional opportunity for the city.
    The project as envisaged in the JF Group report is not just for new Parks and Recreation department administrative offices but in fact also includes a significant upgrade to the Quinte Sports Centre. I am not saying the latter is a bad thing but the cost should not be hidden from the public and it should be considered on its own merits. From a quick study of the plans and some discussion with Mr. Doug Moses I would say that the plans seem pretty good and would solve some real deficiencies of the Sports Centre. These deficiencies (I still find it hard to believe everyone funnels through that one single doorway to get to a Bulls hockey game) may have come about from the fact that the addition of the Wally Dever Arena was never anticipated at the time the Yardmen Arena was built or it may have been that financial constraints resulted in the two facilities not being that well integrated.
    The logic behind the selection and weighting of the selection criteria seem to be suspect just on the basis of the Parks and Rec administrative offices. But that is what the report indicates was the purpose of the study.
    In the following I will make some specific comments on the methodology and conclusions of the JF Group report which I think are seriously flawed.


Comments on the Site Evaluation Criteria as listed on pages 9 and 10 of the report:

Partnership Potential. The examples given to support the Quinte Sports Centre alternative are just that, they relate to the Sports Centre, not to the Parks and Rec office use proposed. This is a red herring if there ever was one. If you are using this reasoning then there would be at least equal opportunity for the QCC alternative although again the commercial opportunities would relate to the QCC not to the Parks and Rec offices. On the other hand it could be argued that the presence of the Parks and Rec offices plus rented spaces at the Corbyville site might entice a coffee shop or similar to lease space there if available.
Expansion Potential. The Quinte Sports Centre alternative will always win out here compared to downtown locations. But how big does the Parks and Rec Admin staff expect to become in future? Relieved of their satellite office duties their workload should be somewhat reduced. I would reduce the expansion weighting to 1.
Accessibility. If service to Ward 2 residents is the most important consideration the sports centre would only rate a B at best and the present site might be an A. But the primary function of the Parks and Rec department should be Parks and Recreation. The Sports Centre has good access by automobile but downtown locations allow foot traffic. The Sports Centre also might be the preferred site for signing up for programs that take place in the arenas there. But it seems that what the downtown alternatives lose to the sports centre on Ward 2 proximity and arena uses they make up for on Recreation department users proximity for other sports and recreation programs including the downtown arena. Altogether this item would be pretty much a wash. I would give all alternatives a B mark here.
Operating (Financial) Impact. I have trouble distinguishing this item from the Partnership Potential item. So my comments are similar. Any benefits accruing to "the development" would apply to the sports centre or the cultural centre; not to the parks and rec offices therein. If this item were retained then the cultural centre alternative would have to be given at least an equal mark. Here we seem to be indicating again that sports will always trump cultural and educational considerations.
Capital Cost. The study objective rightly points out that in evaluating the alternative sitesparticular attention should be paid to the cost implications. I would take this to indicate that cost considerations should be given more weighting than the other items given a 3 weighting.
I would suggest that cost should be given a weight factor at least 3 times greater than either partnership potential, expansion potential, accessibility or operating financial impact.
On this basis the cheapest alternative would get 27 points and the most expensive would get zero. To assign a cost to the Quinte Cultural Centre alternative I have used a  cost of $100 per square foot for the 3565 square feet requirement; i.e. $357,000. I assume as the report did that the cost for moving back to the Pinnacle Street Rec Centre would be almost nothing. And I have used the estimated refurbishment costs for the Corbyville site as included in the report; i.e. $361,000. I have used the $1,162,000 figure from the report for the Sports Centre alternative.
On this basis the sports centre alternative would have a weighted score of 0. The Cultural Centre and Corbyville sites would have a score of  19 and the downtown rec centre a score of 27. These are rounded off in the table in line with the ABC rating system used there.

Population Proximity. To give the sports centre alternative a score of 6 versus 2 for the QCC alternative is preposterous based on the reports definition "the convenience of the site to communities where patrons of the facility reside". Even over weighting for Ward 2 proximity would result in scores for all downtown locations at least equal to the sports centre alternative.
Visibility. Again one might get the impression that the table was intentionally skewed in favour of the sports centre. Or perhaps the consultants are confusing the visibility of the enhanced sports centre with parks and rec offices as part of that upgrade to the sports centre. I would argue that had the QCC with library been completed the visibility of that site would exceed that of the sports centre. But for sure if  the 259 North Park St site rates an A score, theQCC alternative would also.
Regulatory Constraints. No comment.
Public Support.  There appears not to have been any attempt to solicit public opinion. My guess would be no better than that of the consultants. I expect inclusion of the Corbyville site might bring out differences among those that want to retain the Ward 2 satellite office advantages of that site as compared to those just interested in access to Parks and Rec staff. Again ease of parking might draw differences in response from those who have automobiles and those that don't or prefer pedestrian  access while using downtown shops and services.
Compatibility. Although the definition is somewhat vague it seems that this is not a deciding factor.
Multi-use Possibility. Depending how you read this, it is either essentially a repeat of Partnership Potential and/or Expansion Potential or the scoring is completely wrong.
If this means potential Parks and Rec program enhancement the QCC with the library, performance and practice space, art galleries, auditorium etc would be superior to the other alternatives.
Customer Service Issues. If one is concerned about proximity to other municipal services and departments then proximity to City Hall would be the primary consideration. In this case the Pinnacle Rec Centre alternative should get the highest mark and the other sites somewhat less. Even if you allow extra weighting for proximity to the 2 ice surfaces at the Sports Centre, again it seems that the QCC alternative would receive at least an equal score based on proximity to the city hall and library.
Appropriateness Facility on Site. This seems to be a general rehash of several of the other criteria. In my opinion the QCC as it was planned would  outscore the other alternatives.

OTHER CRITERIA THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

In my view there are other considerations that should have been included:

Contribution to the revitalization of the downtown. It seems to be acknowledged that revitalization of the downtown is an important issue. In this case instead of moving more functions and people from the downtown an effort should be made to attract more people to the downtown. The City should lead the way in this. The way the Report is written ( as reflected in the "expansion potential" criterion) it seems to favour the relocation of more city staff and facilities to the Sports Centre site. This should not be done without some serious thought and planning as to the future of the city.

Preservation of Heritage Properties. Alas the Report completely neglects the importance of preserving heritage properties where possible. This may reflect the terms of reference given for the study and the lack of understanding of the importance of this not just from the heritage, historical, and architectural points of view but also from the economic point of view. This issue cannot be isolated from the overall economic importance of tourism and attraction of new business and industry. In this case the QCC and Corbyville sites would receive much higher marks.

Alternate Evaluation Table
Based on the above comments and including the Corbyville site in the evaluation I have prepared an alternate analysis table. I would welcome council's review of the table on page 11 of the JF Group and  the alternate table I have attached - Table 1.

Conclusions from Table 1.
The Quinte Cultural Centre would have been far and away the best alternative.
The Pinnacle Street Rec Centre seems to be the best present alternative. However if the Ward 2 presence is important, consideration should be given to upgrading the Corbyville site. I don't understand how the need to spend $361,000 for a complete upgrade of the Corbyville site justifies spending $1,162,282 at a different site.

My Recommendations:
The Mayor has rightly indicated the need for a comprehensive long-range plan for the city.
At this time I think the plans for the Parks and Recreation administrative offices should be put on hold. The temporary location of the offices at the Sports Centre seems adequate for a reasonable period of time. I also think the library plans should be put on hold. While the library situation seems to be much more desperate I think it should not proceed without a comprehensive downtown plan. The same might be said for the children's safety park proposed for the police station property if the police station is to move in only a few years.
The city is wasting a lot of money and has wasted a lot of opportunities by not planning properly.
I think we should suffer a little longer and get things right and put some money in the budget for some serious planning with real opportunity for public input.



TABLE1
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION - AN ALTERNATE POINT OF VIEW
INCLUDING THE CORBYVILLE SITE

            Alternate Site                                   Quinte Sports    Quinte Cultural    Recreation        259 North Park  Corbyville
                                                                          Centre                Centre                Centre                Street            Site
                  Selection Criteria           Weight   Score   points   Score   points   Score   points   Score   points   Score  points                                              
Capital Cost
 9
 D
 0
 B
 18
 A
 27
 C
 9
 B
 18
Partnership Potential
 3
 B
 6
 B
 6
 D
 0
 D
 0
 C
 3
Expansion Potential
1
 A
 3
 D
 0
 D
 0
 C
 1
 C
 1
Accessibility
 3
 B
 6
 B
 6
 B
 6
 B
 6
 B
 6
Operating Impact
 3
 A
 9
 A
 9
 C
 3
 C
 3
 C
 3
Population Proximity
 2
 A
 6
 A
 6
 A
 6
 B
 4
 B
 4
Visibility
 2
 A
 6
 A
 6
 B
 4
 B
 4
 B
 4
Public Support










Compatibility










Multi-use Possibility
 2
 B
 4
 A
 6
 C
 2
 B
 4
 C
 2
Customer Service
 2
 B
 4
 B
 4
 A
 6
 C
 2
 C
 2
Site Appropriateness










Downtown Revitalization *
 3
 D
 0
 A
 9
 B
 6
 D
 0
 D
 0
Heritage Preservation *
 3
 D
 0
 A
 9
 D
 0
 D
 0
 A
 9
Total

44
79
60
33
52
           Alternate Site                                   Quinte Sports    Quinte Cultural    Recreation        259 North Park  Corbyville
                                                                      Centre                Centre                Centre                Street                Site
NOTES: Scoring Guide same as used in JF Group report i.e.    A - Completely meets criteria = 3,
             B - Almost meets criteria = 2           C - Somewhat meets criteria =1,          D - Does not meet criteria = 0
Criteria same as in JF Group report except those with * were added : weightings and scoring are mine;
The most important difference is the change to Capital Cost weighting. I condsider cost to be 3 times as important as "Partnership Potential" and other fuzzy or dubious factors included in the report.
Additional Note: There was a small error in my table as sent to City Hall. A score of 4 was shown for the Corbyville Site for Partnership Potential - this should have been 3.

Return to Parks and Rec

Last Updated on Mar 26, 2004 by John R. Meale