PURCHASING SECTION 13450 – 104 Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T ... 2018-023 - Addendum No. 2.pdf · Q1....

PURCHASING SECTION

13450 – 104 Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T 1V8 Tel: 604-590-7274

E-mail: [email protected]

ADDENDUM No. 2

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No.: 1220-030-2018-023

TITLE: JOINT USE AGREEMENT REVIEW

ADDENDUM ISSUE DATE: MAY 29, 2018

CLOSING DATE AND TIME:

ON OR BEFORE THE FOLLOWING DATE AND TIME (THE “CLOSING TIME”):

TIME: 3:00 P.M. (LOCAL TIME) DATE: JUNE 07, 2018

INFORMATION FOR PROPONENT

Proponents are advised that Addendum No. 2 to RFP is hereby issued by the City / Owner. This addendum shall form part of the Contract Documents and is to be read, interpreted and coordinated with all other parts. The following information is provided to answer questions raised by Proponents for the above named project, to the extent referenced and shall become a part thereof. No consideration will be allowed for extras due to the Proponent or any sub-Proponent not being familiar with this addendum. This Addendum No. 2 contains one (78) pages in total. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q1. Will the City of Surrey's lawyer be available throughout the process to advice on any items that need to be considered legally?

A1. The City will make its legal services team available to guide and inform on the process

Q2. Will the District have their lawyer review the draft agreements and provide feedback or will it be only the City of Surrey’s legal team?

A2. The City and the District will make their legal departments available to provide feedback on the draft agreement

Q3. Are you able to make “The Surrey Joint Use of Facility Space Study Report” done by PERC in 2010 available for proponents to review prior to completing their proposal?

A3. The 2010 Joint Study is available as an attachment to the RFP.

All Addenda will become part of the Contract Documents.

mailto:[email protected]

SURREY

JOINT USE OF FACILITY SPACE STUDY FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER 20, 2010

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECREATION CONSULTANTS LTD.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to present the City of Surrey and School District #36 with the final version of the Surrey Joint Use of Space Study. The document has been prepared by Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Ltd. (PERC) with the assistance of City and School District administrators and staff.

The consultants would like to express appreciation to the organizations and individuals who provided input to the study, as well as to City and School District representatives who offered valuable suggestions related to possible improvements to the current use of school and community facilities.

We trust that the recommendations included in the report will be carefully considered by both parties, and lead to even greater cooperation in the delivery of services to Surrey residents. PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE

Murray Dinwoodie City Manager Mike McKay School District Superintendent Laurie Cavan General Manager – Parks, Recreation and Culture Lisa White Manager of Community and Recreation Services Pat Horstead School District, Assistant Superintendent Wayne Noye School District Secretary Treasurer Patti Dundas School District Assistant Secretary Treasurer PROJECT WORKING COMMITTEE

Lisa White Manager of Community and Recreation Services Tiina Mack Parks Planning, Research and Design Manager Kelsey Swanson Community Development Services Manager Angela Barth Leisure Services Manager – Newton Patti Dundas School District Secretary Treasurer

Liane Ricou School District Manager of Business Development Shairoz Merani District VP Agency Initiatives – Walnut Road Mike Gordon School District Principal – Martha Currie Bruce Filsinger School District Principal – Queen Elizabeth Pat Horstead School District, Assistant Superintendent

CONSULTANTS (PERC)

Don Hunter Senior Associate Monty Holding Senior Associate Erin Moore Associate Bill Webster Partner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. I 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Scope of the Work ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.3. Format of the Report .................................................................................................................... 2

1.4. Context for the Study .................................................................................................................... 3

2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Phases of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1. Phase 1: Start-up Meeting and Background Review .................................................................. 5

2.1.2. Phase Two: Gathering and Analyzing Deliverable Elements ..................................................... 5

2.1.3. Phase 3: Synthesis and Draft Report ........................................................................................... 6

2.1.4. Phase 4: Review and Final Report ............................................................................................... 6

2.2. Types of Research Employed in the Study .................................................................................. 6

3. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION & PROGRAMS, BEST PRACTICES .......................................... 8

3.1. Related Provincial Legislation ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2. Provincial Funding Programs ....................................................................................................... 8

3.2.1. School Community Connections .................................................................................................. 8

3.2.2. CommunityLINK ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3. Neighbourhood Learning Centres ................................................................................................ 9

3.3. Best Practices ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1. District of Saanich ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.3.2. Village of Port Clements and Haida Gwaii ................................................................................. 10

3.3.3. City of Coquitlam (Pinetree Community Centre) ........................................................................ 11

3.3.4. City of New York ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.5. Township of Langley (Langley Event Centre) ............................................................................ 13

3.3.6. City of Saskatoon ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.7. City of Portland (Oregon) SUN Schools ..................................................................................... 14

3.3.8. City of Tukwilla (Washington) Showalter Middle School ............................................................ 14

3.3.9. City of Burnaby / School District # 41......................................................................................... 14

3.3.10. Grande Prairie (Alberta) ............................................................................................................. 15

3.4. Lessons Learned from Best Practices ....................................................................................... 15

4. JOINT USE AGREEMENTS, POLICIES & OPPORTUNITIES ................................................ 18

4.1. Inventory of City and District Facilities ....................................................................................... 18

4.1.1. City Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.2. School District Facilities ............................................................................................................. 18

4.2. Current Agreements ................................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1. Master Joint Use Agreement ...................................................................................................... 19

4.2.2. Specific Indoor Joint Use Agreements ....................................................................................... 19

4.3. Joint Use Allocation Procedures and Practices ......................................................................... 20

4.3.1. Current Allocation Procedures for Community Use of Schools ................................................. 20

4.3.2. Challenges and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 21

4.4. School Use of City Facilities ....................................................................................................... 23

4.5. The Community Schools Partnership ........................................................................................ 24

4.5.1. Overview of the Strategy ............................................................................................................ 24


4.6. Early Childhood Partners ........................................................................................................... 26

4.6.1. Overview of the Initiative ............................................................................................................ 26


4.7. Other Joint Programs ................................................................................................................. 27

5. CAPITAL PLANS & JOINT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES .......................................... 28

5.1. Growth Areas in Surrey .............................................................................................................. 28

5.2. City and School District Capital Plans ........................................................................................ 29

5.2.1. City Capital Plans ....................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.2. School District Capital Plans ...................................................................................................... 29

5.3. Joint Development Opportunities ............................................................................................... 30

5.3.1. Forms of Collaboration ............................................................................................................... 30

5.3.2. Recommended Projects to Explore............................................................................................ 31

6. SUMMARY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 33

6.1. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 33

6.2. Implementation of the Recommendations ................................................................................. 33

6.3. Implementation of the Suggestions ............................................................................................ 36

6.4. Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................................................. 37

APPENDICES 1 Interviews Conducted for Study

2 Resource Material Reviewed

3 School Facility Booking Summary

- i -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Joint Use of Facility Space Study was to determine how the relationship between the City and the School District may be enhanced through more efficient and effective shared use of resources involved in the development of shared programs, services and facilities – both now and in the future. Building on a strong history of working collaboratively, the City and District are committed to providing the highest level of community use and benefit in a manner which results in the most effective use of taxpayer funding in Surrey.

As shown in Figure 1, the study examines what the current practices and policies are now, looks at how they can be enhanced, and then identifies a number of recommended directions for building capacity in the future.

The City and the District are both facing growing demands that are greater than the resources they have. Working together in key areas has the potential to extend their reach and impact in Surrey.

The Deliverables and Approach

The Study had the following six major deliverables:

• Provincial Legislation and Programs: A review of all applicable provincial enabling legislation and funding programs.

• Best Practices: A report on best practice models in the joint school/municipal sharing of facilities and programming in British Columbia, Canada and the United States.

• Facility Inventory: An inventory of all applicable City and School District facilities that can support joint use.

- ii -

• Agreements and Allocation Procedures: A review of existing joint use agreements between the District and City as well as current allocation policies, procedures, levels of joint use, and opportunities to increase shared use of facilities.

• Current Joint Programming: A review and evaluation of current joint programming including the Community-School Partnership (C-SP) strategy and other joint initiatives.

• Future Development Opportunities: An identification of opportunities and options for potential joint facility development in the future.

The full methodology is outlined in Section 2. The approach involved four basic stages:

• Phase 1 - Start-up Meeting and Background Review: This phase involved the review of background reports and studies (see Appendix B), the January 19 start-up meeting with the Project Steering Committee and Working Group, and scheduling interviews with the City, District and key stakeholder groups.

• Phase Two - Gathering and Analyzing Deliverable Elements: In this phase, the PERC team collected and analyzed information and data related to the key deliverables: including: a) provincial legislation and funding programs, b) facility inventory, c) best practices, d) joint-use and development agreements, e) joint allocation policies and procedures, f) collaborative programs, g) growth patterns and capital plans, and h) future capital development opportunities.

• Phase 3 - Synthesis and Draft Report: Starting with a consulting team synthesis meeting on February 19, a preliminary Report Card was prepared for the Steering Committee and Working Group. For each of the 6 deliverables, the Report Card provided a summary of the basic findings, challenges and issues, and draft recommendations in the key deliverable areas. After reviewing the Report Card findings, the consultants then prepared a Draft Report.

• Phase 4 - Review and Final Report: The Draft Report was reviewed by the Steering Committee on April 20. The input received at that meeting was used to prepare the Final Report.

Organization of the Report

The 7 sections of the report are organized as follows:

• Section 1. Introduction: Outlines the purpose, scope, format and context for the study. The fourth area describes a number of the contextual elements that contribute to the parties’ desire to work together.

• Section 2. Methodology: This section includes the description of the phases of the study, the types of research that were undertaken,

• Section 3. Provincial Legislation and Programs, Best Practices: The relevant forms of provincial legislations and funding programs are outlined. This section then provides a summary of best practice models in 10 other communities that provide valuable examples and lessons for Surrey.

• Section 4. Joint Use Agreements, Policies and Opportunities: This section focuses on the joint use and allocation of facilities, beginning with an overall inventory of District and City facilities available for joint use.

- iii -

The current agreements are described and commented on along with allocation procedures and policies. Some recommendations and suggestions for enhancements are made.

• Section 5. Program Development and Delivery: This section shifts to joint program development and delivery including the Community-Schools Partnership (C-SP), Early Childhood Partners, and other joint District/City programs.

• Section 6. Capital Plans and Joint Development Opportunities: This section initially looks at growth areas in Surrey that will impact future enrollment and demands for services, and then provides an overview of the current District and City capital plans. Some opportunities for joint planning and development of facilities is also provided.

• Section 7. Summary and Implementation of Recommendations: The final section focuses on the timing for implementing the various recommendations and suggestions made in the report, along with any staffing and fiscal implications.

Recommendations and Suggestions

The consultants have made a total of 9 Recommendations and 7 Suggestions within sections 4, 5 and 6. The “Recommendations” are actions which the consultants believe the City and the District should do. The “suggestions” are those actions that the City and the District should consider. While the consultants feel the suggestions are valuable, they are considered to be either simpler to implement or of somewhat less importance than the recommendations.

Section 4: Joint Use Agreements, Policies and Opportunities

• Recommendation #1: That the Operations Committee be re-established and meet at least twice a year to discuss core principles and practices, and address emerging issues and opportunities. (The Operations Committee will be responsible for implementing recommendations 1 through 5 and 7 through 9.)

• Recommendation #2: That the Operations Committee review specific Indoor Joint Use Agreements and Master Joint Use Agreements with the intent to renew as necessary, and to ensure that each partner is receiving full value.

• Recommendation #3: That the Central Booking unit and the Town Centre Managers hold a joint meeting prior to each booking season to review School District and City requests, and any issues or concerns with joint use procedures.

• Recommendation #4: In 2011, a weekend use pilot project for 2 schools will be implemented in identified areas of need, with the City bearing any program leadership and supervision costs.

• Recommendation #5: That the City develop an information strategy including materials, tours and meetings with principals to ensure that they are fully aware of opportunities to access City recreation and culture facilities and programs.

- iv -

• Suggestions

o It is suggested that the City and the District staff involved in the Princess Margaret agreement, and those involved in future site-specific agreements, meet at least twice annually to ensure that the agreements are understood by both parties and amendments are put forward if needed to provide greater clarity.

o It is suggested that if the City of Surrey provides funding for future joint development projects, and has priority access for designated hours for specific spaces; that the City should book the spaces for those hours with due consideration of the school’s requests.

o It is suggested that the District consider providing City of Surrey staff with similar supervisory and security rights as provided by Saanich School District #63.

Section 5: Program Development and Delivery

• Recommendation #6: That the District and the City develop a Memorandum of Understanding for the C-SP that may include the vision and mission, respective roles of the partners, funding contributions, lines of authority, and reporting relationships, as well as a process for review and revision as necessary.

• Suggestions

o It is suggested that new principals and Community and Recreation Services staff assigned to C-SP schools receive a full orientation to the community school concept and creating community partnerships, and that current C-SP school principals and CLS staff play a significant role in the orientation process.

o While the focus of services should be on children and families within the C-SP school area, it is suggested that greater flexibility on boundaries would allow more needy families to be served.

o It is suggested that the City and District staff meet to review and clarify the protocols for joint

distribution of materials. Section 6: Capital Plans and Joint Development Opportunities

• Recommendation #7: That opportunities be examined to develop community use in new or renovated schools, and that applications for funding support to the provincial Neighbourhood Learning Centres program be submitted.

• Recommendation # 8: That joint land acquisition be pursued for future school sites, with the City acquiring enough land for both a community park and an adjacent community facility at selected sites.

• Recommendation #9: That opportunities be reviewed for City funding and operating of new or renovated portables on school grounds, for the purpose of providing additional pre-school, family resource, and before and after school programs.

- v -

• Suggestion

o It is suggested that the Co-Leads of the C-SP review the opportunities for other Neighbourhood Learning Centres projects within C-SP schools or other schools in areas of high needs.

Implementation of the Report

Section 7 provides an outline of how the 9 recommendations and 7 suggestions may be implemented by the City and School District, including the steps, timing, and costs of implementation. The implementation outline is intended to serve as a guideline, rather than a prescription, for the two organizations as well as other partners that they work with.

- 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose of the Study

In January 2010, the City of Surrey and Surrey School District #36 retained the services of Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Ltd. (PERC) to undertake a Joint Use of Facility Space Study to determine how the relationship between the City and the School District may be enhanced through more efficient and effective sharing and development of joint programs, services and facilities – both now and in the future.

The City and District have a strong history of collaborative planning, facility development, programming and facility joint-use. These collaborative efforts have allowed the City and the District to better address community needs, and to contribute to educational experiences for students. The intent of the study is to build upon successes and recalibrate many of the common norms of community-school relationships.

The City and District are committed to providing the highest level of community use and benefit in a manner which results in the most effective use of taxpayer funding in Surrey. Within their respective core missions and values, the District and City wish to build community capacity, address neighbourhood needs, form strategic partnerships, and create additional joint-use initiatives and opportunities in ways that are sustainable.

The City and District are committed to providing the highest level of community use and benefit in a manner which results in the most effective use of taxpayer funding in Surrey.

The study examines what the current practices and policies are now, looks at how they can be enhanced, and then identifies a number of recommended directions for building capacity in the future.

The City and the District are both facing growing demands that are greater than the resources they have. Working together in key areas has the potential to extend their reach and impact in Surrey. A central theme of the study is examining how the City and District can maximize the use and impacts of their existing spaces, especially any that are currently underutilized, and that future spaces be planned to support both community and school use wherever possible.

- 2 -

1.2. Scope of the Work

The City and District identified a number of specific deliverables in order to achieve the purpose of the study. These were:

• Provincial Legislation and Programs: Conduct a review and evaluation of all applicable provincial enabling legislation, as well as any provincial funding programs for joint facility development.

• Best Practices: Research and provide a report on best practices in the joint school/municipal sharing of facilities and programming, based on a review of similar systems elsewhere in British Columbia, Canada and the United States.

• Facility Inventory: Develop an inventory and analysis of all applicable City and School District facilities that can support joint use.

• Current Joint Programming: Conduct a review and evaluation of current joint programming including the Community-School Partnership (C-SP) initiative, respective City and District joint use of facilities, and other joint initiatives.

• Agreements and Allocation Procedures: Review and evaluate existing joint use agreements between the District and City related to joint use and development of facilities, as well as current allocation policies and procedures.

• Future Development Opportunities: Identify opportunities and options for potential joint facility development in the future, including what the key components of the project(s) could be.

Together, the review of the six deliverables is intended to provide the City and District with guidelines and recommendations for more effective and efficient use and development of City and District facilities and programs. The study is limited to indoor facilities. While there are existing opportunities and sharing of outdoor facilities, these were not included in the scope of this study. As far as possible, the recommendations will take the form of specific measurable objectives that are sustainable for both parties in relation to program delivery and facility maintenance, and reflect the current capital and operating budgets of both parties.

1.3. Format of the Report

The report has seven sections that are designed to clarify the purpose and process of the study, and then the rationale and recommendations for the six deliverable areas identified by the City and District. More specifically:

• Section 1 – Introduction: The first section outlines the purpose, scope and deliverables, and the format for the report. It also provides context regarding the factors and environments that will need to be considered by the City and District in their current and future decision making related to joint use of facilities.

• Section 2 – Methodology: This section outlines the approach taken by the consulting team and clients within the four phases of the study, and the processes involved in gathering information and data related to the deliverables.

- 3 -

• Section 3 – Provincial Legislation and Programs, and Best Practices: The two deliverable areas outlined in this section provide information that supports recommendations made in the subsequent sections. The provincial legislation and programs area identifies opportunities for additional funding for joint projects, while the best practices area outlines successful approaches used by other jurisdictions.

• Section 4 – Joint Use Agreements, Policies and Opportunities: In addition to providing an overview of the inventory of City and District facilities available for joint use, this section reviews the existing agreements and the allocation policies and procedures used by both parties for the sharing of spaces.

• Section 5 – Program Development and Delivery: This section outlines three program areas: the Community-Schools Partnership initiative, Early Childhood Partners, and other joint programs. A number of specific recommendations are made related to improve the effectiveness of these areas.

• Section 6 – Capital Plans and Joint Development Opportunities: This section reviews community growth patterns in Surrey, the capital plans of the District and City, and makes recommendations regarding opportunities for future joint development projects.

• Section 7 – Summary and Implementation of Recommendations: The final section summarizes the major findings and recommendations of the study, and then provides guidelines for implementing the recommendations.

1.4. Context for the Study

There are a number of contextual elements that led to the decision by the City and District to undertake this study. Many of these same elements will also need to be considered by the parties in their future decision making related to joint use and development of facilities.

• Commitment to Working Together: The City and District want to build on a solid history of collaborative planning, facility joint-use, programming, and facility development. This commitment is found at various staff levels throughout both organizations, starting with the strong commitment of the Superintendent of Schools and the City Manager to find ways for improving the partnership. There is also the full support of the Board of Education and City Council for working collaboratively.

• Improving Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability: The intent is to interact effectively without impacting on the core missions of each party, and to find efficiencies in the relationship and how public assets may best be used. This includes joint-use of facilities, operating principles and procedures, programming, and future development projects. The concept of sustainability is important to both organizations. There is a need to develop sustainable models that balance demands with capacities over the long run.

• Fiscal Challenges: Both the City and the District face capital and operating budget challenges. Surrey has

witnessed ongoing strong population growth, resulting in BC’s second biggest city and its largest school district population. The District has faced the greatest fiscal challenges and faces a significant deficit for the coming year. The deficit is further impacted by the shift to full-day Kindergarten, carbon penalties by the Province, and student growth that has not been fully matched by provincial funding. In addition, future capital funding for new schools is unclear. The City’s capital plans for a growing community, including those for recreation and culture facilities, are extensive. It also needs to look at opportunities to offset some of the

- 4 -

demands by finding efficiencies in using public assets through enhanced sharing of facilities and joint capital development.

• Strengthening Neighbourhoods: Both the City and the District want to see neighbourhoods strengthened,

especially those whose citizens are most vulnerable. Elementary schools serve as the hub of neighbourhood areas, and are a place where citizens generally feel comfortable. School principals and staff in vulnerable neighbourhoods know that addressing children’s needs also involves impacting on the environments they live within. The City’s recreation facility system has been built on providing a major recreation facility in each town centre, and is augmenting these larger facilities with some smaller facilities in key areas. The City recognizes, however, that local schools are the natural neighbourhood gathering places, and are where many of the needs of low income children and families can best be met.

• Organizational Size and Communication: The large size of the two organizations can present challenges

in terms of all levels of staff being aware and supportive of the value of the partnership. Newer City and District staff may not be aware of the history and intent of the relationship, or of the agreements that are in place. When principals change, for example, the level of sharing and access also often changes community access levels, in either direction.

• Other Partners: In addition to the City and District, there are other key partner organizations at the

community-wide and neighbourhood levels that have a stake in the strength of the relationship. These include the organizations within the Community-Schools Partnership Steering Committee and the Early Childhood Partners, as well as other local and regional non-profit organizations.

- 5 -

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Phases of the Study

The Study involved four basic phases, beginning with the contract award in early January, and culminating with the delivery of the Final Report in April.

2.1.1. Phase 1: Start-up Meeting and Background Review

This phase went from January 5 to 25 and included the following elements:

• Review of Background Information: The consulting team received and reviewed copies of all related reports, studies and policies identified in the RFP. These studies were augmented as the project proceeded.

• Start-up Meeting: The start-up meeting with the project Steering Committee and Working Group, and the PERC consulting team, was held on January 19. At the meeting the following elements were reviewed: the deliverables, process and timelines, consultation/interview list, dates for future meetings, and reporting mechanisms.

• Key Consultation/Interview Schedule: Following the start-up meeting, the list of consultations/interviews was confirmed and added to, and a schedule was developed. The interviews included key City and District staff, other community partner organizations, the Parks and Community Services Committee, and the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee.

2.1.2. Phase Two: Gathering and Analyzing Deliverable Elements

In this phase, the PERC team collected and analyzed information and data related to the six key deliverables, including the majority of the consultation meetings, and facility inventory information from the City and District. This phase culminated in a synthesis meeting on February 19 when the consulting team analyzed the information gathered and began to formulate recommendations to the Steering committee and Working Group. The six deliverable elements included:

• Provincial Legislation and Funding Programs: The consultants reviewed and evaluated applicable provincial enabling legislation and provincial funding programs for joint facility development in consultation with related BC Government ministries, City and SD36 officials.

• Best Practices Review: The review of best practices was based on 10 jurisdictions in which model joint school/municipal sharing of facilities and programming have been carried out in BC, Canada and the U.S. It should be noted that Surrey has also developed a number of best practices, including the Community-Schools Partnership initiative.

• Facility Inventory and Capital Plans: A comprehensive inventory of all applicable City and SD36 facilities was carried out with the assistance of their respective staffs.

• Current Joint Programming: A review of current joint programming including the Community-School Partnership (C-SP) initiative, Early Childhood Partners, respective City and District joint use of facilities, and other joint program initiatives was undertaken.

- 6 -

• Agreements and Allocation Procedures: The existing joint use agreements between the District and City related to joint use and development of facilities were reviewed and analyzed. The current allocation policies and procedures used by both parties were also reviewed with the assistance of staff, along with the levels and patterns of joint use, and opportunities to extend the shared use of facilities.

• Future Development Opportunities: This area involved the review of growth areas that would influence future school development and the need for community facilities, along with existing City and District capital plans. This led to the identification of opportunities and options for potential joint facility development in the future.

2.1.3. Phase 3: Synthesis and Draft Report

In this phase, the consulting team built on the February 19 synthesis meeting and prepared both a preliminary Report Card and then a Draft Report for the Steering Committee and Working Group. The specific steps included:

• Report Card and Client Review Meeting: The PERC team developed a Report Card which was reviewed by the Steering Committee and Working Group on March 2. For each of the 6 deliverables, the Report Card provided a summary of the basic findings, challenges and issues, and draft recommendations.

• Development of Draft Report: The input of the Steering Committee and Working Group, along with final

interviews and consultations, were then used to develop a Draft Report for review by the client. The Draft Report was developed to reflect client input, consultations and interviews, as well as background research and was intended to be as complete and comprehensive as possible.

2.1.4. Phase 4: Review and Final Report

The Draft Report was reviewed by the Steering Committee on April 20. The input received at that meeting was used to prepare the Final Report which was delivered on May 15, 2010, after which final comments and adjustments were made and the study was completed. In addition, presentations on the results of the study were made to Surrey City Council and the Surrey School District Board of Education.

2.2. Types of Research Employed in the Study

As identified in the section 2.1, there were a number of methods of collecting information involved in this study. These included:

• Review of Documents: A large number of documents were provided to the consultants for review upon award of the contract. These included agreements, past studies, information on the Community-Schools Partnership and Early Childhood Partners, and best practices. As the study evolved, additional information in hard copy or electronic form came from a number of sources including the City Social Planner; the Office of Early Childhood Development, Learning and Care; the Ministry of Education; best practice communities; and other sources. The list of documents is attached as Appendix 2.

• Interviews: A total of 39 interviews with over 60 individuals were held over the study period. The vast

majority were in-person consultations with the remainder, generally for best practices, held by telephone. Ten interviews were held with District staff at a variety of levels and functions. The City

- 7 -

interviews involved the City Manager, Planning and Development Department (General Manager and Social Planner), Library, and Parks, Recreation and Culture Department staff. The interviews are listed in Appendix 1.

• Meetings with Key Organizations: In addition to the many community organizations that were

interviewed by the consultants, special meetings were held with the Parks and Community Services Committee and the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee to get their input. Meetings were also held with the Superintendent of Schools and other key staff in central administration, Business Management Services, Physical Plant, and CS-P personnel. In addition, interviews were held with both elementary and secondary schools principals. In addition, the consultants also made presentations on the study results to City Council and the District Board of Education.

• Role of Steering Committee and Working Group: The study Steering Committee, led by the

Superintendent of Schools and the City Manager, and the Working Group provided valued ongoing direction and advice throughout the process. The Parks Planning, Research and Design Manager also acted as the liaison to the consulting team.

- 8 -

3. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION & PROGRAMS, BEST PRACTICES

3.1. Related Provincial Legislation

Within the School Act, there is no specific legislation related to community school partnerships beyond statements that enable School Districts to enter into agreements with other organizations without relinquishing property ownership. There are a number of policy statements from the Ministry of Education that support community partnerships and use of schools.

The Local Government Act now allows municipalities and regional governments to make capital contributions to joint projects on School District lands. This is a departure from the pre-Community Charter era when municipalities were not allowed to use capital funds on non-municipal lands. That is why, for example, the $250,000 contribution by the City to the Princess Margaret gymnasium had to come out of City operating funds through 10 annual payments of $25,000.

The most recent Canada-BC Infrastructure programs also allowed funding to be provided for joint projects on school lands that had a municipal contribution and involved community spaces. Previous infrastructure programs did not allow a contribution on the basis that the Province had already contributed capital to the schools. It is unclear at this time what new Canada-BC Infrastructure programs will look like in terms of scope and criteria, but it is highly likely they will be supportive of joint Municipal/School District projects.

3.2. Provincial Funding Programs

3.2.1. School Community Connections

The provincial School Community Connections program was introduced by the Premier in 2005 and was completed in 2008. The purpose of the initiative was to encourage innovative and sustainable partnerships between School Districts and local governments. The primary focus was on encouraging greater utilization of school facilities for broader community purposes. The program was jointly managed by the Union of BC Municipalities and the BC School Trustees Association on behalf of the Ministry of Education.

The three (3) phases of the program were (1) phase 1 involved initial discussions by the parties and other community stakeholders about the best approaches and priority issues to strengthen community school connections; (2) phase 2 involved the development of a more detailed plan for the priority issue(s); and (3) phase 3 provided 25% of the cost of a capital projects up to a maximum contribution of $125,000 per community.

In Surrey, the District and City carried out phases 1 and 2 in 2007 and obtained $48,000 in Phase 3 funding. This funding was divided equally among 6 elementary schools for projects to improve community access and use.

3.2.2. CommunityLINK

CommunityLINK (Learning Includes Nutrition and Knowledge) is a major $51 million provincial program designed to allow School Districts to address the needs of vulnerable students in terms of academic achievement and social

- 9 -

functioning. It supports meal programs, community school initiatives, literacy, and other school-based supports to students who may be at risk. Funding is primarily directed to students with lower socio-economic backgrounds and schools with a significant proportion of vulnerable children and families. In addition to vulnerable students, the program supports family and community involvement, and promotes integrated approaches and partnerships. Of the provincial CommunityLINK funding to District #36, a portion is dedicated to the Community-Schools Partnership (C-SP) initiative.

3.2.3. Neighbourhood Learning Centres

The provincial Neighbourhood Learning Centres program was announced in 2008 and was more formally implemented in April 2009 when 9 pilot schools in 6 Districts were announced. In addition to the 9 pilot schools, another project was recently announced in Richmond. This program provides additional funding for community spaces within new schools or major renovation projects. The funds are for projects that combine educational facilities with a wide range of social and community services that enhance the quality of life of students and the community. The community spaces are designed to enhance areas such as family literacy, child care, recreation for pre and after school spaces (an expanded gym), family resource centres, health clinics, libraries, youth and seniors centres, and early learning centres. The clear intent is to make the school a neighbourhood hub with a variety of services that benefit both students and community members. The projects generally involve municipal and/or community organization funding contributions and a number of community partners. The March 2, 2010 Provincial budget statement reaffirmed a commitment to: “Work with partners in municipal governments, school districts and community organizations to turn more of BC’s schools into NEIGHBOURHOOD LEARNING CENTRES, where people of all ages can access learning opportunities and other services.” The Neighbourhood Learning Centres program does not have clear criteria, but appears to be a good opportunity for joint projects in challenged areas where consultation with the community has occurred.

3.3. Best Practices

As noted earlier, the purpose of the study is to determine how the relationship between the District and City may be enhanced through more efficient and effective sharing and development of joint programs, services and facilities. To accomplish this purpose, the two organizations requested the consultants to review models of excellence in other jurisdictions. This section looks at 10 “best practices” in Canadian and American communities that provide valuable lessons for working together more effectively.

3.3.1. District of Saanich

Saanich has approximately 110,000 residents, and has a portion of the schools from two Districts (Victoria SD #61 and Saanich SD #63) within its boundaries. There are master joint use agreements with both Districts and extensive co-use of joint facilities by both parties. Saanich SD #63 also provides the municipal staff with both supervisory and security status for the programs they operate in schools. From a best practice perspective, Saanich and Districts #61 and #63 are most noted for their joint development projects. Like Surrey, Saanich has four major community recreation facilities, one in each quadrant, but wanted to create smaller facilities for underserved areas of the community.

- 10 -

Saanich entered into two joint development projects with Victoria SD #61 at Gordon Head and Colquitz middle schools, making respective contributions of $687,000 and $352,000 toward the development of additional community spaces at the schools including expanded gymnasiums, and enhanced dance, art and shops spaces. The community spaces are grouped to allow better access and control. The Municipality receives priority/assured access to community spaces from 5:00 pm to 10:30 pm on weekdays (6:30 pm for the gymnasium) and 8:00 am to 10:30 pm on weekends. The Municipality carries out the bookings for these times, and the District can also make limited requests for spaces (two days in each four month program season). The Municipality also contributes approximately $25,000 a year for operating costs. There are also two joint use projects with Sannich SD #63. One is for Royal Oak Middle School that is similar to the two District #61 projects. The Municipality provided $600,000 to the construction of community spaces, and contributes $25,000 annually toward maintenance. It then books the community spaces for the same times as in the other middle school agreements. The other joint development agreement is different than the others. In the recent past, Cordova Bay Elementary had lost student population and was in danger of closing. The Municipality and District #63 agreed to the development of community spaces that included a seniors’ centre that operates during school hours, and then can be used for other community uses in the evenings. A total of $1,150,000 was contributed over two phases. The model has worked extremely well. The presence of older adults in the school has led to inter-generational programming, and the school population has begun to climb back up as the area has attracted more young families. The operating costs are shared on a formula agreed to by the parties.

3.3.2. Village of Port Clements and Haida Gwaii

This project took place in Port Clements on the east coast of Haida Gwaii, and involved the Village and Haida Gwaii SD #50. The Port Clements Elementary School had lost significant enrolment (going from 250 to 50 students) and its potential closure was a great concern to residents. At the same time, the Village of Port Clements needed a new municipal hall and also wanted a multi-purpose recreation facility. A common solution was explored by the Village and SD #50 and resulted in a joint $4.3 million project with funding from the Province, Village, School District #50, a BC/Canada infrastructure program grant, and the Haida Gwaii Trust. The existing school was demolished, with the exception of the gymnasium, which was renovated. The new spaces that were added included Village offices and Council Chambers, a shared school and community library, three instructional classrooms for the 50 students, a multi-purpose room, teen room, and an exercise room. The Village and the School District kept the joint-use agreement simple. In terms of maintenance, the Village maintained the grounds and the District the inside of the facility; building utilities were split on a square footage basis between the two parties. The school uses and books the facility during normal school hours and the Village books and programs the remainder of the time.

- 11 -

3.3.3. City of Coquitlam (Pinetree Community Centre)

The Pinetree Community Centre in Coquitlam was built approximately 20 years ago, and is a cooperative venture involving the City of Coquitlam, School District #43 (Coquitlam) and Douglas College. The major facilities in the complex include classroom space for the College and Pinetree Secondary School, as well as three gymnasiums, a fitness centre, and office space for each of the parties to the agreement. When the facility first opened, space was allocated to seniors as well, however, the City recently built a new seniors centre (the Glen Pine Pavilion) on a separate site a short distance away, and the original space is now used for other purposes. The gymnasium is the primary facility that is used on a shared basis. The construction costs were shared by the parties, and management is a shared responsibility, with each of the three parties contributing on a percentage basis, which initially was as follows: City of Coquitlam (42%), School District #43 (35%), and Douglas College (22%).

- 12 -

Currently, each of the parties is responsible for their own space within the facility, however, three committees are in place – finance, operations and management – with representation from the City, College and School District. The major responsibilities of each committee are outlined below:

• Finance: Reviews all aspects of the Pinetree operating budget; each of the parties are responsible for addressing long and short term issues and potential costs

• Operating: Ensures that the facility operates in a “seamless” and flexible manner, and works toward maximizing opportunities for each of the partners

• Management: Deals with policy and procedural matters in order to ensure optimum service delivery Over the years, the partners have identified a number of positive results related to the partnership. These include the following: (1) a single building was undoubtedly less expensive to build than three separate facilities, (2) the scheduling of spaces can be managed in a cooperative manner, (3) the relationship has enhanced teaching and learning opportunities for all staff, students and the community, and (4) the sharing of equipment and other resources has been enhanced as a result of the close proximity of the three parties.

3.3.4. City of New York

The community schools initiative in New York is operated in 21 schools by the Children’s Aid Society. The 21 public schools involved in the program are in challenged neighbourhoods and combine the best educational practices with a wide range of in-house health and social services for children and families. The model is based entirely on partnerships and involves over 100 organizations. These include: governments at the city, county, state and federal levels; hospitals and health providers; mental health providers; social service and youth serving agencies; child and family welfare providers; the police; colleges and universities; housing agencies and the business community; and numerous others. The multi-dimensional approach acts to ensure that children are physically, emotionally and socially prepared to learn, but the community schools are more than simply a place where children attend classes. Rather, the schools have become centres of neighbourhood life. The expanded educational, recreational, health and social services include: medical, dental, and mental health services; a range of social services; extended-day programs before and after school, weekends and summers; parent involvement; early childhood and adult education programs; and community wide events. Since the opening of the first community school by the Children’s Aid Society, it has worked with universities and colleges to evaluate and document the impacts of the program on children, families and the schools themselves. The documented outcomes include:

• Improved academic achievement • Increased parental involvement • Higher student and teacher attendance • Decreased special education referrals • Improved physical and mental health • Improved school climate

The multi-agency approach to the needs of students and families has been a major factor in the success of the initiative. The Children’s Aid Society appears to have been ideally positioned to provide the leadership because of their credibility and connections.

- 13 -

3.3.5. Township of Langley (Langley Event Centre)

The Langley Event Centre was opened to the public shortly after the 2008 municipal election, and is one of the largest multi-purpose facilities in the province. The facility is immediately adjacent to a large municipal park (Willoughby Community Park) and Mountain Secondary School, and includes the following spaces: an ice sheet with seating for approximately 5,000 people that can also be used for basketball and other community events, a gymnastics centre, exhibition space, a banquet facility, a multi-purpose community centre and pre-school space, and space for community policing and Tourism Langley. Major tenants include the Langley Chiefs Junior Hockey franchise, the BC Titan Men’s basketball team, the Trinity Western University hockey and basketball teams, and the Langley Gymnastics Club. The management/operations model is still being refined, but the following information provides a general overview.

• There are a number of funding partners that came together to ensure adequate capital and operating funding. The three major funders are the Province of BC ($15 million), the Township of Langley ($15 million) and a private partner ($15 million)

• In addition, there were several other funders, including the Langley Gymnastics Federation ($1 million toward a dedicated gymnasium), the Langley School District ($3 million toward an additional gymnasium, and Trinity Western University (amount of contribution unknown)

• The contributors have formed a non-profit society to oversee operations and deal with policy and “big picture” areas of interest – there is also an “operations group” that deals with “day-to-day” management issues

• The private partner is responsible for the management of the arena and banquet facility; Trinity Western manages the gymnasiums; the Gymnastics Federation manages the gymnastics facility; the Township manages the community centre

• Mountain Secondary has access to the gymnasiums and adjacent sports fields during the day • At the present time, the Township does not make use of Mountain Secondary School facilities

3.3.6. City of Saskatoon

In larger urban areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan there are both “Public” and Catholic School Districts, with the public systems being approximately twice the size of the Catholic systems. This is the case in Saskatoon where both Saskatoon Public Schools and Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools operate publicly funded School Districts. The Morris T Cherneskey Multi-District Park is an innovative education/recreation partnership that involves the two School Districts and the City of Saskatoon. Together, the three parties acquired lands to form a 64 acre (26 hectare) suburban park site that includes two 1,000 student secondary schools flanking a major recreation centre complex, and surrounded by playfields, pathways and park amenities. Both schools (Tommy Douglas Collegiate and Bethlehem Catholic High School) include performing arts spaces, resource centres, and major gymnasiums. The Shaw Leisure Centre has a large aquatic complex with both competitive and leisure pools, fitness facilities, two gymnasiums, multi-purpose rooms, meeting rooms, child minding, a walking/jogging track and connecting corridors to both schools. The integration of these new facilities has been extended beyond proximity and includes extensive school use of the recreation facilities during the day and community use of the schools on evenings and weekends. There is ongoing communication, and joint planning and scheduling to ensure that benefits to the schools and community residents are maximized.

- 14 -

3.3.7. City of Portland (Oregon) SUN Schools

The SUN (Schools Uniting Neighbourhoods) program was initiated in 1999 in Multnomah County, which includes the City of Portland and surrounding communities. SUN Schools now includes 58 schools within 6 Districts, a growth from 18 in 2002. The Portland School District has 35 of these schools, while the other 23 are spread over 5 surrounding Districts. The schools focus on low income and challenged areas, and include 22 elementary, 7 K-8, 13 middle, and 6 secondary schools. Each of these schools has a Site Manager who provides the direct leadership in conjunction with the principal and school SUN advisory committee. The key partners are the Multnomah County Department of Human Services, City of Portland Parks and Recreation, and the six School Districts. They work with over 350 non-profit organizations and businesses. The primary focus areas at each school includes: (1) improving academic performance, (2) health and social services, and (3) extended-day enrichment, recreation and educational programs for students and the community. There is an emphasis on family and community involvement in each of the three streams. From an academic perspective alone, reading and math scores have shown significant gains, and daily attendance rates are 95%. In 2008/09, 14,700 children and youth participated in academic enrichment programs; over 81,800 community members participated in programs, health clinics, and events; and 3,100 adults enrolled in adult education. Many of these services were supported by over 3,000 volunteers who provided almost 60,000 volunteer hours.

3.3.8. City of Tukwilla (Washington) Showalter Middle School

The Showalter Middle School in Washington State is one of several schools over five states included in the Eisenhower Foundation Full-Service Community Schools initiative. The Tukwila Community Schools Collaborative is the administrative body and consists of five partners including; Casey Family Programs, Puget Sound Education Service District, Tukwila School District, the City of Tukwila and the Department of Children and Families. Funding is provided by governments and private foundations including the Eisenhower Foundation, Federal 21st Century Grant, State of Washington Reading Corps Grants, the City of Tukwila Department of Parks and Recreation, and Seattle SCORES.

The program offerings include: homework help and focus groups, academy of math and reading, life and basic skills, chess and math games, arts and crafts, arts corps, recreation and fitness, hip hop dance, and peer mediation and conflict resolution. The schools also offers counseling, free physicals and immunizations, and an annual health fair that includes providers and families.

The outcomes that the program has experienced since its inception in 2001 include improvements in: school behavior, school attendance, academic achievement, satisfaction with and attachment to school, orientation toward learning, positive future orientation, participation in new activities and interest in non-academic subjects, self-esteem, positive peer relationships, access to health and social services, and a sense of safety. A feature of this project was the significant level of outcomes evaluation that took place.

3.3.9. City of Burnaby / School District # 41

Burnaby School District #41 operates 7 community schools that reflect many of the more challenged areas in the city. The schools have come to serve as a hub for their neighbourhoods. Each community school has a Coordinator who works with school staff, a variety of community agencies, and a Community Advisory Council. The offerings and opportunities provided in the community schools include those related to learning, play, and health and social services.

- 15 -

The Burnaby community schools initiative is based on three themes: Community Development, Community Involvement, and Lifelong Learning. The six goals are:

• To use the school and other neighbourhood facilities more effectively for desired community programs • To strengthen the existing school curriculum and program through greater involvement and use of available

human, physical and fiscal resources • To develop a variety of educational, recreational, cultural and social opportunities for children, youth and

adults in response to needs defined by the community • To encourage community residents to become involved in community activities, services and issues • To strengthen communication within the community • To facilitate coordination among agencies and organizations in the delivery of community services

Multiple partners are involved, but the Burnaby Parks, Recreation and Culture Department plays an ongoing role in supporting the development of programs offered in the seven community schools.

3.3.10. Grande Prairie (Alberta)

For a number of years, the City of Grande Prairie has enjoyed an excellent relationship with the Grande Prairie Public School District, the Grande Prairie Roman Catholic Separate School District, the Northwest Francophone Education Region, and Grand Prairie Regional College. Relationships among the parties are governed by the Standing Committee on Recreational and Educational Services (S.C.O.R.E.S.), which focuses on cooperation in the following areas: (1) site acquisition, (2) planning and development, (3) the use of areas and facilities, and (4) program development. The agreement essentially grants access to city facilities and the schools free of charge. The City of Grande Prairie is particularly proud of their most recent developments – two schools (Mother Teresa and Maude Clifford) both accommodate community gymnasiums. In each case, the City agreed to cover the cost for an additional community gym, which is used for pubic programming during the day and evening. When the community gyms are not being used during the day the schools can access them, allowing more physical education space, and can be used during recess and lunch. The cost to construct the Mother Teresa School gyms was approximately $6.3 million, and the cost for Maude Clifford was $4.5 million. The City also shares in the operating costs which include the portion of the school gym that was “over-sized”, and the community gym. Operating costs include caretaking services such as supplies and equipment, garbage and re-cycling, maintenance salaries and materials, utilities and building insurance. In 2010, the cost to the City to operate one community gym will be approximately $87,000, excluding the salary of the Recreation Programmer. The City has an office in both schools as well. It should also be noted that two or more of the parties have worked together in the past to build schools and community facilities on a single site.

3.4. Lessons Learned from Best Practices

While a number of the best practices examples are referred to later in this report, it was felt that a brief summary of the key lessons to be learned would be valuable.

- 16 -

• Broad Partnership Approaches: The community-school initiatives in New York, Portland, Burnaby and Tukwilla all involve multiple partnerships and a broad range of services. Nearly all the community-school sites are located in high needs areas where the students and other residents face a number of challenges. While educational and recreational services remain a focal point, the community-schools are also the neighbourhood hub for health, social services, and literacy programs. There is enhanced cooperation and communication between the agencies who provide these services, and between the residents and the schools.

• Tracking the Outcomes: New York and Portland, in particular, included a strong evaluation component in

their initiatives from the outset. They partner with local colleges and universities to track the impacts on both students and the community, including student academic performance, school attendance, and levels of community support and volunteerism. Their ability to demonstrate the outcomes of their initiatives supports their efforts to attract new partners and funding sources – especially from the business community.

• Communication with the Community: In Burnaby, New York, Portland and Tukwilla, all of the individual

schools have a neighbourhood advisory committee that meets with the community school staff person and school principal on a regular basis. These committees include local groups, residents, and agency representatives. Beyond sharing information about community needs and issues, the advisory committees assist in mobilizing volunteers for programs and events.

• Dedicated Staff: Most of the best practice communities noted above have an overall director and a

dedicated coordinator located at each individual school. The community-school coordinators work with the community, outside agencies, advisory committee, and the principal and school staff. The director works with major partners and sets the overall directions and priorities in concert with their staff.

• Joint Use Agreements and Allocations: In all of the best practice communities, there is an overall or

“master” joint use agreement. These agreements are kept relatively short and simple, but speak to joint use, joint programming and cooperative approaches to development and land acquisition. There are then site specific agreements for joint development projects of either open space or indoor facilities. Saanich School District #63 provides municipal employees with supervisory and security privileges to facilitate community use of schools, especially on weekends and in the summer.

• Joint Facility Development: There were a number of examples where municipalities participated in the

joint development of a hub of community facilities within the local school. Saanich worked with the two school districts (#61 and #63) in its community to create four additional joint facilities that serve both school and community needs; three were at middle schools and one at an elementary school. These facilities involve a number of spaces including multi-purpose rooms, enlarged gymnasiums, music and art rooms, shops, and a community office. The spaces were grouped and made easily accessible for community use. In Haida Gwaii, a school slated for closure was retained when the Village of St. Clements added community spaces and the municipal offices to a redeveloped school. In the case of both Saanich and Haida Gwaii, the municipality directly books the community spaces outside of schools hours. The Pinetree facility in Coquitlam involved the City, School District #43 and Douglas College. In Grand Prairie, the City added community gymnasiums to high schools that are used throughout the day by the public, as well as by the school for some physical education classes.

- 17 -

• Joint Project Capital and Operating Funding: In all of the cases identified above, the municipalities not only contributed capital funding, but also provide ongoing maintenance support based on an agreed to formula. In the case of Saanich, the maintenance contribution is approximately $25,000 a year for the three middle schools, and more for the elementary school which is used as a seniors centre during the day. The schools that were chosen allowed the municipalities to extend services to areas that were underserved because of their remoteness from larger recreation facilities.

• Proximity Models: Saskatoon is an excellent example where the City and the public and separate

(Catholic) school districts assembled lands so that a large recreation centre is sited between two new secondary schools. Each party is responsible for the operating costs of their facility, but the proximity allows for extensive joint use. Walkways connect the schools to the recreation centre in the middle, facilitating easy school use of the community facilities. The Langley Events Centre is another proximity model that involves the municipality, school district, and Trinity Western University.

• Ongoing Communication: In all the successful examples of community-school cooperation, there is a solid

mechanism for ongoing communication between the municipalities and the school districts involved. Grand Prairie has a Standing Committee on Recreational and Educational Services (SCORES) that regularly reviews operations and opportunities for joint site acquisition and development. Pinetree has three working committees for finance, operations and programming. Saskatoon has a working group that looks at cooperative scheduling and programming.

- 18 -

4. JOINT USE AGREEMENTS, POLICIES & OPPORTUNITIES

4.1. Inventory of City and District Facilities

4.1.1. City Facilities

The City of Surrey has a significant inventory of facilities for the public to enjoy, many of which are within multi-purpose complexes. In addition to the 8 multi-purpose rooms within the Surrey Public Library System, the City recreation spaces can be summarized as follows:

• There are 8 ice surfaces in 5 locations

• There are four aquatic facilities, one each in South Surrey, Newton, Fleetwood (Surrey Sport and Leisure Complex), and North Surrey

• There will be a major recreation centre in each of the 6 town centre areas once the Cloverdale facility is completed

• The Surrey Sport and Leisure Complex serves as a city-wide facility and is located in Fleetwood (which also includes the Fleetwood Community Centre)

• There are two smaller recreation facilities, Fraser Heights and Chuck Bailey, to complement the town centre facilities

• The recreation facilities include: 8 fitness centres, 9 medium to large halls, 32 small and 29 large multi-purpose rooms, 7 youth lounges and 4 seniors facilities

• The Surrey Art Centre

• The Surrey Museum and Stewart Historical Farm.

4.1.2. School District Facilities

The School District has a total of 124 schools serving over 65,000 students. Excluding the distributed learning centres, there are 19 secondary and 102 elementary schools that are suitable to community use:

• There are 102 elementary school gymnasiums that are generally smaller in size, but are still suitable for a variety of community uses

• The 19 secondary schools have both a full-size gymnasium and a smaller (secondary) gymnasium for another 38 gym spaces; most secondary gyms are used for school purposes until 9:00 pm on weekdays

• The elementary school Classroom Composition Inventory identifies that there are only a small number of schools that have excess classroom capacity, but these are not always available on a year to year basis

- 19 -

• Most elementary schools are experiencing a classroom deficit because of continuing growth in enrollment and the shift to All-day K will place an increased demand for new spaces

• Secondary schools have other specialized spaces such as art rooms that are accessed at the discretion of the principal.

4.2. Current Agreements

4.2.1. Master Joint Use Agreement

The Master Joint Use Agreement between the City of Surrey and the Board of Trustees of School District #36 was signed in 2000 and sets the broad parameters for joint use and development. It identifies reciprocal provisions for joint use, restitutions and repairs, the role of the operating committee, joint planning and development, liability and general regulations. The agreement provides a good framework and reflects those used in other communities. Some communities have amended their agreements to update the levels of comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance held by both parties. The current Master Agreement identifies $5 million, while other communities have moved to $10 million. The City and District should review the insurance section to see if it needs to be amended. No other changes are recommended.

Section 6 of the Master Agreement refers to the establishment of an Operations Committee comprised of two staff members from each of the District and the City. The purpose of this committee was to oversee the operation of the Agreement and any major issues and opportunities that arise. While there is good communication between staff, it appears that this committee has not met on a regular basis for some years. The Operations Committee should be re-established and hold at least two meetings a year to review core principles and practices, and any major issues that have arisen. For example, the concerns relating to the Princess Margaret agreement that are described below, could have been raised and resolved if brought before the Committee.

4.2.2. Specific Indoor Joint Use Agreements

There have been two site specific agreements between the City of Surrey and School District # 36 for joint facility development projects. The first was for the Semiahmoo High School gymnasium dated June 1989. It was for a period of two, five year terms and has essentially expired. In this agreement the City contributed $500,000 toward the construction, operation and maintenance of the school gymnasium in exchange for access to a smaller (secondary) gymnasium after 4:00 pm.

Recommendation #1

That the Operations Committee be re-established and meet at least twice a year to discuss core principles and practices, and address emerging issues and opportunities. (The Operations Committee will be

responsible for implementing recommendations 1 through 5 and 7 through 9.)

- 20 -

The second agreement was for Princess Margaret Secondary School dated July 2000. The agreement pertains to a financial contribution from the City for $250,000 to increase the size of the second (secondary) gymnasium and to include office space, storage space, and external access washrooms for City use. The agreement appears to be specific in the detail of how the City and the School District would share the facility. The period of the agreement was for 10 years, which expires in July, 2010. There is the option to renegotiate the agreement for the following ten years.

The Princess Margaret agreement has proven to be problematic in the last few years as the intent and the letter of the agreement have not been followed for the secondary gymnasium. There have been increased cancellations and some City programming has been lost as the school has taken more of the secondary gymnasium space in the evenings, perhaps due to growing school space needs. This agreement comes to an end in July 2010 and should be renegotiated. Princess Margaret Secondary School is ideally situated for the City to provide youth and other services for the residents of West Newton. While the language in the current agreement seems clear, wording from the Saanich joint use agreements referred to in the Best Practices section can be used to provide greater clarity around the primacy of the use by the City for designated hours for the secondary gymnasium.

It is suggested that the City and the District staff involved in the Princess Margaret agreement, and those involved in future site-specific agreements, meet at least twice annually to ensure that the agreements are understood by both parties and amendments are put forward if needed to provide greater clarity.

It is also suggested that if the City of Surrey provides funding for future joint development projects, and has priority access for designated hours for specific spaces, that the City should book the spaces for those hours with due consideration of the school’s requests. The site specific agreements between the District of Saanich and Saanich SD #63 and Victoria SD61 can serve as models for future agreements and procedures.

4.3. Joint Use Allocation Procedures and Practices

4.3.1. Current Allocation Procedures for Community Use of Schools

The School District’s Manager of Business Development and her two staff are responsible for booking all schools and entering into contracts with user groups. In April 2009 the process was streamlined for booking elementary school gymnasiums for the fall and winter schedule. The other booking seasons are April through June, and July and August.

Essentially, the shift has been to a centralized booking process for elementary gymnasiums. In June a form is sent to all elementary schools to have them pre-book all school major events that affect the 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm time on weekdays. The City and historical user groups would have identified their needs by May 15, and after reviewing these requests Central Booking then allocates available elementary school gymnasium uses from 6:00 to 10:00 pm.

Recommendation #2

That the Operations Committee review specific Indoor Use Agreements and Master Joint Use Agreements with the intent to renew as necessary, and to ensure each partner is receiving full

value.

- 21 -

If space is available, other requests from new users are added in and the schedule is sent to the Principals. In the past, elementary principals reviewed and approved all bookings. With the implementation of the new process in April 2009 the principals now only do this for non-gymnasium spaces.

Secondary school principals still review and approve all booking requests provided by Central Booking, and community use records are kept at each individual secondary school. This makes it more difficult to ascertain the availability of secondary school spaces, unlike at elementary schools where Central Booking keeps detailed records. In general, most secondary schools appear to try to support both City and historical user group requests. It should be noted that regular community uses of the secondary school gymnasiums are more difficult to schedule because of heavier use needs of school programs and sport teams. There is likely some unused capacity on weekday evenings, but the remaining available times are often after 9:00 pm and offer too short a time period for many users. On weekends there is likely also unused capacity, but tournaments and school special events result in disruptions to consistent use patterns.

The gross rental fees collected are divided between the schools which receive 35%, while 65% is retained by School District #36. Of the District’s 65%, schools are eligible to receive back a further 10% for projects. Cancellations of both blocks of times and single rentals are charged $25. If schools cancel a community booking they try to give two weeks’ notice.

The school custodians provide facility access for regular weeknight users. For weekends and major events, supervision is provided by a School District attendant or security runner. Additional security, which is normally contracted, is usually required for social events or major gatherings. The City pays for daytime use, access fobs for security as well as weekend supervision.

The 17 Community-School Partnership school rentals are different. The C-SP Clerk does all of the initial bookings until 8:00 pm and works with the C-SP Coordinators to ensure that their needs are met. Rentals of C-SP schools generally occur after 8:00 pm and on weekends, although there are occasional rentals available between 6:00 and 8:00 pm. Community bookings that involve fees are done by Central Booking, which is the only unit that can deal with money.

In 2009, the City of Surrey used 56 elementary school spaces, and 6 secondary schools. While the majority of hours were for gymnasiums, there was also use of classrooms and other spaces. The use levels of C-SP schools such as Bridgeview were among the highest.

4.3.2. Challenges and Recommendations

There are some challenges and issues with the current joint use allocation procedures and practices that need to be addressed. At the secondary school level, it is unclear whether City requests are given second priority to District use as per the Master Joint Use Agreement, or are considered equally with historical users. Principals play a critical role, and changes in principals often affect use levels. Some principals are more proactive in the area of revenue production and this can impact on City use. Other principals may be more protective of school spaces from outside groups. In addition, the current booking and cancellation processes may also lead to over or block-booking by sport user groups. There are some inconsistencies in recreation program cancellations between schools; some provide adequate notice and others provide short notice or none at all.

- 22 -

Concurrent to this study, staff of the District and City carried out a detailed analysis through the School Facility Booking Study. This study is found in Appendix A. The analysis of 18 elementary schools, three in each of the 6 town centres, confirmed that elementary school gymnasiums are generally well used on weekday evenings leaving limited unused capacity, but that there is significant unused capacity on weekends. A further analysis of underutilized weekend gymnasium space would be beneficial to identify opportunities for increased community use. It should be noted that weekend rentals also require the additional cost of security services for accessing the facility, and additional custodial charges in some cases, making rentals more expensive for community groups. As identified earlier, on weekday evenings facility access is provided by the custodian on duty, so groups would only pay the rental fee. The City also has to pay the security charge for weekend uses.

The shift to having Central Booking do the allocation of elementary gymnasiums has increased overall community-use levels. There may be a few elementary school principals who hold back on space to protect special school uses, and there may be situations where block booking by user groups leads to underutilization, but overall community use levels are high during weekday evenings.

Elementary school gymnasiums vary in size, but are generally around 4,000 sq. ft. While suitable for most recreational sport and physical activity uses, they are too small for most competitive sport league play. Secondary school gymnasiums are full size at approximately 7,000 to 7,500 sq. feet, and are often configured as double gymnasiums. Many secondary schools also have a smaller “secondary” gymnasium that is slightly larger than elementary school gymnasiums.

It is worth noting that Saanich School District #63 has long recognized municipal staff with having supervisory and security status for evening, weekend and summers uses. The practice has worked well and streamlines the process for both major partners. It is further suggested that the District consider providing City of Surrey staff with similar access and security rights as provided by Saanich School District #63.

The City and District may wish to undertake a pilot project in two schools, ideally including one secondary school, to facilitate community programs on weekends. The selected schools should be relatively remote from City recreation centres and be in underserved areas. The programs could be based on a four hour block on a Saturday morning or afternoon, and involve both City led programs and community group use with City supervision.

Recommendation #3

That the Central Booking unit and the Town Centre Managers hold a joint meeting prior to each booking season to review School District and City requests, and any issues or concerns with joint

use procedures.

- 23 -

The City should evaluate the pilot project to determine the outcomes and the value of expanding and investing further in similar projects in the future. As previously stated, it is more difficult to identify underutilization of spaces in secondary schools. Based on interviews and discussions with District personnel, there appear to be limited times available for non-school uses on weekdays, generally after 9:00pm, while weekends are more underutilized. One issue with weekend use of secondary schools is that sport tournaments and school special events create problems for user groups who desire consistent use patterns. If a secondary school is selected as a pilot site, the challenges of consistency in access and ways to address this should be part of the pilot project evaluation.

4.4. School Use of City Facilities

As part of the Master Joint Use Agreement, the City provides schools with daytime access to a number of facilities. The most popular uses of recreation facilities are for swimming and skating lessons at City pools and arenas; they are followed by the use of multi-purpose spaces and halls across Surrey. Schools that are close to recreation centres will also use fitness rooms and other spaces in cooperative programs. District staff also indicated the need for meeting spaces, using halls and rooms in recreation centres. The Art Centre and the Museum currently host student groups, and provide outreach programs. There appears to be further opportunities for extended use and joint programming in cultural facilities and at schools. The City has identified that it will review the opportunities for use of Arts Centre facilities by the District when they are available. There appears to be an opportunity for greater use of City recreation facilities by schools. Transportation is one issue, especially now that booster seats are required for younger students, but a greater issue appears to be the level of awareness of what is available. Many principals and teaching staff may not be fully aware of the opportunities available to their students at City recreation and cultural facilities. City staff should ensure that principals are made aware of the facility use opportunities through informational materials, meetings, and tours of local facilities.

.

Recommendation #4

In 2011, a weekend use pilot project for 2 schools will be implemented, with the City bearing any program leadership and supervision costs.

Recommendation #5

That the City develop an information strategy including materials, tours and meetings with principals to ensure that they are fully aware of opportunities to access City recreation and culture facilities and programs.

- 24 -

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & DELIVERY

4.5. The Community Schools Partnership

4.5.1. Overview of the Strategy

The C-SP strategy has focussed on serving lower income and vulnerable school areas in Surrey since its inception in 2006. It expanded rapidly from the two original schools to 9 elementary and three secondary schools in three hub areas (Whalley, Guildford and Newton) in 2007. The C-SP then further grew to 22 schools in 2010 when the zone model was introduced. The zone model is based on the school districts geographic structure which is South, West, East and North.

The current major funding sources for the program include contributions from the School District’s CommunityLINK funding, other funding and administrative supports from the District, and a contribution from the United Way. These funds are used to hire the District C-SP staff, and to provide support dollars for programs, supplies and equipment. The District C-SP staff includes four Coordinators, and 6 Assistant Coordinators in the four zones, as well as a full time clerk and administrative supports. The City provides in-kind support for programming through its Community and Recreation Services program staff in the four zone areas.

At the administrative level, the initiative is co-led by the Manager of Community and Recreation Services and the Assistant Superintendent Surrey School District. They co-chair a Community-Schools Partnership Committee, also called the “Steering Committee”, which has representatives from 7 other key partner agencies and meets every two to three months. In addition, there is a Community Advisory Committee which meets twice a year and includes a larger number of community and family service organizations. At the neighbourhood/elementary school delivery level, the Community-Schools Partnership initiative is clearly a success model that can be considered as a best practise. The C-SP Coordinators are working well with City programming staff to develop opportunities within the schools, including before and after school programs, which allow the District and City to better address needs of low income and vulnerable neighbourhoods. At the school level, the C-SP coordinators do a good job of educating other school staff, (front office, teachers, custodial), about the beliefs and benefits of community school approaches. Many C-SP school principals actively seek out relationships with partners to offer services at no cost or very little cost to their neighbourhoods. The result is that both stronger and healthier neighbourhoods and school environments have been created by making C-SP schools the local neighbourhood gathering and activity place.

4.5.2. Challenges and Recommendations

The rapid growth of the C-SP initiative has been very positive, but a number of new challenges have emerged that need to be addressed.

• Steering Committee: In early 2009, an Administrative Evaluation of the Community-School Partnership was carried out. It noted that the Steering Committee seemed to be unclear about its role and the types of contributions that the members could make. It was recommended that the Steering Committee develop a clearer vision and identify how members can engage collaboratively as partners. The co-leads considered this a priority and have initiated the development of a strategic vision for the Steering Committee. The next

- 25 -

step will be to get the members of the Steering Committee to sign off on the vision and clarify how they, and their organizations, can better contribute.

• Administrative Clarity: The same administrative evaluation noted above identified that greater clarity was needed around the respective roles of the City and District, and the lines of authority and decision making. Greater clarity is needed not only by the two partners and the Steering Committee, but also by the C-SP Coordinators and the Principals of C-SP schools. The City and District now have a draft terms of reference for the C-SP, but a more formal agreement is needed to identify their respective roles, funding contributions and lines of authority. This agreement should also review the staff reporting relationships of the C-SP Coordinators. Currently, the Assistant Superintendent of the Surrey School District and the Manager of Community and Recreation Services co-lead the initiative. They are both very senior administrators and it appears unrealistic for them to provide ongoing guidance and direction for the Coordinators. Their role in the C-SP initiative should focus on overall directions for the initiative and working with the Steering Committee and other partners. Other options for reporting relationships should be explored under the overall direction of the co-leads; these options could include having each party assign a manager with partial responsibility for the initiative (as formerly existed), or co-funding a director position as recommended in the Administrative Evaluation.

• Staff and Community Engagement: The Coordinators appear to have done a good job in educating staff at C-SP schools about the benefits of the initiative, including teachers, front office staff and custodians. While not all staff embrace the concept to the same degree, solid progress has been made in developing school readiness and support. Principals obviously play a key role in the success of the initiative, especially in terms of working with local community organizations. When principals change, there can be a significant impact on the programs and partnerships that have been formed. The same is true for new Community and Recreation Services staff that are assigned to work with C-SP schools for the first time. It is suggested that new principals and Community and Recreation Services staff assigned to C-SP schools receive a full orientation to the community school concept and creating community partnerships, and that current C-SP school principals and CRS staff play a significant role in the orientation process.

• Flexibility of Catchment Areas: There appears to be some inconsistency and a lack of clarity regarding how restrictive services at C-SP schools should be to only those children and families living within the defined school catchment area. In many cases, community organizations function beyond the immediate catchment area of a single school.

Recommendation #6

That the District and the City develop a formal partnership Memorandum of Understanding for the C-SP that may include the vision and mission, respective roles of the partners,

funding contributions, lines of authority, and reporting relationships as well as a process for review and revision as necessary.

- 26 -

There are also cases where nearby families from outside the catchment area would also benefit from programs and services. While the focus of services should be on children and families within the C-SP school area, it is suggested that greater flexibility on boundaries would allow more needy families to be served.

4.6. Early Childhood Partners

4.6.1. Overview of the Initiative

The Early Childhood Partners was formed in early 2006 and includes five parties: Fraser Health (Surrey), Ministry of Children and Family Development (Surrey), School District #36, the City, and the United Way of the Lower Mainland. The partners have funded the Office of Early Childhood Development, Learning and Care (OECDLC) which supports efforts in research/planning, awareness, capacity building, project management and resource development. The City has supported these efforts in a number of ways including the purchase and refurbishment of the Kensington Prairie School as an early childhood education centre. The programs and services provided at the Kensington Prairie Community Centre have been developed by all the Early Childhood Partners and related agencies, and will support the development of early and mid childhood program leaders. 4.6.2. Challenges and Recommendations

In comparison with many other Lower Mainland communities, Surrey has a lower proportion of licensed day-care spaces for a community with a large child population. The same applies to after-school care opportunities. The City (Parks, Recreation and Culture and the Library) provides a variety of pre-school programs, and the District has created 25 Strong Start programs in schools. A number of other agencies such as the YMCA also provide pre-school and day-care programs, along with private and non-profit agencies. These collective efforts are significant, but do not meet the needs for early childhood development opportunities. A major issue is that spaces for program expansion are at a premium in Surrey, and All-day K may further affect access for day-care, pre-school and early childhood training programs.

Within the Early Childhood Partners framework, the District and City, as the agencies with the greatest capacity, are well positioned to develop a strategy for their approach to early childhood development and after school care. Developing a joint City/District strategy first could support the eventual development of a broader Surrey early and mid-childhood strategy involving other parties. Addressing the respective and collaborative roles of both parties at the initial stage will be a productive initial step. This would include examining joint leadership training, program development, and use of spaces.

In the more immediate term, the City and District should review opportunities for the use of available spaces including portables for the development of pre-school programs that support early childhood learning, along with the identified needs for before and after school programs for children ages 5-12. The Classroom Composition analysis by the District identified that while the majority of elementary schools have space deficits, there are some with surpluses. There may also be opportunities for the City to fund portable buildings on school grounds to provide before and after school care spaces. These portables would need water and washroom facilities.

Recommendation #7

That opportunities be examined to develop community use in new or renovated schools, and that applications for funding support be submitted to the provincial Neighbourhood Learning Centres program.

- 27 -

If the City purchases new or renovated portables for use on school grounds, it would retain ownership rights including the ability to move the portables to other locations. The City would be responsible for programming and operating any portables it owns.

4.7. Other Joint Programs

In addition to the Community-Schools Partnership and Early Childhood Partners, there are a number of other collaborative program efforts. These include joint initiatives aimed at encouraging children and youth to become more physically active. Examples are Move for Health Day and Healthy Kids clinics, as well as the training of youth as aerobic instructors in their schools. Programs for schools are also offered through Heritage Services including curriculum based school programs tied into integrated learning for grades 2-7. Heritage Services are also doing archives work with a number of high schools. Similarly, the Surrey Arts Centre meets with the Surrey Art Teachers Association on a regular basis, and schools throughout the District are booking regular educational visits to the Art Centre. The Surrey Arts Festival not only involves visitations by classes (8,000+ students) to Festival events, but also involved high school students extensively as volunteers. It should also be noted that the Parks Division has a number of environmental education and parks programs, and volunteer opportunities that involve students throughout Surrey. The distribution of City program information materials through schools is an area where some confusion remains. This includes the distribution of visual promotional materials for recreation, arts, heritage, and library programs, as well as special events. It is suggested that the City and District staff meet to review and clarify the protocols for joint distribution of materials.

- 28 -

5. CAPITAL PLANS & JOINT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

5.1. Growth Areas in Surrey

Of the six town centre areas, the most significant population growth in the immediate future will occur in Cloverdale (East Clayton), South Surrey (Grandview Heights) and Newton. More moderate growth will occur in Whalley (City Centre) and Guildford, while Fleetwood is largely built out with only minor infill left in the area.

• Cloverdale: Cloverdale has witnessed significant recent development and the East Clayton area is approximately 90% built out. The major growth will be in the north area of East Clayton as servicing over the next 5-10 years takes place and makes land available. This includes a major trunk sewer to be added to allow development in the north area. The City already owns lands in the 184th Street and 72nd Avenue area for future park purposes. Other development areas include south of Hwy 10, and some multi-unit densification in the town centre.

• South Surrey: In addition to completing Morgan Heights, there will be very significant future development in the Grandview Heights area over the next 15-20 years that could see as many as 40-50,000 new residents in the long term. The development will include mixed densities. The Highway 99 corridor may become a major workplace for many of these individuals, along with future light industrial development in Campbell Heights. The natural village centre, or future “town centre”, will be close to the juncture of 168th Street and 24th Avenue. There will be a need to plan for open space and recreation amenities in this area.

• Newton: There are a number of development areas remaining in Newton. The Sullivan area of South Newton remains a major development area and is 50% under application. This will be single family residential with some multi-unit. West Newton still has single family capacity off of Hwy 10, and there will likely be infill of multi-units near Scott Road.

• City Centre and Whalley: The City Centre will ultimately become a key hub of civic services, including City Hall, the Main Library, a potential Performance Centre, and an expanded North Surrey Recreation Centre, along with the Chuck Bailey Centre. Simon Fraser University has expanded and will continue to do so, and is a natural partner with the recreation centre. The development of this civic hub will attract additional high density development and multi-story apartments, also fuelled to some degree by SFU student demands for housing. An influx of younger people into the City centre is anticipated, placing greater demands on recreation and entertainment opportunities. In the rest of Whalley, infill will continue with additional multi-family units anticipated. The schools will be on the perimeter of the City Centre core, and there may be an opportunity to add some smaller multi-purpose spaces.

• Guildford and Fleetwood: Guildford will likely see modest growth as densification occurs near the town centre and mall area, including potential additional high rises. The one area where major growth will occur is South Port Kells, with a projected population growth of 15,000 residents. This will place additional pressures on the Guildford Recreation Center and other services. Fleetwood is largely developed and will

- 29 -

only likely see minor infill and densification. Some school populations in these areas may see declines and there may be opportunities to consolidate some schools that need to be replaced.

5.2. City and School District Capital Plans

5.2.1. City Capital Plans

On March 1, 2010, City Council received a “Build Surrey” Program proposal for capital projects over the next decade. It includes the development of the new City Hall and Main Library in the City Centre, as well as a number of recreation centres and other projects. The recreation centre projects currently underway include:

• The Cloverdale Recreation Centre at 65,000 sq ft will give Surrey a major leisure facility in each of the 6 town centres

• The Chuck Bailey facility in North Surrey is being renovated as a legacy facility of the 2010 Olympics

• The Fraser Heights Community Centre will have a fitness facility and gymnasium added; it and Chuck Bailey

are of a smaller size than the Town Centre facilities and serve a major sub-area of a Town Centre; they could serve as a prototype for facilities in other areas.

• Two gymnasiums will be added to the Fleetwood Recreation Centre

• A gymnasium is being added to the Newton Recreation Centre / Wave Pool and the fitness area will be

expanded in the future

• Future projects may include new pools in South Surrey/Grandview Heights and Guildford, another sheet of ice at the Surrey Sport and Leisure Complex, and additional amenities in the Clayton area.

5.2.2. School District Capital Plans

In addition to the operating budget challenges faced by the District, the Ministry of Education has not reviewed or accepted capital plans since 2005/06 and cancelled the 2010/11 capital year. Treasury Board has yet to give any clear direction for future capital planning. This places the District in a very difficult position given the ongoing growth in student population, especially in new residential growth areas. The recent Ministry restrictions on the sale of surplus lands, requiring a public process for disposal, further limit the District’s flexibility from a capital perspective. The District has developed a 2009-2013 Capital Plan even though the Ministry has not reviewed or accepted it. Ten (10) projects are proposed for 2011-2012. In order of rank, these are:

1. An addition to Fraser Heights Secondary

2. A new elementary school in East. Clayton

3. Various seismic upgrades

4. An addition to A.J. McLellan Elementary

5. A new elementary in S.E. Newton

- 30 -

6. An addition to Panorama Ridge Secondary

7. Site acquisition for a Grandview Heights secondary school

8. Site acquisition for a Grandview Heights elementary school

9. A major renovation for Riverdale Elementary

10. A seismic upgrade to Halls Prairie Elementary

11. A renovation of Sunnyside Elementary.

There are a number of projects identified for 2012-13 that could be considered for possible joint development and/or land acquisition. These are:

• Rank # 12 – a major renovation to Hjorth Rd Elementary

• Rank #13 – a new secondary school in North Clayton

• Rank #14 – site acquisition for a N. Clayton Elementary

5.3. Joint Development Opportunities

5.3.1. Forms of Collaboration

The City and District have already worked together on joint land acquisition where neighbourhood parks and elementary school sites are acquired on adjacent properties to create a school/park. In addition to the new elementary schools that are proposed, there may also be opportunities to do this for future secondary school developments. In these cases, the park areas would be at the “community” level rather than the “neighbourhood” level and would include playfield development as well as other open space amenities. While outside the scope of this study, the City and District have also worked on the joint development of exterior access washrooms for playfield users and school/community playgrounds. From a joint facility development perspective, there are essentially two models of cooperative municipal/school facility projects. These are:

1. A fully integrated development of community spaces within a new or renovated school to create a community hub. Examples where this has been done successfully are found in Saanich and Haida Gwaii.

2. The “proximity” or campus model where schools and community facilities are co-located on adjacent parcels in close proximity. Successful examples are Saskatoon, Grande Prairie, Pinetree in Coquitlam, and Fraser Heights in Surrey. It should be noted that the Saskatoon and Pinetree models have the school and recreation centre in closer proximity to allow easy student and community flow between facilities.

While it is certainly not a hard and fast rule, the experience has been that fully integrated joint development of “community hub” facilities works best at the elementary or middle school level. For secondary schools, and where the recreation facility is significant in size and operationally complex, the experience has been that the proximity model

- 31 -

works best. It allows for cooperative planning, programming and use, while providing enough separation of budgets and staffing.

Gymnasiums within community recreation centres have proven to be complimentary to school gymnasiums, rather than duplicating an existing resource. Even in the Saskatoon best practice example, the municipal recreation complex situated between two high schools, still contained two full size community gymnasiums. These facilities allow for extensive day-time use by adults and pre-school aged children, as well as student use. The community gymnasiums at Guildford, South Surrey and other locations have received extensive daytime use, along with evening and weekend uses. Because these gymnasiums are full size, they create not only daytime capacity, but a wider range of opportunities. A trend toward flexibility in work patterns has resulted in much higher daytime use levels of recreation facilities over the last decade in particular.

5.3.2. Recommended Projects to Explore

Based on the future plans of the District and City, as well as opportunities that exist, there are a number of potential projects to explore for joint development. For elementary schools in areas of need, funding support from the Neighbourhood Learning Centres program should be considered. The City may also consider making an additional capital contribution to the community spaces.

As an example, the District plans to carry out major renovations to Riverdale Elementary and Hjorth Road Elementary in the near future. An analysis should be made as to whether these two schools can be combined within a single replacement school at a site to be determined. Both schools have site issues; Riverdale backs on to a commercial strip and in the future, Hjorth Road will be impacted by the extension of the Sky Train. If a new school can replace two or more schools in this area, that school appears to be an ideal candidate for funding support from the Neighbourhood Learning Centres Program. In addition to reviewing the Riverdale/Hjorth Rd option as a Neighbourhood Learning Centre, there may be other C-SP schools where constructing a community hub may also be appropriate. It is suggested that the Co-Leads of the C-SP review the opportunities for other Neighbourhood Learning Centres projects within C-SP schools or other schools in areas of high need. The design of combined community hub projects is critical. The community use spaces should be grouped together with easy public access from the main entrance and parking lot. Other areas of the school need to be blocked off with night access barriers that meet requirements for proper exits. The mechanical and electrical systems need to be designed so that use zones are fully considered, leading to efficient use and energy conservation.

Common spaces could include: gymnasium(s), multi-purpose spaces, pre-school spaces for early learning, arts rooms, flexible classrooms, woodworking shops, meeting rooms, literacy centres, health clinics, family resource centres, and other spaces that allow for a range of social and community services that enhance the quality of life of students and the community.

Recommendation #8

That the joint land acquisition be pursued for future school sites, with the City acquiring enough land for both a community park and an adjacent community facility at selected sites.

.

- 32 -

From a joint acquisition perspective, it was noted earlier that joint land acquisition could be considered for the proposed new secondary schools that will be built in growing areas of Surrey. In addition to developing a community level park at these future sites, the City may also want to construct a recreation facility of a size similar to the Fraser Heights and the Chuck Bailey Community Centres if the need exists.

Two future joint acquisition opportunities for new secondary schools sites are in Grandview Heights and the North Clayton / South Port Kells area. Both South Surrey and Cloverdale will have a significant town centre facility, but the Grandview Heights, and North Clayton / South Port Kells areas will be somewhat isolated from the two major facilities and would benefit from the eventual development of the smaller scale facilities. The potential future community facilities should be based on the proximity or campus model. That is, they should be built on City land in as close proximity to the secondary school as possible, but be managed by the City. The most successful proximity models have ongoing planning meetings to collaborate on joint programming, scheduling, facility use, and issue resolution.

Recommendation #9

That the opportunities be reviewed for the City funding and operating a new or renovated portable on school grounds, for the purpose of providing additional pre-school, family resource, and before and

after school programs.

- 33 -

6. Summary and Implementation of Recommendations

6.1. Summary

The City of Surrey and Surrey School District #36 initiated this Joint Use of Facility Space Study to determine how they could more effectively and efficiently use their resources for the benefit of Surrey residents. Building on a strong history of collaboration, the City and District wanted to better understand how current practices could be enhanced and what new opportunities existed in working together in the future.

To do this, the City and District asked the consultants to look at provincial legislation and programs, best practices in other jurisdictions, the inventory of facilities available, the existing agreements and facility allocation practices, joint programming, and opportunities for future joint development projects.

The core functions of the City and District are different, but converge on a number of levels. The District is primarily responsible for the education of Surrey’s children and youth; the City is vitally concerned with how the lifestyles of these young people may be enhanced. The City provides a legislative framework and a wide range of services to all residents. The District is not only concerned with the environments that affect young people’s lives, but also on how its resources can be used for broader public benefit when not required for educational purposes. These points of convergence have resulted in joint planning around land acquisition, the mutual use of facilities, two joint development projects, partnerships on key issues such as early childhood, and a best practice joint program in the Community-Schools Partnership strategy.

6.2. Implementation of the Recommendations

All of the recommendations are considered to have high priority. Each recommendation is reviewed for the following elements, where applicable.

• Timeline: The timelines for implementation are:

o Short Term – within two years

o Medium Term – two to five years

o Long Term – five to 10 years

• Key Implementation Steps

• Operating Cost Implications

• Capital Cost Implications

• Funding Sources

- 34 -

Recommendation #1: That the Operations Committee be re-established and meet at least twice a year to discuss core principles and practices, and address emerging issues and opportunities. (The Operations Committee will be responsible for implementing recommendations 1 through 5 and 7 through 9).

• Timeline: This should be implemented in the Short Term.

• Key Implementation Steps: The two representatives from each body should be at the senior manager level and should be appointed by the City Manager and the Superintendent of Education respectively. The responsibility for reviewing the implementation of the recommendations and suggestions of this Study should be transferred to the Operations Committee from the Steering Committee.

• Operating Costs: There are no direct associated costs.

Recommendation #2: That the Operations committee review specific Indoor Joint Use Agreements and Master Joint Use Agreements with the intent to renew as necessary, and to ensure that each partner is receiving full value.


• Key Implementation Steps: The original agreement was intended to give the City priority use of the secondary gym after 5:00 pm on weekdays and during the weekends as identified in section 6 of the agreement. Section 6 should be reviewed and adjusted to provide greater clarity. The Saanich agreements with District #61 and #63 can serve as a guide. The City should directly book the space for the community hours after receiving the school requests for school special events.

• Operating Costs: In the Princess Margaret Secondary School example, the ten annual payments of $25,000 were paid to cover the capital costs of $250,000 for expanding the secondary gym and adding the community youth office. The only operating costs paid are two hours of janitorial services for weekend use. The City may consider an annual operational contribution for a negotiated sum within the 10 year term of the renewed agreement. The costs paid by Saanich were proportional to the size and number of the spaces included in the agreements.

Recommendation #3: That the Central Booking unit and the Town Centre Managers hold a joint meeting prior to each booking season to review School District and City requests, and any issues or concerns with joint use procedures.


• Key Implementation Steps: The meetings should be jointly organized by the Manager of Business Development Services and the Manager of Community and Recreation Services.

• Operating Costs: There are no direct associated costs.

Recommendation #4: In 2011, a weekend use pilot project for 2 schools will be implemented in identified areas of need, with the City bearing any program leadership and supervision costs.


• Key Implementation Steps: The number and location of pilot sites should be identified prior to the development of the 2011 City budget. The school sites should be ones that are relatively remote from City

- 35 -

recreation facilities. The programs could include direct instruction, drop-in activities, and some supervised community uses. The City staff person would need to have access and security status with the District.

• Operating Costs: A four hour afternoon block on a weekend day for 40 weeks would cost approximately $30,000 with wages and supplies/equipment included. This could be off-set by registration and drop-in fees.

Recommendation #5: That the City develop an information strategy including materials, tours and meetings with principals to ensure that they are fully aware of opportunities to access City recreation and culture facilities and programs.

• Timeline: This should be implemented in the Short and Medium Term

• Key Implementation Steps: The Marketing staff in Parks, Recreation and Culture should prepare the materials that outline the civic facilities available to schools. These should be presented to the principals at their respective meetings. Tours of facilities could follow.

• Operating Costs: Depending upon current information available, the Marketing staff would need to evaluate production costs.

Recommendation #6: That the District and City develop a formal partnership Memorandum of Understanding for the C-SP that outlines the vision and mission, respective roles of the partners, funding contributions, lines of authority, and reporting relationships as well as a process for review and revision as necessary.

• Timeline: This is completed.

• Key Implementation Steps: The C-SP administrative leads and their key reports should determine the contents of the partnership agreement, using the materials that already exist wherever possible, including those developed by Steve Patty such as the Administrative Evaluation.

• Operating Costs: There may be a need for minor external consulting/facilitation support of the type used in the past.

Recommendation #7: That opportunities be examined to develop community use in new or renovated schools, and that applications for funding support be submitted to the provincial Neighbourhood Learning Centres program.

• Timeline: This is a Short to Medium Term strategy.

• Key Implementation Steps: The review of any available spaces should be carried out at the same time as the Early Childhood and After-School Development Strategy. Pre-school programs could be initiated relatively quickly once available portable spaces in high needs areas have been identified. The opportunity for the City to purchase or refurbish an existing portable will require further analysis of options and costs. Water and sanitation requirements will need to be met.

• Operating Costs: Pre-school programs in classrooms should be able to operate at or near a break-even

basis including related maintenance costs.

• Capital Costs: The determination of capital costs will require further study and would likely need to occur in the Medium Term.

- 36 -

Recommendation #8: That the joint land acquisition be pursued for future school sites, with the City acquiring enough land for both a community park and an adjacent community facility at selected sites.

• Timeline: While the investigation of options should occur in the Short Term, this project would be in the Medium Term for planning and potential land acquisition, and a Long Term project for implementation.

• Key Implementation Steps: The first step would be to rationalize elementary and secondary school needs and options. Discussions should also be initiated with the provincial staff responsible for the Neighbourhood Learning Centres program, as well as with Ministry of Education officials regarding funding options and flexibility. In the Medium Term, the project would require a public involvement process in terms of project components and partners. The City should identify the need for a community level park and a smaller (Fraser Heights and Chuck Bailey size) community centre facility adjacent to both school sites. The sites should be relatively remote from the South Surrey and Cloverdale community centres to justify the provision of a smaller satellite facility. Both sites should use the proximity model where the school and recreation or community centre are separate facilities, but located as close to each other as viable to support joint use.

• Capital Costs: The Neighbourhood Learning Centres program provides capital funding for community use facility spaces. The City may need to top up this funding for project components that are not funded through the Ministry capital and NLC specific funding. There will be land acquisition and facility development capital costs for both parties. Future recreation facilities not identified in the ‘Build Surrey’ program for 2010 – 2016, would need to be considered for inclusion in future capital plans beyond 2016.

Recommendation #9: That the opportunities be reviewed for the City funding and operating a new or renovated portable on school grounds, for the purpose of providing additional pre-school, family resource, and before and after school programs.

• Timeline: This is a Medium Term project.

• Key Implementation Steps: To identify elementary school sites and needs and funding options for the capital investment. The portables should be on school properties that have a high need for before and after school programming and/or preschool programs and family resources. The sites should be relatively remote from other recreation and community amenities with the provision to offer programs and services to those neighborhoods.

• Capital Costs: Staff need to research the capital costs of portables that would be suitable for these programs and services.

6.3. Implementation of the Suggestions

The 7 Suggestions are administrative and policy focused in nature. While some of the suggestions will require a policy decision by the Board of Education or Council, others can be carried out at the administrative level, either by one partner or by mutual decision. The suggestions were not numbered in the report, but are repeated on the following page.

- 37 -

1. It is suggested that the Operating Committee, meet at least twice annually to ensure that the agreements are understood by both parties and amendments are put forward if needed to provide greater clarity.

2. It is suggested that if the City of Surrey provides funding for future joint development projects, and has priority access for designated hours for specific spaces, that the City should book the spaces for those hours with due consideration of the school’s requests.

3. It is suggested that new principals and Community and Recreation Services staff assigned to C-SP schools receive a full orientation to the community school concept and creating community partnerships, and that current C-SP school principals and CRS staff play a significant role in the orientation process.

4. It is suggested that the District consider providing City of Surrey staff with similar access and security rights as provided by Saanich School District #36.

5. While the focus of services should be on children and families within the C-SP school area, it is suggested that greater flexibility on boundaries would allow more needy families to be served.

6. It is suggested that the City and District staff meet to review and clarify the protocols for joint distribution of

materials.

7. It is suggested that the Co-Leads of the C-SP review the opportunities for other Neighbourhood Learning Centres projects within C-SP schools or other schools in areas of high needs.

All of the suggestions should be considered for implementation in the Short Term, with the exception of #2 which refers to future joint development projects. Even this suggestion can be implemented in the shorter term if it is applied to the renewed Princess Margaret Agreement.

6.4. Concluding Thoughts

There is a high level of good will that exists between the senior staff levels of the City of Surrey and School District #36, as well as at other levels throughout the system. Political support for working together from the Board of Education and City Council is also strongly evident.

This report builds on the relationship between the City and School District by providing a number of recommendations and suggestions on how they can enhance existing practices and build for the future. The Surrey School District is the largest in the province, while the City of Surrey has the second largest population of all municipalities in BC. The rapid growth in Surrey presents challenges to meet fast evolving demands. The commitment by the District and City to work together will play a key role in meeting the emerging needs effectively in a community with a truly exciting future.

Appendix 1

Interviews Conducted for Study

Appendix 1: Interviews Conducted for Study

School District #36 Mike McKay (BW, DH) Wayne Noye (BW, DH) Patti Dundas (MH –tel) Pat Horstead and C-SP Coordinators (EM) Kerry Magnus DH) Liane Ricou (DH) Lance Nordling and Madelaine Mahoney (DH) Shairoz Merani (with Kelsey Swanson) (EM) Elementary Principals (B. Murphy & C. Davidson) (MH) Secondary Principals (B. Hadikin & D. Baldasso) (MH) Pat Horstead (BW) City of Surrey Murray Dinwoodie and Laurie Cavan (BW, DH) Jean Lamontagne (Planner) (DH) Lisa White DH) and (EM) Melanie Holden (D. Librarian) (EM) Aileen Murphy (Social Planner) (DH) CLS Management Team (DH) Tiina Mack (BW, DH) CLS Coordinators (EM) Jeff Schnaffsma (Risk Mgt) (DH) Sheila McKinnon (Arts) EM) Jacqueline O’Donnell (EM) Jerome Thibaudeau (EM) Angela Barth (EM) Lori Bowie (EM) Other Organizations Jeff Calbick, United Way (EM) Early Childhood Partners (EM) Susan Papadionissiou (OECLDC) (DH) John Cavelti (Ministry Of Educ.) (DH) Ken Campbell (Haida Gwaii) (DH) Jim Marvel (Langley) (BW) Tom Cranshaw (Coquitlam) (BW) Quenton Lehman (Sannich) (DH) Ellen Forsyth (West Van. SD) (MH) Parks, Recreation and Culture Committee, Surrey (DH) Surrey Multicultural Advisory Committee (EM) John Wolgar, Surrey YMCA (BW)

Appendix 2

Resource Materials Reviewed

Appendix 2: Resource Materials Reviewed

Evaluability Assessment Report, Surrey’s Community School Partnerships Program, Bowie, L., 2009. (contains the Comprehensive C-SP Program Logic Model). Community School Partnership: Administrative Evaluation, Patty, S., 2009 Community-Schools Partnership: Multiple documents including Agreement between City and District #36, Terms of Reference, proposal document, flow charts and other background materials Action Plan for the Social Well-Being of Surrey Residents, City of Surrey, 2006 Social Well-Being Plan, City of Surrey, 2007 Early Childhood Partnership Agreement Annual Report Card - Action Plan for the Social Well-Being of Surrey Residents, City of Surrey, 20078 City of Surrey Sustainability Charter Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Delivery Plan, City of Surrey, 2009 2008-2017 Parks, Recreation and Culture Strategic Plan, City of Surrey, July 2008 Middle Childhood Inside and Out, United Way, 2007 2008 – 2017 Parks, Recreation and Culture Strategic Plan, City of Surrey, July 2008. The Impact of After-School Programs That Promote Personal and Social Skills, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), 2007. Improving After-School Program Quality, Grager, R, Durlak, J.A., Yohalem, N., & Reisner, E., 2007. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Full-Service Community Schools Model in Washington: Showalter Middle School, LaFrance Associates, 2005.

The Surrey Best Practices Review, Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Ltd., 2001. Learning for Action – Comprehensive Evaluation of the Full-Service Community Schools Model in Washington: Showalter Middle School, Lafrance Associates, September 2005 Creating a Child and youth Friendly City: What Does it Mean, City of Surrey, 2008 Child and Youth Friendly City Strategy, City of Surrey, 2009 A Community Literacy & Essential Skills Plan for Surrey and White Rock, Surrey White Rock Literacy Steering Committee, 2009 Early Childhood Partners: Multiple documents including MOU, Operating Agreement, and other materials Office of Early Childhood Development, Learning and Care: Multiple documents including strategic plan, needs research, and other background materials City of Surrey Corporate Reports – Additional corporate reports related to Kensington Prairie School Community Centre, and Build Surrey civic capital plans, and other related areas Multiple website searches for some best practice and government program areas to supplement direct interviews

Appendix 3

School Facility Booking Summary

*For the purposes of this study, weekdays do not include public holidays. Time shown as available is approx. only.

School Facility Booking Summary

The purpose of the school facility booking study is to take a sampling of Surrey school gymnasium availability schedules in order to determine whether School District facilities can potentially support joint use programming with the City of Surrey. The study analyzes facilities for their availability between 8am and 10pm from October 2009 to May 2010. Particular attention is paid to 2 hour weekday* evening sessions: 6pm to 8pm and 8pm to 10pm. These are currently the most popular and practical facility booking times as they don’t always require the additional maintenance and security costs that are associated with opening the schools on non-instructional days.

The study looks at the availability schedules of 3 school gymnasiums from each of Surrey’s 6 communities. Each sample school was chosen according to its student population as of September 2009 and its relative geographic location. The school sampling includes:

the school with the highest student population in the community;

the community (CSP) school with the highest student population or the school with the second highest student population in the community; and,

a school with a median student population (as compared with the rest of the community)

Each school also represents a different location within the community. Lower population schools in less centralized locations have not been chosen as samples because the booking schedules tend to show more availability and they are therefore subject to more variation.

Please note: for a more accurate assessment, all schools within a community should be analyzed. In some instances the average graphed time will equal more than 100%. This is because some of the 2 hour sessions regularly booked for maintenance (after 8pm every Friday) have also been booked under a rental contract.

Based off of the sample schools, Surrey school facilities are busiest in autumn and winter. Availability typically decreases into November and gymnasiums remain busy until approximately spring break in March. This is probably due to an increased demand for indoor facilities during colder months. The gymnasiums tend to have a higher percentage of availability in the months with an increased number of non-instructional days such as March and December. The overall busiest (least available) month is consistently February where there is less interruption from non-instructional days, so that the month lends itself more readily to regular rental contracts.

Overall City-wide Trends:

There are fewer trends for Weekday* 2 hour evening sessions. 6-8pm sessions are most available in March which is consistent with the overall findings, however there is greater variation regarding the least available months. Most communities highlight February as being the least available for 6-8pm sessions, although November, December, and January are also busy. 8-10pm sessions are mostly available in March and December.

Conclusion:

Generally, availability in school facilities is inconsistent; most appear as “one-off” situations that don’t lend themselves to rentals due to irregular availability, particularly on school days. Non-instructional days, such as weekends, public holidays, professional development days, and winter and spring breaks, are currently blocked out of regular Monday to Friday rental group contracts as these days incur an increased rental cost. The cost accommodates maintenance and security that is required as the facility is typically closed during these times. As a result, non-instructional days generally need to be specially requested, and although they are “available”, do not currently lend themselves to repeat schedule programming. For these reasons, weekends may provide the best opportunity for supporting additional future regular programming, although at an increased cost.


Cloverdale Sample Schools: AJ McLellan Elementary (474 regular program students) Hillcrest Elementary (572 regular program students) Martha Currie Elementary [CSP] (251 regular program students, 328 french immersion students)

monthO ctober 61% booked 38% available

November 58% booked 41% availableDecember 42% booked 59% available

J anuary 61% booked 38% availableF ebruary 65% booked 34% available

March 38% booked 60% availableApril 57% booked 41% availableMay 51% booked 48% available

Average Overall Booked vs. Available Timetime (% of hours a month)





Average 6-8pm 2 Hour Weekday* Sessionstime (% of 6-8pm 2 hour weekday* sessions a month)






Cloverdale school gymnasiums are busiest in the autumn and winter months, particularly November through March. Overall, February has the lowest percentage of available hours and March has the greatest percentage of available hours. October is busiest for 6-8pm 2 hour weekday* sessions, whereas February is busiest for 8-10pm 2 hour weekday* sessions.

Trends:

least available monthmost available month

availablebooked/unavailable

clos ed for maintenances cheduled % of maintenance per month


Cloverdale Sample School Martha Currie Elementary Gymnasium (CSP) October 2009 – May 2010


clos ed for maintenance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

8am T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

8am S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

8am T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

8am F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8am M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

8am M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

8am T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F6pm7pm8pm9pm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

8am S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M T u W T h F S a S u M6pm7pm8pm9pm

month

November 2009month

approx. # of 2 hour weekday* evening s es s ions available: 6-8pm (2), 8-10pm (1). 60% booked.

Oc tober 2009day

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

time (8am-10pm)



day

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month Marc h 2010day

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

monthday

month J anuary 2010

Dec ember 2009


time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-

10pm)


month April 2010


Cloverdale Sample School

October 2009 – May 2010 Hillcrest Elementary Gymnasium



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


J anuary 2010

day

month Marc h 2010

month

November 2009month


Oc tober 2009

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


Dec ember 2009

daym

ost a

vaila

ble

mon

th



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

month

day


time (8am-

10pm)

month April 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

month




monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


Cloverdale Sample School

October 2009 – May 2010 A.J. McLellan Elementary Gymnasium



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


month April 2010

day

month

November 2009month



day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)


day

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month Marc h 2010

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-

10pm)

day


daymonth J anuary 2010

day

time (8am-10pm)

month Dec ember 2009


Fleetwood

Berkshire Park Elementary (462 regular program students) Sample Schools:

Green Timbers Elementary (564 regular program students) Walnut Road Elementary (575 regular program students)
















Fleetwood school gymnasiums are the busiest in the autumn and winter months, with the least availability in February. The greatest percentage of overall availability occurs in the spring. January is the busiest month for 6-8pm 2 hour weekday* sessions with only 5% available. April is the busiest month for 8-10pm 2 hour weekday* sessions. March is consistently the most available month both overall and for weekday* 2 hour evening sessions.

Trends:





Fleetwood Sample School

October 2009 – May 2010 Berkshire Park Elementary Gymnasium



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


month J anuary 2010day

time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009month


month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

approx. # of 2 hour weekday* evening s es s ions available: 6-8pm (3), 8-10pm (4) 60% booked.

day

month

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)

approx. # of 2 hour weekday* evening s es s ions available: 6-8pm (4), 8-10pm (4). 63%

November 2009month



Dec ember 2009 daymonth

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth



October 2009 – May 2010 Green Timbers Elementary Gymnasium



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)

month Dec ember 2009 day


month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)




October 2009 – May 2010 Walnut Road Elementary Gymnasium



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31



time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)


mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


Guildford

Fraser Wood Elementary (447 regular program students) Sample Schools:

Holly Elementary [CSP] (513 regular program students) William F. Davidson Elementary (582 regular program students)
















Trends:

The Guildford sample schools indicate that gymnasiums are busiest in the autumn and winter months. The greatest percentage of overall bookings for any month is February, with March having the most availability. February is also less available for both 6-8pm and 8-10pm weekday* sessions. March has the greatest percentage of availability for 6-8pm weekday* sessions, while December has the greatest percentage of availability for 8-10pm weekday* sessions.





Guildford Sample School Fraser Wood Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)



Guildford Sample School Holly Elementary Gymnasium (CSP) October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31



time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)


mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t av

aila

ble

mon

th


Guildford Sample School William F. Davidson Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31



time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010



month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)


mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


Newton Sample Schools: Chimney Hill Elementary (695 regular program students) North Ridge Elementary (437 regular program students) Strawberry Hill Elementary [CSP] (529 regular program students)
















Trends:

The Newton sample schools show that gymnasiums are busiest in autumn and winter. January and February are the months with the greatest percentage of bookings. March is consistently the most available month due to spring break. 6-8pm and 8-10pm weekday* sessions are most available in March and least available in February.





Newton Sample School Chimney Hill Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)



Newton Sample School North Ridge Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)



month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

month

November 2009month




day

month

leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)



Newton Sample School Strawberry Hill Elementary Gymnasium (CSP) October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

month

November 2009month




day

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010



mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


month April 2010

month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)




time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)




South Surrey Sample Schools: Laronde Elementary [CSP] (102 regular program, 353 french immersion students) Morgan Elementary (349 regular program students) South Meridian Elementary (255 regular program students)










time (% of 6-8pm 2 hour weekday* sessions a month)Average 6-8pm 2 Hour Weekday* Sessions






Trends:

As a general trend, South Surrey school gymnasiums are busiest in the autumn and winter months, with the greatest percentage of bookings occurring in February. March has the greatest percentage of overall availability. 6-8pm weekday* sessions have the least percentage of availability in February, and the greatest percentage of availability in March. December has the lowest available percentage for 8-10pm weekday* sessions, while March has the most availability.





South Surrey Sample School Laronde Elementary Gymnasium (CSP) October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

month

November 2009month




day

month

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)


month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

Dec ember 2009 day


month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

month


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


South Surrey Sample School Morgan Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

month

November 2009month




day

month

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)


month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

Dec ember 2009 day


month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

month


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


South Surrey Sample School South Meridian Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

month

November 2009month




day

month

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


day

time (8am-10pm)


month May 2010day

time (8am-10pm)

Dec ember 2009 day


month April 2010


F ebruary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

month


time (8am-

10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)



day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


Whalley Sample Schools: Cindrich Elementary (577 regular program students) Lena Shaw Elementary [CSP] (555 regular program students) Prince Charles Elementary (285 regular program students)
















Trends:

Whalley elementary school gymnasiums are busiest in the autumn and winter months. The greatest percentage of bookings both overall and for weekday* sessions occurs in February, whereas the lowest percentage of bookings is in March.





Whalley Sample School Cindrich Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

May 2010



mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth



month

month




time (8am-

10pm)

November 2009

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010

month

day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)


month April 2010day

Oc tober 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)




day

time (8am-10pm)


Whalley Sample School Lena Shaw Elementary Gymnasium (CSP) October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


time (8am-10pm)



month May 2010day

month

November 2009month


day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010

month April 2010day



J anuary 2010

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-10pm)

month

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)


Dec ember 2009 day


month



leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth

day

time (8am-

10pm)

mos

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


Whalley Sample School Prince Charles Elementary Gymnasium October 2009 – May 2010



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


leas

t ava

ilabl

e m

onth


month April 2010

month

November 2009month



day

time (8am-10pm)

Oc tober 2009


day

monthday

time (8am-10pm)

F ebruary 2010


month Marc h 2010

day

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

time (8am-10pm)

J anuary 2010

day

time (8am-10pm)

month Dec ember 2009

time (8am-10pm)

day

time (8am-

10pm)

daym

ost a

vaila

ble

mon

th



month May 2010

day


month

PURCHASING SECTION 13450 – 104 Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T ... 2018-023 - Addendum No. 2.pdf · Q1....

Documents

Transcript of PURCHASING SECTION 13450 – 104 Avenue, Surrey, B.C. V3T ... 2018-023 - Addendum No. 2.pdf · Q1....