HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan��i�E IDIAN�---
IDAHO
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1
A. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN......................................................................................................................... 1
B. PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1
C. KEY ISSUES SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 2
D. KEY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS FINDINGS....................................................................................... 4
E. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 5
II. INTRODUCTION OF THE PLANNING CONTEXT.................................................................... 11
A. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN....................................................................................................................... 11
B. HISTORY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.................................................................................. 11
C. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................... 11
D. MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES............................................................................................................. 12
E. RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS AND INTEGRATION....................................................................................... 13
F. METHODOLOGY OF THIS PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................ 13
III. WHAT WE WANT - OUR COMMUNITY AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS ........................................ 15
A. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE...................................................................................................................... 15
B. PARK AND RECREATION INFLUENCING TRENDS.......................................................................................... 20
C. COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT.................................................................................................. 22
D. RANDOM INVITATION COMMUNITY SURVEY SUMMARY............................................................................. 23
E. ORGANIZATIONAL AND MARKETING ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 33
G. RECREATION PROGRAMMING ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 35
H. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 36
I. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 39
IV. WHAT WE HAVE NOW - INVENTORY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ........................... 43
A. INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................................. 43
B. GRASP° METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 44
C. GRASP° ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................. 54
D. OTHER TYPES OF ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................. 65
E. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... 68
F. PARK CLASSIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................ 69
G. URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN.................................................................................................. 79
H. STRATEGIC GOALS FOR MERIDIAN URBAN FORESTRY................................................................................. 82
I. EXISTING URBAN FOREST DATA.............................................................................................................. 84
J. PATHWAYS ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 90
K. SUMMARY OF PLANNING PROCESS FOR CONCEPTUAL PARK MASTER PLANS ................................................... 97
V. KEY ISSUES...................................................................................................................... 101
TRIANGULATION MATRIX....................................................................................................................... 101
VI. GREAT THINGS TO COME - RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS .......................... 105
A. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................ 105
B. ACTION PLAN, COST ESTIMATES, AND PRIORITIZATION............................................................................. 111
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX A — PARK AND RECREATION INFLUENCING TRENDS.............................................A-1
APPENDIX B — COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT.....................................................A-27
APPENDIX C — SURVEY RESULTS..........................................................................................A-41
APPENDIX D — SAMPLE SPONSORSHIP POLICY....................................................................A-97
APPENDIX E — SAMPLE PARTNERSHIP POLICY................................................................... A-115
APPENDIX F — GRASP° METHODOLOGY............................................................................ A-135
APPENDIX G — LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS MAPS............................................................ A-149
APPENDIX H — STRATEGIC GOALS FOR URBAN FORESTRY ................................................. A-175
APPENDIX I — FUTURE PARK CONCEPT PLANS................................................................... A-183
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary Demographics for Meridian, Idaho — 2015...................................................................15
Table 2: Meridian Population Projections*................................................................................................15
Table 3: Meridian, Idaho— 2014 Educational Attainment...........................................................................18
Table 4: Meridian Housing Statistics........................................................................................................... 19
Table 5: Outdoor Inventory Summary Table..............................................................................................49
Table 6: Indoor Inventory Summary Table................................................................................................. 51
Table 7: GRASP° Comparative Data............................................................................................................63
Table 8: Capacities LOS for Community Components................................................................................ 65
Table 9: GRASP° Community Component Index........................................................................................ 67
Table 10: Key Issues Analysis Matrix......................................................................................................... 102
Table 11: Water Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands)........................................................... 7
Table 12: Top 10 Worldwide Fitness Trends for 2007 and Predicted Trends for 2015 ................................8
Table 13: Top Twenty Sports Ranked by Total Participation (in millions) in 2012 .....................................18
Table 14: Ten -Year History of Sports Participation (in millions) 2001-2011 ...............................................19
Table 15: Trail Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands) (6 years of age or older) .................... 22
List of Figures
Figure 1: Population Age Distribution for the Years 2010, 2014, and 2019 ...............................................16
Figure 2: Ethnicity Statistics (2014)............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3: Snapshot of Meridian and Idaho unemployment rates from 2006 - 2014 ..................................18
Figure 4: Annual Household Income Distribution Comparison (2014 - 2019) ............................................19
Figure 5: Current Facilities — Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix................................................................ 27
Figure 6: Current Programs — Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix............................................................... 29
Figure 7: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined..................................................30
Figure 8: Allocation of Funding Toward Facilities/Services/Programs — Average Allocation Amount .......33
Figure9: Park Acreage................................................................................................................................37
Figure 10: Pathways Maintained................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 11: Developed Park Acres per 1,000 People................................................................................... 38
Figure 12: GRASP' Catchment and Scoring Example.................................................................................52
Figure 13: GRASP' Scoring Calculation.......................................................................................................53
Figure 14: Sample Data Chart Generated in GIS Using Data from Current Tree Inventory ........................85
Figure 15: Working Plan of Kleiner Arboretum........................................................................................... 88
City of Meridian, Idaho
Acknowledgements
Mayor & City Council
Tammy de Weerd - Mayor
Charlie Rountree - City Council President
Keith Bird - Vice President
Joe Borton
Luke Cavener
Genesis Milam
David Zaremba
Parks & Recreation Commission
Matt Stoll - President
Creg Steele - Vice President
Treg Bernt
Sharon Borton
William Fitzgerald
Kent Goldthorpe
Jo Greer
Phillip Liddell
John Nesmith
Project Team
Steve Siddoway - Parks & Recreation Director
Mike Barton - Parks Superintendent
Jay Gibbons - Parks & Pathways Project Manager
Roger Norberg - Parks Maintenance Foreman
Elroy Huff - City Arborist
Colin Moss, Garrett White, & Jake Garro - Recreation Coordinators
Rachel Myers - Administrative Assistant 11
Shelly Houston - Marketing Coordinator
Doug Green & Matt Tenold - GIS Specialists
Brian McClure - Associate City Planner
Parks & Recreation Staff
Community Stakeholders, Entities, Organizations, Agencies, Commissions, Churches, & Schools; &
Department Directors, & Staff that Participated in the Focus Groups
Consultant Team
Green Play, LLC
Design Concepts
Breckon Land Design
RRC Associates
For more information about this document, contact GreenPlay, LLC
At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N, Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone: 303-439-8369
Email: info@greenplayllc.com www.greenplayllc.com
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of this Plan
The City of Meridian, Idaho, provides a
comprehensive Parks and Recreation
system that greatly contributes to the
quality of life in Meridian and surrounding
areas. In order to plan into the future of
this valuable Parks and Recreation system,
the City's Parks and Recreation
Department began a process to develop
this Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Development of this plan took place from
December 2014 to December 2015, and
included a public input process, services
inventory and analysis, needs assessment, operational and maintenance analysis, and financial analysis.
The Master Plan provides the framework to respond to the evolving needs of this growing community.
B. Planning Process Summary
This project has been guided by a Meridian Parks and Recreation project team made up of City staff,
with input from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. This team provided input
to the GreenPlay consulting team throughout the planning process. This collaborative effort created a
plan that fully utilizes the consultant's expertise and incorporates the local knowledge and
institutional history that only community members can provide. The project consisted of the following
tasks:
Community Engagement
• Review of previous planning efforts, City historical information.
• Extensive community involvement effort including focus groups, meetings with key
stakeholders, and a community -wide public meeting.
Statistically -valid community interest and opinion survey.
Online community engagement website — MindMixer/mySidewalk.
Facility Inventory
• Inventory of parks and facilities using existing mapping, staff interviews, and on-site visits to
verify amenities and assess the condition of the facilities and surrounding areas.
GRASP® Level of Service Analysis
• Interviews with staff to provide information about City facilities and services, along with insight
regarding the current practices and experiences of the City in serving its residents and visitors.
• Identification of alternative providers of recreation services to provide insight regarding the
market opportunities in the area for potential new facilities and services.
• Analysis addressing recreation, parks, and related services.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Assessment and Analysis
• Review and assessment of relevant plans.
Measurement of the current delivery of service for City facilities using the GRASP° Level of
Service Analysis and allowing for a target level of service to be determined that is both feasible
and aligned with the desires of citizens as expressed through the citizen survey. This analysis is
also represented graphically in GRASP' Perspectives.
Exploration of finance and funding mechanisms to support development and sustainability
within the system.
Needs Assessment
• Consideration of the profile of the community and demographics, including population growth.
• Research of trends related to Meridian and American lifestyles to help guide the efforts of Parks
and Recreation over the next several years.
Operational and Marketing Analysis
• Analyze parks and recreation programming and service delivery.
• Conduct an organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis.
• Develop a broad assessment of the overall parks and recreation operations.
Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan
Identification and categorization of recommendations into themes with goals, objectives, and an
action plan for implementation.
• Development of an action plan for capital improvements including cost, funding source
potentials, and timeframe to support the implementation of the plan.
Other Plan Elements:
• Review of current staffing and development of recommendation for future growth potential.
• Review of the current Park Classification System and development of recommendations for a
component based system of classification.
• Develop an Urban Forestry Management strategy.
• Review current Pathways Plan and develop updated recommendations.
• Conduct public engagement meeting to develop draft concept plans for:
■ South Meridian Regional Park (77 acres)
■ Borup/Bottles Properties (47 acres)
■ Margaret Aldape Park (60 acres +/-)
C. Key Issues Summary
During the initial stages of the project, the following Key Issues were identified for focus:
Organizational:
• Improve marketing and communication of activities and facilities.
• Increased staffing for programming and future facilities operations.
• Increased maintenance staffing to keep up with quality of service and demand.
• Increase opportunities to utilize technology to improve customer service and efficiencies.
• Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways.
• Increase partnerships.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Programs and Service Delivery:
• Increase year-round recreational activities.
• Expand special event offerings.
• Expand outdoor and adventure recreation opportunities.
• Need programs at convenient times for community.
• Expand programming for seniors, active adults, special needs, tweens, and teens.
Facilities and Amenities:
• Maintain existing quantity and quality of level of service.
• Maintain and improve existing facilities.
• Find opportunities to acquire new land for parks.
• Expand pathways and connectivity.
• Adopt and continue to maintain a component based inventory and level of service standard in
existing GIS.
• Add indoor recreation space.
• Improve signage agency -wide.
• Maintain existing facilities and amenities.
• Develop new amenities at new and existing parks based on level of service analysis.
• Add additional athletic fields and lights.
• Evaluate parking and event/program/activity scheduling.
• Develop an ADA Transition Plan.
• Upgrade convenience and customer service items to existing facilitates.
• Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks or when
developing new ones.
• Gather and maintain data on HOA and alternative provider owned recreational property.
• Develop and maintain life cycle replacement and asset management plans.
• Create park identity in existing and new parks.
Finance:
• Increase event and activity sponsorships.
• Review Developer Impact fee ordinance.
• Consider dedicated funding source for parks and recreation.
• Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities.
• Consider Cost Recovery and Pricing Philosophy including scholarships.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
D. Key Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Findings
Several general findings were revealed by the City of Meridian GRASP° Analysis. These may be
summarized as follows:
For neighborhood access to parks and recreation, Meridian offers:
• A wide variety of well distributed recreational opportunities.
• High quality and well maintained parks.
• Good access with over 75 percent of land area above threshold when considering all providers.
• Definite distinction between "Community Parks" and "Neighborhood Parks."
• An overall high level of service if accessed by an automobile.
• High scoring "Regional Parks" or "Community Parks."
• A high number of components and average score per site when compared to some other
communities.
• Some large "pockets" of high level of service.
• Great restroom standards.
For walkable level of service:
• While "Neighborhood Parks" often score high enough to meet the "threshold," a lack of
pathway access often keeps an area below the threshold mark.
• Some parks, especially "Neighborhood Parks," lack unique or identifiable character.
• Alternative providers are an important supplement to Meridian's "Neighborhood" level of
service.
• There is heavy reliance on alternative providers (including schools) for walkable neighborhood
level of service in many areas, and the quality of alternative providers' parks varies greatly
across the system.
• Demographic analysis shows good distribution of parks where young people live with over 75
percent of the 0-19 age group having walkable access to some recreation service.
• There is a need to identify and collect inventory data on the remaining alternative provider
parks/facilities.
• Access to a quality, connected pathway system is limited and greatly impacts overall walkable
level of service in Meridian.
For pathways and pathway access:
• There a variety of pathways are available across the City, but they are not meeting the needs
and demands of the community.
• Many of the pathways within Meridian are not connected to the larger overall pathway system.
• A significant portion of these pathways may have limited or restricted access based on locations
within subdivisions.
• Pathway access is notably absent from some Meridian residential neighborhoods.
Based on projected population growth over the next 5-7 years, Meridian and its partners need:
• Additional park land and components added to the system to maintain current level of service.
• To improve or upgrade existing components to maintain current level of service.
City of Meridian, Idaho
E. Recommendations
After analyzing the Findings that resulted from this process, including the Key Issues Matrix, a summary
of all research, the qualitative and quantitative data, the GRASP® LOS analyses, and input assembled for
this study, a variety of recommendations have emerged to provide guidance in consideration of how to
improve parks, recreation, and pathway opportunities in the City of Meridian. This section describes
ways to enhance the level of service and the quality of life with improvement through organizational
efficiencies, financial opportunities, improved programming and service delivery, and maintenance and
improvements to facilities and amenities.
Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 1.1— Maintain existing level of service goal
The City of Meridian currently has a Level of Service that is three acres of developed park land per 1,000
persons with a goal of increasing to a Level of Service Standard of four acres/1,000 persons by 2040.
Additionally, the City should develop a Level of Service Standard that considers components within parks
and a radius of .5 miles per component for walkability.
Objective 1.2 — Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding department
activities and services.
The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to implement the Marketing Plan
(Communication Plan) that will guide the Department's efforts in communicating and promoting its
activities, services, and facilities. This will continue to create great awareness and should include all of
the recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, and facility upgrades. Additionally, the
Marketing Plan should be reviewed annually and updated as needed, and should include marketing
strategies that incorporate the efforts of partner departments and projects.
The marketing and communication of Parks and Recreation Department activities should be enhanced
with a focused effort on adopting open lines of communication and meetings with partners and
potential partners within the community. This enhanced focus will help to create advocacy in the
community and provide a forum to better celebrate the successes of the Department.
Objective 1.3 — Provide improved signage agency -wide to make it easier for patrons to find and use
parks, facilities, and pathways.
The Parks and Recreation Department should evaluate directional and wayfinding signage to facilities on
roadway, pathways, and within parks. Additionally, the Department should develop signage standards
for parks and update existing park signs as parks are renovated to meet the new standard. Improved
wayfinding signage will contribute to a greater connectivity of parks, facilities, and pathways.
Objective 1.4 — Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities.
There was an overwhelming public response to make sure that Parks and Recreation maintains and
improves existing facilities. The Department should continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities
and amenities as well as address low scoring components through the CIP Plan and the Life Cycle
Maintenance Program.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Objective 1.5 — Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways.
Mobile marketing is a trend of the future. Young adults engage in mobile data applications at much
higher rates than adults in age brackets 30 and older. Usage rates of mobile applications demonstrate
that chronologically across four major age cohorts, Millennials tend to get information more frequently
using mobile devices, such as smart phones. Parks and Recreation should explore additional social media
uses and navigation apps for parks and pathways. The City of Meridian has current best practices for
social media that should be followed, reviewed annually, and updated as needed.
Objective 1.6 — Increase appropriate partnerships within the community.
The City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department currently partners with a number of agencies to
provide programs and activities to the community. The Department should continue to explore
additional opportunities, as well as build on their existing partnerships. Where not already in place, the
Department should ensure that all existing and future partnerships are accurately portrayed in a signed
partnership agreement (Sample Partnership Policy can be found in Appendix E).
The City of Meridian Strategic Plan that was adopted in 2015 sets a goal of continuing to explore
partnerships with alternative providers to increase level of service. Additionally, the Department should
identify desired sports facilities or complexes and establish partnerships that foster their development.
Objective 1.7 — Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies.
The Department should continue to explore additional opportunities to expand the use of technology
Department wide. Some immediate areas in which area to increase technology within the Department
include providing online shelter reservations and providing a mobile application of the Department's
website.
Objective 1.8 — Staff appropriately to meet demand and maintain established quality of service.
As recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, new facilities, pathways, parks, and
facility upgrades are implemented, it is important to maintain staffing levels to maintain current
performance standards. This will require the new positions both in parks and recreation.
Objective 1.9 — Maintain and keep current the Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and
Policies.
The Parks and Recreation Department is governed by City Code and internal standards of operations and
policies. The Department should review the City Code Chapter for Parks and Recreation annually and
recommend updates as needed. Additionally, staff should review Department SOPS and policies annually
and update as needed.
Objective 1.10 — Expand the volunteer program
The Department currently has a Park Ambassador Program that could be reviewed, improved, and
expanded to meet their growing needs. Additionally, they should continue to make use of other
volunteer opportunities for park projects and events.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1— Increase special event and activities sponsorships.
The Department should continue to explore additional sponsorship opportunities and build on existing
sponsorships. All existing and future sponsorships should be evaluated to ensure that they are
accurately portrayed in a signed sponsorship agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy can be found in
Appendix D).
Objective 2.2 — Evaluate Developer Impact Fee Ordinance.
The current Developer Impact Fee is based on a LOS of 3.04 acres of developed park land per 1,000
people. As the Department moves toward its goal of four acres of developed park land per 1,000 people,
the ordinance should be reviewed every three years to keep current with the LOS. Additionally, the
Department should review its Developer Impact Fee revenue annually to align with CIP requests and
existing LOS.
Objective 2.3 — Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities.
The Department currently takes advantage of grant opportunities available for programming, services,
and facility improvements. The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to pursue any and all
grant opportunities at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. To accomplish this, the Department
may consider contracting with a dedicated grant writer to research, submit, and track such grants.
Objective 2.4 —Implement a cost recovery and pricing policy.
The Department currently has a practice of cost recovery, but GREENPLAY.r The Pyramid
it varies based on the different service areas. The Parks and " ° Methodology
Recreation Department should implement a Cost Recovery rRg�fasy ,,
Policy, such as the Pyramid Pricing Methodology to determine
a consistent method of pricingpbParks and Recreation activities Considerable
M ' Individual
throughout the Department. As part of the policy, the is Benefit
�g.i IndivicluallCommunity
Department should continue to support the current Care 'Ail Benefit
Enough to Share Scholarship Program. = s (Balanced Beneficiaries
Considerable Community
Benefit
In addition to establishing a Cost Recovery and Pricing Policy, 0
the Department should explore the feasibility of a dedicated =�`y� Mostly Communtr
revenue for parks and recreation through special revenue
funds, sports, tourism, or other available sources.
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1— Increase year round recreational programming and activities.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand indoor recreational programs and
activities. The community would like to see additional programs for tweens, teens, people with special
needs, and seniors. As new programs are developed, continue to monitor recreational trends to stay
current with programming and demand. As popularity in program offerings and activities increases,
continue to look for opportunities to expand programs around working hours and commuting citizens
schedules.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City's Strategic Plan has also set a goal to attract, promote, and maintain a "signature" event for the
City, and to set targets, identify gaps, and deploy programs, activities, and events that provide family -
centered recreational opportunities.
Goal 4: Maintain and Improve Facilities and Amenities
Objective 4.1— Maintain and improve existing facilities.
The Department should continue to implement existing plans, the CIP, Life Cycle Replacement Programs,
and the Master Plan. These plans should be reviewed annually and updated as needed.
Objective 4.2 — Expand pathways and connectivity.
The Department should continue to implement the existing Pathways Master Plan and update as
needed based on annual reviews. As new and existing pathways are designed and renovated, the
Department should consider adding fitness stations and family fun stations in appropriate locations
along the pathways.
Objective 4.3 — Add indoor recreation space.
Based on feedback from focus group participants and the survey results, there is a need for additional
indoor recreation space. The Department should continue to explore opportunities to add additional
indoor recreation space either through partnerships, purchase of an existing facility, or construction of a
Community Center or Fieldhouse. Another option would be to explore opportunities to add Community
Centers to newly planned elementary schools.
Objective 4.4 — Develop new amenities at existing parks based on level of service analysis.
Demand for usage of Meridian parks and athletic facilities continue to grow, and the Department should
look for opportunities to add new amenities to enhance the experience for users. As Meridian continues
to grow, the Department should look for opportunities to add parks and pathways in those new growth
areas. Also, based on the GRASP® analysis, the Department should look for opportunities to add new
components at existing parks where the level of service is below threshold.
Objective 4.5 — Acquire new land for parks.
Based on population growth and a LOS goal of reaching four acres of developed park land per 1,000
population, the Department needs to continue to find and purchase additional land for future park
development. When considering new parks, priority should be given to areas where LOS is below
threshold.
Objective 4.6 — Improve parking at parks.
Parking was an issue that was identified at most of the focus groups. The Department should continue
to monitor parking during peak usage times and explore the need to improve and potentially add more
parking at appropriate parks and amenities. Another consideration would be to explore alternative
transportation options to reduce parking demand.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Objective 4.7 — Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities.
According to the ADA.gov website, "Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title 11 of the ADA requires
State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities...
One important way to ensure that Title 11's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self-
evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to
pinpoint the facilities, programs, and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local
governments are complying with the ADA."
Parks and Recreation currently does not have an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan which identifies
needed changes during a self-evaluation process. The Department needs to conduct a self-evaluation
and develop a comprehensive transition plan. Once the ADA Transition Plan is developed and adopted,
it should be updated at least every five years.
Objective 4.8 — Upgrade comfort, convenience, and cultural amenities to existing facilities.
As the Department is making upgrades to and improving existing facilities, it should explore
opportunities to add shade, storage, security lighting, synthetic turf, and other amenities appropriately
at existing facilities. Working with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Department should seek
opportunities to create individual identities for each Neighborhood Park. Where appropriate, look for
opportunities to add public art to new and existing facilities.
Objective 4.9 — Add destination park amenities.
As citizen interest grows, and demand for new and different amenities at parks are identified, the
Department should explore opportunities to add destination playgrounds and natural play areas at
existing parks. The newly adopted Strategic Plan also has a goal to foster development of Discovery
Parks that uniquely blend arts, entertainment, and culture.
Objective 4.10 — Address current and future needs for athletic fields.
As demand warrants, explore opportunities to add rectangle and diamond fields as usage increases. To
help increase field time, add sports field lighting to new facilities and improvements to lighting at
existing facilities where appropriate. Additionally, the Department should consider upgrading to or
adding synthetic turf fields as use and demand increases.
Objective 4.11— Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks or
when developing new parks.
Continue to evaluate the programming needs of the community when developing new parks or when
adding new components to existing parks.
Objective 4.12 — Monitor use, demands, and trends of recreation components.
Through the use of dashboards and other reporting and tracking tools, continue to monitor and evaluate
the use, demands, and trends in recreation amenities.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
II. Introduction of the Planning Context
A. Purpose of this Plan
The City of Meridian, Idaho, provides a
comprehensive Parks and Recreation system that
greatly contributes to the quality of life in Meridian
and surrounding areas. In order to plan into the
future of this valuable Parks and Recreation system,
the City's Parks and Recreation Department began a
process to develop this Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. Development of this plan took place
from December 2014 to December 2015, and
included a public input process, services inventory
and analysis, needs assessment, operational and
maintenance analysis, and financial analysis. The Master Plan provides the framework to respond to the
evolving needs of this growing community.
B. History of Parks and Recreation Department
Since the 1980s, there have been only two developed City of Meridian parks in existence—Storey Park
(Previously known as "City Park" until 1980) and 8th Street Park. The Parks Division operated under the
Department of Public Works until 1998 when the City created a separate Parks and Recreation
Department. In January of 1998, Meridian hired its first Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Kuntz, who
served in that position until 2002. Also in 1998, the Parks and Recreation Commission was formed, and
the Department produced its first Activity Guide. Since 1998 there have been three Directors, Tom Kuntz
(1998 to 2002), Douglas Strong (2003 to 2007), and Steve Siddoway (2008 to present). The Department
continues to grow and provide facilities, programs, and services to the citizens of Meridian.
C. Parks and Recreation Department Overview
Parks and Recreation is responsible for maintaining public open spaces and for providing a quality
system of parks and recreation facilities and positive leisure opportunities available to all persons in the
community. The Department is also responsible for the development and maintenance of the pathways
system and the urban forest. The Meridian Parks and Recreation system consists of 387 acres of
parkland, 255 acres of developed parks and 132 acres of undeveloped land. The system is made up of 19
parks (not including Lakeview Golf Course): three undeveloped sites, just less than 22 miles of pathways,
and 13 miles of micro pathways, a senior center, and a community center. Additionally, Parks and
Recreation offers a variety of recreational programs, adult sports leagues, and special events, and
handles shelter/field reservations and temporary use permits.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
D. Mission, Vision, and Values
As part of the Master Planning process, GreenPlay held a series of Mission, Vision, and Values (MVV)
work sessions with the Parks and Recreation staff. The purpose was to review the current MVV, validate
its purpose with staff, and align with the newly adopted MVV for the City that was developed as part of
the 2015 Strategic Plan. The MVV is what directs the departments and their employees daily.
The vision addresses how the Department will do its part to make Meridian, "A premier community in
which to live, work, and raise a family," as well as fulfilling the City's Vision that "Community members
will enjoy a ... myriad of diverse arts, cultural, and recreational offerings to have meaningful
experiences."
Furthermore, the Department's focus areas are what guide its employees specifically as well as the
overall CARE values of the City. Meridian Parks & Recreation staff know and strive to champion
Customer service, Accountability, Respect, and Excellence, but they also practice Quality, Community,
and Fun daily.
The results of the work sessions produced the current Mission, Vision, and Values.
Mission: The Meridian Parks and Recreation Department's mission is to enhance our community's
quality of life by providing innovatively-designed parks, connected pathways, and diverse recreational
opportunities for all citizens of Meridian that create lasting memories.
Vision: Meridian Parks and Recreation is a premier department that provides family -focused
opportunities for the Meridian community and responds to a growing and changing population.
Focus Areas: Quality, Community, Fun
Quality: We provide quality parks, pathways, and recreational opportunities that are beautifully
designed, exceptionally maintained, safe, and create memories for the citizens and visitors to
Meridian.
Community: We build the sense of community in Meridian by connecting people through parks,
pathways, programs, and events that bring enjoyment to individuals and families of all ages and
abilities.
Fun: We provide places and opportunities that create quality of life experiences, bring balance
to working individuals and families, and are fun and enjoyable. At the end of the day, this is what
it's all about!
City of Meridian, Idaho
E. Related Planning Efforts and Integration
As part of the master planning process, GreenPlay evaluated and utilized information from recent past
and/or current planning work. The consultant team consolidated relevant information from these
planning documents, inventory maps, budgets, work plans, and funding plans utilized by the Parks and
Recreation Department to facilitate the comprehensive coordination of direction and recommendations.
Documents included:
• City of Meridian Strategic Plan (2015)
• 2003 Parks & Recreation Action Plan
• City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan (2011)
• Pathways Master Plan
• Impact Fees Study
• Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (ACHD)
• ACHD Roadways to Bikeways Plan
• City of Meridian Existing Conditions Report
• Ten Mile Specific Area Plan
• Future Land Use Map
F. Methodology of this Planning Process
This project has been guided by a Meridian Parks and Recreation project team made up of City staff,
with input from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. This team provided input to
the GreenPlay consulting team throughout the planning process. This collaborative effort created a plan
that fully utilizes the consultant's expertise and incorporates the local knowledge and institutional
history that only community members can provide. The project consisted of the following tasks:
Community Engagement
Facility Inventory
GRASP' Level of Service Analysis
Needs Assessment
Operational and Marketing Analysis
Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
III. What We Want - Our Community and
Identified Needs
A. Demographic Profile
Understanding community demographics is an important component of preparing a Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. This chapter provides a demographic overview of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
The population data used in this demographic profile comes from ESRI Business Information Solutions,
based on the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data and COMPASS to best represent the current profile.
Table 1: Summary Demographics for Meridian, Idaho — 2015
Summary Demographics
Population 91,311
Number of Households 31,555
Avg. Household Size 2.96
Median Age 33.58
Median Household Income $59,969
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions
Demographic Analysis
Population Projections
Although the future of population growth cannot be predicted with certainty, it is helpful to make
assumptions about it for planning purposes. Table 2 contains population estimates and projections for
City of Meridian in the years 2015, 2020, and 2025, based on the 2010 U.S. Census. The annual growth
rate for the city from 2000 through 2010 was 6.16 percent. COMPASS' projected annual growth rate for
the City for 2015 through 2025 is 1.9 percent, compared to a projected 2015-2025 annual growth rate of
1.0 percent for the State of Idaho of and 0.73 percent for the United States as a whole.
Table 2: Meridian Population Proiections*
2000 Population 41,315
2010 Population
82,250
2015 Estimated
91,311
2020 Projected
108,701
2025 Projected
118,600
Source: COMPASS
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 1: Meridian Population Growth Trend
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions. Green Play, LLC, calculated projected populations for 2024 based on
ESRI growth multiplier of 1.75% for Meridian.
Population Age Distribution
A comparison of the estimated population break down by age for Meridian from 2010 to 2019 is shown
in Figure 1. The gender distribution in 2014 was 49 percent male to 51 percent female. The median age
in 2014 was 33.5.
The U.S. census indicates that in 2010, the median age for the Caucasian population of Meridian was
33.1. By contrast, the median age for those who self -identified as being of Hispanic Origin (irrespective
of race) was 21.7. Hispanic Origin was the most significant minority ethnic/racial identifier in the
Meridian population (at 6.8 percent) in 2010.
Figure 2: Population Age Distribution for the Years 2010, 2014, and 2019
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, 2014 estimates and 2019 forecast provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions.
City of Meridian, Idaho
The age demographics have undergone a number of changes in
Meridian from 2010 to 2014 with these trends generally
predicted to continue through 2019. The 25-44 age range is
predicted to drop by three percent to 27.5 percent from 2010 to
2019, while the 55-74 age range is predicted to grow by 2.9
percent to represent 16.5 percent of the population in 2019.
Race/Ethnicity
Figure 2 reflects the racial/ethnic population distribution for
Meridian. Ninety-one percent (91%) percent of the population
was Caucasian in 2014, with the Asian population at two
percent, African American at .8 percent, and Native American at
.5 percent of the population. Those identifying as two or more
races represented 3.1 percent of the population. Additionally,
the population of Hispanic origin* (a separate look at the
population, irrespective of race) was at 7.5 percent in 2014.
• The Caucasian population is trending slightly downward
from 92 percent in 2010 to a predicted 90 percent in
2019.
• Meridian's Asian population is trending upward slightly from 1.8 percent in 2010 to a predicted
2.4 percent in 2019.
• The population of Hispanic origin (irrespective of race), at 6.8 percent in 2010, is expected to
grow to 8.8 percent of the population by 2019.
Figure 3: Ethnicity Statistics (2014)
Source: 2010 U.S. Census; 2014 estimates and 2019 forecast provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions.
* Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or
ancestors before arriving in the United States. In the U.S. census, people who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be
any race and are included in all of the race categories. Figure 3 represents Hispanic Origin as recorded in the U.S. Census.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Educational Attainment
As shown in Table 3, the highest ranking educational cohorts in Meridian are those residents with
some college, no degree (29%) and those with a bachelor's degree (23.8%). High school graduates
follow, comprising 18.8 percent of the population. According to a census study, education levels had
more effect on earnings over a 40 -year span in the workforce than any other demographic factor, such
as gender, race, and ethnic origin.'
Table 3: Meridian, Idaho- 2014 Educational Attainment
Less than 9th grade
1.4%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
4.9%
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
18.8%
GED/Alternative Credential
3.4%
Some college, no degree
29.0%
Associate's degree
9.4%
Bachelor's degree
23.8%
Graduate or professional degree
9.5%
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions 2014 estimate based on the 2010 U.S. Census.
Employment
Figure 3 provides a snapshot of the unemployment rate from December 2006 through December
2014 for the City of Meridian and the State of Idaho as a whole. The unemployment rate for both
Meridian and Idaho in December 2014 was under four percent (3.4 percent for Meridian and 3.7
percent for the State of Idaho).
Figure 4: Snapshot of Meridian and Idaho unemployment rates from 2006 - 2014
10.0%
9.0% 8.8%
8.0%
. o
7.0% °
0
6.0%
5.0%0 5.3% 3.7%
4.0% 2.7%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0% 1.4%
0.0%
Dec.2006 Dec.2008 Dec. 2010 Dec.2012 Dec.2014
Meridian -Idaho
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
1 Tiffany Julian and Robert Kominski, "Education and Synthetic Work -Life Earnings Estimates" American Community Survey
Reports, US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-14.pdf, September 2011.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Household Information
As reflected in Table 4, in 2014, Meridian had 26,674 housing units with a 72.9 percent owner -occupied
housing rate, compared to 22 percent renter occupied rate. The owner -occupied housing rate dropped
more than seven percent between 2000 and 2010, but has remained steady since 2010, and is predicted
to rise slightly to 73.9 percent in 2019. The average household size in 2014 was 2.96.
Table 4: Meridian Housing Statistics
Total housing units
14,431
26,674
28,943
31,304
Percent owner occupied
80.8%
72.9%
72.9%
73.9%
Percent renter occupied
15.4%
22.0%
23.4%
23.3%
Percent vacant
3.8%
5.1%
3.7%
2.8%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census; 2014 estimates and 2019 forecasts provided by ESR/ Business Information Solutions.
Household Income
The estimated 2014 median household income for residents of Meridian was $59,969 and is expected to
grow to $69,355 by 2019. Figure 4 illustrates the full income distribution estimated for Meridian in 2014
and projected for 2019.
• In 2014, most residents had an income in the $50,000 — $74,999 income range (22.4%),
followed by the $75,000 — $99,999 income range (17.5%), and the $100,000 — $149,000
income range (13.5%).
• Income distribution in the $75,000—$99,999 and $100,000—$149,000 ranges is expected to
rise by 2.6 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively, from 2014 to 2019.
Figure 5: Annual Household Income Distribution Comparison (2014 - 2019)
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
■ 2014
5.0% ■ 2019
0.0%
OHO X10SSD 'C0
oOR) O1Z O�1Z o1Z- OAR) oO OO ss s�`L
Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2014.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Health Ranking
The United Health Foundation has ranked Idaho 18th in its State Health Rankings in 2014, down from
12th in 2013 (americashealthrankings.org/id). The State's biggest strengths include:
• Low incidence of infectious disease
• High per capita public health funding
• Low rate of preventable hospitalizations
Some of the challenges the State faces include:
• High levels of air pollution
• Low immunization coverage among teens
• Limited availability of primary care physicians
In the 2014 Idaho County Health Rankings (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
countyhealthrankings.org), Ada County ranked 6th out of 42 counties for health outcomes and 2nd for
health factors. As explained in the health ranking report, "Health outcomes represent how healthy a
county is while health factors represent what influences the health of the county."z
B. Park and Recreation Influencing Trends
It is a challenge and an opportunity for parks and recreation providing agencies to continue to
understand and respond to the changing recreation interests of serviced populations. In this fast -paced
society, it is important to stay on top of current trends. The following highlights relevant local, regional,
and national recreation trends relative to the Meridian demographic and identified interests. More detail
is found in Appendix A.
Demographic Trends
• Millennials lead structured lives filled with rules and regulations. Less accustomed to
unstructured play than previous generations and apprehensive of the outdoors, they spend
most of their time indoors, leaving home primarily to socialize with friends and families. With an
upbeat and a can -do attitude, this generation is more optimistic and tech -savvy than its elders.
• With their varied life experiences, values, and expectations, Baby Boomers are predicted to
redefine the meaning of recreation and leisure programming for mature adults. Boomers are
second only to Gen Y/Millennials (born between 1980 and 1999) in participation in fitness and
outdoor sports. Boomers will reinvent what being a 65 -year-old means.
• Young adults engage in mobile data applications at much higher rates than adults in age
brackets 30 and older.
Facility Trends
• Design of a community's infrastructure is directly linked to physical activity — where
environments are built with bicyclists and pedestrians in mind, more people bike and walk.
Higher levels of bicycling and walking also coincide with increased bicycle and pedestrian safety
and higher levels of physical activity. Increasing bicycling and walking make a big impact on
improving public health and life expectancy.
z Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, "County Health Rankings and Roadmaps: 2014 Rankings — Idaho,"
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/idaho/2014/rankings/ada/county/outcomes/overall/snapshot accessed on
February 18, 2015.
City of Meridian, Idaho
For the second year, dog parks were the top planned addition to parks and recreational facilities
in the country in 2013. Dog parks can be as simple as a gated area, or more elaborate with
"designed -for -dogs" amenities like water fountains, agility equipment, and pet wash stations, to
name a few.
Communities around the country are considering adding shade structures, as well as shade trees
to their parks, playgrounds, and pools as "a weapon against cancer and against childhood
obesity."
■ The fact that a connected system of pathways increases the level of physical activity in a
community has been scientifically demonstrated through the Pathways for Health
initiative of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Pathways can provide a wide variety
of opportunities for being physically active.
■ Park and recreation agencies have begun installing "outdoor gyms," with equipment
comparable to what would be found in an indoor workout facility, such as leg and chest
presses, elliptical trainers, pull down trainers, etc. Such equipment can increase the
usage of parks, pathways, and other outdoor amenities while helping to fight the
obesity epidemic and increase the community's interaction with nature.
There is an increasing trend toward indoor leisure and therapeutic pools. Additional
amenities, such as "splash pads," are popular as well.
Programming Trends
• Figures from the Association for Interpretative Naturalists demonstrate that nature -based
programs are on the rise. The growth of these programs is thought to come from replacing
grandparents as the teacher about the "great outdoors." It is also speculated that a return to
natural roots and renewed interest in life's basic elements was spurred as a response to
September 11, 2001.
• Participation in walking for pleasure and family gatherings outdoors were the two most popular
activities for the U.S. population as a whole as reported in a 2012 report. These outdoor
activities were followed closely in popularity by viewing/photographing wildlife, boating, fishing,
snow/ice activities, and swimming. There has been a growing momentum in participation in
sightseeing, birding, and wildlife watching in recent years.
• Some of the top ten athletic activities ranked by total participation include: exercise walking,
swimming, exercising with equipment, camping, and bicycle riding.
• A national trend in the delivery of parks and recreation systems reflects more partnerships and
contractual agreements reaching out to the edges of the community to support specialized
services.
• The majority of Americans agree that preserving undeveloped land for outdoor recreation is
important. A large percentage of outdoor participants also believe that developing local parks
and hiking and walking pathways is important and that there should be more outdoor education
and activities during the school day.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Funding Trends
• According to Recreation Management magazine's "2013 State of the Industry Report," survey
respondents from parks and recreation departments/districts reporting about their revenues
from 2009 through 2014 reveals the impact of the recession, as well as the beginning of a
recovery. More than 25 percent of respondents saw their revenues decrease from 2009 to 2010,
and 21.8 percent of respondents reported a further decrease in 2011. Forty-four percent (44%)
of park and recreation respondents reported increases from 2011 to 2012.
C. Community and Stakeholder Input
Public process for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan was held January 26 — 28, 2015 and
consisted of 125 participants in eight focus groups, eight stakeholder interviews, and a public forum.
This section summarizes the key issues and input that was gathered from the meetings. A full summary
of all public input can be found in Appendix B.
The community input summary is categorized below with brief details from the many focus group
meetings.
Strengths and Opportunities for
Improvement
The residents of Meridian benefit from a
good geographic distribution of parks
throughout the City, with some pockets of
underserved areas. Participants embrace the
fact that their parks form the heart of the
community and feel like the programs
offered are well run, diverse, affordable, and
operated by dedicated employees, and as �.
such, indicate that they feel the quality of
programs currently offered are very good.
Participants also recognized that the parks
are well maintained and have unique and innovative features. When asked about areas for
improvement, participants identified the disconnected pathway system, the need for a larger indoor
recreation facility, and the need to keep up with the city's rapid growth as top priorities. Other general
items, such as a perceived lack of parking, shade, field space for non-traditional sports, and off -leash dog
areas were all identified as opportunities for improvement. Along with physical improvements,
improvement of communication, and availability of information is also important to users.
Satisfaction
Residents are very satisfied with the programs, the quality of existing infrastructure, and maintenance.
They also rated customer service and seeking community feedback as very good.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Programming and Activities, and Locations
Meridian residents love their programs and activities. They are very satisfied but do have an apparent
demand for more year-round program offerings. Included among the additional programs are more
offerings for seniors and teens, special events, performing arts, outdoor recreation and adventure
programs, non -sports activities, and adaptive recreation. Two areas of the community were identified as
being underserved, and may benefit from future park development. These were South and West
Meridian. Certain demographics may also be underserved, including seniors and teens, as well as active
adults and Millennials.
New Facilities
When asked for suggestions of new parks and recreation facilities in the City, participants identified:
• Pathway connectivity
• Fieldhouse/gym space
• Parks in South and West Meridian
• Additional athletic fields
• Large community center
• Exercise stations
• Performing Arts Center
• Iconic/Destination Parks
Values
City of Meridian residents value their parks and recreation system and feel like they get very good
service from staff. Participants' number one value was family-oriented programming and activities. They
also want good communication about happenings and program offerings. Quality and affordable
programming is a priority, while ensuring access to diverse offerings throughout the entire city.
Providing a balance between passive and active recreation, as well as organized sports and unstructured
activities, is very important to the community.
D. Random Invitation Community Survey Summary
Introduction and Methodology
The purpose of this study was to gather public feedback on City of Meridian parks and recreation
facilities, services, and programs. This survey research effort and subsequent analysis were designed to
assist the City of Meridian in the creation of a master plan for existing and possible future
enhancements, facilities, and services.
The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1) a mail -back survey, 2) an online, invitation -
only web survey to further encourage response from those residents already within the defined
invitation sample, and 3) an open -link online survey for members of the public who were not part of the
invitation sample. The analysis primarily focuses on responses from the invitation sample. However,
open link responses are additionally analyzed and discussed, particularly when they differ from the
invitation sample.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
A total of 3,500 surveys were mailed to a random sample of Meridian residents in March 2015. The final
sample size for this statistically valid survey was 731, resulting in a margin of error of approximately
3.6 percentage points calculated for questions at 50 percent response.3 The open link survey received an
additional 661 responses.
The underlying data were weighted by age, ethnicity, and area of impact by neighborhood to ensure
appropriate representation of Meridian residents across different demographic cohorts in the sample.
Using the ESRI Demographic and Income Profile, which generates a 2014 population profile using 2010
Census data, the age distribution and ethnicity distribution within the respondent sample was matched
to the 2014 demographic profile of the City of Meridian. In addition, the neighborhood distribution
within the respondent sample was matched to the 2015 area of impact by region as provided by the
City.
Current Facilities and Programs
Importance of Local Recreation Opportunities. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of
the availability of local parks and recreation opportunities to their household on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1
meaning "not at all important" and 5 meaning "very important." Respondents generally indicated that
local recreation opportunities are very important to their household, with 84 percent of invitation
respondents and 91 percent of open link respondents providing a 4 or 5 rating. Average importance
ratings were similarly high in both the invitation (4.2) and open link (4.5) samples.
Knowledge/Familiarity with Current Meridian Parks and Recreation Offerings. Respondents were also
asked to rate their level of familiarity with current Meridian parks and recreation facilities, programs,
and services on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "not at all familiar" and 5 means "very familiar." Ratings
of familiarity were not as high as ratings of importance, particularly among invitation respondents.
Forty-three percent (43%) of invitation respondents provided a 4 or 5 rating (average rating 3.4),
compared to 70 percent of open link respondents (average 3.8).
Participation in Meridian Parks and Recreation Classes and Programs. Nineteen percent (19%) of
invitation respondents and 34 percent of open link respondents indicated that they have registered for a
Department program or class during the past year.
Ratings of Service Received. Respondents who indicated that they had registered for classes or programs
in the past year were asked to rate the service they received on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning "poor"
and 5 meaning "excellent." Satisfaction with their program or class was very high, with 95 percent of
invitation respondents and 91 percent of open link respondents providing a 4 or 5 rating and an average
satisfaction rating of 4.4 for both samples.
Most Used Facilities and Parks. Respondents were provided a list of 18 facilities and parks operated by
the City of Meridian. They were then prompted to indicate the three facilities they use most often.
3For the total invitation sample size of 731, margin of error is +/- 3.6 percent calculated for questions at 50% response (if the
response for a particular question is "50%"—the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the larger margin, which
occurs for responses at 50%). Note that the margin of error is different for every single question response on the survey
depending on the resultant sample sizes, proportion of responses, and number of answer categories for each question.
Comparison of differences in the data between various segments, therefore, should take into consideration these factors. As a
General comment, it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends and patterns in the data rather
than on the individual percentages.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Use by Sample. Figure 5, in the following section, explores the top three most used facilities and parks
by survey sample. The following facilities were used most commonly by invitation respondents: Settlers
Park (70%), Storey Park (53%), Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park (46%), Tully Park (39%), and Bear Creek
Park (17%). Open link respondents also most frequently used Settlers Park (80%), followed by Julius M.
Kleiner Memorial Park (58%), Tully Park (28%), Storey Park (26%), and Bear Creek Park (17%).
Invitation respondents are more likely to use Storey Park and Tully Park on a regular basis, while open
link respondents have a higher likelihood of utilizing Settlers Park, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park,
Heroes Park, and the Heritage Middle School Ball Fields.
Importance of Facilities to Household. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all important" and 5 is
"very important," respondents rated the importance of Meridian Parks and Recreation facilities to their
households. Figure 5 to follow illustrates the percentage of "4" and "5" responses (indicating that the
respondent feels the facility is important) versus the percentage of "1" and "2" responses (indicating
that the respondent feels the facility is not important) among invitation respondents. Figure 5 depicts
the average importance rating provided by invitation respondents for each facility. The highest average
ratings and largest shares of "4" and "5" responses were given for the following facilities:
• Pathways (average rating 4.2; 82% rated a 4 or 5)
• Playgrounds (4.1 average; 77% rated 4 or 5)
• Picnic shelters (3.8 average; 69% rated 4 or 5)
• Swimming pools/aquatic facilities (3.7 average; 56% rated 4 or 5)
• Community/recreation center (3.6 average; 56% rated 4 or 5)
• Indoor gym space (3.3 average; 49% rated 4 or 5)
• Splash pads (3.3 average; 48% rated 4 or 5)
• Athletic fields (3.3 average; 43% rated 4 or 5)
• Outdoor basketball courts (3.1 average; 43% rated 4 or 5)
Importance vs. Needs -Met Matrix — Current Facilities. It is informative to plot and compare the facility
scores for level of importance and degree to which needs are being met by these facilities using an
"Importance vs. Needs -Met" matrix. Scores are displayed in this matrix using the mid -points for both
questions to divide into four quadrants. The Importance scale midpoint was 3.3 (the median importance
rating across all facilities); the Needs -Met midpoint was 3.4 (see Figure 5).
The upper right quadrant shows the facilities that have a high average rating of importance as well as a
high level of needs being met. These amenities are less of a priority for improvement since needs are
currently being met, but are important to maintain in the future as they are perceived to be important
by respondents:
• Playgrounds
• Picnic shelters
• Splash pads (on the cusp of low importance)
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Facilities located in the upper left quadrant have relatively high importance but a lower level of needs
being met, which suggests that these facilities could be improved. Improving these facilities would
positively impact the degree to which household needs are being met overall:
• Pathways
• Swimming pools/aquatic facilities
• Community/recreation center
• Indoor gym space (on the cusp of low importance)
The lower right quadrant shows facilities that are not important to many households, yet are meeting
their needs very well. It may be beneficial in the future to evaluate the parks and recreation resources
supporting these facilities:
• Athletic fields
• Outdoor basketball courts
• Ball fields
Finally, facilities in the lower left quadrant are not meeting needs adequately; however, they are
important to a smaller group of community members. These "niche" facilities may have a small but
passionate following; therefore, there may be merit in measuring participation and planning for future
improvements accordingly:
• Tennis courts
• Dog parks
• Rodeo grounds
City of Meridian, Idaho
Figure 6: Current Facilities — Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix
Invitation Sample Only
Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Facilities - Invitation Sample
Only
4.2
4.0
_C
High Importance/
Low Needs Met •
Pathways/Trails
s�
C
R
IY 3.6
m
:m
M
> 3.4
Q
d 3.2 Indoor Gym Space
N
3
O
2
o 3.0
(I)
U
C
Im 2.8
O
sZ
>_
2.6
2.4
Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities
Community/Rec. Cenler
Dog Parks
2.2 Low Importance/ Rodeo Grounds
Low Needs Met
High Importance/
High Needs Met
Playgrounds
Picnic Shelters
Splash Pads
Athletic Fields
Outdoor Basketball Courts
Tennis Courts
Ball Fields
Low Importance/
High Needs Met
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3
How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating)
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Importance of Programs to Household. Similarly, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all important"
and 5 is "very important," respondents rated the importance of Meridian Parks and Recreation
programs to their households. The programs that received the highest average ratings and greatest
proportion of "4" and "5" ratings from invitation respondents include:
• Youth sports (average rating 3.7; 64% provided a 4 or 5 rating)
• Family programs (3.7 average; 69% rated 4 or 5)
• Outdoor adventure programs (3.5 average; 50% rated 4 or 5)
• Youth programs (3.5 average; 57% rated 4 or 5)
• Senior programs (3.3 average; 50% rated 4 or 5)
• Adult programs (3.2 average; 36% rated 4 or 5)
• Youth camps (3.2 average; 41% rated 4 or 5)
• Teen programs (3.1 average; 40% rated 4 or 5)
Importance vs. Needs -Met Matrix — Current Programs. Another "Importance vs. Needs -Met" matrix
allows a comparison of programs based on level of importance and degree to which household needs
are being met. Scores are depicted in this matrix by using the mid -points for both questions to divide
into four quadrants. The Importance scale midpoint was 3.3 (the median rating for importance across all
programs); the Needs -Met midpoint was 3.6 (see Figure 6).
Programs in the upper right quadrant are considered to be highly important and are also adequately
meeting the needs of respondent households. Though it is less critical to consider future enhancements
for these programs, it is necessary to maintain them to keep community satisfaction high:
• Youth sports
• Youth programs
The upper left quadrant displays programs that are perceived as important but have a lower level of
needs being met. Therefore, improvements to and monitoring of these programs may boost the degree
to which community members feel their household needs are being met:
• Family programs
• Outdoor adventure programs
The programs located in the lower right quadrant are less important to households, but are currently
meeting their needs well:
• Senior programs
• Adult programs
• Youth camps
• Teen programs
• Adult sports
Finally, programs found in the lower left quadrant are amenities that are not meeting needs well,
though they are not important to the majority of households in Meridian. These programs are
considered "niche" amenities, as they are important to fewer members of the community. None of the
programs evaluated by respondents fell into this category, which may make future planning and of parks
and recreation resources easier.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Figure 7: Current Programs — Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix
Invitation Sample Only
Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Programs - Invitation Sample
Only
3.8 High Importance/
Low Needs Met
3.7
C
3.5
m
Outdoor Adventure Programs
> 3.4
a
O
3.3
W
7
O
2
o 3.2
d
v
C
R
t= 3.1
O
O.
E
3.0
2.9
Low Importance/
2.8 Low Needs Met
Family Programs
High Importance/
High Needs Met
Youth Sports
•
Adult Programs Senior Programs
Is Y th Camps
Teen Programs
Adult Sports
3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
Youth Programs
Low Importance/
High Needs Met
3.8
How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating)
Values and Vision
Top Areas Parks & Recreation Should Focus on Improving
Respondents were asked to identify three community issues that Meridian Parks and Recreation should
focus on improving from a list of potential areas. From the list, respondents indicated their number one
priority, number two priority, and number three priority. As is shown below in Figure 7, invitation
respondents indicated that the top community issue is pathway connectivity (44 percent selected this as
one of their top three priorities). Pathway connectivity also had the highest percentage of respondents
identifying it as their number one priority (33%). Other important community issues include promoting
healthy/active lifestyles (33%), family-oriented activities (30%), maintenance of parks and facilities
(25%), safety and security (25%), community -wide special events (25%), and aquatic
facilities/programming (24%).
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 8: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined
Invitation Sample Only
Top Three Community Issues for MPRD Combined
Invitation Sample Open Link
Pathway connectivity
44%
Promoting healthy, active
33%
lifestyles
30%
Family-oriented activities
30%
Maintenance of parks and
25%
facilities
17%
Safety and security
25%
Community -wide special
25%
events
12%
Aquatic
facilities/programming
24%
15%
Developing new parks in
-16%
under -served areas
Expanded classes and
-16%
programs for all ages
Balance of organized sports
-16%
and passive park facilities
Land
■ 11%
preservation/acquisition
Accessibility.
8%
Public art and landscaped
5%
areas
Volunteer opportunities'
4%
Customer service'
3%
Leveraging partnerships'
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of Respondents
City of Meridian, Idaho
53%
17%
30%
25%
16%
17%
28%
29%
12%
22%
15%
4%
5%
5%
1%
2%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Respondents
City of Meridian, Idaho
Future Facilities, Amenities, and Services
Importance of Adding/Expanding/Improving Future Facilities
On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means "not at all important" and 5 means "very important,"
respondents rated the importance of the 26 potential future facilities. In general, most facilities were
rated as highly important. The facilities that received the highest average ratings and largest share of
respondents providing 4 or 5 ratings include:
• Indoor facilities
■ Indoor aquatics facility (average rating 3.8; 62% provided a 4 or 5 rating)
■ Community/recreation center (3.7 average; 62% rated 4 or 5)
■ Fieldhouse/gymnasium space (3.2 average; 38% rated 4 or 5)
■ Performing arts center (3.2 average; 36% rated 4 or 5)
■ Ice rink (3.0 average; 41% rated 4 or 5)
• Outdoor facilities
■ Pathways (4.1 average; 78% rated 4 or 5)
■ Shade structures in parks (4.0 average; 78% rated 4 or 5)
■ Improved park amenities (3.8 average; 70% rated 4 or 5)
■ Playgrounds (3.7 average; 65% rated 4 or 5)
■ Lights for outdoor athletic facilities (3.4 average; 49% rated 4 or 5)
■ New parks (3.2 average; 33% rated 4 or 5)
■ Exercise stations along pathways in parks (3.2 average; 39% rated 4 or 5)
■ Splash pads (3.1 average; 40% rated 4 or 5)
■ Outdoor athletic fields/courts (3.1 average; 31% rated 4 or 5)
■ Public art in the parks (3.1 average; 40% rated 4 or 5)
■ Fishing ponds (3.1 average; 42% rated 4 or 5)
■ Parking at recreational facilities (3.1 average; 28% rated 4 or 5)
■ Dog parks (3.0 average; 39% rated 4 or 5)
Top Priorities to Add, Expand, or Improve
Using the same list of facilities, respondents chose their priorities for most important future facilities to
their households. The facility with the highest percentage of respondents selecting it as their first most
important priority is a community/recreation center (16%). Other top priorities include an indoor
aquatics facility (33%), community/recreation center (26%), improved park amenities (22%), and shade
structures in parks (22%).
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Financial Choices/Fees
In a final section of the survey, respondents answered questions about their opinions on the financial
aspects of their relationship with Meridian Parks and Recreation. These questions include an evaluation
of current program and facility fees, the impact of potential fee increases on level of participation, and
an allocation of future funding toward various amenities.
Current Fees
Facility Fees. Respondents were generally likely to indicate that current facility fees are reasonable, with
30 percent of invitation respondents and 48 percent of open link respondents feeling that fees are
acceptable for the value received. Eleven percent (11%) of invitation respondents feel that fees are too
high, and only two percent said fees were underpriced. Fifty-seven percent (57%) were unsure.
Program Fees. Similarly, 29 percent of invitation respondents and 54 percent of open link respondents
believe that current program fees are reasonable. Fourteen percent (14%) of invitation sample
respondents indicated that fees are too expensive, and one percent said they are underpriced. Fifty-six
percent (56%) didn't know.
Allocation of Funding
Lastly, respondents were asked, "If you had $100 to spend on parks and recreation facilities, services,
and/or programs, how would you allocate that $100 across the following categories?" and were
provided with a list of nine potential categories for funding. As shown in Figure 8, invitation respondents
allocated funding most toward expanding aquatics ($19.44 on average) and adding more pathways
($17.69), followed by making improvements and/or renovating/maintaining existing park facilities
($12.62), and expanding programs/activities ($11.29). Items that received little funding include
providing more City-wide special events ($5.02) and a new or expanded Community Center ($6.16).
City of Meridian, Idaho
Figure 9: Allocation of Funding Toward Facilities/Services/Programs — Average Allocation Amount
If you had $100 to spend on parks and recreation facilities, services, and/or pro-
grams, how would you allocate that $100 across the following categories?
Invitation Sample Open Link
Expand aquatics $19.44
$16.29
Add more pathways $17.69
$16.84
Make improvements and/or renovate
$12.62
$10.79
and maintain existing park facilities
Expand programs and activities _$11.29
$5.79
Recreation center $8.75
$9.82
Add new parks -$8.63
$10.91
Add outdoor athletic fields and courts - $7.14
$11.74
New or expanded Community Center. $6.16
$5.85
Provide more City-wide special■
$5.02
$5.37
events
Other enhancements. $3.27
$6.59
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20
Average Amount Allocated
Average Amount Allocated
E. Organizational and Marketing Analysis
Organizational Analysis
GreenPlay broadly assessed the organizational and management structure of the Parks and Recreation
Department and staffing to determine effectiveness and efficiency in meeting current and future
departmental responsibilities as related to the community's needs. The needs assessment — including
input from staff interviews, community and key stakeholder engagement, and level of service analysis,
along with the consultant's expertise — has identified a few areas for operational enhancement.
These key organizational issues identified and observed as areas for improvement include:
• Better marketing and communication of activities
• Enhance and improve internal and external communication
• Improve the website so it is current and usable for patrons
• Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies
• Improve and update park and wayfinding signage and maps
• Increase appropriate partnerships within the community
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Staffing Analysis
GreenPlay broadly assessed the management structure and staffing levels of the Parks and Recreation
Department to determine effectiveness and efficiency in meeting current and future departmental
responsibilities as related to the community's needs. Many observations were taken into account to
determine if the Parks and Recreation Department had the right mix of staffing in the right places within
the Department.
The staffing analysis process included the observations and assessments of:
• Community input
• Community satisfaction rates
• Staff focus group
• Individual staff interviews
• Facility tours
• Observations of quality of maintenance
• Professional knowledge in Parks and Recreation organizations
• SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats)
• Organizational chart
Staffing Considerations
After considering all of the organizational observations and staffing assessment, the consultant team has
determined that the Parks and Recreation Department has an adequate number of staff to operate its
current system with the right mix of staff in the right places within the Department. To operate more
effectively in the future and to implement the Master Plan, Parks and Recreation should consider:
• Staffing appropriately to maintain a current FTE for park maintenance based on acres of park
land maintained per FTE
• Developing a standard for recreation staffing that considers:
■ Number of sports teams managed per FTE
■ Number of Temporary Use Permits issued and managed per FTE
■ Number of programs and participation rates managed per FTE
• Add grant research and writer position (staff or contractual)
• Ensure that staffing resource levels can maintain existing and new facilities at or above
acceptable standards as the Master Plan is implemented
Marketing
The main reasons for not using Meridian programs or amenities include:
• Focus group participants indicated not aware of programs or facility
Therefore, it is important that the Department improve communications with residents about
program/event offerings and Department information.
• Increasing the use of social media
• Incorporating smart phone app offerings like that of the GoStrive App which can help:
■ Build a stronger, healthier community through activities and programs
■ Cultivate an interactive link between agencies and participating individuals
■ Optimize programs with powerful analytics to reduce costs and generate revenue
■ NRPA member? Join the "GoStrive. Go Play." campaign — it's free!
City of Meridian, Idaho
G. Recreation Programming Analysis
Program Development
Understanding core services in the delivery of parks and recreation services will allow the City of
Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to improve upon those areas while developing strategies to
assist in the delivery of other services. The basis of determining core services should come from the
vision and mission developed by the City and what brings the greatest community benefit in balance
with the competencies of the Department, current trends, and the market.
The Department should pursue program development around the priorities identified by customer
feedback, program evaluation process, and research. The following criteria should be examined when
developing new programs.
• Need: outgrowth of a current popular program, or enough demonstrated demand to
successfully support a minimal start (one class for instance)
• Budget: accounting for all costs and anticipated (conservative) revenues should meet cost
recovery target established by the Department
• Location: appropriate, available, and within budget
• Instructor: qualified, available, and within budget
• Materials and supplies: available and within budget
• Marketing effort: adequate and timely opportunity to reach intended market, within budget
(either existing marketing budget or as part of new program budget)
Further research into what types of programming would be successful needs to be done. Successful
programs utilize continuous creative assessments, research, and planning. The Department has a
process that evaluates the success of current program offerings and criteria to determine if new
program ideas should be instituted or if changes should be made to current programs. Maintaining the
current dashboards and evaluation process will help to ensure success.
Moreover, new leisure and recreation trends may drive different needs. It is very easy to focus on
programs that have worked for a number of years, especially if they are still drawing enough interested
participants to justify the program's continuation. Starting new programs, based on community demand
and/or trends, can be risky, due to the inability to predict their success. If the program interest seems
great, as with those identified in the citizen survey, then the programs should be expanded. Available
space may hinder new or expanded opportunities in some cases.
Using historical participation levels to determine program popularity and participant feedback can be
helpful in deciding if programs should be continued. In addition, utilizing citizen surveys and participant
feedback, and researching trends in park and recreational programming are useful tools in determining
future programming needs and desires. Sources for trends information include:
• State Parks and Recreation Associations and Conferences
• National Recreation and Parks Association
• International Health, Racquet, and Sports Association
• Parks and Recreation Trade Publications
• Outdoor Recreation Publications
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Program Evaluation
All current programs should be evaluated annually to determine if they should be continued, changed
(market segment focus, time/day offered, etc.), or discontinued. A few simple questions should be asked
about each program that includes:
• Is participation increasing or decreasing? If participation is increasing, then it could clearly mean
that the program should be continued. If participation is decreasing, are there any steps to take
to increase interest through marketing efforts, a change in the time/day of the program is
offered, and a change in the format or instructor? If not, it may be time to discontinue the
program.
• Is there information contained in the participation feedback that can be used to improve the
program?
• Are cost recovery goals being met? If not, can fees be realistically increased?
• Is there another provider of the program that is more suitable to offer it? If yes, the Department
could provide referrals for its customers for the program it does not or is not willing or able to
offer.
• Is this program taking up facility space that could be used for expansion of more popular
programs or new programs in demand by the community?
H. Operations and Maintenance Analysis
Parks and Recreation is responsible for maintaining public open spaces and for providing a quality
system of parks and recreation facilities and positive leisure opportunities available to all persons in the
community. The Department also is responsible for the development and maintenance of the pathways
system and the urban forest. The Meridian Parks and Recreation system consists of 387 acres of
parkland, 255 acres of developed parks and 132 acres of undeveloped land. The system is made up of 19
parks (not including Lakeview Golf Course): 3 undeveloped sites, just less than 22 miles of pathways, 13
miles of micro pathways, a senior center, and a community center. Additionally, Parks and Recreation
offers a variety of recreational programs, adult sports leagues, special events, and handles shelter
reservations and temporary use permits.
Community Input
Focus Groups
Public Process for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan was held January 26 — 28, 2015 and
consisted of 125 participants in eight focus groups, 8 stakeholder interviews and a public forum.
Focus Groups were asked, "What are the strengths of the Parks and Recreation Department that should
be continued over the next several years?"
The top 3 responses were:
1. High quality parks
2. Parks well maintained
3. Innovative unique parks
City of Meridian, Idaho
Other top responses included:
1. Parks well distributed
2. Variety of amenities
3. Commitment to maintenance
4. Athletic field good quality
5. Number of parks
Focus Group attendees were asked, "What improvements are needed at existing facilities?" The top
responses were:
1. Disconnected pathways
2. Parking at most parks during major events
3. Shade and mature trees in parks
4. Field space for diversity of sports
Maintenance
The City of Meridian and the Department are committed to the highest levels of maintenance. As part of
the newly adopted Strategic Plan for the City and the CARE (Customer Service, Accountability, Respect,
and Excellence) Values, commitment to excellence is clearly defined. Maintenance throughout the year
takes many forms and task including (but not limited to) mowing, snow removal at multiple sites,
downtown tree and flower pot upkeep, event support, irrigation, urban forestry, playgrounds, and
ballfield grooming. Using existing data from the Parks and Recreation dashboards, the graphs below
illustrate the growth in total park acreage, park acreage per 1,000 persons and the linear feet of
pathways maintained by the Department.
Figure 10: Park Acreage
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Meridian Park Acreage
300
250
v200
■Added Park Acres
p Existing Park Acres
Y 150
—
a
X100
0
50
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 11: Pathways Maintained
Pathways Maintained by the City
y 80,000
3 70,000
a 60,000
m 50,000 17-11
c
;a 40,000
C
0 30,000
0 20,000
..
m
ii 10,000
`a
m 0
J 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Figure 12: Developed Park Acres per 1,000 People
■Lineal Feet of Maintained Pathways
Added
0Existing Lineal Feet of Maintained
Pathways
Conclusion
As the parks and recreation system continues to expand and maintenance responsibilities increase,
staffing and equipment levels must be increased to meet citizen expectations and protect the City's
investment. In addition to new facilities, an emphasis was identified through the focus groups of
maintaining current facilities that continue to provide a safe, functional, and aesthetically pleasing park
system.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Meridian Park Acreage
300
4.000
a�
CL
250
-Total Park Acres
0
aD
w
;v
200
+Acres/thousand people
3.000
a
Q
M
15
150
2.000
o
a
100
1.000
0
50
11
a
0
0.000
L
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Q
Year
Conclusion
As the parks and recreation system continues to expand and maintenance responsibilities increase,
staffing and equipment levels must be increased to meet citizen expectations and protect the City's
investment. In addition to new facilities, an emphasis was identified through the focus groups of
maintaining current facilities that continue to provide a safe, functional, and aesthetically pleasing park
system.
City of Meridian, Idaho
As the population of Meridian continues to grow, significant investment will need to be made to
maintain the current level of service at four acres of developed park land per 1,000 people. COMPASS
estimates that the population of Meridian will grow to 151,081 by the year 2040. To maintain the
current level of service, it will require 604 acres of developed park land. That will require the
development of the existing 132 acres of undeveloped park land and the addition of 217 acres of park
land. Additionally, to complete the pathway system, it will take community investment and cooperation
from the private sector.
Specific recommendations for parks operations are:
• Continue to develop and review written maintenance standards.
• Continue to maintain quality standard park area maintenance.
• Continue providing staff training that is appropriate for the assigned areas of expertise.
• Evaluate the distribution of maintenance staff and areas of responsibilities to ensure the
greatest efficiencies of resources on a regular basis.
• Plan for additional needs for staffing, equipment, and resources as the Department continues to
grow in response to development and growth in Meridian.
• Continuously evaluate existing facilities, develop maintenance needs, and perform identified
upgrades that maintain user expectations and quality standards.
I. Financial Analysis
Funding Resources & Cost Recovery, Current Circumstances
Parks and Recreation facilities, programs, and services are very important to the community and are in
high demand. However, not all facilities, programs, and services are equal. In general, the more a
facility, program, or service provides a community benefit to citizens of Meridian as a whole, the more
that element is paid for by all citizens as part of the City's general fund. The more a facility, program, or
service provides individual benefits, the more that element is paid for by user fees. This funding and cost
recovery philosophy acknowledges the tremendous public benefits of parks and recreation to the
community, not only in the obvious ways it provides recreational opportunities to the citizens, but for
the sometimes unrecognized benefits of promoting economic development, crime prevention, and
community health. In all cases, the City seeks to leverage partnerships wherever possible and in the best
interest of the citizens to help fund the facilities, programs, and services they provide to the community.
The following are some specific examples of how various Parks and Recreation facilities, programs, and
services fall on that continuum and how they are paid for.
Park Construction
New park construction relies on impact fees whenever possible for funding a new park that is being
developed to maintain the existing level of service (defined for this purpose in acres per thousand
residents). When impact fees are not available or when developing parks to increase the level of
service, general funds are used. Grants are also sought, such as those from the Solid Waste Advisory
Commission (SWAC), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other sources.
Whenever possible and in the best interest of the City, partnerships are also used to help develop
new parks and/or specific amenities within them.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Park Maintenance
Park maintenance benefits the entire community and is funded from the City's General Fund.
Volunteers are leveraged wherever possible to help save labor and costs.
Sports
In the sports programs, Meridian recovers all direct
costs (balls, nets, bases, etc.) through user fees.
Fees also cover the costs for all part-time and
seasonal labor (scorekeepers, umpires, etc.) directly
associated with the program. A 20 percent
administrative charge is added to cover a portion of
the time associated with full-time staff (recreation
coordinator, front desk) that plan and support the
sports leagues. The Department charges an
additional fee (currently $10 per player) as non-
resident fees, for participants who do not pay taxes
to the City of Meridian.
Classes & Camps
For classes and camps, fees are set to recover all direct costs, based on the anticipated number of
participants. Direct costs include all part-time/seasonal staffing for the camp, supplies, equipment,
and transportation. A 10 percent administrative charge is added to help cover a portion of the time
associated with full-time staff (recreation coordinator, front desk) that plan and support the camps.
Most classes are taught by independent contractors, where the contractor establishes the fee and
the Department requires a 20 percent split of their fee to come to the City to cover the
administrative costs of scheduling the classes and publishing the Activity Guide.
Events
The cost recovery philosophy for events varies by event. For example, some events (i.e., CableOne
Movie Night, Community Block Party, and Christmas in Meridian) are paid for up front by the City,
with the understanding that the Department will generate the revenue to break even on all direct
costs through the sale of sponsorships, concessions revenue, etc. A second type of event is one that
the City chooses to pay for. With these events (Gene Kleiner Day, Independence Day Celebration),
there has been a deliberate decision by the City not to seek sponsorships. For Gene Kleiner Day, the
focus is on Gene Kleiner and his donation of Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park. Currently, revenues
from the Mayor's State of the City Address are helping to cover the costs of this event. For the
Independence Day Celebration, there are matching funds from the Meridian Speedway for fireworks
and putting on a community celebration in Storey Park and the City of Meridian is the presenting
sponsor. The third type of event is fundraisers. With these events (i.e., Barn Sour Race, Disc Golf Fall
Classic) all direct costs are paid for by the event, and revenues are maximized. All additional
revenues, after expenses, are used for a specific purpose—for example, proceeds from the Barn
Sour Race help to fund the Care Enough to Share fund, and the Disc Golf Fall Classic helps to fund a
specific park improvement to be selected by the Parks and Recreation Commission. For outside
events put on through Temporary Use Permits (TUP) in parks, the event organizers are expected to
cover all costs, including staffing costs for City staff that have to be at the event for set-up, trash
collection, and other duties.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Pathways
When developed by the City, pathways are paid for by the City's General Fund or grants, not impact
fees. Impact fees are not currently charged for pathways, because most pathways are required to be
constructed through the development process.
Memorial Tree Program
The Memorial Tree Program is set up to cover all direct costs associated with creating and placing
the plaque. The fee structure should be revisited with a look at covering the long term costs and
possible revenue generation for the City.
Picnic Shelter Reservations
Fees for shelter reservations are set to cover the direct costs for cleaning the shelter and posting the
reservation. High -demand shelters may be set higher as a potential revenue source for the City.
These fees have not changed in many years and should be revisited and updated.
Field/Court Reservations
Field/court reservation fees (i.e., softball field, soccer field, tennis court, etc.) are set based on
regional trends for fees, supply and demand, and what the City Council determines to be in the best
interest of the City. These fees should be periodically reviewed and updated.
Financial Sustainability
It is important for the City to develop a Resource Allocation and Pricing Philosophy that reflects the
values of the community and the responsibility it has to the community. This Philosophy will be
especially important if the City moves forward with the development of new programs, additional
and/or expanded facilities, and as it strives for sustainability and determines how much it is willing to
subsidize operations with tax dollars.
One means of accomplishing this goal is applying a process using an industry tool called the "Pyramid
Methodology." This methodology develops and implements a refined cost recovery philosophy and
pricing policy based on current "best practices" as determined by the mission of the agency and the
program's benefit to the community and/or individual.
Critical to this philosophical undertaking is the support and understanding of elected officials and
ultimately citizens. Whether or not significant changes are called for, the agency wants to be certain that
it is philosophically aligned with its residents. The development of the core services, cost recovery
philosophy, and policy is built on a very logical foundation, using the understanding of who is benefitting
from recreation services to determine how the costs for that service should be offset.
Recreation programs and services are sorted along a continuum of what delivers the greatest
community benefit to what delivers the greatest individual benefit. The amount of subsidy for each level
(not necessarily each individual program) is then determined to create an overall cost recovery
philosophy.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Developing effective ongoing systems that help measure success in reaching cost recovery goals and
anticipate potential pitfalls are dependent on the following:
• Understanding of current revenue streams and their sustainability.
• Tracking all expenses and revenues for programs, facilities, and services to understand their
contributions to overall department cost recovery.
• Analyzing who is benefiting from programs, facilities, and services and to what degree they
should be subsidized.
• Acknowledging the full cost of each program (those direct and indirect costs associated with
program delivery) and where the program fits on the continuum, of who benefits from the
program or service to determine appropriate cost recovery targets.
• Defining direct costs as those that typically exist purely because of the program and the change
with the program.
• Defining in -direct costs as those that are typically costs that would exist anyway (like full-time
staff, utilities, administration, debt service etc.).
• Program fees should not be based on ability to pay, but an objective program should be in place
that allows for easy access for lower income participants, through availability of scholarships
and/or discounts. In many instances, qualification for scholarships and/or discounts can mirror
requirements for free or reduced cost lunch in schools.
City of Meridian, Idaho
IV. What We Have Now - Inventory and
Level of Service Analysis
A. Inventory and Assessment
The purpose of this Level of Service (LOS) analysis is to evaluate how facilities and parks in Meridian
serve the community. This analysis may be used as a tool to benchmark current level of service and to
direct future planning efforts. Combined with other findings, including survey results and focus group
and stakeholder feedback, it also indicates the level of service anticipated by the community.
Asset Inventory
A detailed inventory of public and semi-public physical assets available for recreational use by the
Meridian community was assembled for the Level of Service analysis. This asset inventory was created
to serve Meridian in a number of ways. It can be used for a variety of planning and operations tasks,
such as asset management and land acquisition, as well as future strategic and master plans. The assets
inventory currently includes public parks, recreation areas, and pathways managed by the City of
Meridian.
Additionally, it was recognized that alternative providers, such as Homeowners' Associations, Schools
and Western Ada Recreation District (WARD) facilities, provide a significant inventory of neighborhood,
walk -to, and recreation opportunities. Due to limitations of time and resources, a selected sampling of
alternative providers was included in the full inventory and level of service analysis. Additional
alternative provider facilities owned the by City of Boise and other Homeowners' Associations were
located using existing GIS data or aerial photography identification and included for reference. Scoring
for these facilities and amenities were assumed to meet expectations and were included in the Level of
Service analysis. The following is a summary of the overall inventoried sites.
Visited and Assessed
• 21 Meridian Parks
■ 217 Components
• 10 Indoor Facilities
■ Including Meridian Community Center, Senior Center, City Hall, 6 School Gymnasiums,
and YMCA Home Court
■ 9 Alternative Provider Parks (WARD, Boise Parks, Schools)
■ 58 Components
Included
21.8 miles of pathways, including City pathways and various Alternative Providers, and 13 miles
of Micro Paths
Located and Assumed Scoring
• 64 Components at other HOA parks
• 63 Components at other schools
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Map A shows the study area and key locations of properties. Larger scale maps are provided as separate
documents.
1'evk• aMl Hm msi x.n }7a•�re l9an L
Map A: Meridian System Resourcesti % f� f14C ra. 7da4o
�._ N
tE kx
w+x
w
Map A: City of Meridian system map showing all inventory included for GRASP® analysis.
B. GRASP° Methodology
Level of Service for a community parks and recreation system is
indicative of the ability of people to pursue active lifestyles. It
can have implications in regard to health and wellness, the local
economy, and quality of life and tends to reflect community
values. It is emblematic of the manner and extent to which
people are connected to their communities.
The GRASP° Methodology involves mapping, scoring,
demographics, and interpretation of the resulting perspectives
to yield a picture of recreational service in a study area. The
various efforts undertaken for this study are described below
with general findings summarized in the following section.
tageaem
p
Prhw.n
H/�wx',W�s'ffird
1 2 3
� - , Maas p
City of Meridian, Idaho
Asset Scoring
In planning for the delivery of parks and recreation services, it is useful to think of parks, pathways,
indoor facilities, and other public spaces as parts of an infrastructure. This infrastructure allows people
to exercise, socialize, and maintain a healthy physical, mental, and social wellbeing. The infrastructure is
made up of components that support this goal. Components include amenities, such as playgrounds,
picnic shelters, courts, fields, indoor facilities, and other elements that allow the system to meet
recreational needs of a community. A component is a feature that people go to a park or recreation
center to use, such as a tennis court to play a game of tennis, which gives users reason to visit and serve
as an intended destination. A standardized list of GRASP' components is used to classify each asset in
the system. This list of components and definitions can be found in Appendix F.
In the inventory of assets, the following information is collected:
• Component type and location
• Evaluation of component functionality
• Evaluation of associated comfort and convenience features at a location
• Evaluation of general design and ambience at a location
• Site photos
• General comments
All components are scored based on condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality as they reflect the
expected quality of recreational features as compared with typical facilities in the City of Meridian.
A three-tier rating system is used to evaluate these:
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Meets Expectations
3 = Exceeds Expectations
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Not all parks are created equal. GRASP° Level of Service (LOS) analysis also takes into account important
aspects of user experience often that are easily overlooked. For example, the GRASP° system
acknowledges the important differences between these identical playground structures:
rA"
(Note, these park photos have been included for illustrative purposes. They are not located in Meridian.)
The immediate surroundings of a component affect how well it functions, so in addition to scoring
components, each park site or indoor facility is given a set of scores to rate its comfort, convenience,
and ambient qualities. This includes traits, such as the availability of restrooms, drinking water, shade,
scenery, etc. These modifier values are then attributed to any component at a given location and serve
to enhance component and location scores.
City of Meridian, Idaho
A final inventory atlas is provided as a separate document. This atlas includes maps and corresponding
data, including scoring and comments for all outdoor locations. Indoor data and scoring is also included.
Below is an example of a map and data page for Champion Park from that document.
Champion Park L -,d
CiT, of M -d9 '4aha e. c ��
__ - QI.r.._.. �.. -
�.r- ZF _
QRAS Ad..
Inllial Invmm�y oah: -pi.. Palk
The final dataset can be used to run a variety of reports and queries. For example, summary tables can
be produced. The following summary table shows each Meridian park in the inventory, as well as each
identified recreation component available. A separate table then shows all of the indoor facilities and
their respective components.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table 5: Outdoor Inventory Summary Table
* These acreages reflect the total parcels in GIS and are not necessarily the specific acreages tracked for each site by the MPR Department
V
CU•�
(
N
E
i
a/
fib
,
1/'
v
h
Q
:3
>
aJ
^'
{�
—_
y)
ar
CU
U
Q
i
ao
w
m
G
C
F
c
al
c
w
C
Q
v
_N
aJ
Q7
"a
3
¢
N
N
i
CL
a
—
w
—
X
2
X
X
°
`�
m
c
v
V
a
O
Y
¢
-o
aj
fYa
• j
p
Z
°
'a
�'
—
¢
i
—
C
V
o
y
ar
o
°
m
bD
fa
m
v
a,
ar
o
y
a0
°
G
C
°
C
C'
c
m
y
F
¢
v
l7
o
¢
-
M
a
¢
LL
LL
u
ar
w
..
ar
'n
v
u
E
c_
E
u
E
v
c
l7
Y
a
c
M
3
..
a)
a
ar
a
y
w n
o
°'
c
a'
s
>_
u
r-
�'
v
Y
E
c
>
LOCATION
CLASS
GIS ACRES
a
m
m
m
as
o
0
0
0
0
"
on
o
m
"
° °
o
a
O
O
O
i
v
c"o
>
m
o
¢
m
m
m
m
m
v
v
v
v
w
w
l7
C7
l7 x
a�
a
a
vLi
vYi
Julius M. Kleiner Park
Regional
57.9921
1
1.5
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
5
1
3
5
1
2
Settlers Park
Regional
56.1231
1
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
16
6
2
1
4
10
Bear Creek Park
Community
18.8019
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Heroes Park
Community
30.1501
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
Storey Park
Community
17.9043
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
Tully Park
Community
18.4778
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
8th Street Park
Neighborhood
2.7829
1
1
1
Champion Park
Neighborhood
5.9830
1
1
1
1
1
Chateau Park
Neighborhood
6.7163
1
1
1
1
1
1
Gordon Harris Park
Neighborhood
11.1370
1
1
1
1
1
Renaissance Park
Neighborhood
6.5264
1
1
1
1
1
Seasons Park
Neighborhood
6.9533
1
1
1
1
1
1
Centennial Park
Mini
0.4520
0.5
1
1
1
1
Cox Monument
Mini
0.1082
1
1
1
Fire Station No.4 Park
Mini
0.5906
1
City Hall Plaza
Special Use
0.9279
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
Generations Plaza
Special Use
0.2478
1
1
1
Heritage Ball Fields
Special Use
22.6860
1
4
3
Jabil Fields
Special Use
8.3980
1
2
Lakeview Golf Course
Golf
119.4263
1
1
Totals:
392.3850
2
2
16
11
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
3
1
5
4
1
1
1 19
11
22
9
2 1
2
9
1
13
5
25
1
10
1 1 1
2
4
* These acreages reflect the total parcels in GIS and are not necessarily the specific acreages tracked for each site by the MPR Department
Table 6: Indoor Inventory Summary Table
(All facilities in data set)
Catchment Areas
People use a variety of transit modes to reach a recreation destination: on foot, on a bike, in a car, via
public transportation, or utilizing any combination of these or other alternatives. The mode is often
determined, at least in part, by the distance to be travelled. The GRASP' system accounts for this by
applying more than one catchment area distance to examine access to assets.
A catchment area on a map, also called a buffer, is a circle drawn around each component at a specific
distance. Any point within this distance reflects the score of that component. This is called a service
area. These buffers are overlapped and used to calculate a total GRASP® Level of Service score for any
given point within the study area that reflects service from all nearby assets. This process yields the data
used to create all perspective maps and analytical charts.
The GRASP' methodology typically applies two different catchment area distances to calculate scoring
totals, yielding two distinct perspectives used to examine a recreation system:
1. General Access to Recreation
2. Walkable Access to Recreation
General Access analysis applies a primary catchment distance of one mile. This is considered a suitable
distance for a bike ride or a short drive in a car. This one -mile catchment is intended to capture
recreational users travelling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility by way of bike, bus, or
automobile.
Walkable Access analysis uses a smaller catchment distance to capture users within walking distance of
recreation facilities. This distance can range from as short as 1/4 mile to as long as 1/2 mile, depending
on the study area. For the City of Meridian, a 1/2 mile catchment buffer was used. This catchment
distance used in GRASP° studies represents a fifteen -minute walk for most users.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
v
v
-
N
E"
Y
d
o
j
a
O
=
p
a
=
v
£
o
LOCATION
l7
7
Y
a
z
City Hall
2
1
Cole Valley Christian School
2
Heritage Middle school
1
Meridian Academy
1
Meridian Community Center
2
Meridian Middle School
1
Meridian senior Center
1
1
5
1
1
Paramount Elementary School
1
Willow Creek Elementary School
1
YMCA Homecourt
4
Totals: 3
11
1
8
1
1
(All facilities in data set)
Catchment Areas
People use a variety of transit modes to reach a recreation destination: on foot, on a bike, in a car, via
public transportation, or utilizing any combination of these or other alternatives. The mode is often
determined, at least in part, by the distance to be travelled. The GRASP' system accounts for this by
applying more than one catchment area distance to examine access to assets.
A catchment area on a map, also called a buffer, is a circle drawn around each component at a specific
distance. Any point within this distance reflects the score of that component. This is called a service
area. These buffers are overlapped and used to calculate a total GRASP® Level of Service score for any
given point within the study area that reflects service from all nearby assets. This process yields the data
used to create all perspective maps and analytical charts.
The GRASP' methodology typically applies two different catchment area distances to calculate scoring
totals, yielding two distinct perspectives used to examine a recreation system:
1. General Access to Recreation
2. Walkable Access to Recreation
General Access analysis applies a primary catchment distance of one mile. This is considered a suitable
distance for a bike ride or a short drive in a car. This one -mile catchment is intended to capture
recreational users travelling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility by way of bike, bus, or
automobile.
Walkable Access analysis uses a smaller catchment distance to capture users within walking distance of
recreation facilities. This distance can range from as short as 1/4 mile to as long as 1/2 mile, depending
on the study area. For the City of Meridian, a 1/2 mile catchment buffer was used. This catchment
distance used in GRASP° studies represents a fifteen -minute walk for most users.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Academic and professional research is inconclusive on the topic of just how far people are willing to
walk for recreation. Some agencies have used 1/2 mile as a walkable distance in studies they have
conducted. Other studies in this country and internationally have used one mile or one kilometer (.62
miles) as walkable distances.
Assumptions
1. Proximity equates to access. This means that the presence of a recreational facility within a
specific distance indicates that facility is accessible from a location. "Accessibility" in this analysis
does not refer specifically to ADA accessibility.
2. General access equates to proximity of 1 mile, a reasonable distance for a drive in a car.
3. Walkable access equates to proximity of 1/2 mile, a reasonable distance attainable in 15
minutes walking at a leisurely pace.
Level of Service Analysis
Maps and data quantifications produced using the GRASP' methodology are known as perspectives.
Each perspective is a model of how service is being provided across the study area. The model can be
further analyzed to derive statistical information about service in a variety of ways. Maps are utilized
along with tables and charts to provide benchmarks a community may use to determine its success in
providing services.
The score of any component is reflected at any point within a catchment area that surrounds it. As
illustrated in Figure 12, these areas are overlapped and used to calculate a total GRASP® Level of Service
score for any given point within the study area, in this case the City of Meridian. When service areas for
multiple components are plotted on a map, a picture emerges that represents the cumulative level of
service provided by that set of components in a geographic area. This process yields the data used to
create all perspective maps and analytical charts. The graphic below illustrates the process assuming all
three components and the park boundary itself, and thus all catchments, are scored a "2."
Figure 13: GRASP® Catchment and Scoring Example
Score
Sc
z�
ore Q. R3
�M
City of Meridian, Idaho
A basic algorithm is used to calculate scoring totals for every park and indoor facility in the inventory
and is illustrated in Figure 13.
Figure 14: GRASP° Scoring Calculation
.Each component
receives a score
1.1, 1.2,
1
-Site modifiers are
added up to
determine a
multiplier
•"Design &
Ambiance" as a
stand alone
modifer
-All modified
component scores
add up to a total
score for a park or
indoor facility
Perspective maps and charts are produced by applying the GRASP' process to the City of Meridian
inventory. Shown on a heat map, cumulative GRASP° scoring for any part of the study area is
represented by darker or lighter shades for higher/lower scores, respectively.
GRASP' recognizes that every agency is unique and should be measured on its own standards. This
same data can also be used to portray areas that meet or do not meet a minimum standard,
represented by different colors. A threshold map displays the data related to a minimum standard
GRASP® score, called a threshold. A threshold score is normally set by the score of a typical
"neighborhood" park within a recreation system but may also be set using a median score, average
score, or some other statistical indicator. Based on the consistency in "Neighborhood Parks" in
Meridian, a typical neighborhood park equivalent was used in determining the threshold. See Appendix
Ffor in-depth discussion on threshold calculation.
- ` Cole Valley ChrrjOian School
.. cl/bnerationsF#?laZa
".
ent�nQ. Park
lube r JIy
r� - Crossroads
ent— �-
•r
City Hall 1wridran
P Community C'er;rYer °s �Me.
rce
if comme
IiT'yniing Pool/
Storey Park] iJ
_ _
Ni iq IFI- 'Id ill Yl Yt Yli Fit- .Ii It
rQl J�. avis
s � L
Darker and lighter orange shades on a heat map show areas with higher or lower level of service respectively. Also shown are
outdoor locations, indoor locations, and city infrastructure.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
td All UIIa IPHlil4
y YP?aII IA PAIrk .fr
L
_ drl:
Aylrl _ 3n46 ......... ai it illi Ai
:t1C3�#r .Ar
Jabal �Lp71a��1 Ai+�
�jA11IIri I'11..P _ _,
it Pk4� ii.11l
i•�y�- - --- _--.4.F� yr iP14� jl
Purple, yellow, and grey shades on a threshold map show areas that meet the minimum standard, fall below the minimum
standard, or have no level of service respectively.
The illustrations above show two common types of perspective maps --the heat map and the threshold
map. On a heat map, a darker orange shade results from the overlap of more service areas or areas
served by higher quality components. For any given spot on a perspective map there is a GRASP® Level
of Service score that reflects cumulative scoring for nearby assets. This perspective shows generally
those areas with access to more or better recreation opportunities. The threshold map shows the same
data as compared to a minimum standard GRASP® score.
The following sections will discuss the inventory, analysis, and findings from the City of Meridian
GRASP' Level of Service Analysis.
C. GRASP° Analysis
The GRASP° Methodology involves the overlap of mapping, scoring, demographics, and interpretation
of the resulting perspectives to yield a picture of recreational service in a study area. Efforts undertaken
for the City of Meridian analysis are described in full detail below. Findings and recommendations are
summarized in the following section.
Neighborhood Access to All Recreation
The Level of Service analysis indicates neighborhood access to recreation in the City of Meridian by any
means of transportation within a 1- mile radius with a premium for 1/2 mile walkability and is
represented in Map Series B.
Map B-1 shows level of service provided by the City of Meridian and Alternative Providers as unique
services. Service provided by the City of Meridian is represented in an orange gradient, and service
provided by alternative providers in blue gradient. The threshold map, shown in Map B-5, displays
GRASP' scoring based on a minimum standard GRASP' score, the threshold. Values at or above the
threshold are displayed as purple, while values below the given threshold are yellow. The analysis in
Map B-5 does not distinguish between ownership and includes all recreation opportunities available to
users. A series of analysis iterations (Maps B-2 through B-4) are developed that show levels of service
and threshold analysis based on City of Meridian provision and alternative provider provision.
Further discussion and Maps B-2 - B-4 may be found in Appendix F.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Col Valley C;hrriQian School
001 , iY
Q vera#iansai'l za
Ce:nteni ibl lark
,
lub
Crossroads
tri#—
City Hall
ian y�=
Plaza
munify Cerlfrer
•,�
... illy Y{C
■ Commerce' .•&
mining Pool
`-+►e ° 1-�
l. ill r L.
td All UIIa IPHlil4
y YP?aII IA PAIrk .fr
L
_ drl:
Aylrl _ 3n46 ......... ai it illi Ai
:t1C3�#r .Ar
Jabal �Lp71a��1 Ai+�
�jA11IIri I'11..P _ _,
it Pk4� ii.11l
i•�y�- - --- _--.4.F� yr iP14� jl
Purple, yellow, and grey shades on a threshold map show areas that meet the minimum standard, fall below the minimum
standard, or have no level of service respectively.
The illustrations above show two common types of perspective maps --the heat map and the threshold
map. On a heat map, a darker orange shade results from the overlap of more service areas or areas
served by higher quality components. For any given spot on a perspective map there is a GRASP® Level
of Service score that reflects cumulative scoring for nearby assets. This perspective shows generally
those areas with access to more or better recreation opportunities. The threshold map shows the same
data as compared to a minimum standard GRASP® score.
The following sections will discuss the inventory, analysis, and findings from the City of Meridian
GRASP' Level of Service Analysis.
C. GRASP° Analysis
The GRASP° Methodology involves the overlap of mapping, scoring, demographics, and interpretation
of the resulting perspectives to yield a picture of recreational service in a study area. Efforts undertaken
for the City of Meridian analysis are described in full detail below. Findings and recommendations are
summarized in the following section.
Neighborhood Access to All Recreation
The Level of Service analysis indicates neighborhood access to recreation in the City of Meridian by any
means of transportation within a 1- mile radius with a premium for 1/2 mile walkability and is
represented in Map Series B.
Map B-1 shows level of service provided by the City of Meridian and Alternative Providers as unique
services. Service provided by the City of Meridian is represented in an orange gradient, and service
provided by alternative providers in blue gradient. The threshold map, shown in Map B-5, displays
GRASP' scoring based on a minimum standard GRASP' score, the threshold. Values at or above the
threshold are displayed as purple, while values below the given threshold are yellow. The analysis in
Map B-5 does not distinguish between ownership and includes all recreation opportunities available to
users. A series of analysis iterations (Maps B-2 through B-4) are developed that show levels of service
and threshold analysis based on City of Meridian provision and alternative provider provision.
Further discussion and Maps B-2 - B-4 may be found in Appendix F.
City of Meridian, Idaho
The heat map, shown in Map B-1 suggests that the study area has good distribution of facilities and
good general access to parks and recreation facilities. In Map B-5, areas displayed in purple can be
thought of as having adequate level of service. Areas in yellow indicate that service is below threshold.
Residents living in areas of dark gray are within the City of Meridian limits but must travel further than
one mile to access recreation.
11.4:. e.1 Etc. Z,..n Nj w l9xn
Map 8-1 Composite Level of Service Perspective: City of Meridan and Alternative Provider Gradient
Lege
ne MPIIY •,
aaslkcm
Abe Ii[nu
a x 1 2
__ � ?Ales
,t GRA5P
macer r.cwM
� eu.rau YR.eUmMan Wropeery
eew.,wnn«h
ti' Jdnl-Ilse ecrwol ProWary
Bglooi NppMy.
wu o arwMr
Pee+ n
�� Cclsing PYhxy
— Mao WW1
kglrrga, Waeaa 691rtda
— Lk+feq Accne
— Hlgtiw#y
A41ac WaaO
Leeel WeeQ
rVry Wepf
OMxWaeO
wYw,.q
w ne.n�
rn. cmru�
M
Map B-1: Neighborhood Access to All Recreation in the City of Meridian is displayed here as a heat map, with service from City
facilities shown distinct from those of alternative providers.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
N& aMI iGr—bn Nt— [[—
Map 9;3-6 Composite Leve! of Service Perspective: All Providers Threshold
Leg:nd
-
ai xAn4n P+W18R'
� Retlrna
' -
W W
O.aY4a Prgpayy
P
J StIwW Rgpelryr
Propemp
faagwyf
Gifxnp Patlnoy
xl[�a PxN
Hgmxay., Ra,m A stm
— L 11l A—.
H".,
xxya Raid
•
111.1
MgHefr
_
Rgaa
IY�Kl11rM
4
� M1Mtmxn Clry Llmf
p—; t
tN les
cc'r
Map B-5: Neighborhood Access to All Recreation in the City of Meridian is displayed here as a threshold map, with service from
all providers analyzed together.
Chart 1 shows statistics for general access to recreation (mapped in Map 8-5) as compared to the
threshold value based on land in the City of Meridian. It shows the percentages of the city limits that
either have no service, fall below this threshold value, or exceed this threshold. While 98 percent of the
City has access to some recreation, over 3/4 of that land is above threshold. This is a good indication
that where service is provided, it is at a high level.
City of Meridian, Idaho
City of Meridian
Access to All Recreation
2%
22% Percent Total Area =0
Percent Total Area ?0 AND <86.40
76%
Percent Total Area x=86.40
Chart 1: Access to all Recreation Pie Chart
Walkable Access to Recreation
Walkability is a measure of how user-friendly an area is to people travelling on foot. A walkable
environment has benefits with regard to public health, the local economy, and quality of life. Many
factors influence walkability and include the presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or
other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, and safety considerations
among others. Perhaps the most significant factors affecting walkability in a study area are barriers.
Barriers are typically major streets and highways, waterways, or railroad tracks that restrict pedestrian
or bicycle movement and pose a potential risk to public safety. Barriers were determined for the City of
Meridian and used to "clip" the service coverage for the walkable level of service perspective analysis.
This accounts for these obstacles as deterrents to active transportation that serves to limit access to
recreation.
The Walkable Level of Service perspective models access to recreation using a 1/2 mile catchment
distance exclusively. This represents a convenient distance to access recreation on foot or by bike and
can be achieved by an average person within a 15 -minute walk. This analysis does not recognize any
service across a barrier.
The walkability heat map in Map C-1 shows access to recreation in the City of Meridian by walking or
other non -motorized travel mode. The effect of the barriers is notable in this perspective map. Map C-5
displays GRASP' scoring based on the same threshold used in Map Series B. A series of analysis
iterations (Maps C-2 through C-4) have been developed that show levels of service and threshold
analysis based on City of Meridian provision and alternative provider provision. Further discussion may
be found in Appendix F.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
P.6..d an,t—,M-
Map C -f Walkabiiity Level of Service Perspective: City of Mandan and Alternative Provider Gradient
C
I
Map C-1: Walkable Access to Recreation in the City of Meridian is displayed here as a heat map, with service from City facilities
shown distinct from those of alternative providers.
Map C-5, shows the combined threshold analysis for walkability with no distinction as to ownership. This
perspective map shows significant portions of the City at or above the threshold in walkability but also
reveals many areas that fall below threshold and with no service. This analysis indicates that while
overall Meridian may not be a very walk -friendly city, there are areas, subdivisions, and neighborhoods
that could be considered very walkable.
City of Meridian, Idaho
� P+4n.ld f.rvl�.
•pow Pinny
..u•..a..
� A4ne�.n PrspenY
au n Ion Pmperty
�
8pl.e P1cMnYm�
-Y6�Pc n•
� .q [wm PmpMy
Yewrlw..Prv.ww VUAPn �..swf...x.
p'. RO Pmpery
'
-{.uPnp P.Plwry
Nlum.+r•. Ro.w a so -..e.
uPrseauece
nKlw ea.m
Lce, Ro�E
_
��.�
Mnarew9
QMrPoaY
a x r z
xr+r
TAMIes
rA.lm.n rnYu�e
I
Map C-1: Walkable Access to Recreation in the City of Meridian is displayed here as a heat map, with service from City facilities
shown distinct from those of alternative providers.
Map C-5, shows the combined threshold analysis for walkability with no distinction as to ownership. This
perspective map shows significant portions of the City at or above the threshold in walkability but also
reveals many areas that fall below threshold and with no service. This analysis indicates that while
overall Meridian may not be a very walk -friendly city, there are areas, subdivisions, and neighborhoods
that could be considered very walkable.
City of Meridian, Idaho
NA,.. a X—'wi M.— PI.,
Map C4 Walkalrility Level of Service Perspective: All Providers Threshold
.-=a
�p.ne
�
e .moray
•• •• ;•�^u�
� wrnaren emaw:y
�., ��••�^.��
r aunwaR«wiwmempmy
®•r,.•.••
aowrraown
� �ewX-urr sera ercv«:y
� s:Rearemn.ry
� waRne+m.rn
ewryr
—iavrpeawry
—Mve Pam
Xlynys Rwe.t9brwe
—LnRetl 4con.
xY�rr w
0 44 1 '•-.. 2
om.
verses
aR soar
Map C-5: This threshold map shows Walkable Access to all recreation in the City of Meridian based on all providers. A minimum
standard GRASP® score is again used in this perspective to show service above or below threshold from any provider.
Chart 2, shows statistics for walkable access to recreation (as mapped in Map C-5) applying a threshold.
Based on land area in the City of Meridian. While 81 percent of the City that has walkable access, only
24 percent of total City acres meet threshold, and 57 percent falls below the threshold value. A total of
19 percent of the City is without walkable service within 1/2 mile.
24%
City of Meridian
Walkable Access to All Recreation
19%
57%
Chart 2: Walkability of City of Meridian by land area
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
■ Percent Total Area =0
Percent Total Area >0 AND <65.3
Percent Total Area >=65.3
While Chart 2, above, refers to the percentage of the City within walking distance of service, it does not
tell the whole story. When discussing walkability, it is very important to understand the proximity of
parks to population centers. Using the ESRI population database, the percentage of the actual Meridian
population can also be determined within the three service levels: at or above threshold, below
threshold, and no service. The results of this further analysis are shown in Chart 3, below, which
indicates that nearly 75 percent of the Meridian population has walkable access to recreation with half
of the population at or above threshold. This would indicate that parks are generally well placed in
relation to population areas.
of Total 2014 Population
25%
;;25%WO'
Chart 3: Walkability of City of Meridian by Population
7 No Service
Below Threshold
At or Above Threshold
This population analysis can also be broken down further to look at specific portions of the population.
Chart 4 shows that 77 percent of youth (ages 19 and under) live within walking distance of recreation
opportunities that were included in this study, further indication that recreation is well located to serve
the Meridian population.
52%
of Population Ages 19 and Under
Chart 4: Youth Walkable Access to Recreation
No Service
Below Threshold
At or Above Threshold
• City of Meridian, Idaho
A Note on Utilizing the GRASP® Perspectives
GRASP° perspectives provide a snapshot to benchmark future planning efforts, but it should be noted
that these analyses need to be considered along with other indicators. Used in conjunction with other
needs assessment tools (such as needs surveys and a public process), GRASP' perspectives can be used
to determine if current levels of service are appropriate in a given location. However, it is not necessarily
beneficial for all parts of the community to score equally in the analyses. The desired level of service for
any particular location will depend on the type of service being analyzed and land use or demographic
characteristics of the particular location. Commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might
reasonably be expected to have lower levels of service for parks and recreation opportunities than
residential areas, for example. All such factors must be accounted for in order to make well informed
management decisions.
Access to Pathways
In Meridian, as in many cities across the country, pathways are recognized as valuable and desirable
components to any recreation system. The following map, Map D, shows existing pathways in Meridian,
as well as planned or proposed pathways. Meridian residents have access to a number of different types
of pathway providers: those pathways provided by the City of Meridian, other public providers such as
WARD Parks, and semi-public providers such as Homeowner Associations. Perceived public access may
vary greatly based on some of the more restrictive neighborhood pathways. While there are a variety of
opportunities to access pathways across the City, public input from this study indicates that expanded
access and additional opportunities are needed.
As a pathway system matures, the need emerges to address barriers, such as roadways, waterways, and
railroad crossings that separate distinct pathway networks in order to create a truly connected pathway
system. A pathway network is a part of a pathway system within which major barrier crossings have
been addressed and all pathways are connected. Pathway networks within a pathway system are
typically separated from each other by such barriers or by missing pathway connections. Signaled
crosswalks, pedestrian underpasses, and bridges can be used to help users navigate barriers. New
pathways may be added to link trail networks and improve overall connectivity. Most communities have
several pathway networks that connect users to common destinations such as schools, shops,
restaurants, and civic and religious institutions in addition to parks and recreation facilities. The more
integrated these networks, the more connected a community.
In response to public input regarding the need for a connected pathway and pathway system, a basic
analysis is used in this mapping (Map D) that display longer segments of existing pathways in a darker
shade of red. Shorter segments tend towards a light orange shade in this analysis.
Pathways also serve as access to other recreation opportunities. A complete discussion of "Recreational
Connectivity can be found later in this document.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
PA.. Nrrn-ai bn ALaer� f'I.n
Map D: Meridian Pathways 3 Conneadvity Y9 Oj T�-RGxa "fin
_ D
A
.:s
e wr.•, L ...w 11. wi nwrn3 i
a
:"�j- � ..... ._y4 A �... ��q..r�w�t<n:+ R,.r� ;., .. ,.. �•wao"rr. ��ti1 � c+�b
.... ' i��.� aW •. x�"� �Sry.w , , \ � B°^'. Fnr.4n Fzrx
{kH �
/• B.a.wainr
Y Vx sb� is i u am Fyxry
• � •yam - o ,,. e� �. — revum
..T
x, .ete-M� a ;.�.4„ariu �� ..s^i W.>„»� • ! - araa.a
• ii �•1: [ xun �
1 3
'�.._.......,, : >._.d .•,Mry
s.LRi.SC o� 1 x 7
_ Milos ry
Map D: This map shows current, planned, and proposed pathways in the City of Meridian
GRASP® Comparative Data
The GRASP® Index, or the overall GRASP® value per capita, for the City of Meridian is 18. Because
every community is unique, there are no standard or "correct" numbers for these. However, it is useful
to note that the GRASP' Index for the City of Meridian falls within the mid-range. Table 7 provides
comparative data from other communities. For reference, statistics have been included for other
communities of similar size in addition to smaller and larger communities across the country. It is
notable that the GRASP® Index score for Meridian is similar or higher than most other cities listed with
population in the 90,000 to 116,000 range. Meridian also has one of the higher "average number of
components per site" and "average score per site" if compared to other cities. These are prime
indicators of the well-developed Neighborhood and Community Parks in Meridian vs. other
communities. Additionally, the average level of service per acre served and percentage of area with level
of service are the highest of other cities of similar size. Finally, the Meridian statistics include currently
undeveloped park lands that once developed will further increase the overall level of service value.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Table 7: GRASP® Comparative Data
YEAR
IF
POPULATION
STUDY AREA SIZE
ACRES
# OF SITES (PARKS,
FACILITIES, ETC)
TOTAL # OF
COMPONENTS
AVG. #
COMPONENTS PER
SITE
TOTAL GRASP®
VALUE (ENTIRE
SYSTEM
GRASP® INDEX
AVG. SCORE/SITE
% of TOTAL AREA
w/LOS >0
AVG. LOS PER ACRE
SERVED
NUMBER OF
COMPONENTS PER
POPULATION
AVERAGE LOS/POP
DEN PER ACRE
POPULATION
DENSITY (PER ACRE)
VT
Essex
2011
28,858
25,230
47
153
3.3
895
31
19.0
72%
11.0
5
10
1.1
ID
Post Falls
2011
29,062
24,928
35
271
7.7
1005
35
28.7
71%
169
9
145
1.2
OR
Oregon City
2006
29,540
5,944
51
215
4.2
NA
NA
NA
86%
45
7
9
5.0
CO
Commerce City
2006
36,049
26,270
90
357
4.0
1047
29.0
11.6
73%
113
10
82
1.4
CA
La Quinta
2006
39,614
22,829
27
143
5.3
611
15
22.6
79%
78.0
4
45
1.7
UT
South Jordan
2006
44,276
14,081
48
172
3.6
1578
36
32.9
44%
29.8
4
9
3.1
CA
PaImSprings
2013
44,468
60,442
16
162
10.1
1149
26
71.8
69%
164.9
4
223
0.7
NM
Farmington
2014
46,815
21,179
98
354
3.6
2204
48
22.5
97%
223
8
101
2.2
OR
Corvallis
2011
54,462
18,006
54
309
5.7
2217
41
41.1
93%
289
6
96
3.0
MO
Li berty
2013
56,041
53,161
39
298
7.6
607
11
15.6
57%
107
5
102
1.1
MA
Brookline
2009
60,000
NA
74
128
1.7
551
9
7.4
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
ID
Meridian
2015
94,289
18,159
21*
207*
9.9*
1947
18
52.1
98%
196
2
37.8
5.2
FL
Winter Haven
100,000
42,191
31
230
7.4
328
3
10.6
37%
175
2
73.8
2.4
TX
Pearland
2015
101,900
30,468
21
164
7.8
1556
15
74.1
85%
162
2
55.4
2.9
OR
North Clackamas
2012
115,924
23,040
93
295
3.2
2207
19
23.7
97
183
3
36.4
5.0
CO
Fort Coll ins
130,681
33,388
45
619
13.8
2675
20
59.4
83%
217
5
55.4
3.9
NC
Ca ry
2011
139,382
35,578
43
562
13.1
2843
20
66.1
97%
221
4
56.4
3.9
IA
Cedar Rapids
143,788
45,987
98
759
7.7
2467
17
25.2
86%
300
5
95.8
3.1
CO
Lakewood
144,369
27,494
105
738
7.0
6476
45
61.7
100
NA
5
5.3
IN
South Bend
2011
164,396
65,387
64
339
5.3
2417
15
37.8
72%
130
2
51.7
2.5
FL
Ft Lauderdale
181,095
23,230
91
483
5.3
2662
15
29.3
98
221
3
28.4
7.8
VA
Arlington
190,000
NA
225
494
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
WA
Tacoma
203,984
34,133
104
488
4.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
6.0
OR
THPRD
2012
224,627
29,097
253
1211
5
6843
30
27
100%
489
5
63
7.7
*Includes City of Meridian assets and facilities only
D. Other Types of Analysis
Capacities Analysis
One of the traditional tools for evaluating service for parks and recreation is capacity analysis. This
analysis compares the total acres and quantity of assets to current and future population. Table 8 shows
the current capacities for all park land and selected components in the City of Meridian. Along with
community and staff input, this information can be used to project future needs to accommodate
population growth.
Based on projected population growth in Meridian and current ratio of component to that population,
the City of Meridian and/or other providers would need to add 130 acres of park land by 2020 to
maintain the current level of service. This could be a single 130 acre park or multiple parks. Other
projected needs include: (4) ball fields, (7) multi-purpose fields, (3) tennis courts, (5) picnic shelters, (6)
basketball courts, (7) loop walks, (3) horseshoe pits, (8) open turf areas, (1) volleyball court, and (12)
playgrounds for example. These could be part of new parks or schools or added to existing parks.
Table 8: Capacities LOS for Community Components
'Incomplete data available on all alternative provider park boundaries; +Only includes currently developed or planned and funded Meridian Parks. Does not include future parks or
golf course
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Capacities LOS for Corn unity
Com
onents
Meridian, Idaho
Jun -15
W
�
N
N
U
Q
W
LL
A
N
O
Y
_
w
C
Q
_
w
0t
lL
>'
N
N
.�
a
Q
cr C
t6
A
NO
C
0
LL
C
T d
N
L
d
d
O
N
Q rn
m
m
13
2
-1
22
O
C N
N
F
>
INVENTORY
City of Meridian+
249.4
2
12
11
2
19
20
18
9
13
25
10
1
Schools
515.7
0
5
20
0
0
22
27
32
26
3
6
1
Identified Alternative Providers'
87
0
10
8
1
0
3
2
9
37
6
1
2
Total
852.1
2
27
39
3
19
45
47
50
76
34
17
4
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
CURRENT POPULATION 2015
94,289
Current Ratio per 1000 Population
9.04
0.02
0.29
0.41
0.03
0.20
0.48
0.50
0.53
0.81
0.36
0.18
0.04
Population per component
111
47,145
3,492
2,418
31,430
4,963
2,095
2,006
1,886
1,241
2,773
5,546
23,572
PROJECTED POPULATION- 2020
108,701
Total # needed to maintain current ratio
of all existing facilities at projected
982
2
31
45
3
22
52
54
58
88
39
20
5
population
Number that should be added by all
providers to achieve current ratio at
130
0
4
6
0
3
7
7
8
12
5
3
1
projected population
'Incomplete data available on all alternative provider park boundaries; +Only includes currently developed or planned and funded Meridian Parks. Does not include future parks or
golf course
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
GRASP° Index for Specific Components
A capacities analysis is based purely on the
quantity of assets without regard to quality or
functionality. Higher LOS is achieved only by
adding assets, regardless of the condition or
quality of those assets. In theory, service
provided by assets should be based on their
quality as well as their quantity. An example
will help illustrate.
In the case of Meridian, playgrounds currently
score at 125 and have a GRASP® Index of 1.3.
Based on population projections by the year
2020, Meridian and its partners would need to
provide an additional 19.1 points worth of
GRASP' scoring through playgrounds to
maintain the current level of service per capita.
Increases in GRASP® score can occur through
upgrades to current components, addition of
new components, or a combination of upgrades
and additions. For reference, a typical
component located in a typical park with typical
comfort and convenience modifiers equates to
a GRASP' score of 4.8 points.
This is especially useful in communities where
the sustainability of the parks and recreation
system over time is important. In the past, the
focus was on maintaining adequate capacity as population growth occurred. Today, many communities
are reaching build -out while others have seen population growth slow. The focus in such communities
has shifted to maintaining current levels of service as components age or become obsolete, or as needs
change. The GRASP® Index can be used to track LOS under such conditions over time.
The authors of this report have developed a tool
that incorporates both quantity and quality for
any given set of assets into a single indicator
called the GRASP° Index. This index is a per
capita ratio of the functional score per
population in thousands.
The GRASP® Index can move up or down over
time as either quantity or quality changes. For
example, if all of the playgrounds in a
community are allowed to deteriorate over
time, but none are added or taken away, the
LOS provided by the playgrounds is decreasing.
Similarly, if all of the playgrounds are replaced
with new and better ones, but no additional
playgrounds are added, the LOS increases even
though the per -capita quantity of playgrounds
did not change.
GRASP° score for any component is also directly
impacted by the Design & Ambiance score, as
well as comfort and convenience modifiers of
any given park. Improvements or upgrades to
these park features will also impact the scoring.
Table 9 shows the GRASP° Indices for the various components based on the 2015 population.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Table 9: GRASP° Community Component Index
Projected Community Components GRASP® Index 2020
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Current
Projected
Population
Population
2015
94,289
2020
108,701
Total
GRASP®
Total
GRASP°
score per
GRASP°
Community
1000
score
Additional
Score per
population
needed at
GRASP®
component
(GRASP®
projected
score
type
Index)
population
needed
Aquatic Feature,
Spray
18.6
0.2
21.4
2.8
Ballfield
106.5
1.1
122.8
16.3
Basketball
88.5
0.9
102.0
13.5
Community Gardens
11.7
0.1
13.5
1.8
Horseshoes
180.0
1.9
207.5
27.5
Loop Walks
80.4
0.9
92.7
12.3
MP Field, all sizes
131.5
1.4
151.6
20.1
Open Turf
75.5
0.8
87.0
11.5
Passive Nodes
74.6
0.8
86.0
11.4
Playground, all sizes
125.0
1.3
144.1
19.1
Public Art
44.7
0.5
51.5
6.8
Shelter, all sizes
189.6
2.0
218.6
29.0
Tennis
137.6
1.5
158.6
21.0
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
E. Summary of Findings
Several general findings were revealed by the City of Meridian GRASP° Analysis. These may be
summarized as follows:
For neighborhood access to parks and recreation, Meridian offers:
• A wide variety of well distributed recreational opportunities.
• High quality and well maintained parks.
• Good access with over 75 percent of land area above threshold when considering all providers.
• Definite distinction between "Community Parks" and "Neighborhood Parks."
• An overall high level of service if accessed by an automobile.
• High scoring "Regional Parks" or "Community Parks."
• A high number of components and average score per site when compared to some other
communities.
• Some large "pockets" of high level of service.
• Great restroom standards.
For walkable level of service:
• While "Neighborhood Parks" often score high enough to meet the "threshold," a lack of
pathway access often keeps an area below the threshold mark.
• Some parks, especially "Neighborhood Parks," lack unique or identifiable character.
• Alternative providers are an important supplement to Meridian's "Neighborhood" level of
service.
• There is heavy reliance on alternative providers (including schools) for walkable neighborhood
level of service in many areas, and the quality of alternative providers' parks vary greatly across
the system.
• Demographic analysis shows good distribution of parks where young people live with over 75
percent of 0-19 age group having walkable access to some recreation service.
• There is a need to identify and collect inventory data on the remaining alternative provider
parks/facilities.
• Access to a quality, connected pathway system is limited and greatly impacts overall walkable
level of service in Meridian.
For pathways and pathway access:
• There a variety of pathways are available across the City, but they are not meeting the needs
and demands of the community.
• Many of the pathways within Meridian are not connected to the larger overall pathway system.
• A significant portion of these pathways may have limited or restricted access based on locations
within subdivisions.
• Pathway access is notably absent from some Meridian residential neighborhoods.
Based on projected population growth over the next 5-7 years, Meridian and its partners need:
• Additional park land and components added to the system to maintain current level of service.
• To improve or upgrade existing components to maintain current level of service.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Preliminary Recommendations
• Improve recreational connectivity through neighborhood pathway connections and park
"spurs."
• Continue to improve level of service especially at "Neighborhood" Parks through upgrades or
additional components if pathways cannot be added.
• Work with neighborhoods to create an individual identity for each neighborhood park.
• Work with alternative providers to increase level of service in areas Meridian doesn't have
neighborhood parks but level of service is low.
• Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks.
F. Park Classifications
The Nature of Classification Systems
Park classification systems are commonly utilized by park and recreation agencies. Most park and
recreation agencies organize lands and facilities into various classes, types, categories, or other schemes
as a planning and management tool. However, once established, classification schemes are rarely
modified and over time may lose effectiveness as a tool, due to changing values of an agency or a
community. Purposes for classifying lands and facilities into different categories include:
• Determination of policies and strategies for management and operation of lands and facilities.
• Definition of categories of need for land and facilities and identifying potential acquisitions to
meet those needs.
Establishment of policies and strategies for land acquisition, including exactions, easements,
leases, and other strategies, in addition to fee -simple purchase.
Establishment of benchmarks and goals for providing services and measure the results of efforts
towards meeting these.
In 1995, the National Park and Recreation Association published the following classification table. At the
time it represented the most recent thinking on classification and standards for parklands and facilities.
NRPA has since moved in the direction of GIS mapping of Park and Recreation Lands, The GRASP'
methodology is one example of a GIS driven, component -based system that may be used for both
classification and level of service analysis.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
NRPA Parks and Open Space Classifications (1995)
Parks, Open Space, and Pathways Classification Table
Parks and Open Space Classifications
Classification
General Description
Location
Size Criteria
Mini -Park
Used to address limited, isolated or unique
Less 114 mile distance in
Between 2506 sq. ft. and ane
Champion Park
recreational needs
residential setting
acre in size
Seasons Park
Neighborhood park remains the basic unit of the park
Up to to 112 mile distance and
5 acres is considered
Neighborhood
system and serves as the recreational and social
uninterrupted bynon-residentialminimum
size. 5 to 10 acres is
Park
focus of the neighborhood. Focus is on informal
roads and other physical barriers
optimal
activity and passive recreation
Depending on circumstances, combining parks with
School -Park
school sites can fulfill the space requirements for
Determined by location of school
Variable depends on function
other classes of parks, such as neighborhood,
district property
communitv, sports complex, and special use
Serves broader purpose than neighborhood park.
Determined by the quality and
As needed to accommodate
Community
Focus is on meeting community-based recreation
suitability of the site. Usually
desired uses. Usually
Park
needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and
serves two or more neighborhoods
been and 50 acres
open spaces
within a 3 -mile distance
Large Urban parks serve a broader purpose than
community parks and are used when community and
Determined by the quality and
As needed to accommodate
Large Urban
neighborhood parks are not adequate to serve the
suitability of the site. Usually
desired uses. Usually a
Park
needs of the community. Focus is on meeting
serves the entire cemmunity.
minimum of 50 acres with 75
community-based recreational needs as well as
or more acres being optimal
preservinq unique landscapes and open spaces
Natural
Lands set aside for preservation of significant natural
Resource availability and
Resource
resources, remnant landscapes, open space and
Opportunity
Variable
Areas
visual aesthetics or buffering.
Greenways
Effectively lie the park system components together to
Resource availability and
Variable
form a continuous park environment.
Opportunity
Consolidates heavily programmed athletic fields an
Determined by projected
Sports
associated facilities to larger and fewer sites
Strategically located Community-
demand usually a minimum of
Complex
strategically located throughout the Community
wide facilities
acres with AO to l30 acres
be
bei optimal
Special Use
Covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities
Variable — dependent on specific
Variable
Park
oriented toward single -purpose use
use
Private
Parks and recreational facilities that are privately
Variable — dependent on specific
Park/Recreation
owned yet contribute to the public park and recreation
Variable
Facility
system
use
Based on a modified 1995 NRPA Classification System the Meridian Park System would breakdown as
follows:
Regional Park
Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park
Settlers Park
Community Park
Bear Creek Park
Heroes Park
Storey Park
Tully Park
Neighborhood Park
8th Street Park
Champion Park
Chateau Park
Gordon Harris Park
Renaissance Park
Seasons Park
Mini -Park
Centennial Park
Cox Monument
Fire Station No.4 Park
City of Meridian, Idaho
Special Use Park
Lakeview Golf Course
City Hall Plaza
Generations Plaza
Heritage Ball Fields
Jabil Fields
Undeveloped/Future Park Lands
Borup/Bottles Properties
South Meridian Property
William Watson
Private Park/Recreation Facility
HOA (Various Other Parks)
Natural Resource Areas
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Undeveloped
School -Park
Andrus Elementary School
Barbara Morgan Stem Academy
Chaparral Elementary School
Chief Joseph Elementary School
Christine Donnell School of the Arts
Crossroads Middle School
Desert Sage Elementary School
Discovery Elementary School
Gateway School
Heritage Middle School
Hunter Elementary School
Joplin Elementary School
Lake Hazel Elementary School
Lake Hazel Middle School
Lewis & Clark Middle School
Lowell Scott Middle School
Mary McPherson Elementary School
Meridian Elementary School
Meridian Middle School
Paramount Elementary School
Pathways Middle School
Pepper Ridge Elementary School
Peregrine Elementary School
Pioneer School of the Arts
Ponderosa Elementary School
Prospect Elementary School
River Valley Elementary School
Sawtooth Middle School
Siena Elementary School
Silver Sage Elementary School
Spalding STEM Academy
Summerwind Elementary School
Ustick Elementary School
Willow Creek Elementary
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Other Public or Semi -Public
Providers
C.F. McDevitt Park
Cameron Park
Cottonwood Park
Fuller Park
Meridian Swimming Pool
Peppermint Park
Settlers Village Park
Sycamore Park
A good classification system should address such a variety of purposes in ordering park facilities.
Classifications must be clear, straightforward, and understandable, especially to agency administrators
and staff. Often classification systems are adopted that are ambiguous or use conflicting criteria for
defining individual classes of lands and facilities. One example might be a classification system based on
both parcel size and uses that occur within a parcel.
Planners and administrators often try to do too many things at once within a single scheme. A common
failing of classification systems is that they tend to be used based on parcel size rather than a land use
basis. Often, a large parcel is owned within which a wide and diverse set of uses is contained, and there
is no single classification that encompasses the full range of purposes that the parcel addresses. So a
classification is chosen from among the possible choices, but it is not able to describe all of the functions
of that parcel. A common alternative is to develop a new classification that fits the parcel, but over time,
this leads to too many classifications and becomes unwieldy and less useful for its original purposes.
Consider a site that is located in a residential area on 20 or 30 acres that is part wooded area and part
developed park, with a playground intended for use by the neighborhood but not much else. This site
would be classified a neighborhood park based on use, but a community park based on size. An
exception must be made to the standard in order to assign it to one classification or the other.
That same park might have a large lawn area that is used for soccer games. The combination of size and
use would place it in the community park category, but everyone considers it a neighborhood park
because of where it is located and the people it serves. Another exception is made to the standard. Or a
new classification is created to address the unique situation. Over time, other unique situations occur,
and before long there are too many classifications and/or exceptions and classification system becomes
unwieldy. The ambiguity and number of exceptions that the classification scheme creates degrades its
effectiveness as a planning tool. Ultimately such a scheme comes to be seen as arbitrary as it is not
defensible as a means of justifying decisions.
Classifications are of relatively little importance to the general public. A visitor chooses to visit a
particular park or facility for the amenities it contains, not based on its classification. A park name that
includes its classification, such as Meridian Community Park, may suggest to the potential visitor what
amenities it contains, but the choice to visit is still based on the amenities that are actually found there
regardless of name or classification. Classifications are most valuable for internal use by an agency.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Use- or Function -Based Level -of -Service Classification
Another useful classification system is applied on a land -use basis rather than a parcel basis. To do this,
first list the various types of uses found within the agency's lands and facilities. Sort these into helpful
categories that have relevance to the planning, operation, and management of the assets. For example,
if sports oriented parks are to be managed differently than neighborhood parks, a clear and
understandable definition of what uses constitute a neighborhood park should be developed.
Once the use categories are defined, all of the land and facilities owned and managed by an agency
should be evaluated to identify which parts of them fall within each of the various classifications. This
should be done on a use basis rather than a parcel basis. This means that a sports oriented park may be
defined by boundaries that reflect the use, and these boundaries may not necessarily coincide with
parcel boundaries (though often they will).These boundaries can be drawn in a GIS system and stored on
separate layers from the parcel boundaries. By creating a new layer in the GIS with classifications based
on use or functions, the classification system can be used more effectively to measure and manage the
assets of the agency.
Component -Based Level -of -Service Classification
In general, the current Meridian Park Classification System appears to work well with the current
inventory. Parks or facilities within each classification fall within reasonable ranges for acres and
quantity of GRASP° components. A classification system that combines the current system with the
GRASP' component based system would mean only a minor adjustment to this system. The following
table characterizes the proposed classification system and offers general description and proposed
GRASP' ranges based on current conditions. In this system, the primary focus or intended function of
the park or facility dictates the GRASP' level of service.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed Unique
GRASP® Component
Proposed Total GRASP®
General Design and Development
Range based on
Component Range based on
Proposed Classification
Proposed General Description
Guidelines
Size and Street Frontage Guidelines
Current Inventory
Current Inventory
Appropriate components may include but
not be limited to:
Destination Playground
Serve a broad purpose to the community
Dog Park
and region while still providing adequate
Sports Fields
neighborhood level ofserviceto adjacent
Splash Pads
50+acres based on current inventory
Regional Park (Large Urban
residents. Focus is on components that
Event Space
Park)
occur in quantities, size and design to
Open Turf
Full access on at least two sides of park.
15 to 21
39+
serve large groups or community wide
Shelter
At least one side of the park should have
events. May serve users from across city
Basketball, Tennis, Picklebal I, etc.
access from a collector or arterial street.
or region. Because of service area requires
Loop Walk
adequate parking facilities.
Public Art
Typical Comfort and Convenience
Amenities (Picnic tables, benches, bike
racks, drinking fountains, restroom, etc)
Appropriate components may include but
not be I i mited to:
Destination Playground
Serve broad purpose to the community
Dog Park
while still providing adequate
Sports Fields
neighborhood level of serviceto adjacent
Open Turf
15 to 30 acres based on current inventory
residents. Focus is on components that
Shelter
Community Park
occur in quantities, size and design to
Basketball or Other Courts
Visible from adjoining street and street
7 to 9
8 to 15
serve large groups or community wide
Loop Walk
frontage on at least two sides with 400
events. Generally serves users within 1-3
Public Art
feet minimum
mile radius. Requires adequate parking to
Typical Comfort and Convenience
minimize neighborhood conflict.
Amenities (Picnic tables, benches, bike
racks, drinking fountains, restroom, etc)
Appropriate components may include but
The basic unit ofthe park system and
not beIimitedto:
serves as the recreational and social
Local Playground
focus of the neighborhood. Level of
Open Turf
.5 to 11 acres based on current inventory
service is primarily provided to
Shelter
(City Standard Size is 7 acres)
Neighborhood Park
individual, families and small groups
Basketball or Other Court Game
5 to 6
4.5 to 6
through unique components. Generally
Loop Walk
Visible from adjoining street and 200 feet
serves residents within 1/2 milewalking
Public Art
of street frontage
distance up to one mile and limited on-site
Typical Comfort and Convenience
parking provided.
Amenities (Picnic tables, benches, bike
racks, drinking fountains, restroom, etc)
Covers a broad range of parks and
Appropriate components may vary based
recreational facilities oriented toward
on use.
Varies by use
Special Use Park
single -purpose use, limited, isolated or
Typical Comfort and Convenience
Varies
Varies
unique recreational needs.
Amenities (Picnic tables, benches, bike
Streetfrontage my vary by use and size
racks, drinking fountains, restroom, etc)
Appropriate components may vary based
on use.
Varies by use
Sports Park
Sport oriented facility.
Typical Comfort and Convenience
Varies
Va ries
Amenities (Picnic tables, benches, bike
Street frontage myvary by use and size
racks, drinking fountains, restroom, etc)
Based on existing conditions, the current parks would fall into the
following classifications.
Current Number of
Current Number of
Unique GRASP®
Total GRASP®
Proposed Classification
Location
Components
Components
GIS Acres
Julius M. Kleiner Park
21
39.5
57.9921
Regional Park (Large Urban
Park)
Settlers Park
15
55
56.1231
Bear Creek Park
7
8
18.8019
Heroes Park
9
15
30.1501
Community Park
0
0
:Y
0
0
Storey Park
7
11
17.9043
Tully Park
7
9
18.4778
X
W
8th Street Park
3
3
2.7829
Centennial Park
5
4.5
0.4520
Champion Park
5
5
5.9830
Chateau Park
6
6
6.7163
Neighborhood Park
Gordon Harris Park
5
5
11.1370
Renaissance Park
5
5
6.5264
Seasons Park
6
6
6.9533
City Hall Plaza
5
5
0.9279
Cox Monument
3
3
0.1082
Special Use Park
Fire Station No.4 Park
1
1
0.5906
Generations Plaza
3
3
0.2478
Lakeview Golf Course
2
2
119.4263
Heritage Ball Fields
3
8
22.6860
Sports Park
Jabil Fields
1
2
8.3980
G. Urban Forestry Management Plan
Introduction
Urban Forest Overview
This chapter is intended as a
beginning to formal planning for
Meridian's urban forest, a
summary of data, and strategic
objectives that will serve as a
springboard to more detailed
planning efforts in the future.
There are currently 5,000 trees in
255 acres of City parks, the golf
course, and other parcels of land
owned and/or maintained by the
City of Meridian. Per the
objectives of the comprehensive
plan, developed park land is expected to increase by an additional 206 acres by 2025
an Urban Forest of around 7,000 trees.
. This translates to
Based on the Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment (full report can be found at:
http://www.tvcanopy.net/resources/) completed in 2013, the City of Meridian has a seven percent
urban tree canopy that provides a multitude of ecosystem benefits annually to the citizens of the City,
including:
• Stormwater: 8.6 million gallons, a value of $76,400 in mitigated stormwater infrastructure costs
• Air Quality: 40.6 tons for a value of $513,000 in reduced adverse human health impacts
• Energy Conservation: $140,400 in reduced summer cooling costs through shading of residential
homes
Urban Forest Stakeholders
Proper care of existing trees and growth of the urban forest for community benefit will involve
participation by the following stakeholders:
City of Meridian Departments
Meridian Development Corporation (MDC)
The City Partners with MDC for construction of the downtown tree planter box replacements, as
well as sharing costs for the construction of new boxes driven by new development.
• Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
The City has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ada County Highway District wherein
the city maintains the tree boxes and the trees, mitigates for sidewalk trip hazards, and shares
cost with ACHD on some sidewalk and curb repairs related to trees in public rights-of-way in the
downtown core geographic area.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• West ADA School District (WASD)
The City partners with the West Ada School District each year to host an Arbor Day celebration.
Additional efforts, both present and future, will include the planting and maintenance of trees
on WASD property.
• Idaho Power Company (IPC)
The City currently partners with Idaho Power Company to host the annual tree distribution
events for the Treasure Valley Shade Tree Project (http://www.tvcanopy.net/treasure-valley-
shade-trees/). Trees are then planted on private property in locations determined to help
reduce future energy costs by providing shade for homes and buildings.
• Idaho Department of Lands (IDL)
The Idaho Department of Lands partners with the City to host an annual Arbor Day Celebration.
They also provide grants to help fund Arbor Day Celebrations.
Treasure Valley Canopy Network (TVCN)
The City partners with the Treasure Valley Canopy Network on a number of initiatives that have
an impact on water quality, air quality, energy conservation, and overall community
enhancement through strategic investment in community infrastructure (www.tvcanopy.net).
• Others
■ Landscape architects and design professionals
■ Local nurseries
■ Neighborhood groups
■ Community volunteers and citizens
■ Downtown business owners
■ Developers who plan to build or renovate downtown
Importance of the Urban Forest to Meridian and Treasure Valley Communities
The benefits of trees to an urban environment are varied and significant. These include:
• Energy savings/passive energy conservation achieved by the shading of homes and paved
surfaces
• Shade, for the health, safety, and comfort of people who use parks and public areas
• Mitigation of urban heat island effect
• Air cleaning and purification, removal of CO2, SO2, and other airborne pollutants
• Reduction of storm water runoff and soil erosion
• Filtering and purification of groundwater by directly absorbing pollutants
• Aesthetic enhancement and potential increased property values
• Function as wind and sound breaks
• Screening of unsightly urban infrastructure or for privacy
• Provide valuable wildlife habitat and migration corridors
City of Meridian, Idaho
Meridian is a Tree City USA
This is a national designation that requires participating cities to:
1. Establish a Tree Board/Commission or Urban Forestry Department
2. Enact a Tree Care Ordinance as part of the local code
3. Maintain a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita
4. Observe Arbor Day and issue an Official Proclamation
Value that Grows with Time
Unlike other kinds of public infrastructure that require more maintenance with age and eventual
renovation or replacement, the value of a healthy tree increases over time. Considered together, the
trees that comprise the City's urban forest are a critical community asset, the value of which is often
underrated.
Current Structure of Urban Forestry Department
Department Staff
City Arborist
The Urban Forestry Division currently has one full-time dedicated staff member, the City Arborist, who
oversees all operations. This position was established in 2011.
Seasonal Labor
Because additional labor is needed to maintain the current standard of service, a six-month seasonal
position was added for the first time in 2015. Eight hours per week of this staff person's labor was
applied to the work needs of other departments.
In 2016, that need is expected to increase to one 8 -month seasonal employee.
Annual Operating Budget
Urban Forestry budget is included in the Park Department maintenance budget.
Total expenditures for 2014 $ 186,665*
Estimated expenditures for 2015 $ 195,165
*This is a comprehensive number that includes labor expense and all direct and peripheral costs
related to forestry operations.
Maintenance Overview
Meridian's Urban Forestry Division cares for all trees in Meridian City parks, including the golf course
and street trees in the downtown core.
Forestry Department Responsibilities:
• Maintenance of trees within city parks and the park system at large
This includes coordination with the Planning Department on tree mitigation for development
sites, planning for future park development, tree inventory and management, tree
maintenance, pruning cycles, new plantings, removals, replacements, fertilization, pest and
disease controls, and risk assessments.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Maintenance and management of the Kleiner Park arboretum
The level of maintenance required by the arboretum is higher and more specialized than
standard tree maintenance levels within the parks system at large.
Maintenance Contracts with Outside Vendors
Meridian City administers maintenance contracts for downtown street trees and selected trees on park
properties.
Outside vendors must be Certified Arborists with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Only
Certified Arborists may perform work. Contractor must follow ANSI standards and use best management
practices. Meet other requirements by the City for outside vendors.
• Annual contracted amounts vary, depending on which park or area is being pruned or added to
the budget for the coming year.
• Large trees requiring specialized equipment are pruned on a five-year cycle by contract.
• Smaller trees are pruned by forestry staff on an as -needed yearly or bi-yearly basis, or five-year
cycle. As a standard practice, forestry staff will raise all tree limbs for clearance over sidewalks,
pathways, and all other park areas each year as needed.
Downtown Trees/Public Rights -of -Way
Current care of trees within public rights-of-way involves cooperation between ACHD, the City of
Meridian, and the Meridian Development Corporation. Meridian Parks and Recreation bears ultimate
responsibility for management of urban street trees in the downtown core area. It is imperative that:
• All agencies and organizations with jurisdiction hold to the same standards for tree planting,
care, and maintenance.
• All agencies work together to set priorities for how to achieve and maintain these standards.
Challenges Specific to Downtown Trees
The following should be considered when planning for maintenance of downtown trees and other trees
in urban settings:
• Tree species within the downtown are less diverse than elsewhere in park system.
• Trees in the downtown tend to be shorter lived, with replacement occurring on a 10-15 year
cycle, depending on site evaluation related to hardscape or irrigation damage by tree roots.
• Drainage can be an issue within or adjacent to existing tree boxes.
• Lack of existing Green Stormwater Infrastructure/Silva Cells, to help with drainage and
encourage root growth and development.
H. Strategic Goals for Meridian Urban Forestry
General Overview
To keep pace with recent growth in the area, it is important that Meridian Urban Forestry define a clear
vision for the future, as well as mechanisms for operation that will ensure a smooth transition in
anticipation of future leadership changes. The following strategic goals have been identified for the
continued health and sustainable future growth of our Meridian's urban forest.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Establish a Vision for Meridian Urban Forestry
Urban Forestry shall continue to provide a high level of service to the community by responding to
tree related calls from the public and retain its current operating model of caring for all park trees;
providing review and comment on development applications as they relate to mitigation, plantings
on City owned property and in the downtown core area; and maintaining the current tree inventory.
2. Strengthen Approach to Management of the Urban Forest
Staff will complete the ongoing GIS inventory and formalize as a comprehensive data set for use as a
management tool. Additional staff training will be required with implementation to maximize
efficiency. GIS software updates and yearly technical support is ongoing to provide what is needed
to manage urban forestry.
3. Evaluate Impacts of the Projected Park System Expansion on Urban Forestry
An understanding of the impacts of growth to maintenance of the urban forest will allow the City to
maintain its current high level of service. It is recommended that annual assessments be conducted
during the budget development process to determine needs for additional staff and equipment so
as to achieve alignment with the overall master plan.
4. Guarantee the Present and Future Health of the Urban Forest
The City Arborist will work to further the health and longevity of the urban forest through
diversification of tree species and age, anticipation of pests and other potential threats, and
implementation of standards for planting and tree selection. Staff shall also seek continuing
education on urban forestry trends, including the effects of climate change as related to forest
health.
5. Maintain and Promote the Kleiner Arboretum as a Community Asset
Develop a strategic management plan to guide future expansion, ensure adequate maintenance
resources, and create greater awareness of the arboretum within the local and regional
communities.
6. Preserve Strong Relationship with the Community/Seek Additional Opportunities for
Education and Outreach
Continue to work with the community in support of tree -related issues, while seeking additional
opportunities to partner with other agencies, educate community members on the urban forest,
and increase awareness of its value to our community.
7. Revise City Policy as Necessary to Strengthen Urban Forestry
Periodically review and update the City ordinance to reflect changes in the field of Urban Forestry or
updates resulting from legal action in America. Updates may address changes to terms, definitions,
best practices, or other considerations, as required to stay current with the industry.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
8. Continue to Offer and Develop Special Programs Related to Community Forestry
Continue to offer and develop new programs that benefit the community and increase awareness of
Urban Forestry. As programs are initiated, seek community participation first and then employ the
City budgeting process to determine staffing and funding implications.
I. Existing Urban Forest Data
GIS Tree Inventory
A comprehensive in-house GIS inventory by City staff of all trees maintained by the City is ongoing, with
completion expected in early 2016.
Data for each tree that will be included in this inventory:
• Planting Date/Year Planted
• Caliper Inches
• Location
• Condition Rating
• Species
• Cultivar
• Canopy Cover
• Pests, Diseases, Cultural Problems
• Structural Issues
• Photographs
• Value Assessments
• Work Order History
Application to Forest Management
It is intended that the resulting complex data profile of the urban forest will function as a management
tool that can be finely tuned to the needs of the Department. Once data is fully compiled, layers can be
manipulated and various attributes selected to generate current snapshots of such parameters as tree
condition, age distribution, or pruning history. For example, see Figure 14 which shows the current tree
condition.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Figure 15: Sample Data Chart Generated in GIS Using Data from Current Tree Inventory
Condition Distribution
Report universe: All ® subset ❑
Dead
PW
fair
Goof
Condit#on
PerCent
Count
Good
86.6%
1,279
Fair
12.0%
177
Poor
1.2%
18
Dead
0.2%
3
Total
1,477
i Good 866%
■ Faor 120%
■ Poor 12%
■ D•pd 020/6
Tamil. 1000%
Beyond analysis, this information can assist trained forestry staff with:
• Budget projections
• Prioritization of needed improvements and maintenance
• Creation of work plans
• Trends and forecasting of emerging forestry issues that may threaten tree health
• Generation of urban forest cost -benefits analysis
Need for Additional Training
Due to the complexity of the GIS database, urban forestry staff will require additional training in GIS and
urban forestry -specific software in order to achieve maximum results from manipulation of the data set.
Training should also be provided with regard to use of GIS interface devices in the field so that staff can
keep the inventory current as new trees are planted, moved, and removed.
It is recommended that any future candidates for the City Arborist position have urban forestry
management experience using the above tools and software.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Management Schedule
As it is difficult to predict not only the rate at which growth will occur, but also the form it will take, a
standards-based approach is recommended over more prescriptive methods. This allows a threshold -
driven mechanism for department growth that will adjust for the changing demands of a growing
system. If standards of service are well-defined, funding and resources may be more readily allocated, as
necessary, toward achieving and maintaining those standards.
Tree Pruning
Overview and General Guidelines
• Pruning of all park trees shall take place on a five-year rotation based on need, except where
immediate pruning is required for reasons of public safety.
• The City Arborist will determine all trees in need of pruning.
• Pruning shall take place on a five-year rotation during the off-season to avoid conflicts with park
users that might compromise public safety. Pruning of larger trees will be determined based on
growth and will be contract pruned, also on the five-year rotation, or as needed.
• The City shall create and maintain an approved list of tree contractors. All contractors will be
required to comply with the universally accepted ANSI (American Nurseryman Standards
Institute) and ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards.
• Trees shall be monitored for poor health or stress when conditions manifest that could cause
deterioration, particularly after unusual weather events, such as freezing, flooding, high winds,
or due to insect infestation. In such cases, the City Arborist or other qualified staff shall be
consulted to determine appropriate course of action and timing.
Tree Pruning Schedule and Approach
Trees are currently pruned on an established five-year rotation that includes a mix of contracted
services and pruning by Department staff.
Forestry staff of Meridian Parks and Recreation will perform all pruning that can be
accomplished from the ground. The City does not currently own lift trucks or major pruning
equipment. When other needs arise, like pruning for larger trees and/or large tree and stump
removals, this work shall be done by local tree contractors. City Council generally endorses the
sharing of this work with local contractors and feels it is mutually beneficial to the City and
community.
The City Arborist has established a 10 -year pruning schedule based on a five-year rotation cycle,
available under separate cover, available from the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Equipment — for Tree Pruning and Maintenance
Department -owned equipment includes:
• Chain saws
• Pruning equipment
• Hand tools
• Trucks
• Loading equipment
As the urban forest grows, additional equipment may be required should the Parks and Recreation
Department decide to accomplish a larger scope of work in-house, beyond currently established
practices.
Staffing Implications of Urban Forest Growth
While it is recommended that staff levels be adjusted as necessary to maintain the current standards of
service, it is useful to assess current FTE hours in relation to the size of the urban forest so as to forecast
potential future staffing needs.
Additional Recommendations
Beyond the scope of this chapter, the following action items are recommended to continue to enhance
the Urban Forestry Division and the level of service it provides.
1. Undertake Additional Forestry -Specific Strategic Planning
The following suggested management and master plans may be funded and commissioned as
consultant -led efforts, or performed in-house, depending on staff availability and expertise. The
following is a list of future planning efforts that should be considered to further the efficiency
and long-term success of the Urban Forestry Division.
Urban Forest Management Plan
This plan will build on this chapter, as well as data collected as part of the GIS inventory of park
system trees. As an option, this planning effort could begin in-house, using a standard template
from a similar plan, as supplemented by the expertise of managers and future managers.
Arboretum Management and Master Plan
Input from an arboretum design specialist was sought at the inception of the Kleiner Park
Arboretum. Preliminary plan documentation is shown in Figure 15.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 16: Working Plan of Kleiner Arboretum
_3M F-tiy.+ .- Ms wv-x.+x-�.�,►*-.awti...a•++N. - T _ C �+a, t-.ne+r [a..err
Additional planning for the arboretum is needed to address recommendations for growth,
marketing to increase awareness of this little-known community asset, and suggestions for
enhancing the visitor experience for greater interactivity.
Comprehensive Manual of Planting Details & Guidelines
This effort would enhance health of the urban forest by standardizing size and detailing of
planting areas, requirements for stormwater accommodation, and tree selection to suit site
context and plant cultural requirements, as well as minimizing long-term maintenance.
Management Plan to Address Risks Posed by Eastern Ash Borer (EAB)
It is recommended that this plan be proactively completed and implementation begun prior to
appearance of the Eastern Ash Borer. Arrival of this insect pest is anticipated in ten years, or
around 2025.
Urban Forest Cost -Benefits Analysis
A comprehensive cost -benefit analysis or Meridian's Urban Forest could help to quantify net
community benefit in terms of:
• Improvements to air quality
• Carbon sequestration
• Reduction in energy consumption
• Percentage of park canopy cover
• Asset value
City of Meridian, Idaho
2. Institute a Tree Board or Urban Forest Advisory Council
The Meridian Parks Commission currently acts as an advisory body to the Urban Forestry
component of Meridian Parks and Recreation. It has been active since the adoption of the local
Tree Ordinance in 2002. In the future, it may be appropriate to institute an advisory council
devoted solely to Urban Forestry.
It is recommended that the City Arborist provide a quarterly update to the Meridian Parks
Commission, or acting advisory council. In addition to reporting, these interactions should
include training relative to the Commission's responsibilities in Urban Forestry matters, and
alert them to common situations and issues that may arise. Beyond education, frequent
communication also helps to bridge any potential gaps in continuity due to council turnover.
A key current responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission includes hearing public
appeals to decisions made by the City Arborist. In such instances, the Commission's ruling is sent
to City Council for final approval.
Duties of the existing Parks Commission may also include:
• Supporting the planning process for and implementation of a future Urban Forest
Management Plan.
• Public education related to the importance of trees and the urban forest.
• Funding assistance with regards to grant applications, solicitation of private donations,
and facilitation of public-private partnerships.
3. Ongoing Staff Training to Stay Current in the Industry
It is recommended that the Urban Forestry Division seek opportunities for continuing education
to stay current with changes that may occur within the field of urban forestry. In addition,
managers should seek and/or provide staff training:
• To groundskeepers and forestry assistants with specialized experience relative to tree
pruning, especially with regard to the Kleiner Arboretum and other specialized
landscapes.
• On forestry -specific GIS software used as an urban forest management tool.
• As needed to respond to growth and changing conditions.
4. Take a More Active Role in Construction Management
It is recommended that qualified forestry staff inspect the installation of trees on future park
properties and rights-of-way the City will be responsible for maintaining.
Summary
The urban forest, when well-managed, diverse, and healthy, provides generous benefits to a
community. Trees beautify landscapes and streetscapes, improve the health of environments, and
enhance the user experience of parks and public spaces by providing shade and relief from summer
heat. Beyond health and comfort, this shade can mitigate for "heat islands" created by increased
urbanization, and offer passive cooling of homes and buildings that results in energy savings.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Unlike some components of the built environment whose values depreciate over time, the urban forest
is a living system whose value only increases with the passing years. Successful long-term management
of the urban forest must not only consider trees, but also site conditions and infrastructure components
and their relationship to the overall health of the system.
It is also important to generate awareness of the benefits provided by the urban forest. The more the
local community is educated on the value of the forest over time, the greater the investment in the
forest, not only by professionals and managers of public lands, but by individual property owners, each
contributing to the vitality and longevity of the whole.
J. Pathways Assessment & Recommendations
Introduction
This section is intended as an update to the Meridian Pathways Master Plan (Adopted in 2007 and
previously amended in January of 2010) and a tool to further aid in the implementation of that plan. It
does not suggest any significant changes to proposed expansion of the pathway system as outlined in
the original plan, but rather seeks to accomplish the following objectives:
• Quantify the impacts of pathway system expansion in terms of cost for ongoing maintenance,
given the significant proposed increase to pathway mileage at plan build -out.
• Establish guidelines for what portion of the pathway system is appropriate and sustainable for
the City to maintain.
• Establish City priorities for near-term pathway implementation that will have the greatest
impact on connectivity.
• Propose changes to existing policy that will facilitate ongoing expansion and designate
maintenance responsibilities so as to meet the needs of the City, the development community,
and other stakeholders.
Pathway System Overview
The current breakdown of Meridian's existing pathways, by type, is as follows:
14.8 miles of pathways currently maintained by the City
• 7.9 miles in parks
• 6.9 miles along canals and other areas
14 miles (approximately) maintained by HOAs and other entities
28.8 Miles of Total Developed Pathways
Per the existing pathways plan, an additional 104.2 miles have been identified for development.'
This amounts to a total projected mileage at build out of 133 miles.
Importance of Pathways/Need
Pathways make communities more livable by helping to reduce reliance on the automobile. This has the
potential to improve the environment and mitigate for traffic congestion. Additionally, pathways
provide ongoing opportunities for physical activity to promote physical and mental health. Beyond
connecting people to places, pathways also provide ongoing opportunities to be out and about that
connect us interpersonally as well.
'Per Dave Peterson, Design Concepts
Numbers per Meridian Pathways Master Plan, current mileage updates per Jay Gibbons
MCity of Meridian, Idaho
Need
Throughout the needs assessment and outreach phase of this planning effort, community members
consistently rated pathways as a high priority when given opportunity to comment via stakeholder
group, survey, or public meeting. This reflects a national trend wherein pathways are increasingly
important to communities.
While Meridian has identified a pathway system for development that will ultimately prove extensive,
connectivity among currently built pathways continues to be a challenge.
Some of this is due to existing major roadways and other potential barriers to pedestrian traffic, but also
existing development that occurred before pedestrian connections were required as part of the
approvals process. Stakeholders who own linear properties along existing waterways that cut through
the City are also key to enhancing the overall connectivity of the pathway system.
Stakeholders
• Irrigation Districts
■ Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District —Major Stakeholder.
■ Settlers Irrigation District— Fewer land holdings in Meridian.
• West Ada School District
■ History of successfully partnering with the school district.
■ Joint use of school facilities plays a key role in filling recreation demand for ball fields
and active recreation facilities.
■ School properties are important when it comes to making connections, and offer
opportunities for safer crossings and connections, further off (or outside of) public
rights-of-way.
• Developers
• Homeowners' Associations (HOAs)
• City of Meridian — Building Department
• Railroads
Potential for sharing existing rights-of-way that can achieve connection on a more
regional level.
Progress Update/Policies Implemented
Since adoption of the original Meridian Pathways Master Plan, significant progress has been made
toward implementation. Much of this has focused on the establishment of policy and planning practices
around pathway development that will lay the groundwork for greater connectivity moving forward.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Policy and Procedural Improvements Achieved Since Approval of Original Plan
• Entitlements process for development now requires dedicated easements for pathways and
pedestrian connections.
• Plan review for all new development must be routed through the Pathways Project Manager for
design input and approval, in addition to other departments as required.
• Developers are required to provide better documentation of construction standards/as-builts
for pathways that may later be deeded to the City.
• Standard Specifications and Notes for pathway construction have been developed (in
conjunction with Meridian Public Works)—similar to a performance specification.
• Pathway entitlement is no longer a part of the Development Agreement.
• Expectation has been established among developers that working with the City to provide
pathway connections will be a standard project requirement. The City has seen improved
cooperation and general acknowledgement from the development community that pathways
benefit and add value to their final product.
Opportunities/Recommendations
Maintain a Regional Perspective
• Emphasize the need to look beyond Meridian to neighboring communities and think in terms of
regional connections to Boise River Greenbelt, Eagle, Nampa, Caldwell, Star, and Kuna.
• Consider Meridian's system as it relates to a regional pathway system.
The pending acquisition of Margaret Aldape Park presents an opportunity for Meridian to
connect to the Boise River Greenbelt system. This will provide connection to the rest of the
Treasure Valley on a regional level.
Schools
• Use proximity to schools, when possible, and take advantage of existing signaled crossings in
school zones.
• Provide pedestrian connections between all schools and pathway system.
• Safe Routes to Schools have already been mapped.
■ Examine these in greater detail and adjust as necessary.
■ Find/create connections between multi -use pathways and schools.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Subdivision Development
• Continue to work with developers to dedicate pathway easements and make strong pedestrian
connections.
• Pedestrian connections shall be identified and preserved prior to development.
• Coordinate with developers during the entitlements process to allow alternative routes through
developments, regardless of ditch or waterway location (if applicable).
Existing Rights -of -Way
• Where pathways must be integrated with public rights-of-way, revise street sections to provide
for wider sidewalks and greater separation from major roadways, if possible.
As-Builts and Documentation
• The Building Department shall notify the Parks & Pathways Project Manager of all pathways,
once built. Institute mechanisms for better post -construction reporting and documentation.
Key Stakeholders for Pathway Implementation
In recent years, the City has made significant progress in terms of policy to further development of the
pathway system as pertains to involvement by other property owners and stakeholders. This
momentum must continue, and relationships further developed, with the following key stakeholders.
Irrigation Districts
Due to the linear nature of waterways, Irrigation Districts (especially Nampa -Meridian) are key to
advancing connectivity of the Meridian pathways plan. It is imperative that the City continues to partner
with irrigation districts relative to the following challenges:
Pathway development along existing canals, irrigation ditches, and laterals needs to be
addressed at a more comprehensive level.
• Crossings present a special difficulty in that many waterways do not emerge at intersections
where pedestrian crossings exist and are safely articulated. For example, it is not acceptable for
pathways to emerge at the edge of a 45 mph collector road with minimal shoulder and no
proximity to an intersection for safe crossing.
• In the past, irrigation districts have refused pathway proposals prior to any constructive
discussion regarding their development. Both parties now have a history of working together
and must continue to fine-tune this partnership as each new pathway segment is implemented.
Developers
• Residential and commercial developments present challenges when it comes to providing
pathway easements. The City must work closely with developers during the planning phases, as
it can be prohibitive to accomplish these connections after the fact.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Implementation Priorities
Because so many miles of pathway have been identified for development per the Pathways Master Plan,
it is recommended that City resources focus on implementation and maintenance of the following major
components of the system. Once a strong framework is established, users will enjoy greater
connectivity, and secondary pathways can then tie into and expand the reach of the overall system.
The following pathways have been identified as high priorities for CIP and maintenance funds. This is
intended as a general guideline for resource allocation by the City, as timing and location of private
development may catalyze construction of lower priority pathways by others.
High Priority Pathways
Existing
Proposed
Total
Five -Mile Creek Pathway
2.37
8.64
11.01 miles
Ten -Mile Creek Pathway
2.03
9.00
11.03 miles
Rail -with -Trail
0
8.08
8.08 miles
TOTAL PROPOSED
30.18 Miles
Regional Impact of Rail -with -Trail
This proposed pathway will have a significant impact on regional connectivity, as it will encompass a 22 -
mile right of way, with eight of those miles passing through the City of Meridian. The combination Rail -
with -Trail section, as proposed, will run between the historic railroad depots in Boise and Nampa.
Because development of this pathway will deliver considerable benefits to Boise, Nampa, and others, in
addition to Meridian, implementation of this pathway will require a co-operative effort from all
municipalities affected, acting as regional partners, with help from COMPASS and other local agencies
and organizations.
All Other Proposed Pathways
It is anticipated that implementation of this pathway will be driven largely by private developers, with
ongoing maintenance provided by Homeowners' Associations.
Implementation Costs for Plan Build -Out
Even with a mandate to focus resources on the development of a few high-priority segments, cost to
construct these pathways will be considerable. At the time of this plan, construction cost for a 10' wide
asphalt path was approximately $36 per lineal foot, or $190,080 per mile. For estimating purposes, this
figure includes base material and preparation, as well as asphalt paving, but no administrative or design
costs associated with construction.
Pathways have been identified as a major priority for the City of Meridian, but given the demands on
public funds for other recreational facilities, the cost for build -out of the pathway system must
necessarily be considered within a greater funding context and borne, in large part, by private sector
development.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Pathway Maintenance and Operations
Implications of System Expansion on Maintenance
With growth in recent years, the City has taken advantage of opportunities to develop pathway
connections through proposed developments. Verbiage around these development agreements
continues to evolve, but in the past, situations have arisen in which the City has been deeded ownership
(and associated maintenance) of a pathway not constructed to City standards.
It is essential to establish mechanisms for construction documentation of pathways that will guarantee
new segments are built to City standards, not only to ensure public safety, but to also minimize
maintenance impacts over time.
Need for Shared Responsibility
As time goes on, even with high standards for construction, the pathway system will grow beyond the
ability of the City to maintain it. Ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the pathway system must
be shared between the City and private landowners (often Homeowners' associations). It is
recommended that the City transition to requiring that maintenance of future pathways implemented
as part of subdivision developments be borne by private stakeholders.
Linear Rights-of-Way/Canal Pathways
Irrigation district requirements for pathway development:
• City acts as single point of contact
• City must maintain pathway segments or coordinate maintenance with private sector/HOAs
• City must enforce irrigation district requirements with other parties
Individual licensing agreement recommendations:
• Require HOAs to maintain pathways, in perpetuity, to standards for safe public use and
established landscape aesthetics
• Incorporate strong wording in these agreements to make clear to private developers that the
City will no longer assume long-term maintenance of pathways.
• Shall institute mechanisms for enforcement and oversight.
Replacement Cycle for Paved Pathways
Clear delineation of maintenance responsibility is a necessity, owing to the limited life span of asphalt
pavement (30 years on average). In order for pathways to remain safe and well-maintained as the
system ages, a portion of paved pathway segments will require periodic re -paving on an ongoing basis.
In other words, similar to the way City trees are pruned on a 5 -year cycle, so must pathways be
resurfaced on a periodic maintenance rotation.
Life Cycle Repaving Costs
Assuming a total pathway system comprised of 133 miles of pathway that require re -paving every 30
years, estimated minimum cost to repave the entire system is as follows:
133 miles of pathway x $142,560/mile = $18.9 million every 30 years
or = $632,000 annually
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Additional pathways proposed in the Master Plan are desired by the community and essential to the
ultimate success of the plan. However, because this increased mileage carries significant cost
implications, maintenance of the system in its entirety will ultimately lie beyond the resources of the
city.
Cost Comparison for Repaving the
Total Pathway Network vs. Priority Pathways Only
Total Total Cost to
Mileage Repave at Build Out
Total Pathway Network 133 $632,016 annually
Priority Pathways Only 30 $143,130 annually
Assumptions:
• Unit cost to repave is calculated at $27 per lineal foot or $142,560 per mile for a
10 -foot wide asphalt pathway.
• Average lifespan of pathway segment is 30 years.
• Priority pathways include:
■ Five Mile Creek Pathway
■ Ten Mile Creek Pathway
■ Rail -With -Trail
Relevant Studies and Planning Efforts
The following studies, completed since the Pathways Master Plan (adopted 2007; amended 2010, 2012)
should be considered relative to the existing plan and recommendations contained in this chapter.
• Arterial Crossing Study
• Union Pacific Railroad/Rail with Trail Study (January 2015)
• Destination Downtown
■ Information gathering and updates to downtown streetscapes
■ Includes detailed pavement sections, also standard notes and specifications
Summary
Significant progress has been made toward implementation of the current Pathways Master Plan.
Because connectivity continues to be a challenge, it is recommended that the City focus implementation
efforts on a few priority pathways.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Beyond that, given the extent of the proposed system and an understanding of the projected costs for
build -out and ongoing maintenance, it becomes clear that these demands will, over time, exceed the
resources of the City. Moving forward, it will be crucial to shift some of the construction burden to
private developers, who will typically retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these
pathways, so they may better contribute to the sustainability and success of the overall system.
K. Summary of Planning Process for Conceptual Park Master Plans
Project Team Visioning
Preliminary design efforts for the three undeveloped park properties began with a project team
discussion of potential opportunities for each park. These ideas were then summarized in a series of
concept statements.
The summarized statements described a vision for each of the three regional parks, not only in terms of
the type and number of amenities that might be included, but also suggested ideas for keying into
contextual, historical, or other elements specific to each park, with the goal to reinforce a strong sense
of place and establish each as a unique destination within the Meridian Parks and Recreation system.
Concept Narratives
South Meridian Regional Park (77 -Acre Property)
This park will be devoted to active recreation, similar to a Settlers Park, with theming and design
elements that will reinforce a unique identity for a south Meridian regional park. A destination softball
complex, illuminated for nighttime play and with the capacity to host area tournaments, will be part of
this identity. Theming elements may include: planting design to evoke the native sage land area to the
north (for non -irrigated turf areas), and also integrated art works to tie into local history and culture.
West Meridian Regional Park (Borup-Bottles Property — 47 acres)
The Borup-Bottles property is envisioned as a smaller -scale regional park with primarily active recreation
facilities similar in size and scope to the existing Heroes Park. The recent needs assessment conducted
as part of the Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Master Planning effort determined that rodeo
facilities, while important to some, are no longer appropriate for the City to offer and will not be
included in this park master plan. It is suggested that theming elements, art, architecture, and other
design materials for this park should focus on the agrarian/dairy heritage of the area that is
representative of "Old Meridian," much of which has been lost to new development in recent decades.
Margaret Aldape Park (70 acres, approximately)
Margaret Aldape Park will be a natural, passive -use area unlike any other park in Meridian's park
system. This is primarily due to its riverfront location and the unique opportunities for passive
recreation, including walking/hiking, picnicking, fishing, wildlife viewing, and non -motorized water
sports, such as kayaking and paddle -boarding, that this landscape affords. Emphasis will be on the
development of pedestrian pathways to provide access to the site in a variety of seasons and
corresponding water levels. There is also opportunity to enhance current wildlife habitat to sustain and
promote the diverse species, including waterfowl, great blue heron, turkey, foxes, deer and elk, which
live in and migrate through the park site.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
At the time of this plan, the southern park boundary remains proposed but yet -to -be -determined. Final
delineation of the park boundary will be an iterative process that takes into account the final revised
FEMA floodway boundary; need for park land outside the floodway that can provide parking, restrooms
and other constructed support amenities; and priorities of the proposed adjacent residential
development.
In terms of theming and identity, park design will take its cues from the Boise River environment,
Basque culture and history, and elements of Aldape family history. Theming may relate to paths and
architectural elements, materials, place names, integrated art pieces, and other design opportunities as
they arise.
Design Programming
After agreeing on general a conceptual approach to the design for each park, the team developed a
detailed list of program elements for each. This provided a starting point for the creation of design
concepts.
Programming for each park site was founded on needs identified in the initial needs assessment. This
information was then filtered through the more specific working knowledge of the Meridian Parks and
Recreation project team which included staff who deal directly with programming and scheduling
demands for facilities on an ongoing basis.
Concept Development
Site Analysis
Graphic site analyses were created for the South and West Meridian Regional Park properties. These
diagrams summarized existing drainage patterns on site, potential irrigation water sources, locations of
existing and future utilities, surrounding land uses and traffic patterns, and any other existing conditions
that might affect design and development of the site.
A lengthy walking field trip and site visit was taken to the Aldape Property, but as no boundary
information was available at the time, site analysis information was recorded primarily in the form of
notes and photographs. No formal summary graphic was created.
Preliminary Concepts/Staff Review
For South Meridian Regional Park and West Meridian Regional Park, preliminary concepts were
developed and presented to staff for review, then adjusted in a series of iterative meetings and
discussions.
At this point in the process, focus was on placement of park amenities and desired adjacencies to
achieve functional relationships among all elements on site. Parking needs were estimated relative to
proposed park amenities, and anticipated use.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Development of Final Design Concepts
As a result of these more specific functional considerations, and after additional collaboration between
the design consultant and MPR staff, the preliminary designs were refined into preferred master plan
concepts for each park. Though not executed to a high level of detail, the conceptual plans aimed to
establish a realistic development scenario for each property, establish a strong design aesthetic, and
create a unique sense of place for each proposed park.
Each concept was then rendered in color for presentation at a community open house.
Community Input
Community Open Houses
Community open houses were held for the South Meridian Regional Park (77 -Acre Property) and West
Meridian Regional Park (Borup-Bottles Property) on Thursday July 9, 2015, and Thursday, July 30, 2015,
respectively.
Each meeting included an initial summary of the overall master planning process and needs assessment
by Meridian Parks and Recreation staff. The consultant team then offered a site analysis overview
before presenting each concept in detail. Limited questions and discussion of the concepts were
entertained before breaking into less formal interactions for the sake of obtaining community input.
At each meeting, opportunities for public comment included:
• Written comment cards
• Opportunity to "draw" input on black -and -white concept plans that were provided around the
room, along with colored markers
• Face-to-face conversation with design consultants and MPR Staff
Due to timing and other considerations relative to the donation of the Aldape Property, a community
open house was not held for the Aldape Park Master Plan.
All documents related to the conceptual park master plans are located in Appendix 1.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
V. Key Issues
Triangulation Matrix
Key issues were identified using a number of tools: review of existing plans and documents, focus
groups, stakeholder meetings, a community survey, inventory and level of service analysis, and My
Sidewalk online engagement. The information gathered from these sources was evaluated, and the
following recommendations and action plans were developed.
The findings are summarized on the Key Issues Matrix (Table 10), which captures all of the key issues
that surfaced during the Master Plan process and prioritizes them on one matrix. The key issues were
placed into four categories on the matrix:
a) Priority
b) Opportunity to Improve
c) Minor or Future Issue
❑ Left blank means the issue did not come up or wasn't addressed in that venue
The qualitative data planning tools used to determine the priority of key issues include:
1. Existing planning documents
2. Consultant team's expertise
3. SWOT Analysis
4. Parks and Recreation staff input
5. Public forum input
The quantitative data planning tools used to determine the priority of the key issues include:
Community Survey
City Data
GRASP Analysis
The key issues were organized into four areas including:
1. Organizational
2. Finance
3. Programs and Service Delivery
4. Facility and Amenities
Preliminary recommendations are listed for each key issue and presented to the Parks and Recreation
project team to gather input on the prioritization of the final recommendations and action plans. The
Key Issues Matrix summarizes the areas that need immediate attention and determine the direction of
the implementation of recommendations in the Master Plan.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Table 10: Key Issues Analysis Matrix
ouaataays qv iqua,.fdt.eva
Jef] Ifata tioenrre I
D�
_ C�oresufaal's Analy5ls anA Irrdrisinrti'fl l xprvrllsv
QE II7� IANC = _
Keyl... Vbating !Stile
Ii66NIAYr
PARKS AND RECREATION
an 1uture issue _
U dnik means the Issas dkdnf Dane up awasndl addmszed
v
1•reininary Ibeconmenxlatkars
Inpro,a pmmatWn and comnnunlcatkHl of adhA1:1 s
Continue fa Implement Manseing Plan (conn m un lcaaon Pian) -raN an numy and Locale evary
5 years
ncrease staarg m meet current elm bW re needs
Based on the 5tafang Plan, expire apport pities W Increase staffing W rn etc .A needs and
melinaln spa mal stat6ng leval as new parts anti pmgnan.s are de Bk pad and enplemented
wemese epponuutles W edflm [eelrido9Y b Imp:rora nasmmer aenwee am
Conbwe b eqA— addiaond mp�ehn♦IFea b a�pwd tine use ertaannebgy
eiticbarncdes
ercieese eosins media use and na alias Writ Mrs d trail
amdltkmrtl use W sceirr 7 a onAats„ na aeon s
hassle artnershl s
re additional :7p:nn, A butid an eidsti artnersh
Me— ewrnt d -UN
Elpbre add itionN apPortr,n titles S Quid on ebstlng aponsaM: s
Dewaloper hg,aet Fee G�dd,wirte
Conbnue W morntor Oe -lop., Inpaet Fees for rrew derebpments and rerlerr.~j 5 years
Considarded[raled 11ndkV aorsca lorpafl inic! mcme Wn i(axsnpMipitlw 2yx
EqA— faasb*ty of dedkabd rs,enus scw+ca br packs. -0 is a bon m-wh Imnab 11111
b811s,ib cyeyt nepmeawemt, 61S.
_
pmped1"taR7a'IY. or Ducar aMlMMJla linlrcae
Purauegrantand pNlmaMapk oppoNraiea
Contlnoebe9ekpWai fnapk dorotlone and gram appomnitles
Consider mnmaca nq WM.ded emat wrierbremnrfes snami. moth _
Consddar Coat RAcawmy& Pddng P- by lnckdnng Sehdwships
Consider u Plement dtl of a east moevenya Prl[ing poli
Continue the SoNAW hip Prograa$
Pint -rams amt Senvirp EbelTL
Need more year rxtund rerrebotlorW actirriNss
Continue W look bropporUtnittee berpand indc t mcraatlwrd opporWnitlss
F..l�artl teclni egartabldigs
Explonit opporbrdtles W produca. ata L pi,anWs and mairlbbn-unb.(e pie FamiePa.
Markel}
Explore opporbnoes W after rrewpnrgrarns In oubdoaradvnnina n cnarlon Whams and actbM
Erpand aondoar end edwadi ne reemalbn appurarnlhes
ad w.
Needpmg t comareleot times la,
rams e
e aM
Continue b'dook lar rHtbs W rams anwM work Irousak eammu0ea
E,pand programming krr senlaas, acflae ntlW, special seeds, 1-A lwaanm
Continue W m ftpaftic44 tlen d demarxd Wrlwnlycerneaed cease undpragr s S ad)Lasl
m meet ane needs
Facillfies and Amenrflea
MalntalneasingquaimtyanegagptyorWml4WvwW a
Contin ue pin nn ing good ora eomsofpank$and per 1GGG popuW9 on and eAsting connnponrnd
leteb In parks
Maintain and Inap eexdsdng Inc4bas
Cond— W Implement exlsdrig purrs, CP. Maur Plans, A Lice Cycle lieplaeement Pilon
Find opporhrnrms bmzi.i. new$am for Peas
II
Continue W And a purchase additional land br hrtum park deveWpment
Etgiantl pathway; bash 6 Cannmeaway
Cantinasdareloping sedating Pathways Master P$sn. eWiom atiennzdi edesign sta Manby b
Mdmda mob nieOOrea4
AdMpl arilcorllfeueabn composed bodied Invalnkayand tiHal ofsani to
sYrdaN inmlati Gal b maa
As nannpark� am canporanrer am buld,aMar knbdeba baso 14r 4aGklrg
Yrdoor
Cordnwb b oppdanfMs b add addMolW indoor woe apace ellhw1haoagh
mcnaatiorn $pace
panna.lr oreomiftia ii Citmnnur Cedwsar Flddhonee
tiaprwaelprmge+gerrGy wide
EweluatedirectWnd%Vayflndingsignageto bfadNde wroadways,pairomysdatiltinparka.
EMancelupdaffi sonar ng park signs as parks ale reno,etetl
kldnminsdsina fsetilin and mnunti{ea
Conbnue W Impnve 6 upgrade existing fa 41114 a a amenities trough CP P11 d LIY Cycle
Maintenance Plan
Gevebop � amamass at new& exhi ft pwft bend m Wool afser*w wailyis
Lack for opportunities W add pages and Waft In nwrgroWM ansa and areas turrentlywHh IG~
lercl of ser or witwd seiseAdd _
additional AtliMiG FlWS and 11i
EWIore opporiunitlea to add bot rectangle and diamond aifallc fell %and atom appmpiltla
add or upgrade sports lghtlng W new and extsting belittles
Efpbna Ise nppomnples b imps-ra.b menage p�kag aF paAac clic I�RrRlraalellMMe!
a[tlY�te6ieVents
6NIlydne parldrg add ewntfpmgotin latti$ttyachaaurg
Clevelop an ADA Tiara lbbun Plan
_
_ Dewlap and adapt an ADA Tia mlian Mn b cdwq*wtlh new AGA regWallons
UpgmdeGaw$anMnGe a wmlonraarvke Wars to eldetIng faotitilas
EA*" oppnrlunitiea Is add abode, lain ige. pdAG art seeurWilighIM, WONC49 bml
Consider Indagnewrialng nndswhen adding new eampnmdde to exeling padkagr
cmtin$ebewim4 irprogrsmlrg rradsoflha GommtarRywhen dnmlapkg newpoi
watea dewhping rmw Parke
wlmn adding new, mmpanrmis to edallrlg pndm
Gotha nil mainadn dW on Al4A alba abanWNs pwaider owned roomiionel
DekeAop dabebaea of HCA and AYrnatiws Pmwtler fbplltlololpcopeflas and ykdate as Mw
P�Klt
�
�
derebpmwirapSgres
De+mtap and" Wbr$dn tib Cycle wand "seat man ipaww"t plum
Deaebp and balalala w cyda mpla siewit aril anet mmaganardt plan said apdab awry
_ hyo pears.
Qlwdbrg Parti ldlmtity In edging and new
Expire. apporbnitles W e add Cd"aon Playgrmlfnds. PrBtic ArL neinal pWAr*wlds, unique
barb
al"-. them I rig, entertal nrnent a nd cuaure.
Using the Key Issues Matrix, a summary of all research, analysis, and input assembled for this study, a
variety of recommendations have emerged.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Level of Service:
• Improve recreational connectivity through neighborhood pathway connections and
park "spurs."
• Continue to improve level of service especially at "Neighborhood" Parks through
upgrades or additional components if pathways cannot be added.
• Work with neighborhoods to create an individual identity for each neighborhood
park.
• Work with alternative providers to increase level of service in area where Meridian
doesn't have neighborhood parks but level of service is low.
• Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks.
Existing Facilities:
• Maintain and improve existing facilities and amenities including upgrades to
outdated amenities that do not function well, especially in areas of low current
service.
• Continue to improve level of service, especially at "Neighborhood" Parks through
upgrades or additional components.
• Add shade structures where appropriate.
• Ensure ADA accessibility at all facilities.
• Work with neighborhoods to create an individual identity for each neighborhood
pa rk.
Additional or Future Parks and Amenities:
• Consider programming needs where adding or upgrading components at existing
parks.
• Expand pathways & connectivity.
• Monitor sports field demands & needs.
• Improve recreational connectivity through neighborhood trail connections and park
"spurs."
• When considering new Parks look to no service and low service areas as priorities for
acquisition of future park land.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VI. Great Things to Come -
Recommendations and Action Plans
A. Recommendations
After analyzing the Findings that resulted from this process, including the Key Issues Matrix, a summary
of all research, the qualitative and quantitative data, the GRASP® LOS analyses, and input assembled for
this study, a variety of recommendations have emerged to provide guidance in consideration of how to
improve parks, recreation, and pathway opportunities in the City of Meridian. This section describes
ways to enhance the level of service and the quality of life with improvement through organizational
efficiencies, financial opportunities, improved programming and service delivery, and maintenance and
improvements to facilities and amenities.
Organizational:
• Maintain existing level of service goal
• Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding department
activities and services
• Provide improved signage agency -wide to make it easier for patrons to find and use
parks, facilities, and pathways
• Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities
• Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways
• Increase appropriate partnerships within the community
• Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies
• Staff appropriately to meet demand and maintain established quality of service
• Maintain and keep current the Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
and Policies
• Expand Volunteer Program
Financial:
• Increase Special Event and Activities Sponsorships
• Evaluate Developer Impact Fee Ordinance
• Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities
• Implement a cost recovery and pricing policy
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Programs and Service Delivery:
• Increase year round recreational programming and activities
Facilities and Amenities:
• Maintain and improve existing facilities and amenities
• Expand pathways and connectivity
• Add indoor recreation space
• Develop new amenities at new and existing parks based on level of service analysis
• Acquire new land for parks
• Improve parking at parks
• Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities
• Upgrade comfort, convenience, and cultural amenities to existing facilities
• Add destination park amenities
• Address current and future needs for athletic fields
• Consider programming needs when adding components to existing parks or when
developing new parks
• Monitor use, demand, and trends of recreation components
Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 1.1— Maintain existing level of service goal
The City of Meridian currently has a Level of Service that is three acres of developed park land per 1,000
persons with a goal of increasing to a Level of Service Standard of four acres/1,000 persons by 2040.
Additionally, the City should develop a Level of Service Standard that considers components within parks
and a radius of .5 miles per component for walkability.
Objective 1.2 — Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding department
activities and services.
The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to implement the Marketing Plan
(Communication Plan) that will guide the Department's efforts in communicating and promoting its
activities, services, and facilities. This will continue to create great awareness and should include all the
recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, and facility upgrades. Additionally, the
Marketing Plan should be reviewed annually and updated as needed and include marketing strategies
that incorporate the efforts of partner departments and projects.
The marketing and communication of Parks and Recreation Department activities should be enhanced
with a focused effort on adopting open lines of communication and meetings with partners and
potential partners within the community. This enhanced focus will help to create advocacy in the
community and provide a forum to better celebrate the successes of the Department.
• City of Meridian, Idaho
Objective 1.3 — Provide improved signage agency -wide to make it easier for patrons to find and use
parks, facilities, and pathways.
The Parks and Recreation Department should evaluate directional and wayfinding signage to facilities on
roadway, pathways, and within parks. Additionally, the Department should develop signage standards
for parks and update existing park signs as parks are renovated to meet the new standard. Improved
wayfinding signage will contribute to a greater connectivity of parks, facilities, and pathways.
Objective 1.4 — Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities.
There was an overwhelming public response to make sure that Parks and Recreation maintains and
improves existing facilities. The Department should continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities
and amenities as well as address low scoring components through the CIP Plan and the Life Cycle
Maintenance Program.
Objective 1.5 — Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways.
Mobile marketing is a trend of the future. Young adults engage in mobile data applications at much
higher rates than adults in age brackets 30 and older. Usage rates of mobile applications demonstrate
that chronologically across four major age cohorts, Millennials tend to get information more frequently
using mobile devices, such as smart phones. Parks and Recreation should explore additional social media
uses and navigation apps for parks and pathways. The City of Meridian has current best practices for
social media that should be followed, reviewed annually, and updated as is needed.
Objective 1.6 — Increase appropriate partnerships within the community.
The City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department currently partners with a number of agencies to
provide programs and activities to the community. The Department should continue to explore
additional opportunities, as well as build on their existing partnerships. Where not already in place, the
Department should ensure that all existing and future partnerships are accurately portrayed in a signed
partnership agreement (Sample Partnership Policy can be found in Appendix E).
The City of Meridian Strategic Plan that was adopted in 2015 sets a goal of continuing to explore
partnerships with alternative providers to increase level of service. Additionally, the Department should
identify desired sports facilities or complexes and establish partnerships that foster their development.
Objective 1.7 — Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies.
The Department should continue to explore additional opportunities to expand the use of technology
Department wide. Some immediate area to increase technology within the Department would be
provide online shelter reservations and provide a mobile application of the Department's website.
Objective 1.8 — Staff appropriately to meet demand and maintain established quality of service.
As recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, new facilities, pathways, parks, and
facility upgrades are implemented, it is important to maintain staffing levels to maintain current
performance standards. This will require the new positions both in parks and recreation.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Objective 1.9 — Maintain and keep current the Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and
Policies.
The Parks and Recreation Department is governed by City Code and internal standards of operations and
policies. The Department should review the City Code Chapter for Parks and Recreation annually and
recommend updates as needed. Additionally, staff should review Department SOPS and policies annually
and update as needed.
Objective 1.10 — Expand the volunteer program
The Department currently has a Park Ambassador Program that could be reviewed, improved, and
expanded to meet its growing needs. Additionally, it should continue to make use of other volunteer
opportunities for park projects and events.
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1— Increase special event and activities sponsorships.
The Department should continue to explore additional sponsorship opportunities and build on existing
sponsorships. All existing and future sponsorships should be evaluated to ensure that they are
accurately portrayed in a signed sponsorship agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy can be found in
Appendix D).
Objective 2.2 — Evaluate Developer Impact Fee Ordinance.
The current Developer Impact Fee is based on a LOS of 3.04 acres of developed park land per 1,000
people. As the Department moves toward their goal of four acres of developed park land per 1,000
people, they need to review the ordinance every three years to keep current with the LOS. Additionally,
the Department should review its Developer Impact Fee revenue annually to align with CIP requests and
existing LOS.
Objective 2.3 — Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities.
The Department currently takes advantage of grant opportunities available for programming, services,
and facility improvements. The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to pursue any and all
grant opportunities at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. To accomplish this, the Department
may consider contracting with a dedicated grant writer to research, submit, and track such grants.
Objective 2.4 —Implement a cost recovery and pricing
policy.
The Department currently has a practice of cost recovery,
but it varies based on the different service areas. The Parks
and Recreation Department should implement a Cost
Recovery Policy, such as the Pyramid Pricing Methodology to
determine a consistent method of pricing Parks and
Recreation activities throughout the Department. As part of
the policy, the Department should continue to support the
current Care Enough to Share Scholarship Program.
4REENPLAY«
The Pyramid
�b.
Methodology
cmR � any
. Considerable
1 Individual
!
r
4 Benefit `V
,a;
i.
�� !
IndividualfCommunity '.
Benefit
E 2° ;3 (Balanced Beneficiaries) i
1
Considerable Community
Benefit
Mostly Community Benefi
MCity of Meridian, Idaho
In addition to establishing a Cost Recovery and Pricing Policy, the Department should explore the
feasibility of a dedicated revenue for parks and recreation through special revenue funds, sports,
tourism, or other available sources.
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1— Increase year round recreational programming and activities.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to expand indoor recreational programs and
activities. The community would like to see additional programs for tweens, teens, people with special
needs, and seniors. As new programs are developed, continue to monitor recreational trends to stay
current with programming and demand. As popularity in program offerings and activities increases,
continue to look for opportunities to expand programs around working hours and commuting citizens
schedules.
The City's Strategic Plan has also set a goal to attract, promote, and maintain a "signature" event for the
City, and to set targets, identify gaps, and deploy programs, activities, and events that provide family -
centered recreational opportunities.
Goal 4: Maintain and Improve Facilities and Amenities
Objective 4.1— Maintain and improve existing facilities.
The Department should continue to implement existing plans, the CIP, Life Cycle Replacement Programs,
and the Master Plan. These plans should be reviewed annually and updated as needed.
Objective 4.2 — Expand pathways and connectivity.
The Department should continue to implement the existing Pathways Master Plan and update as
needed based on annual reviews. As new and existing pathways are designed and renovated, the
Department should consider adding fitness stations and family fun stations in appropriate locations
along the pathways.
Objective 4.3 — Add indoor recreation space.
Based on feedback from focus group participants and the survey results, there is a need for additional
indoor recreation space. The Department should continue to explore opportunities to add additional
indoor recreation space either through partnerships, purchase of an existing facility, or construction of a
Community Center or Fieldhouse. Another option would be to explore opportunities to add Community
Centers to newly planned elementary schools.
Objective 4.4 — Develop new amenities at existing parks based on level of service analysis.
Demand for usage of Meridian parks and athletic facilities continue to grow, and the Department should
look for opportunities to add new amenities to enhance the experience for users. As Meridian continues
to grow, the Department should look for opportunities to add parks and pathways in those new growth
areas. Also, based on the GRASP® analysis, the Department should look for opportunities to add new
components at existing parks where the level of service is below threshold.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan '
Objective 4.5 — Acquire new land for parks.
Based on population growth and a LOS goal of reaching four acres of developed park land per 1,000
population, the Department needs to continue to find and purchase additional land for future park
development. When considering new parks, priority should be given to areas where LOS is below
threshold.
Objective 4.6 — Improve parking at parks.
Parking was an issue that was identified at most of the focus groups. The Department should continue
to monitor parking during peak usage times and explore the need to improve and potentially add more
parking at appropriate parks and amenities. Another consideration would be to explore alternative
transportation options to reduce parking demand.
Objective 4.7 — Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities.
According to the ADA.gov website, "Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title 11 of the ADA requires
State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities...
One important way to ensure that Title 11's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self-
evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to
pinpoint the facilities, programs, and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local
governments are complying with the ADA."
Parks and Recreation currently does not have an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan which identified
needed changes during a self-evaluation process. The Department needs to conduct a self-evaluation
and develop a comprehensive transition plan. Once the ADA Transition Plan is developed and adopted,
it should be updated at least every five years.
Objective 4.8 — Upgrade comfort, convenience, and cultural amenities to existing facilities.
As the Department is making upgrades to, and improving, existing facilities, it should explore
opportunities to add shade, storage, security lighting, synthetic turf, and other amenities appropriately
at existing facilities. Working with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Department should seek
opportunities to create individual identities for each Neighborhood Park. Where appropriate, look for
opportunities to add public art to new and existing facilities.
Objective 4.9 — Add destination park amenities.
As citizen interest grows, and demand for new and different amenities at parks are identified, the
Department should explore opportunities to add destination playgrounds and natural play areas at
existing parks. The newly adopted Strategic Plan also has a goal to foster development of Discovery
Parks that uniquely blend arts, entertainment, and culture.
Objective 4.10 — Address current and future needs for athletic fields.
As demand warrants, explore opportunities to add rectangle and diamond fields as usage increases. To
help increase field time, add sports field lighting to new facilities and improvements to lighting at
existing facilities where appropriate. Additionally, the Department should consider upgrading or adding
synthetic turf fields as use and demand increases.
City of Meridian, Idaho
Objective 4.11— Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks or
when developing new parks.
Continue to evaluate the programming needs of the community when developing new parks or when
adding new components to existing parks.
Objective 4.12 — Monitor use, demands, and trends of recreation components.
Through the use of dashboards and other reporting and tracking tools, continue to monitor and evaluate
the use, demands, and trends in recreation amenities.
B. Action Plan, Cost Estimates, and Prioritization
The following Goals, Objectives, and Action Items for the recommendations are drawn from the public
input, inventory, level of service analysis, community survey, findings feedback, and all the information
gathered during the master planning process with a primary focus on maintaining, sustaining, and
improving City of Meridian parks, recreation, and pathways. All cost estimates are in 2015 figures where
applicable. Most costs are dependent on the extent of the enhancements and improvements
determined.
Timeframe to complete is designated as:
• Short-term (up to 3 years)
• Mid-term (4-6 years)
• Long-term (7-10 years)
.14101NOrWR9rnuu►!iat iIIIIlKIIIrrag011FIN-411►]L=iIL9F -1
Objective 1.1:
Maintain existina level of service aoal
1.1.a
Continue the planning goal of four acres of developed park TBD
land per 1,000 population.
Objective 1.2:
Enhance and imarove internal and external communication reaardin
Staff Time I Ongoing
artment activities and services
1.2.a
Continue to implement the Marketing Plan $0 Staff Time Short -Term
(Communication Plan).
1.2.b
Review annually and update the Marketing Plan as $0 Staff Time Ongoing
needed.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Objective 1.3:
Provide improved signage agency -wide to make it easier for patrons to find and use parks, facilities, and
pathways
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
1.3.a
Evaluate directional and wayfinding signage to facilities on $0 Staff Time Short -Term
roadways, pathways, and within parks.
1.3.b
$0
Staff Time
Short -Term
Develop signage standards for parks.
1.3.c
Enhance and update existing park signs as parks are
TBD
Staff Time
Ongoing
renovated.
Objective 1.4:
Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
1.4.a See CIP Plan
Continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities and and Life Cycle
Staff Time Ongoing
amenities through the CIP Plan and the Life Cycle Maintenance
Maintenance Programs. Programs
Objective 1.5:
Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
1.5.a
Explore additional social media uses and navigation apps TBD Staff Time Short -Term
for parks and pathways.
1.5.b
Follow current social media best practices, review $0 Staff Time Ongoing
annually, and recommend updates as needed.
Objective 1.6:
Increase appropriate partnerships within the community
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
Staff Time
1.6.a
TBD
Explore additional partnership opportunities as well as
$0
Potential increased
Ongoing
build on existing partnerships with focus on low service
revenue or
areas.
decreased
expenses
1.6.b
Ensure all existing and future partnerships are accurately
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
portrayed in a signed partnership agreement (Sample
Partnership Policy has been provided in Appendix E).
1.6.c
Identify desired sports facilities or complexes and establish
TBD
Staff Time
Ongoing
partnerships that foster their development.
City of Meridian, Idaho
1.6.d
Continue to explore partnerships with alternative
TBD
Staff Time
Ongoing
providers to increase level of service. (Strategic Plan 5.A.2)
Objective 1.7:
Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
1.7.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Continue to explore additional opportunities to expand the
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
use of technology Department wide.
1.7.b
Increase the use of technology by providing online shelter
TBD
Staff Time
Short -Term
reservations and a mobile application of the Department's
website.
Objective 1.8:
Staff appropriately to meet demand and maintain established quality of service
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
1.8.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Short -Term
Hire and train staff for current and future parks, facilities,
$0
TBD
Mid -Term
and pathways maintenance demands.
Long -Term
1.8.b
Short -Term
Hire and train staff for current and future recreation
$0
TBD
Mid -Term
programming and facility usage demands.
Long -Term
Objective 1.9:
Maintain and keep current the Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Policies
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
1.9.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Review Department SOP and policies annually and update
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
as needed.
1.9.b
Review the City Code Chapter for Parks and Recreation
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
annually and recommend updates as needed.
Objective 1.10:
Expand the volunteer program
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
BudgetEstimate ..
1.10.a
$0
Staff Time
Short Term
Improve the current Park Ambassador Program.
1.10.b
Continue to make use of other volunteer opportunities for
$0
Staff Time
On-going
park projects and events.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 2.1
Increase special event and activities sponsorships
Actions Capital Cost Operational Timeframe to
BudgetEstimate ..
Staff Time
2.1.a TBD Short -Term
Explore additional sponsorship opportunities and $0 Potential increasedMid-Term
build on existing sponsorships. revenue or Long -Term
decreased
expenses
2.1.b
Ensure that all existing and future sponsorships are
Short Term
accurately portrayed in a signed sponsorship
$0
Staff Time
Mid -Term
agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy has been
Long -Term
provided in Appendix D).
Objective 2.2:
Evaluate Developer Impact Fee Ordinance
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate
..
2.2.a
Review Developer Impact Fee revenue annually to $0 Staff Time Ongoing
align with CIP requests and existing LOS.
2.2.b
Review Impact Fee Ordinance approximately every
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
five years.
Objective 2.3:
Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities
Actions Capital Cost Operational Timeframe to
BudgetEstimate ..
2.3.a
Continue to seek philanthropic donations and grant $0 Staff Time Short -Term
opportunities.
2.3.b
Consider contracting with a dedicated grant writer to
Potential Matching
% of successful
research, submit, and track federal, regional, state,
Funds TBD
grants TBD
Short -Term
and local grants.
Objective 2.4:
Implement a cost recovery and pricing policy
Actions Capital Cost Operational Timeframe to
BudgetEstimate ..
2.4.a
Continue periodic evaluation of fees for programs and $0 Staff Time Ongoing
facilities.
2.4.b
Continue to support the current Care Enough to Share
$0
$0
Ongoing
Scholarship Program.
2.4.c
$40,000
Staff Time
Short -Term
Develop a cost recovery and pricing policy.
City of Meridian, Idaho
2.4.d
Increase year round recreational programming and activities
Actions Capital Cost Operational Timeframe to
BudgetEstimate ..
3.1.a
Explore feasibility of a dedicated funding source for
recreational programs and activities.
3.1.b
TBD
Staff Time
Short -Term
parks and recreation through special revenue, sports, or
Ongoing
with programming and demand.
other available sources.
3.1.c
Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery
Objective 3.1:
Increase year round recreational programming and activities
Actions Capital Cost Operational Timeframe to
BudgetEstimate ..
3.1.a
Continue to look for opportunities to expand indoor $0 Staff Time Short -Term
recreational programs and activities.
3.1.b
Continue to monitor recreational trends to stay current
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
with programming and demand.
3.1.c
Continue to look for opportunities to expand programs
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
around working hours and commuting citizens.
3.1.d
Explore increasing the number of program opportunities
$0
Staff Time
Ongoing
for seniors, special needs, teens, and tweens.
3.1.e
Determine, attract, promote, and maintain a "signature"
TBD
Staff Time
Ongoing
event for the City. (Strategic Plan 5.6.1)
3.1.f
Set targets, identify gaps, and deploy programs,
TBD
Staff Time
Ongoing
activities, and events that provide family -centered
recreational opportunities. (Strategic Plan 5.13.4)
O Udl 4. IvldllUdlll d11U III ijiuvu rciullllC, d11U NIIICIIIUC,
Objective 4.1
Maintain and improve existing facilities
4.1.a
Continue to implement existing plans, CIP, Master Plan, TBD Staff Time Ongoing
and Life Cycle Replacement Programs.
4.1.b
Review existing plans, CIP, Master Plan, and Life Cycle TBD Staff Time Ongoing
Replacement Programs and update as needed.
Objective 4.2:
Exoand nathways and connectivitv
4.2.a
$170,000 per
Continue to implement existing Pathways Master Plan, mile $0 Ongoing
review annually, and make updates as needed.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
4.2.b
$100-$150K per
Add fitness stations and family fun stations in
$0
Ongoing
park
appropriate locations on pathways.
Objective 4.3:
Add indoor recreation space
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
4.3.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Continue to explore opportunities to add additional
indoor recreation space either through partnerships,
TBD
TBD
Short -Term
purchase of an existing facility or construction of a
Community Center or a Fieldhouse.
4.3.b
Short -Term
Explore opportunities to add additional Community
TBD
TBD
Mid Term
Centers to newly planned elementary schools.
Objective 4.4:
Develop new amenities at new and existing parks based on level of service analysis
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
4.4.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Short -Term
Look for opportunities to add parks and pathways in new
TBD
TBD
Mid -Term
growth areas.
Long -Term
4.4.b
Short -Term
Look for opportunities to add new components at
TBD
TBD
Mid -Term
existing parks where level of service is below threshold.
Long -Term
Objective 4.5:
Acquire new land for parks
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
BudgetEstimate
4.5.a
..
Mid to Long
Continue to find and purchase additional land for future
TBD
Staff Time
park development.
Term
4.5.b
Mid to Long
When considering new Parks, look where LOS is below
TBD
Staff Time
threshold.
Term
Objective 4.6:
Improve parking at parks
Capital Cost
OperationalActions
4.6.a
BudgetEstimate ..
Short to Mid
Explore the need to improve and potentially add more
TBD
Staff Time
parking at appropriate parks and amenities.
Term
4.6.b
Short to Mid
Consider alternative transportation options to reduce
TBD
Staff Time
parking demand.
Term
City of Meridian, Idaho
Objective 4.7:
Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
Short -Term
4.7.a
TBD Staff Time Mid-Term
Develop and adopt an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan.
Long Term
4.7.b
Review and update the ADA Accessibility Transition $0 Staff Time Short -Term
Plan every five years.
Objective 4.8:
Upgrade comfort, convenience, and cultural amenities to existing facilities
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
4.8.a
Short -Term
Explore opportunities to add shade, storage, security
TBD Staff Time Mid -Term
lighting, synthetic turf, etc. appropriately at existing
facilities. Long Term
4.8.b
Short -Term
Explore opportunities to work with the Parks and
TBD
Staff Time
Mid -Term
Recreation Commission to create an individual identity
Long Term
for each neighborhood park.
4.8.c
Short -Term
Explore opportunities to add public art appropriately at
TBD
Staff Time
Mid -Term
existing facilities.
Long -Term
Objective 4.9:
Add destination park amenities
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
4.9.a
Short to Mid
Explore opportunities to add destination playground TBD Staff Time
Term
and natural play areas with climbing features.
4.9.b
Foster development of Discovery Parks that uniquely
Short to Mid
TBD
Staff Time
blend arts, entertainment, and culture. (Strategic Plan
Term
5.A.4)
Objective 4.10:
Address current and future needs for athletic fields.
OperationalActions Capital Cost
BudgetEstimate ..
4.10.a
Short to Mid
Explore opportunities to add both rectangle and TBD TBD
Term
diamond athletic fields as use and demands warrant.
4.10.b
Where appropriate, add sports field lighting to new
Short to Mid
TBD
TBD
facilities and improvements to lighting at existing
Term
facilities.
4.10.c
Short to Mid
Consider upgrading or adding synthetic turf fields as
TBD
TBD
use and demand for use of athletic field increases.
Term
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Objective 4.11:
Consider proarammina needs when addina new components to existina parks or when developina new
4.11.a
Continue to evaluate the programming needs of the Short to Mid
community when developing new parks or when TBD Staff Time Term
adding new components to existing parks.
Objective 4.12:
Monitor use, demands, and trends of recreation components
4.12.a Short to Mid
Continue to monitor and evaluate the use, demands, TBD TBD
Term
and trends in recreation amenities.
City of Meridian, Idaho