Loading...
2015-12-08C�WIERIDIAN%^ CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 3:00 PM 1. Roll -Call Attendance X David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree _X Keith Bird X_ Genesis Milam O Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 4. Consent Agenda Approved A. Interagency Agreement Between the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian for the Replacement of Water Valve Lids with the 2016 Arterial and Collector Capitol Maintenance Projects B. Professional Services Agreement for Fabrication and Installation of Main Street and Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount Not -to -Exceed $40,000.00 C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Paramount Subdivision (H-2015- 0022) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and N. Fox Run Way Request: Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #103137116, Amended as Inst. #113083665) for Paramount Subdivision to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Subject Property D. Final Order for Approval: Final Plat for Decatur Estates Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015-0027) by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located 4345 N. Linder Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Five (35) Building Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on 15.17 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 08, 2015 — Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 5. A 7. E:3 E. Development Agreement Graycliff Estates (AZ -15-012) Generally located southwest of W. Harris Street and S. Meridian Road, in the NE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AZ 15-012 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2700 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C -G Zoning District G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: CUP 15-019 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C -G Zoning District H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Village Apartments MDA 15-011 by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses I. Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to Sign PO #16-0122 for the Not - To -Exceed Amount of $74,934.00 for Taser/Evidence.com License Fees Per the Agreement Approved by City Council 11/18/2014 J. Approval of the Professional Service Agreement with Epique Events and Gifts for the Meridian Youth Farmer's Market in the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $5,000.00 Community Items/Presentations A. Check presentation to the City of Meridian Fire Department from Light My Fire, Inc. Items Moved From the Consent Agenda None Department Reports A. Parks and Recreation Department: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Presentation B. Public Works: Utility Rates and Assessment Fees Update C. City Council Liaison/Committee Updates Future Meeting Topics Adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 08, 2015 — Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council December 8, 2015 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 8, 2015, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba Joe Borton and Genesis Milam. Members Absent: Luke Cavener. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Jacy Jones, Tom Barry, Warren Stewart, Mark Niemeyer, Perry Palmer, Steve Siddoway, Mike De St. Germain and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X _ Joe Borton X__ Charlie Rountree X_ Keith Bird __X__ Genesis Milam _____ Lucas Cavener __X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Welcome to the Meridian City Council meeting. It's always nice to see friendly faces in the crowd. So, thank you for joining us. For the record it is Tuesday -- you know, they are always friendly, so -- just sometimes you're here for different reasons. More cheery today. Okay. For the record it is Tuesday, December 8th. It 3:00 o'clock. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 2 of 37 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Consent Agenda A. Interagency Agreement Between the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian for the Replacement of Water Valve Lids with the 2016 Arterial and Collector Capitol Maintenance Projects B. Professional Services Agreement for Fabrication and Installation of Main Street and Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $40,000.00 C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Paramount Subdivision (H-2015-0022) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and N. Fox Run Way Request: Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #103137116, Amended as Inst. #113083665) for Paramount Subdivision to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Subject Property D. Final Order for Approval: Final Plat for Decatur Estates Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015-0027) by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located 4345 N. Linder Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Five (35) Building Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on 15.17 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District E. Development Agreement Graycliff Estates (AZ-15-012) Generally located southwest of W. Harris Street and S. Meridian Road, in the NE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AZ 15-012 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2700 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C-G Zoning District G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: CUP 15-019 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C -G Zoning District Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 3 of 37 H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Village Apartments MDA 15-011 by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses I. Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to Sign PO #16-0122 for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $74,934.00 for Taser/Evidence.com License Fees Per the Agreement Approved by City Council 11/18/2014 J. Approval of the Professional Service Agreement with Epique Events and Gifts for the Meridian Youth Farmer’s Market in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $5,000.00 De Weerd: Item 4 is our Consent Agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, authorizing the Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird; yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Community Items/Presentations A. Check presentation to the City of Meridian Fire Department from Light My Fire, Inc. De Weerd: Item No. 5 is a check presentation. If you have ever been to a Light My Fire event you know what I'm talking about when I say there is plenty of opportunity to spend lots of money and usually we do, but if you haven't been there you really must go. So, chief, I will turn this over to you. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 4 of 37 Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, this is, once again, one of the favorite days that I have throughout the year, because we recognize the partnership that our fire department has had -- longstanding partnership with the Light My Fire group. The hard work of this group benefits two components of our department. One is a burnout fund, which, as you know, offers us the ability to give back a little bit to our citizens in their most dire need when they -- they have a house fire and they get burned out of their home and, secondly, and very importantly it helps support our prevention efforts. This past year a lot of these funds were spent directly on car seats. It allows us to do car seat inspections and also to provide car seats for those parents -- those new parents that have one that is not going to work for them as we inspect those. So, with that I would like to bring up the group behind you. There is a whole clan that's going to be coming up and I am going to turn this over to Deputy Chief Perry Palmer to say a few words on the prevention side and, then, we will do the check presentation. Palmer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it is a pleasure to be here before you today to accept these funds. Being part of the group I know the dedication and the hard work that goes into it by all the folks behind me. I know the Mayor has attended and several of you have the event that we have every fall. I hope that you will be able to make it again this year. De Weerd: I think it's in the spring. Palmer: It is the spring. I'm sorry. It's generally cold out. De Weerd: I just want to make sure we set the right expectation . Palmer: It's in February. How about that? De Weerd: Yes. Palmer: I'm sorry. So, anyway, we are looking forward to a great event this year. We hope that you can make it as well and as the chief already indicated, the funds go to a very worthy cause, whether it's smoke detectors or car seats, materials that we are able to hand out to the kids during fire prevention month or anytime of the year and, then, certainly the burnout fund. It's a great boost to that fund in helping people in their time of need. So, with that I think Mary Cahoon is the one that's going to present the check, so I will bring her forward. Cahoon: Thanks, Perry. This is a terrific day for Light My Fire. This is what we do ten months out of the year, working to get people to donate things and, then, to raise money for both prevention and burnout and the people standing behind me are the ones that do the work and I want to recognize them. Over here W inder Buchanan, Crissie Kay, CTR. Megan Scharar, CTR. Bob Ricketts. He has been doing this 23 years. He is a veteran. He's the one that's carrying the torch for a really long time and Judy is not here, but she's been partnering with him as well. Blaine Tewell with Paul Davis Restoration. Perry Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 5 of 37 Palmer also works really hard to help us as well. And Andrea Bradshaw with B elfor is not here today and, then, I wanted to mention one other, Sonja Johnson with Johnson CPA. She's our bean counter. We need her help big time. So, 23 years, over 330,000 dollars has been raised and it's a split between Boise and Meridian. Meridian jumped in -- oh. And Pam Orr is not here today. She is a challenger, man. That girl, she can raise money like nobody else can, I'm telling you. Anyway. So, today we -- through the year we have raised 32,800 dollars net proceeds and that's a split between Boise and Meridian, Boise is a little bit bigger. You're number one, though; right? De Weerd: You just keep going. Cahoon: Exactly. Precisely. And so 60 goes to Boise, 40 goes to here, and so today, tah dah, if you want to spin that check around, Bob. We have 13,120 dollars. Yea. Chief Niemeyer, for you 7,820 dollars and bingo, bango, bongo, baby, this thing is going to double; right? Because there is a matching grant fund. So, that one doubles up for more safety and prevention, which is huge. And, then, Joe Borga -- you're welcome. I'm too fast for them. And, then, Joe and Darren. Yes. With the burnout. For you guys we h ave 5,248 dollars. So -- which is great. I know that this year there were a ton of people who got burned out of their homes. There was a big apartment complex fire and you guys gave some to Mountain Home and spread that money out there where people really needed it and as we were talking before we entered in Joe was saying that there is a hotel that donates -- two hotels. Joe: The Sandman Hotel and the Marriott. Cahoon: Okay. And so two local hotels here in Meridian -- the great city of Meridian, number one; right? And -- and they were maxed out, which is great for Meridian, but -- so no money had to go out for hotel stays. In the middle of the night it used to be what are we going to do with these people who don't have anywhere to go, they mi ght have slippers on or not, and so it's a great honor and a privilege for us to help people that are struggling at that point in time. So, February 5th we are going to have a Night To Remember. It is Hollywood Then and Now. So, we encourage you to dress up as your favorite movie star or movie character and come on down and spend some money and have some fun with us and so if -- Perry, do you want to hand that out to each one. De Weerd: And I can tell you that Mary and this whole team, including Judy, they deck themselves out to the theme. You hardly even recognize them. But they really get into the spirit. Cahoon: Anyway, we thank you and we encourage you to come and join us. De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. Would any of the rest of you like to say anything? I will tell you how much we appreciate this. It does benefit our citizens, our community and the communities around. So, I would say that borders are not important when it comes to helping others; right? So, what you all do to help those families in the hour of their Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 6 of 37 greatest need is greatly appreciated. So, thank you and I look forward to February 5th. Anything from Council? Bird: Just thank you. Rountree: Thanks for the effort. De Weerd: Thank you. We will ask the chief to come in and give a tease prior to, so we know what the live auction items are and just know that the chief usually throws something in there as well, so we will let you bid in advance. Item 6: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 7: Department Reports A. Parks and Recreation Department: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Presentation De Weerd: So, we will move right into Department Reports and have Mr. Siddoway introduce our next speaker. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. It's my pleasure to be here today. After a year's effort we have with us today Art Thatcher with GreenPlay and Kim Warren also is our local partner with Breckon Land Design. It's been exactly a year since we kicked this project off. So, it was December -- somewhere around the 15th of last year that we held our first meetings on mission, vision and values type discussions and moved soon in January onto the focus groups and things that -- you will receive a summary of here shortly. But I just wanted to acknowledge the -- the work done by -- by GreenPlay and Breckon Land Design as their team and also Design Concepts and ROC was the surveyor. You can see their logos all on the -- the slide in front of you. Have really appreciated their -- their work. It's been a lot of work, but it's very rewarding work and it's the kind of work that we are not just excited about, but passionate about getting done because of what it means, because it sets the -- the vision and the future and tells us where we are today and helps us think about where we need to -- to go. Art was before you in a joint meeting. As you will recall in October and we were with the parks and rec commission. At that time we presented in detail the -- the findings and recommendations. Since that time we compiled a draft that was sent out to all of you. It went out to the public, e-mailed directly to our focus group members, ValleyTimes and Frank back here was good enough to publish an article encouraging the public to review what was posted on the website and, anyway, we are to the point now where the final plan has been compiled, the -- the final working draft was uploaded to Agenda Manager. The only difference between that and what you have been given as hard copy today is it has received final formatting. All the content is the same. It now has a cover page. Updated table of contents. Photos. Those kinds of things. So, with that I would like to turn some Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 7 of 37 time over to Art Thatcher to present an overview to you of the process, where we have been and where we are today, after which I will come up and talk about where we need to go next. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Welcome, Art. It was nice seeing you at the Coffee with the Mayor. Thatcher: It was nice to see you as well. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, just kind of what -- this is the bitter sweat part of the job is kind of presenting the final -- the final product and knowing that -- that I get to come back occasionally to -- to kind of check in on you. But it has been a wonderful process and I would like to congratulate you on being named the most livable city in the country. It's a fabulous honor and from my year here I can see it was very well deserved. And so what we are doing today is going to go over the -- the master plan and kind of the whole process and he said -- you know, I have been before you on a couple of occasions and I have kind of given you updates, so really just want to give you the breadth of the -- of the project. So, as you remember, the process that we went through is we had a -- a public engagement process that we went through, the focus groups, stakeholder meetings. We have had the online community forum. The blind mixer that transitioned over to My Sidewalk. We did the community survey. The Design Concepts came in and did our inventory of all of your facilities and the amenities. We analyzed the level of service, came back and presented our findings, did a visioning workshop with the staff, looked at your operational -- operations and maintenance and, then, came up with recommendations that we went over last -- in October. And so we are on schedule. We were scheduled to deliver this product in December, so I'm happy to say that we are on schedule and as Steve said we are on budget as well. And so as the project tasks went, we were kind of tasked with looking at the department's mission, vision, and values and looking at the classification system that's currently being used, you're existing inventory, defining your level of service goals, doing the community outreach, making recommendations, coming up with a strategic action plan, looking at your current staffing and your department's organizational setup, reviewing the urban forestry management strategies, looking at your -- at your pathways and making recommendations as far as your pathways plans are concerned and, then we were also -- Breckon Land Design was tasked with doing three conceptual designs for the current vacant properties that you -- that you have, the undeveloped park properties that you currently have. So, we -- we went through the mission, vision, and values. We held two workshops. Reviewed the current mission, vision, and values. Held one that was staff driven. Reviewed the -- the city's strategic plan to make sure that they were -- they worked with each other and they kind of validated the new mission, vision and values as far as the plan. We looked at the concurrent park classification system, how you classify your parks. Reviewed those against the -- what was the NRPA standards that were developed in 1998. A lot of departments took those as the -- kind of the law. They were just recommendations of park classifications. We also made some recommendations of your classification system and really using the -- the size, as well as the component based system of classifying your parks so that they more closely match what you currently offer in your park system. So, we -- as I said, Design Concepts came in and did the inventory. They -- they looked at all of your parks, looked at your indoor facilities, went and looked at Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 8 of 37 alternative providers, did a scoring of all of your components and your HOAs and the schools, looked at their locations, as well as looked at your 21 miles of pathways and your 13 miles of micropaths and so we took all of those and we matched all your components, all of your other service providers and in the -- in the final document these were in 11 by 17, so they are a little easier to read. I know it's kind of -- very difficult to read in this format, but they are 11 by 17, so they are more legible. But I just wanted to show you that we did map everything, not only yours, but the schools, as well as the county and the -- the homeowners associations. So, as we -- as look at those, we kind of -- you know, the summary -- you have very high quality, well maintained parks. They are well distributed. You know, as we talked about kind of the definition of your community parks and your neighborhood parks -- some of your neighborhood parks could use a little bit more, you know, unique qualities or, you know, identifiable characters that we talk about kind of later in the plan. You have great restroom standards. Your pathway system is disconnected and so, you know, looking at kind of connecting your pathway system. The quality of your HOA parks and other alternative providers vary greatly from what you provide and, then, your schools are important to your overall level of service with limited access and so, then, we take the -- all of that information and we do a level of service component -- base level of service analysis where we do half mile radii around your -- your components and your neighborhood parks, the three mile radii around your -- around your regional larger parks and so we begin to look at where you -- where you have coverage, where alternative providers have coverage and begin to look at where there may be gaps in service. And, then, these are further in the -- in the plan are broken down into multiple levels and there are a series of six maps that breakdown these levels through the plan and the appendices. So, we look at all that and kind of our findings and the overall level of service is -- you have a great variety, well distributed recreation opportunities. Your overall level of service is high, but accessibility is -- you know, is mostly by automobile. Seventy-five percent of Meridian is over the kind of the half mile threshold, so you have a, you know, great percentage in the community that's over that -- that half mile threshold and, then, the alternative providers play an important role in -- in supplying your neighborhood level of service, especially with your HOAs. So, then, we look at walkability and, again, we look at that half mile radius around -- around your components. You can see where there are right angles and straight lines that we also look at barriers to walkability and so -- those are your major thoroughfares as we look at these and, again, kind of looking at not only your -- your components, but also those of the schools, the county, and the -- and the other service providers. And so as you look at walkability, you know, from a demographic analysis you will see that -- you know, that 98 percent of the population under 19 has walkable access to some recreation services, which is fabulous and that's not just yours, but there is a heavy reliance on alternative providers for your walkability in the neighborhood. Neighborhood parks, you know, meet the threshold. There is a lack of the connectivity of pathways to those and there is a surprising discrepancy between, you know, average household income between the north and the south. One of the things that we noticed looking at the demographics and -- but generally the no service areas are in the -- kind of the lower household income areas. So, then, we did the focus groups. We looked at -- we had 125 people participate in eight focus groups. We did individual interviews with many of the members of Council and, then, held a -- a town hall meeting to report our findings. So, we also did a survey. We did a community survey. We mailed Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 9 of 37 out 3,500 random surveys to the community. We also did open link, which was available to anybody. The mailed survey response, we had 721, a 21 percent response, which I said before that is fabulous. Normally we are looking at an eight or a ten percent nationwide as we do our surveys and so this is -- you know, a great -- a great response rate. Also we added another 651 from the open link. So, we had a total response of 1,392. So, a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 and typically what we are looking for in the surveys is a plus or minus five. So, you know, we had a really great representation in the community through the survey. And this is just a sample of one of the -- one of the graphics from the survey. You should -- you have seen the full report of the survey and, then, the full report is also available in the appendix of the full report. And so this just looks at the -- the potential for future added, expanded, or improved facilities. The indoor on the top, as well as the outdoor on the bottom and you will see that we have divide d the -- the invitation sample, which was the mailed sample, and, then, the open link and that they pretty much validate each other as we look at the results. So, we also looked at -- at your population projections, using the COMPASS projections noting that you are, you know, one of the fastest growing communities in the country and looking to -- to really gain, you know, population over the next years kind of through the life of the -- of the master plan. So, we looked at the pathways and your recreation connectivity. We -- we mapped those and mapped the areas where -- where they were. You got, you know, 29 different segments of existing pathways that -- that are not all connected. You have 13 miles of micropaths, 133 miles of proposed pathway, which is a -- you know, very aggressive, you know, planned for -- for your pathways. We looked at your hierarchy of -- you know, there is park pathways that are -- you know, that are within your developed parks. There is community pathways that -- that are developed either within HOAs or within the community and, then, regional pathways. We looked at how those connections are being made. So, then, as we -- we developed all of that and kind of came up with some preliminary recommendations, you know, improved connectivity, continue to improve on your level of service, you know, especially kind of at the neighborhood park level to upgrade an additional component to your -- to the -- to the neighborhood park. Working with neighborhoods to create identities, working with the -- the parks and recreation commission to kind of create those individual identities within the parks. Continue with your alternative service providers and, then, considering programming needs as you begin to develop your existing undeveloped park land. And so we looked at those reoccurring themes as you will remember, you know, connectivity, pathways, maintaining what you have, keeping up with your rapid community growth, acquisition for future parks to maintain your level of service as your population grows. The need for internal recreation facilities. Communication marketing technology, organizational development and staffing and, then, funding sources for -- both for capital, as well as for operational. And, then, we kind of separated out the programming theme, you know, what we heard from the survey, what we heard from -- from the -- from the focus groups, you know, nonsports activities, kind of that balance between passive and active recreation. Communitywide events. Team programming. Increasing your outdoor recreation events or programming. More art in the park. Senior programming and cultural and performing arts were areas that -- and so if you remember, we took all of those and put those into the key issues matrix to help us begin to develop the -- our recommendations and looking at those sources of that information. And so we developed a recommendation, which I Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 10 of 37 presented to you in October, you know, focusing on maintaining, on sustaining, and improving and developing timelines of, you know, short term -- up to three years, mid term four to six, and long term seven to ten and so the four goals that we developed, continuing to improve organizational efficiencies, increasing financial opportunities, continuing to improve programs and service delivery and, then, maintain and improve facilities and amenities. And, then, you remember we kind of went through and we developed the -- the strategic actions -- objectives, strategic actions, and, then, the implementation plan for -- for each of those. I'm not going to -- we went over these in October. I'm not going to go over each one of these, but through the organizational efficiency we looked at, you know, maintaining your existing level of service , communication, signage agencywide, maintaining your -- your qualify service standards for your amenitie s. Increase use of social media. Appropriate partnerships. Technology. Staffing to meet the demands. Maintaining and keeping current with your SOPs and your volunteer program that -- that you have. Financially looking to -- to increase sponsorships. Evaluating your impact fee ordinance periodically, as it's listed out. Pursuing grants and philanthropic opportunities and, then, implementing a cost recovery and a pricing policy. Through your programs -- we talked about the expanding indoor modern recreation terms trends and expanding programs around working hours and commuting citizens. Increasing programs for seniors. Special needs. Teens and tweens. Looking for that -- developing and maintaining a signature event as it ties into the newly adopted strategic plan and, then, providing this family centered recreational opportunity. The facilities and amenities, keeping those up. Making sure you're maintaining what you have. Expanding your pathways and activity. Connecting those -- those disconnected portions of your pathways. Adding an indoor recreation space. Developing new amenities. Acquiring parks to -- to keep up with your growing population. Improving parking at parks . We talked about that. Not necessarily building more parks, looking at ways to do that either through alternative parking plan and looking at scheduling and those things. And continuing to improve your ADA access at all your facilities. We also looked at upgrading your comfort and convenience, shade structures, splash pads, those things at existing facilities. Adding destination park amenities, addressing your current and future athletic fields needs. Considering programming needs, you know, as you begin to look at existing parks and developing new. And, then, monitoring demand in trends for your recreation components. And so we also -- as I mentioned, we also worked very closely with staff to look at your staffing plan and your organizational development and benchmarking with other communities in the region. We reviewed the NRPA -- the 2015 field report, which compares communities all across the country. We -- Breckon Land Design, working with Elroy and the staff, went through your urban forestry management strategies. Also Breckon Land Design and design concepts, with Jay in looking at your pathways. Making recommendations about your pathways and -- and doing -- putting some priority to which ones to establish and maybe which ones to maybe look to the HOAs or the developers to establish and build and, then, Breckon worked with staff and conducted -- we did some -- some Skype calls to review concepts within the -- kind of the three undeveloped pieces of park that you currently have and, then, Breckon Land Design conducted three public meetings to kind of look at those to -- to bring out and to preview the -- the concept plan that they had -- that they had established. We did a -- a bus tour and went out and looked at those. Breckon Land Design presented those concepts to the group, went out and Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 11 of 37 looked at each one of those properties. The south Meridian regional park was one that -- that we looked at and so this is the -- you know, the design, kind of the concept of it, you know, active with some passive areas within it. You know, multi-use of those diamond, as well as rectangle fields. There was two concepts around the -- the west Meridian regional park. You know, one being more around a softball complex and -- and, then, used as a softball complex based when the -- when the parks were being developed. The second being around -- more of a multi-sport rectangle field complex to -- to meet demand and need, again, on when it was being developed. And, then, we also looked at the -- the Margaret Aldape park land and how that could be -- the concept of how that would be -- be into -- into more of a passive recreation and nature preserve type of -- type facility. And so those are kind of the process, where we went, and the different steps and kind of a brief outline of what the final product is. You know, we have give n you the plan and you don't have all of the appendices, there is like 300 pages of the appendices, but they will be available, you know, online to you that -- there are a couple of copies that can be passed around. Siddoway: I will just interject that to avoid killing too many trees, we decided to not print the entire appendix for everybody, but we did want to just print a couple of copies so you could see -- most of this you have received before, copies of the -- the survey results, things like that. So, we just want you to know that we are aggregating all of that data into the appendices that will be published together with the final plan. De Weerd: So, Steve, we will get that one back to you, but if you can put it in a binder and put it up in City Council's room, that would be a library where they can all access it when they need to. Siddoway: Absolutely. De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: They are all also online on the -- the web page if you want to access them from home. Links to them were provided in the e-mails that we sent you out previously. De Weerd: Of course. Council, any questions for Art? Bird: I don't have any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: I appreciate -- I appreciate the work, Art. Very very thorough. It certainly gives us a brenchmark to work off from and to go into the future with. You certainly covered the ground and did a fine job in my book. Thatcher: Thank you very much. Bird: Thank you very much. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 12 of 37 De Weerd: I agree. I appreciate the -- the data, some of the comparisons that you gave towards other communities of various sizes. There was one picture in there and I can't -- can't find it. Oh, there it is. On page 46 where you show two different playgrounds or a play structure in two different environments. I would like it footnoted that that one in the middle that's barren wasteland is not in Meridian. Well, neither of them were, but -- Thatcher: Neither of them are. De Weerd: It would be worth footnoting that that is not Meridian. But I know you also mentioned alternative sites. One of the things early on -- and certainly when I got involved with the city through more my volunteer time and Mr. Rountree was the Council liaison to the parks commission, we knew that we would never be able to establish our service level to what the community desire was without partners. We wrote the open space ordinance and knew that a lot of that supplementing in order to get green space to where people lived to build that sense of community even within our community, it was neighborhood parks owned by neighborhood associations and it was going to be a collective series, whether it's schools, neighborhoods, or city owned or Western Ada Recreation District. So, that was something that we knew in order to provide the level of service and the 98 percent within walking distance of a green space, that was how we were going to have to do it. But it was nice to see that 98 percent. Thatcher: And as a Council you all are to be commended for your forward thinking on that and we work with a lot of communities around the country that are playing catch up that have boomed with development and have not, you know, done impact or, you know, in lieu of and looking at the developers providing those green spaces and trails within their developments and so, you know, by getting out ahead of that you guys are to be commended and it shows with your 98 percent walkability. De Weerd: Yeah. With that 98 percent it's great to show that, but it would also be interesting to show the service level with consideration to those open spaces that are not city owned. Thatcher: And there are -- there is a -- one of the maps does show just your facility -- just your amenities and your properties and, then, there is the overlay, which -- which adds the other piece. So, you will see where -- where there may be perceived gaps and, then, how that is filled by alternative providers. De Weerd: I saw the overlay, but I mean what is the service level of acres per thousand. Siddoway: And that would be a future goal of ours, because with this analysis for the HOA owned sites we only had point data and not acreage data. So, the analysis is based on -- on points, not acres, so it would be -- it would be a future goal of ours. We are unable to do it with the data we have today, but we can work with planning and others to try and aggregate that data now that we have the points identified. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 13 of 37 De Weerd: Excellent. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think it should be noted that before 1998 we had -- City of Meridian had one park, Storey Park, and in '98 we put Tully in and got started. So, I think while our community is growing I think the -- the parks department -- and we didn't have a parks department and I think we have done very -- very well in the 17 years that we have developed and maintained and the thing I'm most proud of is everything we have put in I think it's been pretty first class and it's going to be around for a while. Thatcher: Absolutely. I -- I use you all as an example quite a lot as I -- as I talk with other elected officials around the -- around the country. You know, one of the things that -- that impressed me as I met with you individually was that -- that many of you, you know, indicated to me that you -- you weren't going to build anything unless you could continue to maintain it at the level that it was built and I think that's a great, you know, commitment or your part to the community and to the facilities that you're building and I use you all as an example around the country all the time, so I hope -- I hope you're okay with that. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I'm just going to comment it's -- it's easy to see how well accepted our parks are. Almost any day you drive around and the parks are busy. They are full and being well used and appreciated by everybody and I appreciate the work that's gone into the plan to prepare for our future growth and keeping the same kind of attitude about our parks and keeping a balance of making sure we have enough parks and recreation for future populations, so appreciate the good work -- Thatcher: Thank you. Zaremba: -- and the forward thinking. De Weerd: And you made a point and I know you have -- you said it each time you have been here is this is a living document and it's -- it's evolving all the time. This morning you were approached or Steve was approached with rugby teams and, you know, the trending of how popular this is going to -- is becoming and possibly will be with the Olympics now incorporating it in. So, it's being aware of that. Pickle ball has been an ongoing discussion as well. So, this is a dynamic plan. It's a ten year plan. We know that there is probably some great possibility that there will be some things that change, but you have given us a solid foundation of where we are headed over that time period, knowing that there is going to be adjustments along the way, but this is solid information. We greatly appreciate the time, the talent of your team, and you spending as much time in our community to really get to know us, so when you did make recommendations it was relevant. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 14 of 37 Thatcher: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Art, can you describe -- or maybe Steve, but one of you describe briefly the recommendations with regards to reclassification of the parks. I noted that in here and it made reference to the national standard. Is there an actual recommendation that we change how we are classifying parks going forward? Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, there are some minor changes. I will say a few things and, then, Art can fill in the blanks, but you won't see big changes from what we have always been doing. We did adopt the term -- we had some documents that used the term regional park for places like Settlers and Kleiner. We had some that used larger end park. I think our last master plan actually classified them larger end parks. We tend in our vocabulary to call them regional, so I think we use that -- that vernacular. Also things like Centennial Park over here by the -- the community center. Thank you. Was identified just like a special use, because it was smaller, like a mini park I think, but it functions more as a neighborhood park. So, even though it wasn't meeting our typical size standards of seven acres, things like that, because of its function it was -- it's now labeled with the neighborhood parks. So, I think minor tweaks like that. Art, do you have anything to fill in? Thatcher: Yeah. There is -- really, the reason that we look at it and the reason we kind of have consolidated using your terminology and make recommendation s of -- like changing the acreages or getting a wider range of acreages and also looking at some of the proponents within the parks -- because the NRPA standard -- like a neighborhood park would not have a rectangle field or a diamond field in it, so when you build a neighborhood park and you put a baseball diamond in it, it becomes an exception to that classification and so what the recommend is that you kind of broaden your definition of what they are, of what a neighborhood park is, to meet what you are currently using as the components within your park. So, it's really not a -- not a full reclassification, but more of a modification of the definitions of what you use for your terminology and what components are in there, because we go to some communities that, you know, they have more exceptions -- what they call specialty parks than they do those parks that fit into their classification system. So, you know, we just kind of worked the terminology and the definitions so that those exceptions can fit into their terminology. Borton: Okay. Siddoway: Madam Mayor, just a word about process. We actually are not here to ask for a formal motion, although I'm half tempted to do that, but processwise what we want to do Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 15 of 37 is tomorrow night we are making this presentation to the commission. They will be making their formal recommendation. We wanted to come today and get any feedback that you have for us on this final draft. Assuming a favorable outcome at the commission meeting tomorrow night, we would, then, bring back to you next week on consent a resolution adopting this plan for your approval. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. I appreciate you laying out the process and, please, also extend the Council and my appreciation to the parks commission. I know they have been intricately involved in this. They have spent a lot of time on it and we greatly appreciate their participation and their stewardship on it. Siddoway: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you again, Art. Thatcher: Thank you very much. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas. B. Public Works: Utility Rates and Assessment Fees Update De Weerd: Thank you. Merry Christmas to you. Item No. 7-B is our Public Works Department and I will invite Tom Barry up. Barry: Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wish I had something as fun to fun talk about with you this evening as the parks master plan, but, unfortunately, I don't. Although some get excited about utility rates and fees. I do have some good news to share with you and, then, also some recommendations as it relates to some of the revised modeling we have done in light of the water and sewer assessment fees. Before I get started I wanted to recognize and thank Suzie Deerdorf and the senior executive team, John McCormick, Mike Pepin, Dale Bolthouse, and their teams for helping us update and revise the information that's gone into this and for their contributions in putting it together. Okay. So, I want to talk briefly about the agenda today. It's actually going to be pretty short. We don't have a whole lot of information to share with you. As you know, this is an update -- De Weerd: Just say Merry Christmas. Barry: I know. It's a gift. It is a gift. If you don't have any questions it will go quicker, too. So, in any event, just a brief agenda here and -- Bird: I believe he's telling me to be shushed. Barry: No. Of course not. We will talk about some of the activities we have spent our time doing since September -- or since April of 2015. As you know, this is a periodic update, you have asked us to come back to you frequently on this issue. We will talk very briefly on the rate model, the water and wastewater rates, the water and wastewater assessment fees and, then, finally, a recommendation and proposed implementation. So, Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 16 of 37 to get started, the activities that we have been doing over the last six or eight months is that we -- you know very well that we have evaluated and confirmed the fee methodology for water and sewer rates and we shared that information with you, got your direction to move forward on this, continuing to utilize the existing methodologies. We have done that. We have revised the water assessment and also the wastewater assessment fees utilizing that methodology. I will get into that a little bit more later in the presentation and show you what the results are, the results -- or in light of that. We have also been working on the ERU. This is equivalent residential unit fee leveling project. As you know we brought to you a recommendation with regard to clarifying and confirming the methodology used for multi-family customer classes. That's been implemented via your direction as of October 1st of this year and we are currently evaluating the commercial and industrial customer classes and hope to bring something more holistic back to you here in the future. Finally, we have been continuing to tweak the rate model. The rate model sees out ten years now. We have also been modifying some of the projects in light of some new information we have gotten and some of that I will be sharing with you tonight. And principally we have level loaded projects throughout the -- the ten year period and what that does is it allows us to sort of smooth the peaks and the valleys through the rate model and sort of bring a little bit more stability over the long term . That has a huge impact in helping to stabilize the rates and fees going foreword. So, we continue to do that. Now, as it relates to the rate model, I'm not going to go into detail about the model, because, quite frankly, the information that we rely on for running the model isn't quite ready and we mentioned this in the past that, essentially, we do rate updates about once a year and we try to target that somewhere around March or April or so. That's because it gives the finance people an opportunity to close the books, remove the carry forward numbers, revise all the information that goes back into the beginning fund balance, which allows us to do the rate calculations and give you better information as it relates to what our recommendations would be. So, quite frankly, the timing of this presentation doesn't really coincide with the acquisition of that particular data set or those data sets. So, therefore, we are not really doing much on the rate model. But what we can tell based on some limited tweaks over the last six to eight months is that the model does continue to show a holding steady trend, which is very good. Now, there is really no more surprises or any of that kind of stuff. We pretty much have certainty on what's going on with the NPDES permit now, it's just a matter of kind of organizing that work and putting it into a logistical fashion. There is an impact associated with the south Meridian infrastructure advancement projects that we are going to be doing over the next couple of years and that's included in the model. Fortunately, it doesn't look like the impact is as large as we had initially predicted, which is good. So, at this point in time we are recommending today no rate increase for water or for sewer base or usage rates. W e would -- as we have been directed in the past we will reevaluate the model April or so of next year, we will have better numbers and, then, finally, we are kind of continuing to talk about this idea of indexing the rates to inflation to kind of help additionally smooth out some of the peaks and valleys over the long term. So, that's the good news on the rates. We are recommending no increase at this point in time for either area of water or sewer rates. And we want to talk a little bit about the water assessment now. This is the hook- up charge or connection charge, connection fee, hook-up -- it's used -- a lot of different terms are used, but, essentially, we call them the assessments. So, for water I wanted to Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 17 of 37 walk you through a little bit of a history. Our current fee is 1,725 dollars per connection or per ERU. The calculation that's used -- the methodology we use is both a buy-in methodology, which means that we include the water supply, storage, and distribution components. People are buying into existing capacity and, then, they are also helping to advance the replacement of that with the purchase of new capacity and we call that future CIP components. So, with both of those components we end up with a calculation of 17.5 for water, at least that's what we currently have been utilizing since 2007. So, this fee has not been updated since 2007. We did begin looking at it just as we entered the recession, of course, it was the wrong time to be looking at fees and those types of things, so it kind of got put aside and, then, we, as you know, have been focusing pretty heavily on wastewater. But the recommendation here is to revise the fee and based on the model that we have used and you have directed us from a methodology standpoint to use, it shows that the current fee is lacking and that a revised fee of -- resulting in an increase of 179 dollars to the proposed new fee of 1,973 dollars is in order. So, that would be about a ten percent increase. We were actually delighted to find out that this fee didn't go up as high as we thought it would, beings that it hadn't been looked at since about 2007. And you may be asking how does this compare to the regional average, particularly Treasure Valley. So, we put in the benchmarks and you will notice that we are about right in the middle with the new fee. So, the revised fee puts us very competitive -- as a matter of fact, right in the middle of the other eight cities and, moreover, it puts us substantially under the regional average. So, still very, very competitive I would think with regard to the water assessment. So, that gives some idea as to how we kind of shape up. So, the recommendation is going to be this evening that we consider implementing the full amount for the water assessment and I will get do that summary here in just a moment. If we look at the wastewater assessment -- now, we are moving from water to wastewater. The current fee is 3,400 dollars -- or 3,425 dollars. This was last updated in October of 2014 when we raised the amount to 676 dollars. Largely in light of the anticipation of all of this growth related -- growth related impact, but again, a little bit premature with regard to getting our draft permit and know some of the other impacts associated to -- to growth. And I will talk with you about some of the things that have changed between then and now. First I want to talk to you about the calculation. Again we will use the same methodology. It's a buy-in approach with regard to buying in the collection system and the treatment plant components and, then, replacement of that with future CIP. So, those two components are included and factored into the overall calculation for the wastewater assessment fee. Now, I want to talk briefly about some of the changes since our last modification, because it seems that, you know, we -- we have raised this just last year, which went into effect January 1st of this year and it was a pretty substantial increase. Again, that fee had not been looked at until last year -- until 2007 also. So, it was a substantial increase. A couple of things that have changed, essentially, are that we did receive our NPDES permit and the result meant that we -- I mean this is since we last looked at this fee rather. We revised the ten year CIP project list, which includes growth related regulatory components. So, anything that's built in the future related to capacity or growth has to be built to this new standard, this new regulat ion. So, that has helped also refine some of the numbers in the CIP going forward. We have also added the south Meridian infrastructure cost to the CIP since this was last looked at. That was an increase, as you're well aware, of about eight million dollars. Additional we have Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 18 of 37 reevaluated the growth matrix through the last several years and the result is that growth is occurring much more rapidly than we had previously believed. In fact, if you just look at the population changes here -- I mean it's no surprise, you have all lived through this -- since 1990 there has been an 852 percent increase in population. Since 2000 to present 161 percent and, surprisingly, since just 2010 there has been a 22 percent increase and the forecast moving forward shows continued growth with no flowing at least recognized in the new future. Lastly, I wanted to mention -- well, not lastly, but one other component I wanted to mention is that we had begun a capacity analysis of the wastewater treatment plant, largely precipitated by some concern identified by our previous wastewater superintendant in regard to treatment plant performance and what we realized is that over the years the treatment plant has begun to struggle in keeping up with the treatment of the wastewater stream that's come into the treatment plant and we realized that the -- the primary culprit of this is that the wastewater strength is increasing due to the fact that water -- water consumption throughout the city is decreasing. So, if you look historically at the early 2000s, the average water consumption per household was ar ound 14,000 gallons per month. Today it's 7,600. It's almost half. What that means is that you do not have as much dilution potential in the wastewater stream, so what you get is a decrease in the flows, but an increase in the concentration or what we c all load. That load is what's really causing some trouble and is consuming capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. Now, we just received this report in June of this year and that report has got us concerned, because it suggests that the treatment plant capacity that we currently believe that we had, which was 10.2 million gallons per day, is actually almost a million and a half gallons less than that. What that means is we have less capacity than we thought on the existing system and that has a huge impact on the way we need to accommodate growth going forward. So, that's another impact. The overall result, essentially, is that we must add -- if we want to continue to grow and accommodate growth, we must add more growth and capacity projects and we need to add them sooner in the CIP to accommodate our current growth rates and projections. That all has an impact and all of that information has been fed into this model and has shown that we need to make adjustments to the wastewater assessment fee. So, the recommendation is that we update this fee to reflect current growth-related costs and the fee that the model spits out essentially says that we would need to increase the fee by about 459 dollars per ERU or per connection. Now, we take the current fee from 3,425 dollars up 13.4 percent to 3,884 dollars. Now, we know that that's a big increase. We don't like to see big increases and we know when you take that in conjunction with the water assessment increase of around 180 or so dollars, that that's a big impact to the developers and seeing that we have just asked the developers to absorb a big increase this last year, our recommendation is to consider a two year implementation phase-in plan on the wastewater assessment increase, which would mean in the first year we would recommend that the full water assessment revised rate and half or 230 dollars of the wastewater assessment go into effect and, then, we would wait a year and, then, increase the second installment of the wastewater assessment by ano ther 229 dollars to the final number of 3,884 and you may be asking yourself, well, how does this compare regionally and this is -- these are what the numbers look like. This is with the fully proposed wastewater rate. So, assuming at the end of the two year period, if you agree with that implementation, we would still be right in the middle of all the Treasure Valley cities, essentially, and lower than the regional average. So, we still feel that we Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 19 of 37 remain competitive, but that the growth related cost we are feeling actually gets dispersed among the -- the developing community. So, that gives you an idea of what the wastewater assessment would look like and how it would, essentially, look -- De Weerd: Tom? Barry: Yes. De Weerd: Mr. Bird has a question. Barry: Yes, sir. Bird: Can I -- question back there, Tom. Your splitting it up in two years, but in one year we went up 13.4 percent or something in one year from October of '14 to December 8th of '15. What's going to say that -- that in '17 that this 459 is going to cover our costs? If we went 13.4 in one year and we are going to take it up in two years, are we going to still be okay? Barry: Thank you for your question, Mr. Bird. Just to clarify, the 13.4 percent increase is the full amount, not the first installment. So, we are recommending -- Bird: I know that. Barry: Okay. Great. So, the first installment would be, essentially, half of that. Bird: Yes. Barry: So, the second -- Bird: But one year -- but, Tom, maybe I wasn't clear enough. But in one year, from October of 2014, when we put this new assessment in, to December 8th of 2015. Barry: Right. Bird: We are down 459 dollars by your calculations; right? Barry: That's correct. Bird: Okay. Now, we are going to take that 459 and split it up for two years. Barry: Uh-huh. Bird: So, what from -- what from December 8th of 2015 to December 8th of 2016 we are not 459 short again. I mean are we covering ourselves? And it's like the water assessment, ten percent, are we -- are we covering ourselves? Are we going to be back in six months saying, oh, my goodness -- you know, it's -- for the payers -- the rate payers Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 20 of 37 they sooner be get hit more often with littler percents than us going from 207 to two -- I mean it's unbelievable that we can go from 2007 to 2015 and only need ten percent increase. Because I know our costs on the material have went up more than ten percent. Barry: Right. So, Mr. Bird, there is no crystal ball and there is no magic bullet. We can't tell you that the rates would not need to go up again and we cannot tell you when they may need to go up. And the way the -- and I shouldn't say rate. The assessments in this case. The way the assessments are calculated is based upon what gets put into the CIP and how we apportion the growth related components to the nongrowth related components. Things like repair and maintenance and upgrades and regulatory requirements and those types of things. So, obviously, if we ever get accelerated growth, like we have going on now, that that will accelerate the pace at which we must replace the capacity that's being consumed. So, we are sort of in this situation where if you look historically from the assessments, 2007 was a great booming year. 2008 things started to tank a little bit, we started modifying rates in 2009 and '10. We didn't touch assessments, because we really didn't want to suppress an already depressed growth market. We didn't feel comfortable -- I don't think anyone did until around 2012 or '13 that maybe we were out of the woods on the recession, so, then, we began doing the studies, of course. We are deep in thought as it relates to what's going to happen regulatorily and how we are going to manage the regulatory requirements and we have also seen the recovery of growth actually surge in these last two years or so. So, that sort of compounded this situation. We feel like looking forward and using the model that we have to project, that, essentially, we are going to be in a good spot where we are sort of stuck updating the historical lapse in increasing the assessment and we are also stuck with accommodating this very recent growth increase and, therefore, once we catch up, so to speak, we believe that we will be able to achieve more stable assessment and even rate increases going forward, which is, again, why we have kind of been promoting this idea of indexing the rate and indexing the fees, so that way every year there is just a small incremental amount to get exactly at your recom mendation, Mr. Bird. And I hope maybe that helps. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Maybe a shorter way to explain that is they had on paper 1.4 million increase in -- or loss of capacity and increase in this number is catching up. Barry: It is. Rountree: I wouldn't -- I would hope we don't see that happen in a year. That accrued over a bunch of years. Barry: It did. Rountree: So, to me that's where a fairly high percentage of this percentage increase comes from. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 21 of 37 Barry: It is. It's definitely a substantial component of the revision to the wastewater assessment. It has come from the study that it took us a few years to even realize that we needed to do the study based upon what we were seeing at the wastewat er treatment plant. De Weerd: So, Tom, if you didn't step it would the 459 impact be less because you're -- you're not losing money in the first year? Barry: No. Madam Mayor, we just cut that recommendation in half and didn't carry any costs -- additional costs for losses forward. We just -- it wouldn't be less, it would be 459 either way, whether you take it all at once or you decide to take it over two years. Now, you could direct us to say, you know, maybe it should be a little bit more the first year and, then, you know, you make up some of the loss, you know, with a different formulaic approach. We just straight lined it by splitting it in half and saying, you know, we kind of feel for these big increases and we felt -- felt that maybe we could provide some relief. We incorporated that strategy into the rate model and have accommodated that in the production going forward. So, essentially, you know, it's kind of up to you, the Council, to decide if you would like to take that full impact now or take it over two years and, of course, anything else that you wish to direct us with regard to implementation or otherwise is -- you know, we can get information back to you for consideration as well. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If that -- if they are covered I don't mind taking it over two years, but I just hope we are not back here in another year wanting -- have to go up more, because of the cost and I understand how this is all derived at and stuff, but -- and I want to keep it as -- as economically as we can for our developers and builders, but I also want to make sure that we are not subsidizing it. De Weerd: That growth pays for itself. Bird: That it pays for itself. Barry: Well, what we can assure you is that with the implementation of these assessment changes, that the growth will be paying for itself. If growth continues to advance quicker, then, there may be needing to be some modifications. If it goes slower, you know, maybe not. So, that's the reason we modeled these assessments is to insure that the assessment component is fair and equitable and that the impacts associated with growth are being covered by the sources of growth. Okay. So, if there is no other questions there, just very quickly to end here. If you -- I think I should share this slide with you that we are in the middle as it relates to the wastewater assessments with a fully implemented recommendation. If you combine the assessment for water and sewer to look at the total water and sewer cost from an assessment basis, you see we are still in line with the Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 22 of 37 regional average. We are under the regional average and that we are still right in the middle as it relates to total impact associated with water and sewer assessments or hook- up charges. So, you know, we still feel very good about that. We t hink it's reasonable. We think it's fair and we think that we are still very competitive, given the environment and the community that we are in and the draw that this community has seen in popularity, particularly over the last, you know, decade or more. So, in any event, that's what we had to share with you with regards to what the recommendation is on the assessments. This is the timeline that we would recommend for consideration of how to implement the assessments. Essentially, we have made the presentation to you this evening with our recommendation. We do want to talk with the BCA about this. We have already requested time on their calendar for their first meeting in January. Of course, they meet once a month, so it looks like we will be allowed an audience with t hem in early January. We also would like to conduct a developer focus group to allow opportunities for additional questions and answers and information. We would like to hold that on or around the 25th of next month and, then, provide the revised fee schedule to the clerk on the 29th. Notice for the hearings on February 1st and the 8th. Conduct the public hearing on the 16th of February next year, and, then, hopefully, if all goes well, adopt the resolution of the assessment fees on the 23rd of February and immediately implement them on the 1st of March. So, that is the recommendation with regard to implementation that's all we have, essentially, for you this evening to consider. I will take any questions, comments, or concerns you might have at this time. De Weerd: Thank you, Tom. Council, any additional questions? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Thank you. This is very well explained. I always have a question hanging in my head about extraordinary waste I guess I would call it and what always comes to mind -- the example I use -- say somebody wants to do a hair and nail salon, what they are going to be putting into the waste stream is some pretty nasty chemicals and there are other businesses that do that kind of thing. I don't see that we charge them anymore for that and I have been told we do have some sort of a program that -- to deal with that, but I keep forgetting what it is. Refresh my memory if you would. What happens with somebody that's burdening our system more than the average person? Barry: Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. That's a fantastic question. We do not have tiered rate or separated rates for different industrial classes, for example. This is largely because the majority of the waste that ends up at our treatment plant is residential waste. That is not to say that we don't have impact from restaurants or salons or chemical companies or those types of things, but the proportionate impact of those types of loads on the treatment plant is pretty small in comparison. What we do have is a very good pretreatment program and a pretreatment program requires those businesses that meet the pretreatment requirements to install and maintain pretreatment devices, including inspections, cleaning, maintenance, standard operation of those facilities, so as to avoid the kinds of impacts that you're referring to at the wastewater treatment plant and we have two staff in that program that manage the program and go out and inspect on a routine basis and handle all the reporting for EPA and whatnot. Pretreatment programs are Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 23 of 37 required under our NPDES permit as well. So, we feel pr etty well protected there and we haven't seen the impacts that you're referring to at the wastewater treatment plant to the degree that would cause us significant concern and even from a proportionate standpoint to even rise to the level of recommending a separate or tiered sort of impact based rate for wastewater. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Barry: You bet. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: A couple of questions. One is a super short answer and one maybe not so short, so you can pick which is which. It seems like it would make sense in the order of things for there to be the presentation of the updated capital improvement plan to Council and that be adopted, which would drive what capital improvements are needed or not needed on which year, which would, then, drive the rates necessary to fund that. So, I didn't see that in the discussion or in the outline, so why is that? Barry: Well, the capital plan is updated every year annually in the Public Works Department and shared with you at around this time each year. So, the capital plan that we are operating under right now does include those projects that we have included in these rate models and in the analysis going forward. The difference is that the capital plan that we provide to you is a five year look. We have now internally been able to develop ten year capital plans, which allows us this longer forecasting in an attempt to achieve better stability in both the assessment and the fee analysis for the financial. So, you know, you could as a Council at anytime say any particular project in the CIP or the five year CIP that's developed, we don't want to devote as much funding to say capacity or growth related capital projects. That would, indeed, have an impact on this calculation, because if the City Council did direct staff to slow growth, so to speak, in the form of pushing out or not doing certain types of growth or capacity related projects, those would come off conceivably or be pushed outside the window of the model and would not be considered in the analysis and, therefore, the assessment fee would go down. The question is, you know, at some point we will be out of capacity and it takes typically three to five years to bring online a lot of these capacity -- particularly at the treatment plant a lot of these capacity and technology improvements. So, we have not heard to date by any counsel to slow growth or to postpone projects or to eliminate growth projects and, therefore, the capital plans that we have provided are in alignmen t with the recommendation that we were presenting financially tonight. Borton: Madam Mayor? And maybe just a comment. It seems like an update of that -- and it's my understanding that is to take place in January, February, we are going to be Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 24 of 37 doing a capital improve plan update. That discussion at that time, there has been a lot of changes in the landscape of -- especially with the permit approval of what you have got to provide over the next five years and ten years, that maybe it makes sense to weave that process approval into your schedule. That would give -- it seems like it would give some more credibility and comfort for the Council to have gone through that process, update of that plan. Barry: Sure. If that's the direction that Council would like to go, we can certainly do that. Of course, that delays the process on other fronts, in particular these -- the installation of these assessment fees, if that's the desire of the Council. I know that the Finance Department has asked us to incorporate the Public Works capital plan into their process and, quite frankly, I don't recall what their process is. Typically by this period we have already presented to you our five year capital plan for the Public Works Department, but in light of that request we have not provided that update to you and, instead, we will be partnering with the Finance Department. I'm going to turn it over to Warren Stewa rt, he's got a little bit of additional information on this, since he's in charge of our five year capita l plan for the department. Stewart: Thanks, Tom. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, the capital plan -- you are correct, usually as the engineering staff we present a revised capital improvement plan -- five year capital improvement plan to the City Council every year and that is actually -- Connie is busy up in her cubicle today assembling the books that we can give to you. So, that's -- that's in process. In the past we have actually done that in a form of a presentation, which many of you have been a part of. The last couple of years there hasn't been a lot of discussion, so we actually have been talking internally this year whether we would do -- do that in the form of a presentation or whether we would simply give you that document and allow you to ask questions individually if you would like to. We are more than happy to come and do that in presentation format. I would say also that the five year CIP has never been adopted per se. We present that, get your feedback, but it has never been a document that you have formally gone through an adoption process for. So, it's just been more of an informational document that we have presented to you. It's there because you don't -- we don't actually adopt it, because you have to vote on a -- essentially a budget on an annual basis, so it's there for information. But, you know, if you guys would like something different, if you have recommendations for how you would like to see that, we are certainly open to that. Borton: Madam Mayor? It's just a thought and it's not -- I haven't gotten it from anywhere or anything. It just seems to me to be part of the process to give certainty and credibility to the end result, especially if rates are to increase. Especially at the magnitude that they are proposed. And even though it's not a capital improvement plan that's not adopted, in essence, at least in Public Works it is to the extent that it's components are used to derive a resulting assessment fee in this case. So, it's not a formal adoption, but in effect it is. So, it just seems like it's already a part of the process, that that could be woven into your schedule. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 25 of 37 Barry: Yeah. So, Councilman Borton, this is a great example of how too frequent of communication with the Council creates a situation where the process is sort of trumped by the communication. And what I mean by that is we have had for years a process where we would come in April or so and update you on the rates and fees and those types of things. That allows for us to close the books, as I mentioned earlier, revise the numbers for ending and beginning fund balances, carry forward the funds and also have this conversation that you're wanting to have on the capital plan. So, it happens typically at the end of the year and the beginning of the first of the next year. So, you would have already seen that information and by April we would have been talking about all of this stuff in light of having those conversations. The fact that we are here today is sort of out of the logical order that we have followed it the past and created the situation you're kind of responding to. You might recall last year when we made this recommendation the Council directed the staff to come every six months to the -- back to Council and revise or update you on these fees and those sorts of things and we mentioned that that could be difficult, because of the vary types of process things you're referring to. So, that is, in part, the reason why this may be difficult, because we are a little bit out of process and we would prefer to be having these conversations in the normal process, which is, essentially, March to April of each year for that very reason. Borton: Okay. I mean we are discuss -- it's just an idea. It seems to make sense. I don't -- Barry: It makes perfect sense. Borton: -- know if it's a conclusion or going back to that order -- there may be a reason that those that preceded me can -- can explain as to why this order is necessarily preferred. But, at any rate, it just seemed to make sense. You're doing it already, we are reviewing it, that it should be part of the process, but -- that was the short answer question, by the way. So, the long one -- if you can give a short one -- you probably can. It's on Slide 11. Barry: I don't have slide numbers, Councilman Borton. Borton: I can see it in the lower left. See lower left. Right there. Barry: This one? Okay. Borton: Yes. So, when you make reference to the lost capacity -- Barry: Uh-huh. Borton: -- if the -- if the treatment plant capacity is found to be 10.2 mgd, it seems as though that conclusion is based, all things being equal, on an assumption on the concentration of the load that goes into it. So, the question is what was that assumption that was utilized generally that has changed now because the concentration is so much -- so much greater that it effectively eliminated 1.5 mgd, which is massive. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 26 of 37 Barry: It is massive. Borton: So, is there an underlying assumption that 10.2 is based on? Has that been altered? Barry: Well, I want to be careful about assumptions versus the science behind it. So, when we had the treatment plant rated it was rated hydraulically. Borton: I mean that same way. Barry: Yeah. Okay. So, it was rated hydraulically and what that meant is how much -- how much volume could the treatment plant push through it and 10.2 was the hydraulic number that was given. What wasn't looked at at the time was how much could it effectively treat and meet the requirements of the NPDES permit. That's different than volume. That's load. And so those numbers weren't looked at. Essentially what we were required to rate the plan on was that flow limit. You might recall we had the flow limit in the NPDES permit and that flow limit was seven mgd and we went and did the hydraulic calculations to show that the treatment plant can produce or actually treat more than that hydraulically. We did not realize that the -- how significant that the impact of the load change was going to have on the effectiveness of the treatment plant and so the data that was used there was jar testing. For example, we looked at -- we did make an assumption, we actually looked at what the loads were and compared them to design and other criteria for the treatment plant to evaluate, essentially, what can it do separate of how much -- how much volume it can push, what can it do loadwise and still stay in compliance with the NPDES permit. So, it is a little different. Borton: Madam Mayor. That makes sense. I used the word assumption in the economics way, not -- Barry: Okay. Borton: -- like it's an assumption. I know there is science behind it. But the 10.2 is based just on the -- the ability to process without regard to the concentration -- Barry: Right. The volume that you can push through, whether it's -- whether it's distilled water or, you know, wastewater or whatnot, what's the volume you can push through -- Borton: Okay. Barry: -- not what can it do based on what it's got to perform to on the load standpoint. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Barry: Hopefully that helps. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 27 of 37 Borton: Yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I will stick my neck out and try and interpret something. At the time that the Council asked to have reports like this every six months maybe a year or so ago when we asked, there were an awful lot of unknowns and things that were likely to change, even in the period of six months. We didn't have a permit yet. We weren't confident that growth was going to bounce back yet and as those things have stabilized we do have the permit now and we only need to analyze that once. Growth is reasonably predictable I think, at least within some parameters and my suggestion would be to go back to the previous program of bringing these kind of reports once a year when it fits into the cycle that all the information is available. So, I understand what I believe the reason was to ask for more frequent reports. I'm not sure that's necessary anymore. It would be my suggestion that we retract that request. Barry: That would -- that would certainly help the department in getting you better information and in an order that is in alignment more with what Councilman Borton has suggested. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: We would all like an ideal world without changes. Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Is there a ballpark -- what kind of revenue are we talking about on a -- on a city wide scale? Does this change generate -- these are rounded estimates to what it creates? Barry: Right. So, we looked at that and we looked it over, essentially, a two year period in the model and I don't have those numbers right off the top of my head, other than to say I think on the wastewater with the full implementation, it's prett y darn close to 510,000 dollars over two years and on water it's somewhere around like four hundred and -- is it like ninety thousand or something to that effect. So, you're pushing close to a million dollars of additional revenue in a two year period, ha lf that for an annual number. That is predicated on what is an assumption and that is how many permits we are going to get on a future basis and that number is 1,100 ERUs or connections, which seems pretty close in alignment with what we have had over the last three or four year average. So, maybe that gives some context to what the impact is. Borton: Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Ms. Milam. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 28 of 37 Milam: Tom, are those numbers that you just said -- maybe -- and maybe you said it -- with the two years -- be half and half or is that if we had it once or -- I mean that number can change based on how -- Barry: Right. Yes. Councilman Milam, the -- the numbers that I gave were on full implementation. So, the first year if you halved the wastewater amount you would probably only receive about 490 plus half of the 510, which would put you at -- you know, I don't know -- yeah. Milam: Two fifty-five. Barry: Don't worry, I do the budget for the department, too. I'm not exactly sure, but somewhere on the order of maybe 700,000 or so. And, then, you get the full amount of close to the 900 and something over a million annually thereafter. So, you do lose -- roughly you lose about 250,000 in that first year, with an implementation over two years for the wastewater portion. I think that's where you -- okay. De Weerd: Okay. So, anything further from Council? What is the time frame that you are suggesting in your out reach activities and that sort of thing, Tom? Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The time frame that is on the screen now, essentially, we are requesting some direction tonight, so that we can know how to proceed and whether it is prudent or not to begin these conversations with the BCA as soon as their first meeting in January. If it is and we are allowed on their agenda in the -- at the first meeting in January, we would recommend a month to give them an opportunity to communicate and evaluate these impacts and be prepared to come for public comment to the City Council sometime in -- the 16th or so at the hearing in February. That would also allow a time to insert a focus group meeting to have conversations with impacted stakeholders and to help educate and inform and potentially evaluate differences or opportunities that maybe we haven't thought about in regards to how to finance these. So, ultimately, if the schedule we have on the screen here is implemented, then, we would be able to -- with your approval of whatever is suggested at the public hearing, be able to implement it as soon as the first of March. If the Council should so desire to give a -- sort of grace period to warm up to this of a few months, that would delay the implementation of the fee and, of course, the later the construction fees and you implement the fee, the bigger the impact of potential revenue losses as well. So, that's why we think communicating it pretty openly at this point in time is prudent to sort of allow for that period between now and the first of March, if this schedule is to be accepted or acceptable by the Council. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 29 of 37 Bird: Tom, I think -- I think the Council -- the schedule is very very good. Very doable. And it gives us plenty of time to receive comments and stuff, so -- I don't see anything wrong with -- at least we got a time schedule to get it done. Barry: Uh-huh. Bird: Instead of talking about it and doing it a year from now, but, you know, what's -- what's scheduled here I don't see anything wrong with it. Barry: Thank you, Mr. Bird. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want an update, Council, after the developer focus group, perhaps whatever the Council meeting is after that. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: For me I'm not certain how the -- a capital improvement plan discussion isn't woven into this still. So, for what it's worth. I mean if it delays it 60 days, that's not the end of the world. It's a more accurate, complete process. So, I mean the BCA and the developer focus meeting is fine. I just -- I'm not -- I haven't heard a compelling reason why that additional step isn't included. If it's done annually, if it's done around this time, if there is one -- otherwise, I would include that. I mean they can probably run parallel and maybe that presentation would occur in January or February anyway. De Weerd: Now, I guess with the NPDES activities and all the other things that we have heard from Public Works, is primarily -- and certainly the wastewater treatment plant, maybe a little bit less so and is though in water. We have seen that capital improvement list. I can't manage it's going to change a whole lot, because we have had so much focus on it to delay this, but certainly it's -- it's your purview. I just don't see how it's going to change significantly. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tom and Warren, I take it you got the CIP five year ready. You're getting -- you said they were putting it together now for us? Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. We have that five year capital improvement plan -- Bird: If you had it out on our desks within this week, there is no reason that this can't -- the capital improvement can't be presented to us in the January workshop. Shouldn't take too long. We have got plenty of time to look it over and, then, we can say the schedule. Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 30 of 37 I'm like the Mayor, I -- I think we -- to put it bluntly, we jack around too much on stuff, instead of doing it. First time we have had a schedule. Let's get it done. De Weerd: Just to clarify that, I'm not like the Mayor in that statement. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, I think it -- would that work, Warren, that you get those out and we -- we can schedule this for the January workshop, answer any questions -- okay? Does that work? Bird: Madam Mayor, one -- if I could say one more thing. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: One more thing. I'd like to get this implemented in March, so that these builders and developers -- their busiest time starts in April and they need -- they need to plan ahead and know what -- if the costs are going to be up higher and what they are going to be. So, I just think we -- I'd like to see us -- De Weerd: I think you need to start the conversation and -- Borton: Madam Mayor? D Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I don't disagree, but you have to be able to answer the question show me the math, show me how you got there and the CIP is part of that process. Barry: Well, it's not going to be a problem for Public Works to get you that information. It exists today. We can produce it today. Typically you would have that conversation this month's workshop, but in light of time to partner with the Finance Department and getting you General Fund CIP and Public Works CIP all at one time, that got pushed off. So, we can -- we can bring that to you as Mr. Bird suggested and we can begin to look at that information and we will have a stand -alone conversation if that's your desire in the January workshop and the General Fund, if it's ready, can maybe have it t hen. If not, they can have it another time. But in light of what's been discussed today we would be more than happy and prepared to present that information at the January workshop. De Weerd: Don't worry, I will tell Stacy. Barry: Okay. Thank you for that. I don't want to have a broken leg for Christmas. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 31 of 37 Barry: As far as -- Madam Mayor, if I may, the implementation schedule for the wastewater, is that something that the Council can agree to or is it rather -- did we presume too much and maybe you would rather have that all at once? I just want to be able to say to the developers as we communicate this with them kind of what the expectation of the Council at least or the feeling of the Council might be. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tom, don't you think you will get a feeling for the BCA and the focus group of whether they would accept the full or would like it split? I think the Council would be willing to go either way. Barry: Okay. If it's a viable option, Councilman Bird, then, we can present it as that and they can make their recommendation and we could bring that back to you. No problem. Let them know that they have got options. Sure. De Weerd: Okay. Barry: Thank you all. C. City Council Liaison/Committee Updates De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 7-C is under City Council liaison and committee updates. We will start with Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Okay. Well, let's see. You have heard from the Public Works Department and -- De Weerd: Is your microphone on? Zaremba: -- there is a lot of important work going on there. I don't believe I have anything to add to that. The Legal Department is continuing to do what they do , save us all from making mistakes that's appreciated. I would like to focus a little bit on Valley Regional Transit. As a board member and Councilman Rountree is a board member, we need to make two replacements there. It would be nice to have a couple of people that are very enthusiastic about public transportation or public mobility I will call it, including alternates. VRT does good work. Their meetings are informative and helpful. Generally the first Monday of the month the executive board meets. They also have a full board meet ing once every quarter, the first Monday of the quarter. So, you can spend more time than that if you want, but it's not necessarily an everyday thing that you have to do and I do have the schedule if anybody wants to look at it, but it would be helpful -- it actually isn't necessary that our board members be council members, that's not a Valley Regional Transit rule. As a matter of fact, I was a board member all the time that I was on the planning and zoning before I was here. So, that’s not one of thei r requirements, we have Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 32 of 37 always had at least one of the members be a council member and I agree with that. It doesn't mean the second has to be. And, then, we also have two alternates, which probably will continue to be Caleb and Bruce Chatterton, so that we are able to attend the meetings and have a vote, even if the primary member can't make it. But I just want to make sure that our connection with VRT doesn't drop and it would be helpful to have some interest in it on the part of the Council and I -- since we actually don't transfer until the first Tuesday in January, their meeting next month is before that and I plan to attend, but if we have some idea of who is go ing to be replacing myself and Councilman Rountree, I would invite them to join me at tha t meeting. They certainly could go and become known. So, if anybody is interested let me know. The process is the Mayor needs to appoint you and the Council needs to pass a resolution. VRT requires a resolution of the Council for their board members, so that's the process that you certainly could come to the January meetings with me. Let me know. De Weerd: Thank you, David. Zaremba: And I'm happy to talk to anybody that wants to know, you know, what the process is, what the commitment is. I have also had Elaine Clegg, who is a city councilman in Boise and Jim Hansen, who is a -- an ACHD commissioner, volunteer to talk to whoever for Meridian would -- would be interested to talk about the commitment and enthusiasm is as well. So, you can ask me o r if you don't think you will be able to handle my enthusiasm for it, you can talk to either of the other two people as well. That's it for me. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor, we have a good historic preservation commission. Had a great planning meeting last -- what is today? Last week. Really good talking about -- Hillary and Blaine and the commission led a good discussion about trying to assist developers in incentivizing downtown development where more of the historic bui ldings are, without impeding the ability to do so and encouraging preservation of historical components of the properties and the places in doing so. One of the questions that they wrestled with, which the council can comment on is, you know, was there a desire and appetite to investigate an historic preservation district, that general concept and kind of the pros and cons of that type of regulation within certain boundaries, primarily around downtown, because of the age of the properties or take a less regulatory approach and focus on opportunities to educate developers and brokers and landowners in ways that they can improve their properties without tearing them down, preserving their history, and becoming a little more educated in some of the opportunities that are even more cost effective than you think. It was a great discussion. It seemed to lean more towards empowering and educating folks in the ability. Madam Mayor was present as well and that seemed to be more the focus, to try and have the historic preservation commission become more active in that education and empowerment role with those that might want to develop in the city and in particular downtown, which I thought was a great focus that they brought to the discussion. With regards to fire, the chief and I met yesterday with -- the union negotiation process and plan is continuing. The master plan process is continuing. Some of us Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 33 of 37 participated in interviews with the consultant, provided some feedback on some opportunities and challenges that the district has. We talked -- at least I did with him about the -- the challenges and regional master planning with some partner agencies participating more and less than others and the impact that could have on the output. If you don't have every agency participating necessarily. I'm not certain when the final result end product is going to be done, but that was most of the focus this month. Niemeyer: Commissioner Borton, that will be April is the final. Borton: Okay. A lot of work to be done. So, that's the update that I have got. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Well, the past month I didn't have much liaisoning to do with the Mayor in another continent, but I did have opportunity to make a couple of administrative decisions with respect to staffing and I think that they were pleased with that and one discussion with one department head that it probably was not at his particular pleasure, but other than those administrative activities, not an awful lot happened in the liaison field. The November air quality board meeting was canceled, because of lack of quorum and that seems to be a bit of a problem with that particular organization, David, and I don't know how to get around it. Haven't heard yet if we are going to have one in December. Zaremba: We actually are not having a December meeting either. Rountree: Maybe not in December, but that's -- that's a committee that needs a new elected official on, maybe two -- yeah. Two. A citizen and an elected official. David is the director, but that needs to be done and probably this month would be a good time to get that thought about and get some candidates and interest shown. At COMPAS S I will bring good news that a new transportation bill has been passed by the house and senate and this was actually signed by the president on Friday. It is a five year bill that's called the FAST Act. Fix America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015. Again, it's a five year. It does put additional monies in transportation. I have not heard how the formula distribution will affect Idaho, but there is going to be more -- appears to be more money available for locals from -- from some of the funds that have been identified in that bill, which is a good thing. First long-term bill since about 2004 or '5. Something other than a two year bill or a two year extension. COMPASS's and VRT's joint annual meeting and holiday celebration -- Christmas celebration, if you will, is coming up this month. Do you have the date of that, David? Zaremba: On the 21st, I believe. Rountree: Yeah. It is on Monday, the 21st, in Nampa at noon. I think folks that are interested in either COMPASS or VRT probably ought to try to attend that. It's also a board meeting. That, along with the Air Quality Board and VRT and the COMPASS spot that I occupy needs to be filled, along the same lines as what David indicated. That does Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 34 of 37 not necessarily have to be an elected official, but it has to be recognized by the City Council. I have offered to the Mayor that I would continue to serve on that board, if that's the pleasure of the Council. It happens to be one area that I particular ly enjoy, the transportation field, but if there was interest I would certainly encourage some folks to show that. Trying to think what else. Oh. Down to two meetings . The slide to retirement is getting shorter and shorter and quicker and quicker and looking forward to the opportunity to take off in January and get out of this nasty weather system we are having and hopefully get into some sunshine. And welcome back, Mayor. We have talked a little bit about your trip. It sounds like a wonderful experience. It's one that I hope to get the opportunity to do in the next few years. Again, things went smoothly. We talked about what little bit went on and the city seems to run pretty much like a pretty well tuned watch and I appreciated staff and their support through that time and at all times. So, looking forward to the Christmas holiday to be over with and the tensions and whatnot that that brings about and the fun that it brings with the family that we can anticipate being together and having those wonderful times. So, that I will wrap up my comments on the city council liaisonee workshop comments. De Weerd: Thanks for the countdown, Mr. Rountree. It reminds us. Just -- I did have a good break and certainly during my travels I know our director team sometimes cringes when I come back from a vacation, because I'm usually loaded with great ideas or observations and I certainly have some observations that I saw from the communities and cities that I was able to visit. So, I will be sharing those as they apply. I have hit the ground running. We did have our work group 20-26 meet. We have established three different subcommittees within that group as we look at amount community, the ITD board, and legislative. So, those groups have established themselves and did have some initial comment. Caleb did define each of the working groups and drafted a brief discussion or description of what their focus areas and goals will be and so we -- we got good participation with that. So, they are moving forward and focused on the three priorities of ITD and safety, the economic impacts and mobility. Our school funding work group will be meeting I think next week and their last meeting happened while I was out of town. They had some legislators there that spoke with them and next meet ing will have Tommy Ahlquist there that will be bringing -- he's been involved in a work group that has done outreach to evaluate what other states were doing in terms of school funding and growth and how community systems are keeping up with it. So, that should be an interesting conversation. We continue -- our directors have continued to work on the strategic plan. You should have received all of the worksheets that will be on the agenda for next week and next week we also have our Ada County Highway District joint meeting. I met with the director yesterday to discuss the agenda items and we are deep in the legislative issues that possibly can come up in the upcoming months and both our team, as well as the Association of Idaho Cities to anticipate what we might expect in the upcoming session. Now we are working to pull together the annual report and starting on State of the City activities. So, I will say that MYAC is also gearing up for their legislative breakfast and also starting to plan for Ignite Youth, as well as their Christmas party next week. So, they are very busy, as is the senior advisory board. We will be getting the grant from the CDBG to develop our resource guide applicable to seniors in Meridian. We have a number of resource guides that we can pull information from . They have had Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 35 of 37 discussion on appropriate distribution and we did get permission from HUD to be able to have that as an online guide, which was good news that we will be able to publish it online as well for our citizens. So, a lot activity from both the senior advisory board and the Youth Advisory Council. Mr. Bird. Bird: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The Parks Department we already heard a nice presentation today from it and I publicly want to thank Steve and his staff for the beautiful float they put together for us. De Weerd: Oh, my gosh. Bird: And I know I speak for Councilman Zaremba and Councilman Borton and his wife and Mayor Tammy and Gen and certainly -- Genesis and Tristan and Marge and I, we -- we so appreciated that, Steve. Will you pass that onto your guys. They did -- they did a beautiful job on that. I mean they went above and beyond, as they always do on that. Our Finance Department is getting the audit done. Rita thought that by the end of January that they would probably be done with it and it would start coming back to us, so the March 1st date we should hit pretty easily, if not sooner. MDC is -- we had a presentation from -- from Phil and Bruce and -- regarding the new Ten Mile district and which they are going to present to us as a Council and, then, the MDC will make their recommendation -- their formal recommendation at that time. With that, Mr. Zaremba and Mr. Rountree, you have go two and a half meetings. You got to be here in January. Milam: He's always out of town that month. De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Well, believe it or not, I don't have a huge long list today. The police chiefs are finishing up their conference through Wednesday over at the training center. Four officers are finishing their advanced training next week. They will hit the streets the week of Christmas. Many other testing processes to fill open support positions and all is going well at police. There is nothing going on in IT or clerks. Same old same old working hard and making sure that everything runs right. If you notice, traffic boxes are starting to look really beautiful around here. The arts commission is just wrapping them as fast as they can with some -- with some student art and they are really looking good, So, keep your eyes open for new ones, they are coming all the time. That's about it for me. De Weerd: Thank you. And, Steve, I would like to -- to join Keith in giving kudos to your staff, not just the float, but the bazaar, to the parade, to the beautiful tree, to the festival that follows the parade -- just the beautiful decorations out in the -- in our plaza. I had the opportunity and honor to recognize a couple of Steve's employees for longevity awards and I shared with his work team that they -- they have everything to do with infusing the Christmas spirit in our community in so many different ways that it's just a true joy and I wanted to make sure that they didn't look at the month of December with great chagrin that -- or dread, that they truly have the spirit of Christmas and they wore that with great pride. So, that winterland parade -- or winter lights parade was the best ever. I think Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 36 of 37 every single entry in that was just top notch. It was a class -- a very classy parade and thank you, Mr. Borton, for your sponsorship -- you and your partners, it's great to have this as building that community spirit. You saw organizations and churches and businesses and individuals -- we had a band and that was so awesome. We need to get our schools out -- our school bands and get them marching in that. Having the Christmas music was awesome. But what an amazing community that we live in and, yeah, no wonder we are the number one community to live in this -- in this nation and it's because of all the different efforts. The Meridian symphony -- I don't know if any of you went to that, but that was -- every year I swear they get better. You think can they really do that, can they get better again next year and sure enough they do and they even put up with me and they call that a tradition now. So, I love being part of their tradition. It's a great place to live. So, I will -- yes. Bird: Steve, I was absolutely shocked -- and I think all of us on the float were shocked, the amount of people that were out on a Friday night, not -- you know, not the warmest of anything, but we had a great, great attendance and that -- and, you know, we give them a program that was second to none. I think -- I think that's just fantastic. The City of Meridian is blessed to have two of the finest parades this state sees. I mean we know the dairy show is the largest one in the state and this has got to be one of the classiest, if not the classiest. So, tell your guys they just -- first class on everything. Tammy hit it right on the head. De Weerd: I guess, Steve -- and I should read the ValleyTimes, but could you perhaps come up here and tell us who won? Because I had that question today. One of the -- Bird: Do you know, Frank? De Weerd: Oh. Buckle up for Bobby asked me if I knew who won and I don't. Milam: Maybe City Council. De Weerd: Did the City Council float win? Bird: Did the City Council win, our float? De Weerd: I'm sorry, but you can't talk from back there, because Dean will not have it. Oh, the Women in Construction float was awesome. Siddoway: I will verify the winners and e-mail that to everyone. I think Women in Construction won one of them. I don't know who all the winners were, though. So, I will find out the list and get that out to you. De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: But thank you. Obviously, many hands go into this and a couple other efforts going on right now worthy of acknowledgment. The Santa's mailbox out front, there is a Meridian City Council Workshop December 8, 2015 Page 37 of 37 huge volunteer effort going on with that and, then, Garrett's volleyball fundraisers, which is also a fantastic Christmas event. There is lots going on, of course, this time of year. De Weerd: Yeah. I don't know if all of you know that the tournaments -- the funds that are raised in that always get turned back into the community. In the past it's been in partnership with the Kiwanis and this year with Head Start. So, if any you have free time, they are wrapping and there is a lot of presents to wrap and so kudos to Garrett on that and the Santa's letters -- last year they had 850 letters that were written to the kids that submitted letters to Santa and I imagine because of the -- the popularity last year, the additional questions that parks has received, they will break that record again. So, if you have legible handwriting and would like to -- oh, help Santa, always looking for volunteers to help Santa. Item 8: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Okay. Anything for future meeting agenda topics that we haven't already discussed? Okay. I would enter a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:07 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TAMW De WEERD ATTEST: EL.-IOLMAN, CITY CLE b, 0 SRI ..-• D ;S ,D n UCUs1.,, r City of SEAL �w l���Ihe TRE NS��� Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 1"URM 11-1 -14 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda Interagency Agreement Between the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian for the Replacement of Wafer Valve Lids with the 2016 Arterial and Collector Capitol Maintenance Projects MEETING NOTES "'v Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS IDIAN'�E �- Public IDAHO Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Austin Petersen — Transportation and Utility Coordinator DATE: November 23, 2015 Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Memberft Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam David Zaremba SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WATER VALVE LIDS WITH THE 2016 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR CAPITOL MAINTENANCE PROJECTS I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: Approve the attached agreement for with the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator 489-0352 Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350 Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372 III. DESCRIPTION A. Background ACHD will be overlaying Stratford Road between Franklin Road and Central Drive as part of their 2016 Capital Maintenance program. As a utility within the public right of way, the City is responsible for adjustment of water infrastructure to allow for roadway projects. There are 18 water valves in Stratford Drive that will need to be adjusted and re -collared with the ACHD overlay. The Water Department does not have the manpower to do these adjustments in house. Page I of 2 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF WATER VALVE LIDS 2016 Arterial & Collector Capital Maintenance ACHD PROJECT NO. 513029.018 + V� THIS INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT made and entered into ' this day of DP eembW , 2015, by and between the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a highway district organized under the laws of the State of Idaho and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("MERIDIAN" or "City"), regarding ACHD Project no. 513029.018. RECITALS WHEREAS, ACHD is a single county -wide highway district, a public entity, organized and existing pursuant to Idaho Code Title 40, Chapter 14, as amended and supplemented, with the exclusive jurisdiction and authority to maintain, improve, regulate and operate public _ rights-of-way in Ada County; WHEREAS, City is a municipal corporation organized and operating pursuant to Idaho Code Title 50, as amended and supplemented with jurisdiction, authority and police power to regulate and control municipal activities within the City; WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-2332 provides that one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform, provided that such contract is authorized by the governing body of each party and that such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, objectives and responsibilities of the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT and MERIDIAN desire to undertake a cooperative effort to incorporate into the DISTRICT'S road construction projects known as the 2016 Arterial and Collector Capital Maintenance Project ("Project" or "Project Boundaries"), certain modifications or improvements to City owned facilities, including adjusting water valve lids to grade ("City Water Valve Improvements") as detailed in Project no. 513029.018, to be constructed pursuant to a separately -executed agreement between DISTRICT and the selected Contractor ("CONTRACT"); and WHEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to accommodate MERIDIAN'S request by including the City Water Valve Improvements in the Project plans, subject to the terms, conditions and obligations set forth in this Agreement and so long as DISTRICT receives assurances by the City that it will fully reimburse DISTRICT for all actual costs including, without limitation, any indirect costs and expenses that DISTRICT incurs as a result of the additional work attributable to the modification or installation of the City Water Valve Improvements within the Project Boundaries. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Page 1 of 8 1. DISTRICT SHALL: a. Be the party responsible for soliciting, receiving and opening of bids and for executing and administering the construction CONTRACT for the roadway reconstruction and City Water Valve Improvements referenced herein, which CONTRACT shall include, inter alia, a provision that all work required for the City Water Valve Improvements shall be performed in conformance with the most current edition of the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) and the most current City of MERIDIAN Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. b. Provide MERIDIAN with a complete set of combined bid documents for the roadway reconstruction, and for the City Water Valve Improvements. c. Furnish MERIDIAN with an abstract of all bids received, and obtain MERIDIAN'S written concurrence with DISTRICT'S recommendation for award of the CONTRACT prior to making such award. MERIDIAN'S concurrence shall specifically acknowledge that the City Water Valve Improvements are and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If MERIDIAN does not concur, DISTRICT shall remove the City Water Valve Improvements and if necessary, rebid the Project. MERIDIAN shall be responsible and shall reimburse DISTRICT for any and all costs suffered by DISTRICT attributable to the removal of the City Water Valve Improvements from the Project and if applicable, the rebidding of the Project. d. Include in the CONTRACT, a term providing that MERIDIAN will have the right and authority to work directly with the Contractor to resolve any claims relating in any way to the City Water Valve Improvements and that any such claims will be reviewed, approved or denied by MERIDIAN. e. Coordinate with MERIDIAN should any changes be made to DISTRICT's portion of the CONTRACT or work pursuant thereto that does or may impact the City Water Valve Improvements. Make monthly progress payments and the final CONTRACT payment to the Contractor in conformance with the terms of the construction CONTRACT. g. Submit to MERIDIAN a copy of each design consultant billing attributable to the City Water Valve Improvements if applicable and Contractor progress payment estimate, and the final CONTRACT payment estimate, as such estimates -are approved by DISTRICT after obtaining MERIDIAN'S concurrence regarding MERIDIAN'S portion of the CONTRACT, together with an invoice for MERIDIAN'S share of the construction CONTRACT costs earned by and to be paid to the Contractor. h. As applicable, provide for the reference and replacement of all pre-existing survey monuments within the Project. Provide the field survey and grade control necessary for construction of the roadway. Centerline or offsets and stationing shall be established prior to the City staking any Page 2 of 8 sanitary sewer or potable water service lines, water valve boxes, manhole locations, and other City facilities. j. At the conclusion of the Project, submit to MERIDIAN written documentation of expenditures with an invoice for payment of all costs and expenses the DISTRICT incurs, in addition to those provided under paragraph 1.g. above, as a result of the additional work attributed to the City Water Valve Improvements within the Project Boundaries, including but not limited to, costs or changed conditions, plan errors and omissions, and delays attributable to design and/or installation of the City Water Valve Improvements. 2. MERIDIAN SHALL: a. Provide the inspection required for the installation of all City Water Valve Improvements incorporated into the Project and installed and adjusted under the CONTRACT and provide copies of appropriate tests and construction diaries to the District Project Representative as designated by DISTRICT. b. Provide DISTRICT with the special provisions if applicable, and stamped plans, bid quantities and an Engineers Estimate (or pursuant to Paragraph 1.g. pay the DISTRICT the actual cost if the DISTRICT'S design consultant prepares the same) for the City Water Valve Improvements to be incorporated into the Project and included in the bid documents for the CONTRACT (all work required for the City Water Valve Improvements to be performed in accordance with the most current edition of the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC), the City's Supplemental Specifications to, the ISPWC, and the City's Revisions to the Standard Specifications). c. Remit to DISTRICT, within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the date of any invoice referenced in paragraph 1.g., all funds for which MERIDIAN is responsible pursuant to the approved progress payment estimate and the final CONTRACT payment estimate. d. Remit to DISTRICT, within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the date of invoice referenced in paragraph 1.j., all funds for which MERIDIAN is responsible pursuant to this Agreement. e. Reimburse DISTRICT five percent (5%) of MERIDIAN'S construction costs attributable to the City Water Valve Improvements as payment toward the additional costs incurred by DISTRICT, including overhead and benefits, and project administration costs which include but are not limited to: public advertisement of the Project, supplying bid plans, supplying construction plans, preparing and holding the preconstruction meeting, generating monthly pay estimates and paying the Contractor, preparing change orders, general construction project oversight, and maintaining construction project files. f. Reimburse DISTRICT for mobilization, traffic control, flagging, detours and weekly meetings on a prorated basis. The prorated basis for the above items will be Page 3 of 8 calculated using the percentage of MERIDIAN'S project costs as they relate to the total project construction costs. g. Provide (at City's sole costs) trench compaction testing for the City Water Valve Improvements from one -foot (1') above the pipe zone to sub -grade of the roadway section; trench compaction testing shall be provided at the minimum frequency rate of one (1) test per one thousand (1,000) lineal feet, minimum one (1) for every three (3) transverse trenches; provide all re -testing required in any area that does not meet CONTRACT requirements; and provide copies of tests for the area along the alignment of the pipeline to the designated DISTRICT representative. h. Be liable for the cost of repairing any trench failure attributable to the City Water Valve Improvements within the Project Boundaries, and be liable for and indemnify, defend and hold DISTRICT harmless for any and all costs, claims, and damages resulting from any such trench failure. Reimburse DISTRICT for any additional costs to DISTRICT over and above costs specifically enumerated herein, where such costs are attributable to the installations, adjustments, relocations and abandonments of the City Water Valve Improvements or to the removal of any or all items from the CONTRACT that are associated with the installation of the City Water Valve Improvements. Indemnify, save harmless and defend regardless of outcome, DISTRICT from expenses and against suites, actions, claims or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees caused by or arising out of any negligent acts by MERIDIAN'S officers, employees, agents or contractors while acting within the course and scope of their employment, which arise from or which are in any way connected to the City Water Valve Improvements. Such indemnification hereunder by MERIDIAN shall in no event cause the liability of MERIDIAN for any negligent act to exceed the amount of loss, damages, or expenses of attorney fees attributable to such negligent act, and shall not apply to loss, damages, expenses or attorney fees attributable to the negligence of DISTRICT. This duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless is subject to the limitations of Idaho law, including Article VIII Section 3, Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code Title 6 Chapter 9 (the Idaho Tort Claims Act), and to any other limitations set forth in the Agreement. k. Work directly with the Contractor to resolve any claims relating in any way to the City Water Valve Improvements; any and all such claims will be reviewed, approved or denied by MERIDIAN, and MERIDIAN shall indemnify, save harmless and defend regardless of outcome, DISTRICT from expenses and against suites, actions, claims or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees caused by or arising out of any and all such claims regardless of the outcome of the City's efforts to resolve said claims with the Contractor. 3. THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE THAT: Page 4 of 8 a. In accordance with Idaho Code § 67-2332, the purposes, powers, rights and objectives of each of the parties are as set forth in the Recitals above. Each of the Recitals above is incorporated into the body of this Agreement. b. The amount to be reimbursed to DISTRICT by MERIDIAN for MERIDIAN'S portion of the Project shall be based on the actual quantities of work acceptably performed and/or installed, as determined from field measurements made by MERIDIAN, and paid for pursuant to the unit, and or lump sum prices, established in the CONTRACT. c. DISTRICT shall obtain MERIDIAN 'S approval prior to commencement of any change order work involving the installations, adjustments, relocations and abandonments of City water valve facilities. d. Prior to commencement of work by the Contractor, the parties will, together with the Contractor, inspect within the entire Project Boundaries for the purpose of reviewing the Project to locate any unstable areas and to resolve any items of concern or misunderstanding. e. This Agreement may not be enlarged, modified, amended or altered except in writing signed by both of the parties hereto. f. All signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the power to execute this Agreement and to bind the agency they represent to the terms of this Agreement. g. Should either party to this Agreement be required to commence legal action against the other to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in said action. h. Any action at law, suit in equity, arbitration or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement shall be instituted only in the courts of the State of Idaho, County of Ada. L This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the personal representatives, heirs and assigns of the respective parties hereto. j. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be an indebtedness or liability in violation of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. k. The validity, meaning and effect of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. I. This Agreement and the exhibits hereto constitute the full and entire understanding and agreement between the parties with regard to the transaction contemplated herein, and no party shall be liable or bound to the other in any manner by any representations, warranties, covenants or agreements except as specifically set forth herein. Page 5 of 8 m. The promises, covenants, conditions and agreements herein contained shall be binding on each of the parties hereto and on all parties and all persons claiming under them or any of them; and the rights and obligations hereof shall inure to the benefit of each of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. n. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. o. The failure of a party to insist on the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy upon a breach hereof shall not constitute a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or limit such party's right to enforce any provision or exercise any right. No acknowledgments required hereunder, and no modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement or consent to departure therefrom, shall be effective unless in writing and signed by DISTRICT and MERIDIAN. p. The headings used in this Agreement are used for convenience only and are not to be considered in construing or interpreting this Agreement. q. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute one and the same. r. The parties hereto agree that nothing herein contained shall be construed to create a joint venture, partnership or other similar relationship which might subject any party to liability for the debts and/or obligations of the others, except as otherwise expressly agreed in this Agreement. s. This Agreement is not intended to create, nor shall it in any way be interpreted or construed to create, any third -party beneficiary rights in any person not a party hereto. t. All parties have been represented by legal counsel, and no party shall be deemed to be the drafter of this Agreement for purposes of interpreting an ambiguity against the drafter. u. Time shall be of the essence for all events and obligations to be performed under this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, in the event that MERIDIAN does not timely comply with any of its obligations hereunder, DISTRICT shall have no obligation whatsoever to incorporate, facilitate, and/or complete the City Water Valve Improvements, regardless of whether prior approval has been given by DISTRICT to MERIDIAN. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year herein first written. ATTEST: I ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Page 6 of 8 Page 7 of 8 Bruce—_i Jif D. Hansen Director �c° �90 President, Board of Commissioners ATTEST: ' Cilyof E'j IDTA I Y OF MERIDIAN y �F� ALy �r Jaycee L. Holman Tammy L':'de-weerd City Clerk Mayor Page 7 of 8 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ADA ) On this day of Ne-eA71,40'— , 2015, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared JIM D. HANSEN and BRUCE WONG, President of the Board of Commissioners and Director respectively of the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for and on behalf of said body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first abovet 494.4 ••G�.t L. Ii,pb••, "PP • NV•r 1.1oTAR P 1 Notary Pub '..r Idaho s BL1 •4,0 Residing at a Idaho •••F of 1pP•••••• My commission expiresAugust 13,2019 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ADA ) On this day of ----CACC.-rn bur , 2015,J be ore e, the undersigned, personally appeared TAMMY L. DE WEERD and : - . - : _ Mayor and City Clerk respectively of MERIDIAN CITY, a municipal corporation, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for and on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ••,..n•......,, '••.•`P SHIFPF'•••, (19ci sik V ti•• )04� •••••�'.•'� Notary Public for Idaho •••,�'TATE off.•• Residing at '/// ,' i .d_at�,; Idaho wn,*****0• ° My commission expires: g' -X z, Page 8 of 8 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Professional Services Agreement for Fabrication and Installation of Main Street and Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount Not -to -Exceed $40,000.00 MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION HX DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF MAIN STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE PUBLIC ART PROJECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION MAIN STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE PUBLIC ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this -�- day of December, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Danielle Foushee, an individual whose address is 3305 141st Street Southeast, Mill Creek, Washington ("Artist"). (City and Artist may hereinafter be collectively referred to as "Parties.") WHEREAS, City desires that public art will be a component of the Meridian community and to that end, the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") issued the Call to Artists — Request for Proposals attached hereto as Exhibit A, and sought artists' proposals for a public art installation at the southeast corner of Main Street and Fairview Avenue, in Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, a selection panel, comprised of representatives of MAC, the Meridian Development Corporation, and City staff reviewed the responses to the Call to Artists — Request for Proposals, and selected Artist's proposal for an art installation entitled "Canopy of Color," as set forth in Exhibit B hereto ("Artwork"), as one of three finalists; WHEREAS, following a public comment period, selection panel review and recommendation to MAC that Artist's proposal be installed, and MAC's recommendation to the Meridian City Council that Artist's proposal be installed, the Meridian City Council did adopt such recommendation at its regular meeting on August 25, 2015; and NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Artist shall design and fabricate at least three (3) metal and acrylic "trees," as described and depicted in Exhibit B, and shall install such Artwork at the triangular parcel of land at the intersection of Main Street and Fairview Avenue in Meridian, Idaho ("Site"). The Parties acknowledge and agree that the design of Artwork shall include, though shall not be limited to, the following design elements: A. The "trunk" of the "trees" comprising Artwork shall by cylindrical in shape. B. The "leaves" of the "trees" comprising Artwork shall be round. C. Each "tree" shall feature a different combination of two distinct colors. Artwork design, fabrication, and installation, and Site restoration (including restoration of irrigation, landscaping, pathway, and curbing) shall comply in all respects with established engineering standards, Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, all established policies and ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District, and the direction of the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department Director or his designee. Artist shall engage an independent testing agency to test and inspect construction materials and methods of Artwork. Artist shall also submit a project installation Erosion Sediment Control Plan to City for review. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 1 Of 25 II. COMPENSATION. A. Total amount. The total payment to Artist for the design, fabrication, and installation of the Artwork shall be forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00). This amount shall constitute full compensation for any and all services, travel, materials, shipping, contingency, commission, artist fee, and costs of work to be performed or furnished by Artist. B. Method of payment. Artist shall provide to City one (1) completed W-9 form, and invoices for services and/or materials provided pursuant to the payment schedule set forth herein, which City shall pay within thirty (30) days of receipt. City shall not withhold any federal or state income taxes or Social Security tax from any payment made by City to Artist under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums shall be the sole responsibility of Artist. C. Payment schedule. Artist shall be paid pursuant to the following benchmarks: City Approval of Detailed Plan: $10,000.00 shall be paid to Artist within thirty (30) days of the City Project Manager's approval of Artist's detailed plan for fabrication of the Artwork and installation of the Artwork at the Site ("Detailed Plan"). The Detailed Plan shall include: a. Detailed project timeline; b. Detailed, to -scale site plan for the installation of the Artwork at Site; c. Plan for obtaining any and all necessary permits or approvals from the City of Meridian for the installation of the Artwork, which may include Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Community Development Department/Planning Division; permitting and inspection by the Community Development Department/Building Services Division; and coordination with the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department regarding landscaping and utilities; d. Plan for obtaining any and all necessary permits or approvals by Ada County Highway District; e. Construction drawings and structural calculations for the Artwork, reviewed and stamped by an engineer certified in the state of Idaho; f. Erosion Sediment Control Plan for Artwork installation; g. Plan for engaging an independent testing agency to test and inspect construction materials and methods; and h. Plan for site restoration following Artwork installation. 2. Fabrication of Artwork: $10,000.00 shall be paid to the Artist within thirty (30) days of completion of fabrication of the artwork, or all components thereof, as demonstrated to, and approved in writing by, the City Project Manager. 3. Final Completion: $20,000.00 shall be paid to the Artist within thirty (30) days of Final Completion, which shall be defined as: a. Complete installation of the completed Artwork at the Site, as confirmed by the City Project Manager; b. Artist's submission to the City Project Manager of a recommended maintenance plan for the Artwork; PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 2 of 25 c. Execution of a mutually agreed-upon acceptance agreement to include Artist's indemnification of City and express waiver of Artist's right, title, or interest in the Artwork, which agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney's Office; d. Waivers of lien from any and all sub -contractors and major materials suppliers, as approved by Meridian City Council; e. Report from an independent testing agency approving construction materials and methods; and f. Final inspection and approval of the installation of Artwork at the Site by the City Project Manager and by City of Meridian Community Development Services Department/Building Services Division, which may include, at the discretion of the Building Official. III. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. A. Timeline. In addition to the benchmarks set forth in the timeline prepared by Artist as part of the Detailed Plan, the Parties shall meet the following deadlines: By 5:00 p.m., December 11, 2015: Artist shall complete Submission of the Detailed Plan to the City Project Manager. The City Project Manager shall review, request modifications as necessary, and approve the Detailed Plan, either as submitted or as modified pursuant to mutual agreement, within fourteen (14) days of receipt thereof. 2. By 5:00 p.m., April 29, 2016: Artist shall complete Fabrication of the Artwork and obtain written approval of same by the City Project Manager. The City Project Manager shall approve, or approve as modified, such fabrication within fourteen (14) days of Artist's notice of such completion. Prior to issuing approval, the City Project Manager shall determine, without limitation, that the Artwork as fabricated is in keeping with Artist's representations as set forth in the proposal set forth in Exhibit B. Non -material design refinements and/or improvements shall be left to the discretion of the Artist. 3. By 5:00 p.m., July 1, 2016: With prior approval and all necessary permits and/or permissions, Artist shall be responsible for installing Artwork to a stage at which City can utilize the Artwork for its intended use ("Substantial Completion"). Artist shall immediately notify the City Project Manager of any delay that occurs or is anticipated to affect the installation. Following Substantial Completion, Artist shall schedule a Substantial Completion inspection by the City of Meridian Project Manager and the City of Meridian Community and Development Services Department/Building Services Division. Following the Substantial Completion inspection, the City Project Manager shall prepare and submit to Artist a comprehensive list of tasks or items to be completed or corrected prior to Final Completion. Failure to include a task or item on such list shall not alter the Artist's responsibility to complete the Artwork in accordance with Exhibit B and the Detailed Plan. 4. By 5:00 p.m., July 11, 2016: Artist shall be responsible for Final Completion. The City Project Manager may extend the date of Final Completion for a reasonable amount of time only if such delay is due to circumstances and events beyond the control of Artist or pursuant to a written agreement by the Parties. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 3 of 25 5. By 11:59 p.m., July 26,2016: Provided that Artist has completed Final Completion, as provided herein, City shall execute Final Acceptance of the Artwork, which shall be signified by City's adoption of a resolution indicating that the City accepts the delivery of the Artwork as designed, fabricated, and installed. B. Time of the essence. The Parties acknowledge that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. C. Inspection. The Artist shall provide the City Project Manager and/or City with reasonable opportunities to review the progress of the Artwork to ensure compliance with the timeline and the proposal as described and depicted in Exhibit B hereto or as mutually agreed by the Parties in writing, upon City Project Manager's request. If during such inspection, or in the course of the approval processes required herein, the City Project Manager or City concludes that the Artwork or any portion or component thereof do not conform to the timeline or to the proposal as described and depicted in Exhibit B hereto or as mutually agreed by the Parties in writing, notice of the specific non -conformity and request for Artist to address the specified non- conformity shall be given to Artist in writing as soon as practicable. Artist shall have fourteen (14) days to address and correct any non -conformity. If, upon City Project Manager's re- inspection, the City Project Manager concludes that the Artwork or the nonconforming portion or component thereof remain nonconforming, termination procedures may commence. City's failure to disapprove in writing shall constitute presumptive approval of the Artwork as inspected. IV. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. A. Two years following Final Acceptance. Artist shall be fully responsible for all parts and workmanship of the Artwork for a period of two (2) years after City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, and during such time shall replace any defective parts and/or rework any defective craftsmanship in a timely fashion at no cost to City, except that during such period Artist shall not be required to replace or repair any damage to the Artwork caused by City's employees or by an act of God. B. Determination of need for repair. At all times, including the first two years following Final Acceptance, City shall make any and all determinations regarding whether the Artwork' parts and/or craftsmanship require maintenance, restoration, or repair. Artist may be asked to provide input regarding such matters, but all decisions regarding the need for maintenance, restoration, or repair shall be made by City. C. Maintenance, restoration, and repair. City shall provide basic maintenance, restoration, and repair of the Artwork at City's cost. In the event that the Artwork is damaged or destroyed, in whole or in part, City may, at its sole election, restore the Artwork, subject to receipt of any insurance proceeds and availability of sufficient funds. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MAIN & FAIRVJEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 4 Of 25 V. CREATION, INTEGRITY, AND OWNERSHIP OF ARTWORK. A. Waiver and relinquishment of rights. Between Artist's Final Completion and City's Final Acceptance, Artist shall expressly waive any and all right, title, or interest in the Artwork. Artist understands that this waiver shall include waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Artist agrees to relinquish any and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork developed in connection with this Agreement, and hereby expressly waives any rights Artist has to the Artwork, including, but not limited to, the rights afforded artists under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Artist understands and agrees that the right of attribution and integrity, as specifically set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106A, are hereby expressly waived except as otherwise provided herein. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement differ with the Copyright Act of 1976 and Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, the provisions of this Agreement will govern and any such differences in the rights and duties created thereunder are expressly waived. B. Limited edition. The Artwork shall each be a limited edition of one (1). Artist warrants and represents that the Artwork designed, fabricated, and installed pursuant to this Agreement has never heretofore been designed, fabricated, installed, created, published, or copied and that Artist is the sole creator and owner of all rights in the Artwork and the design thereof. C. Ownership. Upon City's Final Acceptance, the Artwork shall be owned by City. Following Final Acceptance, City may remove the Artwork from the Site and/or move the Artwork to another location, at City's sole election and discretion. D. No copyright. Artist shall not make any claim to the copyright of the Artwork. E. Photographs of Artwork by City. City may photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and all preliminary studies, models and maquettes thereof that have been delivered to and accepted, as City may desire for educational and public information purposes. Where practicable and to the extent of City's authority, Artist shall be acknowledged on each such photographic reproduction to be the creator of the original subject thereof, provided that photographic reproductions of preliminary studies, models and maquettes shall not be identified as or represented to be the finished Artwork. F. Photographs of Artwork by Artist. Artist may photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and all preliminary studies, models and maquettes thereof, as Artist may desire for marketing, educational and public information purposes. Where practicable, Artist shall acknowledge on each such photographic reproduction the location of such Artwork, provided that reproductions of preliminary studies, models and maquettes shall not be identified as or represented to be the finished Artwork. G. Models of Artwork. City shall at no time create any model, maquette, replica, copy, or any other three-dimensional reproduction of Artwork or any component thereof for any purpose without first entering into a mutually agreed-upon written agreement with Artist governing the creation, use, and/or sale of such model, maquette, replica, copy, or reproduction. Upon Final Completion, Artist shall not create any new model, maquette, replica, copy, or any other three- dimensional reproduction of Artwork or any component thereof for any purpose without first PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRvIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 5 of 25 entering into a mutually agreed-upon written agreement with City governing the creation, use, and/or sale of such model, maquette, replica, copy, or reproduction. This provision shall not prevent Artist's creation of any model or mock-up for purposes of designing and/or engineering Artwork prior to Final Completion. H. Alteration of Artwork. If any alteration occurs to the Artwork after installation, whether intentional or accidental and whether caused by City or others, upon written request of Artist, such Artwork shall no longer be represented to be the work of Artist, unless otherwise allowed by Artist in writing. Other than as specified herein, Artist specifically waives the right to claim any other remedy concerning the alteration of the Artwork as provided for under Idaho or federal law, whether by statute or otherwise. I. Use of City name. City hereby conveys to Artist permission to use City's name in all forms and media and in all manners, including, but not limited to, exhibition, display, advertising, trade, and editorial uses, without violation of City's rights of privacy or any other rights City may possess in connection with its commission and purchase of the Artwork. J. Removal from display. City shall have the right to remove the Artwork from Site and/or from public display. In the event that City determines that the Artwork or any component thereof shall be sold, Artist shall be provided the first right of refusal to purchase the Artwork or such component from City. Should Artist choose to purchase the Artwork pursuant to this provision, the price of the Artwork shall be the fair market value thereof. This provision shall expire upon the death of Artist and shall not be extended to Artist's estate unless City so elects. K. Subcontracting or assignment of obligations. Artist shall not subcontract or assign any of Artist's obligations under this Agreement that require or that may require Artist's artistic talent or expertise. Artist may subcontract or assign obligations that do not require Artist's artistic talent or expertise, including, but not limited to, such obligations as transport and installation of the Artwork, and other obligations as outlined in Artist's proposal as set forth in Exhibit B. Any and all subcontractors or assignees shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. VI. INDEMNIFICATION, WAIVER, AND INSURANCE. A. Indemnification. Artist shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City and any and all of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or elected officials from any and all losses, claims, and judgments for damages or injury to persons or property, and from any and all losses and expenses caused or incurred by Artist or Artist's servants, agents, employees, guests, and/or business invitees, occurring before City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork. B. Waiver. Artist waives any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Artist's performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of concurrent or sole negligence of City or its officers, agents or employees. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRviEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 6 of 25 C. Insurance to be obtained by Artist. Artist shall obtain and shall maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, each and all of the following: General liability insurance. General liability insurance with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per each occurrence, combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, covering the actions and omissions of Artist and her employees, agents, and/or workers in fabricating, transporting, and installing the Artwork and/or components or materials thereof, including coverage for owned, non -owned, and hired vehicles, as applicable. 2. Workers' compensation insurance. Artist shall obtain and shall maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, and throughout the course of this Agreement, workers' compensation insurance, in an amount required by Washington or Idaho law, whichever is higher, to cover any and all persons employed by Artist. 3. Insurance of Artwork. Before commencing fabrication of the Artwork, Artist shall procure and maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of Artwork, insurance on the Artwork in an all-risk form with limits of not less than forty thousand dollars ($40,000), and any deductible not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) each loss, with any loss payable to City. Artist agrees to bear all risks of loss of and/or damage to the Artwork until City's Final Acceptance of Artwork. D. Proof of insurance. Artist shall provide to City, within seven (7) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, written proof that Artist has obtained all insurance required hereunder. If any change is made to any insurance policy or coverage required under and/or obtained pursuant to this Agreement, Artist or Artist's insurance agent shall notify City immediately. E. Insurance to be obtained by Artist's subcontractors. Artist shall require any and all subcontractors employed or utilized in the course and scope of the obligations described in this Agreement to obtain and maintain general liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance in the amounts described herein. Artist shall provide to City, within twenty-four (24) hours of hiring or engaging any subcontractor, written proof that her subcontractors have obtained all insurance required hereunder. F. Insurance to be obtained by City. City shall obtain all necessary property and commercial general liability insurance as may be required in order to protect its insurable interests for its rights and obligations described within this Agreement. Upon City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, City shall obtain property insurance for the Artwork. G. No cancellation without notice. On all insurance policies required under this agreement, such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled or reduced in coverage except upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to all Parties. Any cancellation of insurance without appropriate replacement in the amounts and terms set forth herein may constitute grounds for termination of the contract. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 7 of 25 VII. TERMINATION. A. Termination for cause. If City determines that Artist has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, violated any of the covenants, agreements, and/or stipulations of this Agreement, falsified any record or document required to be prepared under this Agreement, engaged in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this Agreement; or if either Party willfully or negligently defaults in, or fails to fulfill, its material obligations under this Agreement; the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate, and shall specify the grounds for termination. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice to cure the default. If the default is not cured within such period, this Agreement shall be terminated upon mailing of written notice of such termination by the terminating party. Default by City. In the event of termination for non-performance or default by City, City shall compensate Artist for work actually completed by Artist prior to the date of written notice of termination and any verified additional services and materials actually performed or supplied prior to the date of written notice of termination, less payments of compensation previously made, not to exceed the total amount of compensation allowed hereunder. 2. Default by Artist. In the event of termination for non-performance or default by Artist, except that caused by the death or incapacity of Artist, all finished and unfinished drawings, photographs, plans, timelines, and/or any and all other work products prepared and submitted or prepared for submission under this Agreement shall, at City's option, become City's property. Notwithstanding this provision, Artist shall not be relieved of any liability for damages sustained by City attributable to Artist's default or breach of this Agreement. City may reasonably withhold payments due until such time as the exact amount of damages due to City from Artist is determined. Artist shall not be relieved of liability to City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach or default of this Agreement by Artist. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall not relieve Artist of liability to City for damages. B. Termination without cause. City may terminate this Agreement for any reason at any time by providing fourteen (14) days notice to Artist. C. Termination upon death or incapacity of Artist. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the death or incapacity of Artist. In the event of termination caused by the death or incapacity of Artist, all finished and unfinished drawings, photographs, plans, timelines, and/or any and all other work products prepared and submitted or prepared for submission under this Agreement shall, at City's option, become its property, and the right to fabricate and/or complete fabrication of the Artwork shall pass to City. Notwithstanding this provision, neither Artist nor Artist's estate shall be relieved of any liability for damages sustained by City attributable to Artist's default. City may reasonably withhold payments due to Artist or to Artist's estate until such time as the exact amount of damages due to City from Artist or Artist's estate is determined. Artist shall not be relieved of liability to City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach or default of this Agreement by Artist. This provision PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 8 of 25 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall not relieve Artist or Artist's estate of liability to City for damages. D. Non -waiver of breach. A waiver of any breach or default of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of a breach of the same or any other provision hereof. VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Permitting and inspection. Artist shall obtain any and all necessary permits or approvals from the City of Meridian for the installation of the Artwork, which may include Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Community Development Department/Planning Division; permitting and inspection by the Community Development Department/Building Services Division; and coordination with the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department regarding landscaping and utilities. Artist shall obtain any and all necessary permits or approvals that may be required by the Ada County Highway District. B. Relationship of Parties. It is the express intention of Parties that Artist is an independent contractor and neither Artist nor any officer, employee, subcontractor, assignee, or agent of Artist shall be deemed an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City in any manner or for any purpose. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Artist and City or between Artist and any official, agent, or employee of City. Both parties acknowledge that Artist is not an employee of City. Artist shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. Specifically, without limitation, Artist understands, acknowledges, and agrees: 1. Artist is free from actual and potential control by City in the provision of services under this Agreement. 2. Artist is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. 3. Artist has the authority to hire subordinates. 4. Artist owns and/or will provide all major items of equipment necessary to perform services under this Agreement. C. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Artist shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. D. Non -Discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Artist shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. F. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAiRvIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 9 of 25 party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. G. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. H. Cumulative Rights and Remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. I. Interpretation. Words of gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words in the singular shall be held to include the plural and vice versa unless the context otherwise requires. The Agreement and the captions of the various sections of this Agreement are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment or describe the scope, context or intent of this Agreement or any part or parts of this Agreement. J. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. K. Successors and Assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators. L. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon mailing by United States Mail, addressed as follows: Artist: Danielle Foush6e 3305 141st Street Southeast Mill Creek, WA 98012 (818) 613-7459 danielle@daniellefoushee.com City ject Manager: Max Jensen Public Works Department Capital Projects and Facilities Division 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian ID 83642 (208) 489-0344 mjensen@meridiancity.org Either party may change her/its address for the purpose of this provision by giving written notice of such change in the manner herein provided. M. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. N. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 10 of 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the _r- day of December, 2015. AT T Danielle Foush6e RYAN M FRAZIER Notary Public State of Washington STATE OF WASHINGTON) L", ...... L , ) ss: County of -, �- 0 �� — I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Danielle Foush6e is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that she signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated this -�'/Ldayof 52015. Signature: Print name: Notary public in and for the state of Washington, residing at LAKj5 My appointment expires: /�- ;;z 0 i ?� -Z CITY OF MERIDIAN,*, ------ BY: Tammy de Vie d, Mayor Attest: r-�CL� t -A-- Jaycee Wman, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MAIN & FAiRviEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 11 of 25 EXHIBIT A CALL TO ARTISTS - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 12 Of 25 Meridian t Commission Call to Artists - Request for Proposals Main Street Et Fairview Avenue Public Art Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Meridian Arts Commission (MAC) invites artists to prepare proposals for the Main Street r± Fairview Avenue Public Art Project. MAC, with financial support from the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC), seeks to incorporate a piece of art in the southeast corner of the intersection of Main and Fairview, in downtown Meridian, Idaho. Over 2,000 vehicles travel through this intersection during its peak hour, and an estimated 29,000 vehicles travel through it daily. The artwork must be suitable for installation at the project site in a manner that conforms to all applicable City and Ada County Highway District ordinances, policies, including those related to traffic safety. No utilities are available at the project site. ABOUT MAC: MAC is a board of volunteers, appointed by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian. MAC's mission is to develop, advance, and nurture all facets of the arts to enhance the quality of life for Meridian residents and its visitors. ELIGIBILITY: This project is open to applicants regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, or disability. Teams of artists, designers, and/or engineers are welcome to apply. Treasure Valley artists are encouraged to apply. Incomplete or late submissions will be deemed ineligible and will not be considered. BUDGET: A budgeted amount of $40,000 is available to purchase the selected artwork. PROCESS: The evaluation and selection process will generally occur as follows; dates are subject to change as may be necessary due to scheduling issues or other circumstances. Any information submitted is subject to release to the public as required by Idaho Public Records Law. 1. Call to Artists (RFP) issued April 13, 2015. 2. Proposals accepted. To be considered for this project, the following materials must be submitted to MAC, by 5:00 p.m., on Monday, June 8, 2015, by e-mail to Hillary Bodnar, hbodnar@meridiancity.org: a. One-page cover letter including current contact information and references; b. Resume, no more than two pages in length; c. Up to three (3) digital images (200 dpi; .jpg format) or drawings of the proposed conceptual designs or existing artwork proposed for installation at the project site; d. Artwork description including materials to be used, dimensions, title, and dates of originals, if applicable. Call for Artists - Main Street £t Fairview Avenue Public Art Project Page 1 of 5 3. Finalists selected. By Thursday, June 11, 2015, a Selection Panel will convene and evaluate all responses to the RFP. Following evaluation, the Selection Panel may select up to five finalists, may re -open the RFP, or may reject all proposals. Eligibility and finalist selection criteria will include: a. Feasibility of installation at project site; b. Traffic safety impacts of design (artwork that would pose an unsafe distraction or hazard to vehicular traffic will be disqualified); c. Consideration for visibility for motorists and pedestrians; d. Appropriateness of scale, design, material, durability, and maintenance for project site; e. Artistic quality of proposal; f. Consistency with Meridian's character and values; and g. Contribution to aesthetic and cultural vitality and sense of place. 4. Public input collected. The finalists' proposals will be put on public view and input will be collected in the lobby of City Hall from Monday, June 15, 2015 to Friday, July 31, 2015. The finalists' proposals will be displayed as originally submitted, printed in color on 8.5" x 11" paper for public view. No modification of the proposals will be permitted prior to or during the public input period. 5. Final evaluation of proposals; artist selected. On Thursday, August 13, 2015, MAC will evaluate the finalists' proposals. MAC may recommend selection of one proposed design, recommend that the RFP be reopened, or reject all proposals. Evaluation criteria will include the criteria set forth above, as well as public input submitted regarding the proposals. MAC will forward its recommendation to Meridian City Council for consideration and City Council will consider such recommendation in making the final decision on Tuesday, August 24, 2015. The selected proposer and finalists not selected will be notified of the decision via e-mail by Friday, August 28, 2015. 6. Agreement; award. Following selection, submission of W-9 form, and negotiation and execution of a written agreement with the City, the selected proposer will be awarded the project. 7. Selected proposal installed. Following selection, the selected Artist will fabricate and install the artwork, in accordance with a written agreement with the City, and with the project's final budget and timeline. A budgeted amount of $40,000 is available for the selected artist's commission, which amount includes all costs including engineering, materials, fabrication, permitting, and installation of the artwork. Projected Timeline: April 13, 2015 June 8, 2015, 5:00 p.m. By June 11, 2015 June 12, 2015 June 15—July 31, 2015 By August 13, 2015 August 13, 2015 August 24, 2015 By August 28, 2015 September 9, 2015, 5:00 p.m. Call to Artists (RFP) issued Deadline for submission of responses to RFP Selection Panel evaluates responses, selects finalists Finalists notified Public input regarding finalists' proposals Selection Panel final evaluation, recommendation on proposals Selection Panel report to MAC; MAC decision/ recommendation MAC recommendation to City Council; City Council final decision Selected artist and not -selected finalists notified of decision Deadline for selected artist's signed agreement with City Call for Artists - Main Street & Fairview Avenue Public Art Project Page 2 of 5 September 2015—October 2015 (approx.) Fabrication November 2015 (approx.) Installation Please contact Hillary Bodnar via e-mail (hbodnar@meridiancity.org) or phone (208-489-0422) with any questions. Thank you for your interest! Call for Artists - Main Street Ft Fairview Avenue Public Art Project Page 3 of 5 Call for Artists – Main Street & Fairview Avenue Public Art Project Page 4 of 5 Call for Artists – Main Street & Fairview Avenue Public Art Project Page 5 of 5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT P AGE 18 of 25 EXHIBIT B ARTIST ’S PROPOSAL DANIELLE FOUSHEE 3305 14151 Street Southeast, Mill Creek, WA 98012 818-613-7459 mobile I dfoushee@gmail.com LETTER OF INTEREST As an artist and public art lover, I have a unique passion for bringing joy to the lives of citizens as they move through their daily lives. This is a passion backed up by my research: people are happier and healthier in considered environments. Architecture professor Roger Ulrich has shown that people enjoy a better quality of life when art is present in their lives. His work proves that in hospitals, patients heal faster and workers are less stressed when their spaces are well designed. Public art projects are realized, not through the vision of one individual artist, but with the inspiration and dedication of diverse collaborators with a shared vision. It reflects a sense of community engagement, invigorates economic development, improves quality of life, and brings imagination to the lives of citizens. When I was a cancer patient fewyears ago, I became even more intimately aware of the positive power that art in public places has on a community and the quality of life of its members. Ever since then, I've been studying public art, and working within my own art practice to build towards a career in public art. With a commission from the City of Meridian, I will be able to continue building upon my goal of using my creative skills to bring beauty and inspiration to citizens everywhere. REFERENCES Avantika Bawa Assistant Professor of Art Washington State University, Vancouver avantikabawa@gmail com John Grade Artist, Seattle, WA Johngrade@p-mail.com Meredith James Assistant Professor, Design/Theory Portland State University themeredithiames@gmall.com DANIELLE FOUSHEE 3305 141St Street Southeast, Mill Creek, WA 98012 818-613-7459 mobile I dfoushee@gmail,com EDUCATION 2016 MFA [pending], Visual Studies [low residency], Pacific Northwest College of Art, Portland, OR 1998 MFA merit scholar, Design, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield Hills, MI 1996 Bachelor of Environmental Design, magna cum laude, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC PUBLIC ART PROJECTS 2015 Heaven & Earth VII, Center for Environmental Art, Carkeek Park, Seattle, WA Seattle Storefronts, Amazon Complex, South Lake Union, Seattle, WA Uptown Tree Project [finalist, pending], Greeley, CO 2014 Hundred Revolutions of a Tree, Downtown Arts District, Vancouver, WA EXHIBITIONS 2015 Destabilizing Dystopia, dc3 Art Projects, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Tributaries, Verum Ultimum, Portland, OR 2014 Solo Exhibition, Lightness is Non -aggression, Manuel lbizqua Gallery, PNCA, Portland, OR Is and Is Not, Future Forward Gallery, PNCA, Portland, OR Quantum Shirley, Feldman Gallery, PNCA, Portland, OR Yes, North Bank Artist's Gallery, Vancouver, WA 2013 Tool at Hand, Museum of Contemporary Craft, Portland OR Tree Skirt, Friendship Garden, Mill Creek, WA Unknown Variables, MFA Central Gallery, PNCA, Portland, OR Handle with Care, Corridor Gallery, Seattle, WA Curtains & Knots, Anchor Art Space, Anacortes, WA 2012 Solo Exhibition, Improvise, McKinnley West Gallery, Reno, NV Design Presence, Gallery [context], Seattle Design Center, Seattle, WA Autocomplete, Visionaries + Voices Gallery, Cincinnati, OH Solo Exhibition, Spontaneous, City Hall, Grand Junction, CO 2011 Art Center Permanent Collection of Mesa State College + Eleven, Western Colorado Center for the Arts, Grand Junction, CO Artist Project NY, Pier 92, New York, NY 2009 The Process of Peace, Towson Arts Collective, Towson, MD Sun Worshippers & Junk Yard Dogs, Western Colorado Center for the Arts, Grand Junction, CO Colorado Mountain Mnefest, Blue Pig Gallery, Palisade, CO image & Word, The Art Center, Highland Park, IL Alphabet, Post Typography, traveled nationally 2005-2009 2006 For the Love of Letters, Massachusetts College of Art, Boston, MA 2004 I Profess, (Scene)Metrospace, East Lansing, MI Fresh, Utah State University, Logan, UT 2003 Art/Design/LA, Best of Show, American Institute of Graphic Artists, Harold's Gallery, Los Angeles, CA 1998 Graduate Degree Show, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield Hills, Mi Summer Exhibition, Cranbrook Art Museum, Bloomfield Hills, MI 1997 Immedia Hybrid Digital Media, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Practical & Theoretical in New Media Design, Eastern Michigan University, East Lansing, MI How We Learn What We Learn, School of Visual Arts, New York, NY ARTIST RESIDENCIES 2015 Art + Bio Collective, Desert Life, Chihuahuan Desert, West TX [June] Centrum Foundation, Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, WA [December] 2014 Signal Fire, Wide Open Studios, Tonto National Forest, AZ 2013 Anchor Art Space, Anacortes, WA COLLECTIONS 2010 Mesa County Public Libraries, Mesa County, CO SELECTED AWARDS American Advertising & Design, multiple awards How magazine InHOWse Awards & International Design Award Graphic Design USA, multiple awards University & College Designers' Association, multiple awards American Institute of Graphic Artists, Best of Show award American Center for Design 100 Show Award SELECTED PUBLICATIONS The Complete Color Harmony Workbook Graphis Design Annual Color Management: Guide for Graphic Designers Communication Arts magazine Big Ideas, Big Type TEACHING EXPERIENCE Design for Special Events The Big Book of Graphic Design 1000 Type Treatments Graphic Fusion Page Layout 2014 -Present Associate Faculty, Seattle Central College Creative Academy, Seattle, WA 2012 -Present Associate Faculty, Everett Community College, Everett, WA 2008-2011 Adjunct Faculty, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, CO 2005-2007 Adjunct Faculty, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 1999-2005 Faculty, Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, CA 2003-2004 Assistant Professor, Utah State University, Logan, UT 2002-2003 Adjunct Faculty, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 2000-2002 Senior Lecturer, Otis College of Art & Design, Los Angeles, CA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1996 -Current Owner, Creative Director, Good Nature Creative 1999-2015 Art Director + Brand Manager, Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising 2007-2010 Communications & Development Director, Colorado Canyons Association (CCA) PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Now Snohomish County Arts Commission, Member, Snohomish County, WA Art & Beautification Board, Member & Subcommittee Chair for Public Art, City of Mill Creek, WA 2012 Art Donation (invited), The Watering Can Project, Arapahoe/Douglas Mental Health Network, Denver, CO 2011 Art Donation (juried), Art of the Auction, North Carolina Museum of Art Foundation, Raleigh, NC 2010 Committee Member, Art on the Corner (rotating public art programming), City of Grand junction, CO Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2015-0022 ITEM TITLE: Paramount Subdivision Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Paramount Subdivision (H-2015- 0022) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and N. Fox Run Way Request: Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #103137116, Amended as Inst. # 1 13083665) for Paramount Subdivision to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Subject Property MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2015-0027 ITEM TITLE: Decatur Estates Final Order for Approval: Final Plat for Decatur Estates Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015-0027) by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located 4345 N. Linder Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Five (35) Building Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on 15.17 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: AZ -15-012 ITEM TITLE: Graycliff Estates Development Agreement Graycliff Estates (AZ -15-012) Generally located southwest of W. Harris Street and S. Meridian Road, in the NE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich BOISE IDAHO Pgs=50 VICTORIA BAILEY 201 MERIDIAN CITY 12/09/201155 0 02:5544M PPM II III III III I III IIIIII III III II I � III III fFI�LII I I III O FEE 00173365201501120950500509 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Star Development, Inc., Owner/Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this Agreement), is made and entered into this day of € f x� , 2015, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called CITY whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and Star Development, Inc., whose address is PO Box 518, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereinafter called O"ER/DEVELOPER. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, Owner is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the Property; and 1.2 WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-6511 A provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of zoning that the Owners and/or Developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject Property; and 1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Section 11-513-3 of the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer have submitted an application for the annexation of approximately 52.46 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (36.66 acres) and R-40 (High Density Residential) (15.80 acres), and zoning district (as described in Exhibit "A"), under the Unified Development Code, which generally describes how the Property will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.5 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the Property will be developed and what improvements will be made; and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ — 15-012) PAGE 1 OF 9 1.6 WHEREAS, the record of the proceedings for the requested preliminary plat on the Property held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, includes responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and includes further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, on the 6'h day of October, 2015, the Meridian City Council approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order ("Findings"), which have been incorporated into this Agreement and attached as Exhibit "B"; and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Owner/Developer to enter into a Development Agreement before the City Council takes final action on final plat; and 1.9 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and request; and 1.10 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784, and the UDC, Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Star Development, Inc., DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ- 15-012) PAGE 2 OF 9 whose address is PO Box 518, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the parties that are developing said Property and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the Property. 3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A" describing the parcels to be re -zoned Medium Density Residential (R-15) and High Density Residential (R-40) and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Direct lot access to W. Harris Street and the north/south street along the west boundary, both collector streets, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3, except for Lot 1, Block 2 (the multi -family lot) which shall be allowed one access via W. Harris Street. b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and building elevations for the single-family homes depicted in Exhibit A and the revisions noted in the staff report. c. A conditional use permit is required to be obtained for the multi -family development in the R-40 zoning district, per UDC Table 11-2A-2. d. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the site design and structures proposed within the multi -family portion of the development; these applications can be submitted concurrently. e. Design and building materials of the future multi -family structures shall be compatible with and include design elements consistent with that of the single-family dwellings and comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines listed in the Meridian Design Manual (or any updated version(s) thereof) in effect at the time of application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. f. The multi -family development should incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and incorporation of connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and individual project identity as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ - 15-012) PAGE 3 OF 9 g. The rear and/or sides of home elevations that face W. Harris Street and the future north/south collector street along the west boundary of the site shall incorporate at through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. h. A 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway shall be constructed within the 75 -foot wide Williams Pipeline easement (Lot 2, Block 2) that runs through this site as depicted on the landscape plan in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. i. The developer shall provide a minimum of 7.95 acres (or 15.16%) of qualified open space within the development as shown on the preliminary plat in accord with the standards listed in UDC I1 -3G -3B. j. All development within the 75 -foot wide Williams pipeline easement shall adhere to the most current standards contained in the Williams Gas Pipeline Developers' Handbook. lc. The 1.77 acres included in Lot 1, Block 1 shall be dedicated to the City in the future for a City Park. This lot is proposed to be combined with additional land in Biltmore Estates Subdivision to the northwest and the future development to the west on the Centers' property to total a minimum of 7 acres. If City Council determines a public park is not preferred in this development, the 1.77 acres shall be private open space. 1. Signage is required to be installed on the multi -family portion of the site and information shall be included in the marketing material for the single-family development announcing the future development of apartments on the site. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within two (2) years after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void. 7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: 7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under this Agreement. 7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure the default, which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within one hundred eighty (180) days; provided, however, that in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty (180) day period, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after notice as described in Section 7.2, Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have consented to modification of this Agreement and de -annexation and reversal DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ - 15-012) PAGE 4 OF 9 of the zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending portion of Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and rules, including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511. Owner/Developers reserve all rights to contest whether a default has occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County by either City or Owner/Developer, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions. 8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer, prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 10. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under the UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agree to provide, if required by the City. 12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ - 15-012) PAGE 5 OF 9 City, or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph 11 above. 13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement. 14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: City Cleric City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Star Development, Inc. PO Box 518 Meridian, Idaho 83680 with copy to: City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner/Developer, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon written request of Owner/Developer, to execute appropriate and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ - 15-012) PAGE 6 OF 9 recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed their obligations under this Agreement. 18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided, each party shall act reasonably in giving any consent, approval, or taking any other action under this Agreement. 20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. [end of text; signatures, acknowledgements, and Exhibits A and B follow] DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ - 15-012) PAGE 7 OF 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER/DEVELOPER: Star Development, Inc. c— ,��ee Ce ters, Director CITY OF MERIDIAN By: Mayor T my d Weord __ ATTEST: G0��oRnteo;a u�Gsr / ( /v Clay of w VVV 111 �+n� wo Jaycee L olman, City Clerk SFA,, rf � �le TRC N5U�6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — GRAYCLIFF ESTATES (AZ — 15-012) PAGE 8 OF 9 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada, ) On this day of 4, 2015, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Lee Centers known or identified to me to be the Director of Star Development, Inc., and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said Corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. E®;FF9,, r.. F7 (SEAL)r�:, "Publicdaho 1, , � ; 1�o I My Commission Expires: r 09 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this day of :��cem b,PA/ , 2015, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. M®•o•o• (SEAL) •tel p p Notary ub11 for Residing at: p` Commission expires: <\a V, DEVELOPMENT AGREEME V," CLIFF ESTATES (AZ — 15-012) PAGE 9 OF 9 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: AZ -15-012 ITEM TITLE: Village Apartments Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AZ 15-012 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2700 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C -G Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: CUP -15-019 ITEM TITLE: Village Apartments Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: CUP 15-019 Village Apartments by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C -G Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: &MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4H PROJECT NUMBER: MDA -15-011 ITEM TITLE: Village Apartments Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Village Apartments MDA 15-011 by DevCo Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: 41 PROJECT NUMBER: PO # 16-0122 Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to Sign PO #16-0122 for the Not - To -Exceed Amount of $74,934.00 for Taser/Evidence.com License Fees Per the Agreement Approved by City Council 1 1 /18/2014 J. MEETING NOTES e.� Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS I �, To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk, From: Keith Wafts, Purchasing Manager CC: Jacy Jones, Laurelei McVey Date: 12-8-2015 Re: December 15, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the December 15th City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Purchase Order approval for purchase of Z34/22 IC Articulating Z Boom Lift from ONE SOURCE EQUIPMENT and Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to Sign the Purchase Order for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $58,500.91 Recommended Council Action: Approval of purchase of a Z34/22 IC Articulating Z Boom Lift and from ONE SOURCE, INC for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $58,500.91 and authorize the Purchase Manager to sign the Purchase Order. This purchase is being made from the HGACBuy contract (a cooperative contract) that has been reviewed and approved by Legal. This purchase is part of the approved 2016 Budget. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 EIDIAN,- �J CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST BROADWAY AVE. MERIDIAN, ID 83642 (208) 888-4433 Vendor Address: ONE SOURCE EQUIPMENT, LP 619 HWY. 283 SOUTH THROCKMORTON, TX 76483 Description Z34/22 IC Articulating Z Boom Lift DA18 per HGACBuy Contract Purchasing Manager: Special Instructions Purchase Order 12/16/2015 Attention: Tony Bernard Billing Attn: Finance 33 E Broadway Ave Address: Meridian, ID 83642 Shipping City of Meridian Wastewater Address: 3401 N. Ten Mile Meridian, ID 83646 Shipping Method: FOB: Unit I Quantity Contractor Destination Pre -Paid I Unit Price I r 1 58500.91 1 1.00 Purchase Order Total: 16-0131 Total 58,500.91 $58,500.91 Z34/2 IC Articulating Z Boom Lift per the attached written One Source quote dated 10/21/2015 and HGACBuy Contract #CM02-15 Product Code DA18. Purchase approved by Council 12/15/2015 Not -To -Exceed $58,500.91 60-3510-94400. Case 51615 ]WMJr I Helping Governments Across the Country Buy THE SMART PURCHASING SOLUTION PO Box 22777 • 3555 Timmons Ln. • Houston, Texas 77227-2777. 1-800-926-0234 CONTRACT PRICING VERIFICATION TO: FROM: Tony Bernard/Kathy Wanner Veronica Johnson COMPANY: DATE: City of Meridian 12/03/2015 PHONE NUMBER: 208-888-2191 RE: REFERENCE: Price Verification for 1) Z34/22 IC, Articulating Z Boom Lift, Diesel Engine, 40ft. 6in Working Height, 22ft horizontal reach 2)Genie GTH 1056 Telehandler Contract Pricing Worksheet dated 10/21-15 I have reviewed the pricing worksheet provided through HGACBuy the above referenced items 1\-fy review verifies the pricing worksheet provided is in compliance with the contract for the Z34/22IC, Articulating Z Boom Lift, Diesel Engine, 40ft. 6in. Working Height 22ft. horizontal reach. 1\,Iy review for the Genie GTH 1056 Telehandler found that further review is needed prior to issuing a verification. I should receive an answer from our Purchasing Coordinator no later than 12/7/15. Once his review is complete I will contact you with the finding. When you are ready please make your Purchase Order out to the vendor and send a copy of the Purchase Order and HGACBuy Worksheet to veronica.johnson@h-gac.com or fax 713-993-4548 and also send a copy of the Purchase Order to the vendor. Please advise if we can assist further in this matter. Thank You Veronica Johnson, CTP Procurement Specialist Houston Galveston Area Council Cooperative Purchasing Program www.HGACBUY.org CENTRAL FAY# 713.993.4548 11 Fax: II Fax: II I Email: tbemard@meridiancity.org Email: icindy@onesourceequipment.com Product DA18 Description: !Z34/22 IC, Articulating Z Boom Lift, Diesel ................ .......I.....F.... ............................................................................................E...n..g...in..e,.4.0.ft....6..i.n...w..o.r.k .i.n.g..h.e.i.g.h..t,.2..2. ft h orizontal reach Code: ................... .. Pi It�ffiR�i�'Utiif.Pi16e-.&.C-...t..'..HC:C61iii ............... ..... 45901P ra6tors GA 1 ......................................................... ............. ................................................................................................ .............. .... .......... I ..................... ......... I ....... ................................. ....................................... ............................ fide ........................... .......... .. ................................ ....................... ... ......... ................................................ . . Y'.: ........ . ....... ...... ...... .......... ............ .......................... ............ ....... .................... ........................ Note :pithlislied:Oh .... 6:si�W ............ .......... p:tio s -whit :wer nitftcd.wid-wic6 ....... ........ ...... . . . . . . .!� ..................... ................ ....... .............................................................. ...... ........... Description Cost Description Cost jEngine Option: 31 hp Kubota DF -972 Gas/LPG NIC Subtotal From Additional Sheet(s): ...................................... I ...... 11— ......................................... .......... .............................. ........................ . . .............. ..................... ........................ ..................... V. ...................... ................ (Nate :Un C- U. ft ..................... ............ ........... ............. ................. ................................ ........... ..................... Description Cost Description Cost Upgrade to 4WD 5792.55 Light Package: 2 chassis mounted work lights, 1979.8 2 platform mounted work lights Subtotal From Additional Sheet(s): Subtotal C: 7772.3511 Check: Total cost of Unpublished Options (C) cannot exceed 25% of the total of the Base Unifl: II II ntage is: 17 : For this transaction the percentage Price plus Published Options (A+B). I): Tof91 Cost . . . . Before diff :other .....l.ed—le.�C=h.Ai9.eSj..rAde 1hs. �-A11ld.WA.fices'.)i8c0 .. ..gi.:Etc..f.&kB�c ........... I ........»::< ..........-.-.-.-.-..--.. :. ... .*: 7 Qy ............. X Subtotal of A + B + C: 11 53673.35 = Subtotal D: 53673735 ................................ I ............ .......... .................... ........................................ ........ — ................................... ............................. ..................... ...... -- ....................... ...................... ...... ........ .............. ...... .......................... .......... ...... ....................................... ..................... Description Cost Description Cost Unit Delivery: Meridian City, Idaho 4827.56 Subtotal E: 4827.56 ............. ........ . .................. .................. of L 58500.911 -.a et- Approx 5 w=eeks ....................... . ......... ................................ Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4J PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Professional Service Agreement with Epique Events and Gifts for the Meridian Youth Farmer's Market in the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $5,000.00 MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR EVENT COORDINATION SERVICES: MERIDIAN YOUTH FARMER'S MARKET This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR EVENT COORDINATION SERVICES: MERIDIAN YOUTH FARMER'S MARKET ("Agreement") is made this day of 'u ry , 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, ("City") and Becky Breshears, on behalf of TVG Boise LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, doing business as Epique Events and Gifts ("Promoter"). WHEREAS, City and Promoter are mutually interested in enhancing the Meridian community's quality of life; enriching the character of downtown Meridian; promoting healthy eating and locally grown produce; and providing opportunities for members of the Meridian and greater youth communities to produce and sell fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural or hand-crafted products; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. PROMOTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. Meridian Youth Farmer's Market 2016 event planning and presentation. Promoter shall plan and present a weekly Meridian Youth Farmer's Market 2016 ("Market"), between June 25, 2016 and September 24, 2016, in accordance with the specifications set forth herein. Promoter shall be responsible for all contractual arrangements and obligations, financial or otherwise, and shall plan for all logistics and provide all features of the Market, including, but not limited to, youth produce vendors, educational displays, musical performers or music deejay, sound system, food trucks and/or food and beverage vendors, event security, crowd management, first aid stations, and signs. Additionally, in preparation for the Market, Promoter shall complete the following tasks pursuant to the enumerated benchmarks: 1. Between October 1 and December 31, 2015: a. Distribute blank applications to and collect complete applications from potential vendors; b. Recruit sponsors; c. Hold at least one (1) "meet the expert" workshop for youth, featuring speakers from the Idaho State Tax Commission, Central District Health Department, Idaho Department of Agriculture Plants Division and Weights & Measurements Division. 2. Between January I and March 31, 2016: Offer or promote at least three (3) gardening classes for youth and at least one (1) panel seminar for youth, featuring experts on farming, ranching, and/or gardening. 3. Between April 1 and June 17, 2016: a. Hold at least one (1) orientation meeting for selected youth vendors, to go over the Market rules, timeline, procedures, etc. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE I of 9 b. Hold at least one (1) business basics workshop for youth, on topics such as customer service, merchandise display, counting cash, how to increase market success, etc. c. Hold at least one (1) "meet the expert" workshop for youth, featuring speakers from the Idaho State Tax Commission, Central District Health Department, Idaho Department of Agriculture Plants Division and Weights & Measurements Division. d. Select and notify final vendors. B. Market specifications. The Market shall comply in all respects with each and all of the following specifications. 1. The Market shall be presented at Meridian City Hall plaza, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, in Meridian, Idaho, on Saturdays between June 25, 2016 and September 24, 2016. 2. The Market shall include at least twenty-five (25) vendors, selling a variety of products grown, made, or otherwise produced by such vendors, including, for example, fruit, vegetables, herbs, baked goods, and crafts. At least seventy-five percent (75%) of all vendors must be youth (under eighteen (18) years of age); twenty-five percent (25%) of all vendors may be adults. Promoter may charge vendors a reasonable registration fee to participate in the Market, at Promoter's discretion. In addition to the youth vendors, the Market may feature: a. Educational displays regarding gardening or agriculture, for example, composting, soil preparation, etc.; b. Cooking or food demonstrations; c. Seed exchange or seed giveaway to help interested youth start gardens; d. Community Garden representatives offering youth the opportunity to sign up for garden plots; e. Food trucks; and f. Music, live performance or deejay. 4. The Market and all components thereof shall comply in all respects with all conditions of the applicable City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit, other applicable permits and permitting requirements, Meridian City Code, and state and federal law. 5. All music played at the Market, whether live performance or recorded, shall contain material, and shall be performed or played in such a manner, as shall be appropriate for all ages, values, and sensibilities. Music shall not include language, attire, and/or behavior that is profane, sexual, violent, or discriminatory in nature. 6. Promoter, or Promoter's employee or assign, shall be on site at the Market from set-up through tear -down each week, to supervise and to ensure that use of City facilities, amenities, infrastructure, and/or vegetation is appropriate and reasonable. 7. The Market shall be provided to the public at no cost; Promoter may not collect admission fees for the Market or any component thereof. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 2 of 9 8. Promoter shall be responsible for obtaining, at Promoter's sole expense, or requiring youth and other vendors to obtain, at their expense, all necessary permits for the Market as required by any agency other than the City of Meridian. Such permitting shall include, but shall not be limited to, permits from the Central District Health Department, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, and Idaho Tax Commission. 9. Promoter shall require vendors using City equipment to protect such equipment from damage as much as practicable, including a requirement that vendors using City tables cover them with tablecloths. C. Insurance. Promoter shall obtain, and shall maintain throughout the term of this Agreement, insurance as set forth below. Proof of such insurance shall be provided to City by 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 2016, evidenced by a certificate of insurance issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Idaho and containing a thirty -day notice of cancellation endorsement. In the event of cancellation or restriction by the insurance company of the insurance policy, Promoter shall notify City in writing within three (3) business days. City has the right to suspend portions of this Agreement in the City's sole discretion if Promoter's insurance is revoked, cancelled, expires or Promoter is otherwise without insurance coverage as set forth below. Promoter shall maintain the following insurance coverage: Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for property damage and bodily injury or death, naming the City of Meridian as an additional insured. In the event a unilateral cancellation or restriction by the insurance company of the insurance policy referred to in this paragraph, Promoter shall notify City in writing within three (3) business days. City has the right to suspend portions of this Agreement in the City's sole discretion if Promoter's general liability insurance is revoked, cancelled, expires or Promoter is otherwise without general liability insurance. 2. Workers' compensation insurance on any and all persons in Promoter's employ, where and in the minimum amount(s) as required by Idaho law. D. Permits. Promoter shall obtain all necessary permits for the Market as required by any agency other than the City of Meridian. E. Equipment/event rentals. Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, Promoter shall be responsible for obtaining or renting, at Promoter's sole expense, all necessary or desired equipment for the Market (e.g., sound system, temporary restrooms, hand washing stations, etc.). F. Sponsorship. Promoter may sell sponsorships of Market, and may retain all proceeds collected from such sponsorships. Promoter may not engage any sponsor which promotes or endorses any of the following content: 1. Content that is deemed in violation of any applicable City policy; 2. Profane, obscene, indecent, violent, or pornographic content and/or language; PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 3 of 9 3. Content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin; 4. Defamatory or personal attacks; 5. Threats to any person or organization; 6. Content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates conduct in violation of any federal, state or local law; 7. Content that encourages or incites illegal activity; 8. Information that may compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; 9. Content that violates a known legal ownership interest, such as a copyright, of any party; or 10. Any content that contains or perpetuates a message that the City deems to be inappropriate or not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. If the City becomes aware that any engaged or potential sponsor of the Market promotes or endorses such content, the City may terminate this Agreement, restrict or remove any content that is deemed in violation of this policy or any applicable law, and/or cancel the sponsored feature. G. Promotion. Promoter shall be responsible for marketing the Market to the public via broadcast, print, and online promotion, including local media and event calendars. Promoter may, at Promoter's sole expense, purchase commercial advertising of the Market. Whenever feasible, Promoter shall include the Meridian Youth Farmers Market logo created by Zachary Meyer on all print, online, digital, and social media materials. City shall provide to Promoter, upon request, a digital copy of the logo. II. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. A. Payment. For services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, City shall remit to Promoter a total amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). This amount shall constitute full compensation from City to Promoter for any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement. Promoter shall be responsible for payment of any and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement. To obtain payment, Promoter shall submit invoices to City pursuant to the following timeline and in the following enumerated amounts. City shall pay Promoter such enumerated amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of Promoter's invoice, provided that Promoter has timely provided services as described herein. 1. May 1, 2016: $ 1,000.00 2. June 1, 2016: $ 1,000.00 3. July 1, 2016: $ 1,000.00 4, August 1, 2016: $ 1,000.00 5. September 1, 2016: $ 1,000.00 Total compensation: $ 5,000.00 B. City permitting and reservations. City shall, on behalf of Promotor, obtain a City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit for the Market, and shall reserve and make available Meridian City Hall plaza for the Market. City shall, upon Promotor's request, reserve meeting space at Meridian City Hall for workshops and orientation meetings. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 4 of 9 C. Promotion. City shall promote the Market via City communication outlets, including the City newsletter, City website, and Meridian Parks & Recreation Department Activity Guide. D. Canopies and tables; load out. City shall provide, for use at the Market, up to fourteen (14) canopies with dimensions of approximately ten feet by ten feet (10' x 10'), fourteen (14) sets of canopy weights, and up to fourteen (14) eight -foot (8') tables for use at the Market. City shall provide personnel to arrive at Meridian City Hall at 7:00 a.m. to assist Promoter with carrying the canopies and tables out of storage. Promoter shall be responsible for setting up and configuring all tables and canopies. E. Meridian Parks & Recreation Department staff. City shall schedule one (1) Meridian Parks & Recreation Department staff member to be on site during the Market to provide janitorial services, garbage removal, and facilities operation support. The selection of staff for this purpose shall be in City's sole discretion. F. Primary Source of Contact for City. City shall provide Promoter the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of specific City personnel who shall serve as City's primary contacts between City and Promoter for all day-to-day matters regarding City's and Promoter's responsibilities under this Agreement (hereinafter "City Contact"). City may establish one City Contact for Meridian Youth Farmer's Market 2016 event planning and presentation, and another City Contact for Market operations. III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Public place. Promoter acknowledges that Meridian City Hall and Meridian City Hall plaza are public places, and that all members of the public shall be invited to attend the Market and the offered preparatory workshops. The public must have general access to City Hall and the plaza at all times, so long as such access does not unduly interfere with the use of such spaces for the reserved purposes. B. Vehicles. Driving or parking vehicles on non -designated driving or parking surfaces shall be prohibited, with the limited exception of vehicles driven short distances on non -designated driving surfaces for the purpose of transporting, loading, or unloading equipment and supplies during set-up or tear -down. Vehicles may not be driven on turf or landscape areas, unless at the direction of Meridian Parks & Recreation Department staff. C. No financial obligation. The parties agree that, other than as specifically set forth herein, City shall have no obligation to contribute personnel or funding to the planning or production of the Market, and no obligations other than those specifically set forth in this Agreement. D. Cancellation. City Contact may, in his or her sole discretion, elect to cancel one or more weekly markets comprising the Market, with no notice to Promoter, where cancellation is in the best interest of City or the public health, safety, or welfare, due to weather, act of God, unforeseen facility closure, or other reason. E. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date upon execution by both PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 5 of 9 parties, and shall expire on September 30, 2016, unless earlier terminated or extended in the manner as set forth in this Agreement. F. Time of the essence. Promoter acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. G. Notice. Communication between Promoter and the City Contact(s) regarding day-to-day matters shall occur via e-mail or telephone. All other notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when personally served, or mailed in the United States mail, or via e-mail, addressed as follows: City: Promoter: City Clerk Becky Breshears City of Meridian Epique Events and Gifts 33 E. Broadway Avenue 7750 W. Crestwood Drive, # 4 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Boise, Idaho 83704 cmoss@meridiancity.org becky@epiqueeventsandgifts.com H. City policy applies. Promoter shall comply with all City policies and codes applicable to use of City property and facilities, including, but not limited to, policies of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. I. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape, reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from Meridian City Hall or Meridian City Hall Plaza, the activities described herein for educational, promotional, and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who are not under its employment or control. J. Subcontracting or assignment of obligations. Promoter shall not subcontract or assign any of its obligations or rights under this Agreement related to or that may relate to Promoter's professional event planning expertise. Promoter may subcontract or assign obligations that do not require such expertise, including, but not limited to, such obligations as transport and set-up of equipment. Any subcontractor or assignee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. K. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination. The non -terminating party shall have fourteen (14) days to cure any breach or default. If the breach or default is not timely cured, termination shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of mailing the notice of termination. 1. Termination on or prior to April 30, 2016. a. City in breach or default. In the event that Promoter terminates this Agreement on or prior to April 30, 2016, due to City's breach or default of this Agreement, Promoter shall be entitled to compensation for services actually rendered, up to one thousand PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 6 of 9 dollars ($1,000.00), within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of itemized invoice for services actually rendered. b. Promoter in breach or default. In the event that City terminates this Agreement on or prior to April 30, 2016, due to Promoter's breach or default of this Agreement, no payment shall issue to Promoter. c. Either party for convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement on or prior to April 30, 2016, due to convenience, nonappropriation, or when either or both parties agree that the continuation of the project is not in the parties' best interest, in which case Promoter shall be entitled to compensation for services actually rendered, up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of itemized invoice for services actually rendered. 2. Termination on or after May 1, 2016. a. City in breach or default. In the event that Promoter terminates this Agreement on or after May 1, 2016, due to City's breach or default of this Agreement, Promoter shall be entitled to compensation in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), less any payments already made to Promoter by City under this Agreement. b. Promoter in breach or default. In the event that City terminates this Agreement on or after May 1, 2016, due to Promoter's breach or default of this Agreement, Promoter shall be entitled to compensation for services actually rendered, pursuant to the schedule set forth in section II.A., above. L. Non -waiver of breach. A waiver of any breach or default of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of a breach of the same or any other provision hereof. M. Indemnification. Promoter shall, and hereby does, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City and any and all of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or elected officials from any and all losses, claims, and judgments for damages or injury to persons or property, and from any and all losses and expenses caused or incurred by Promoter, its assistants, servants, agents, employees, guests, and/or business invitees, in connection with this Agreement or activities related thereto. Promoter acknowledges that provision of the services described hereunder presents risks, some of which are unknown, and do agree to assume all such known or unknown risks. N. Waiver. Except as to rights held under the terms of this Agreement, Promoter shall, and hereby does, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident the performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of concurrent or sole negligence of City or its officers, agents or employees. O. Relationship of Parties. Promoter is an independent contractor and is not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Promoter and City or any official, agent, or employee of City. Specifically, without limitation, Promoter understands, acknowledges, and agrees: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 7 of 9 I . Except as otherwise set forth herein, Promoter is free from actual and potential control by City in the provision of services under this Agreement. 2. Promoter is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. 3. Promoter has the authority to hire subordinates. 4. Promoter owns and/or will provide all major items of equipment necessary to perform services under this Agreement. 5. Neither Promoter nor City shall be liable to the other for a peremptory termination of the business relationship described under this Agreement. P. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Promoter shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Q. Nonappropriation. Promoter acknowledges that City is a governmental entity, and the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of public funding under the authority of City's statutory mandate. R. Non -Discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Promoter shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. S. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. T. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. U. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. V. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. W. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 8 of 9 X. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators. Y. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval. r',- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the _ ay of 2015. PROMOTER: Becky Bresear ; anager TVG Bois, LLC, dba Epique Events and G' So`zPt�,n n u��s� r CITY OF MFRID1AN"i. __._._. _ qty BY: Tammy dei eerd, Mayor � t' �1 �0 w iac.Hn sEr. L v '1a�ycdeMolman, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—EVENT COORDINATION, YOUTH FARMERS' MARKET PAGE 9 of 9 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Community Items /Presentations Check presentation to the City of Meridian Fire Department from Light My Fire, Inc. MEETING NOTES C e \ "c Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7A ITEM TITLE: Department Reports Parks and Recreation Department: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Presentation MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Parks and recreation Master Plan deceMber 2015   Parks and Recreation Master Plan i 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   ii City of Meridian, Idaho 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 Figure 9: 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      Parks and Recreation Master Plan iii 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 II  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  GreenPlay, 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                                        THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1 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.        2 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.     Parks and Recreation Master Plan 3 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.        4 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.          Parks and Recreation Master Plan 5 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.             6 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                Parks and Recreation Master Plan 7 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  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.     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.       8 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                  Parks and Recreation Master Plan 9 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 II 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 II'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.                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 11 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.                    12 City of Meridian, Idaho 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!        Parks and Recreation Master Plan 13 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                                      THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 15 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 Projections*   US Census (2000 and 2010 ) and  COMPASS Projections   2000 Population 41,315  2010 Population 82,250  2015 Estimated 91,311  2020 Projected 108,701  2025 Projected 118,600  Source: COMPASS                  16 City of Meridian, Idaho Figure 1: Meridian Population Growth Trend                                  Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions. GreenPlay, 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.  0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2000 2010 2014 2019 2024 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+ 2010 2014 2019   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 17 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.   0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Caucasian Alone African American Alone Native American Alone Asian Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 2010 2014 2019   18 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.1    Table 3: Meridian, Idaho– 2014 Educational Attainment  Education Attainment Service Area Percentage  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                                  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.    1.4% 5.8% 7.7% 5.3% 3.4% 2.7% 6.2% 8.8% 6.9% 3.7% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Dec. 2006 Dec. 2008 Dec. 2010 Dec.2012 Dec.2014 Meridian Idaho   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 19 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                   Source: 2010 U.S. Census; 2014 estimates and 2019 forecasts provided by ESRI 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)                                    Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2014.     2000 2010 2014 2019  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%  0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 2014 2019   20 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.”2    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.                                                               2 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.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 21  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.       22 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.       Parks and Recreation Master Plan 23 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.               24 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 25 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)              26 City of Meridian, Idaho 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       Parks and Recreation Master Plan 27 Figure 6: Current Facilities – Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix  Invitation Sample Only                          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) 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Splash Pads Rodeo Grounds Picnic Shelters Outdoor Basketball Courts Community/Rec. Center Ball Fields Athletic Fields Tennis Courts Playgrounds Pathways/Trails Indoor Gym Space Dog Parks Fac Imp Fac Needs High Importance/ Low Needs Met High Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ Low Needs Met Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Facilities -Invitation Sample Only   28 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.        Parks and Recreation Master Plan 29 Figure 7: Current Programs – Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix  Invitation Sample Only      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%).      3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating) 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Youth Sports Youth Programs Youth Camps Family Programs Adult Programs Teen Programs Senior Programs Outdoor Adventure Programs Adult Sports Prog Needs Prog Imp High Importance/ Low Needs Met High Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ Low Needs Met Low Importance/ High Needs Met Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Programs -Invitation Sample Only   30 City of Meridian, Idaho Figure 8: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined  Invitation Sample Only                 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 31 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%).       32 City of Meridian, Idaho 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).                                                   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 33 Figure 9: Allocation of Funding Toward Facilities/Services/Programs – Average Allocation Amount      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  Invitation Sample Open Link $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 Average Amount Allocated $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 Average Amount Allocated Expand aquatics Add more pathways Make improvements and/or renovate and maintain existing park facilities Expand programs and activities Recreation center Add new parks Add outdoor athletic fields and courts New or expanded Community Center Provide more City-wide special events Other enhancements $17.69 $11.29 $19.44 $12.62 $8.75 $8.63 $6.16 $3.27 $7.14 $5.02 $16.29 $10.79 $16.84 $11.74 $10.91 $5.85 $5.79 $6.59 $5.37 $9.82 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?   34 City of Meridian, Idaho 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!      Parks and Recreation Master Plan 35 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      36 City of Meridian, Idaho 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              Parks and Recreation Master Plan 37 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            0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 To t a l P a r k A c r e s Year Meridian Park Acreage Added Park Acres Existing Park Acres   38 City of Meridian, Idaho Figure 11: Pathways Maintained      Figure 12: Developed Park Acres per 1,000 People      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.            0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Li n e a l F e e t o f M a i n t a i n e d P a t h w a y s Year Pathways Maintained by the City Lineal Feet of Maintained Pathways Added Existing Lineal Feet of Maintained Pathways 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ac r e s p e r T h o u s a n d P e o p l e To t a l P a r k A c r e s Year Meridian Park Acreage Total Park Acres Acres/thousand people   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 39 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.             40 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.         Parks and Recreation Master Plan 41 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.               42 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.          Parks and Recreation Master Plan 43 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         44 City of Meridian, Idaho Map A shows the study area and key locations of properties. Larger scale maps are provided as separate  documents.    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.                An analytical technique known as  GRASP® (Geo‐Referenced  Amenities Standard Process) was  used to analyze Level of Service  (LOS) provided by assets in the  City of Meridian. This proprietary  process, used exclusively by  GreenPlay and Design Concepts,  yields analytical maps and data  that may be used to examine  access to recreation across the  study area. A detailed history and  description of GRASP®  Methodology may be found in  Appendix F.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 45 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          46 City of Meridian, Idaho 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:            (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.           Parks and Recreation Master Plan 47 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.      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.                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Ta b l e  5:  Ou t d o o r  In v e n t o r y  Su m m a r y  Ta b l e                                         * Th e s e  ac r e a g e s  re f l e c t  th e  to t a l  pa r c e l s  in  GI S  an d  ar e  no t  ne c e s s a r i l y  th e  sp e c i f i c  ac r e a g e s  tr a c k e d  fo r  ea c h  si t e  by  th e  MP R  De p a r t m e n t         LO C A T I O N C L A S S G I S  AC R E S A q u a   F e a t ,   S p r a y B a c k s t o p ,   P r a c t i c e B a l l f i e l d B a s k e t b a l l B a t t i n g   C a g e B o c c e   B a l l C o m p l e x ,   B a l l f i e l d C o m p l e x ,   H o r s e s h o e s C o m p l e x ,   T e n n i s C o n c e s s i o n s D i s k   G o l f D o g   P a r k D r i v i n g   R a n g e E d u c a t i o n a l   E x p e r i e n c e E v e n t   S p a c e G a r d e n ,   C o m m u n i t y G a r d e n ,   D i s p l a y G o l f H o r s e s h o e s L o o p   W a l k M P   F i e l d ,   A l l   S i z e s O p e n   T u r f Open Water Other‐Active Passive Node Picnic Grounds Playground, All Sizes Public Art Shelter, All Sizes Skate Park Tennis Volleyball Water Access, General Water Feature Ju l i u s  M.  Kl e i n e r  P a r k R e g i o n a l 5 7 . 9 9 2 1 1 1 . 5 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 5 1 3 5 12 Se t t l e r s  P a r k R e g i o n a l 5 6 . 1 2 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 6 2 1 4 10 Be a r  Cr e e k  P a r k C o m m u n i t y 1 8 . 8 0 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 11 He r o e s  P a r k C o m m u n i t y 3 0 . 1 5 0 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 21 St o r e y  P a r k C o m m u n i t y 1 7 . 9 0 4 3 2 1 3 1 1 12 Tu l l y  P a r k C o m m u n i t y 1 8 . 4 7 7 8 2 1 11 12 1 8t h  St r e e t  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 2 . 7 8 2 9 1 11 Ch a m p i o n  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 5 . 9 8 3 0 1 11 11 Ch a t e a u  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 6 . 7 1 6 3 1 1 11 11 Go r d o n  Ha r r i s  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 1 1 . 1 3 7 0 11 1 11 Re n a i s s a n c e  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 6 . 5 2 6 4 1 11 11 Se a s o n s  P a r k N e i g h b o r h o o d 6 . 9 5 3 3 1 11 1 1 1 Ce n t e n n i a l  P a r k M i n i 0 . 4 5 2 0 0 . 5 1 1 1 1 Co x  Mo n u m e n t M i n i 0 . 1 0 8 2 1 1 1 Fi r e  St a t i o n  No . 4  P a r k M i n i 0 . 5 9 0 6 1 Ci t y  Ha l l  Pl a z a S p e c i a l  Us e 0 . 9 2 7 9 11 1 1 1 Ge n e r a t i o n s  Pl a z a S p e c i a l  Us e 0 . 2 4 7 8 11 1 He r i t a g e  Ba l l  Fi e l d s S p e c i a l  Us e 2 2 . 6 8 6 0 1 4 3 Ja b i l  Fi e l d s S p e c i a l  Us e 8 . 3 9 8 0 2 La k e v i e w  Go l f  Co u r s e G o l f 1 1 9 . 4 2 6 3 11 3 9 2 . 3 8 5 0 2 2 1 6 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 23 1 5 4 11 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 9 2 2 9 1 1 3 5 2 5 1 1 0 1 2 4 To t a l s :        Parks and Recreation Master Plan 51 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.      LOCATION Ga l l e r y Gy m n a s i u m Ki t c h e n  ‐   Ki t c h e n e t t e Mu l t i ‐pu r p o s e Pa t i o  / Ou t d o o r  se a t i n g Re t a i l  / Pr o ‐sh o p 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 C e n t e r 1 1511 Paramount Elementary School 1 Willow Creek Elementary School 1 YMCA Homecourt 4 T o t a l s : 3 1 1 1811   52 City of Meridian, Idaho 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                                          Parks and Recreation Master Plan 53 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    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  F for in‐depth discussion on threshold calculation.       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.    •Each component receives a score 1 , 2, or 3 •Site modifiers are added up to determine a multiplier 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 •"Design & Ambiance" as a stand alone modifer 1, 2, or 3 •All modified component scores add up to a total score for a park or indoor facility 79.2   54 City of Meridian, Idaho   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.     Parks and Recreation Master Plan 55 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.     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.      56 City of Meridian, Idaho   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 B‐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.      Parks and Recreation Master Plan 57   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.           58 City of Meridian, Idaho   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.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 59     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.     Chart 2: Walkability of City of Meridian by land area      60 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.     Chart 3: Walkability of City of Meridian by Population    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.      Chart 4: Youth Walkable Access to Recreation    25% 25% 50% % of Total  2014 Population No Service Below Threshold At or Above Threshold 24% 24% 52% % of Population Ages 19 and Under No Service Below Threshold At or Above Threshold   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 61 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.       62 City of Meridian, Idaho   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.   Ta b l e  7:  GR A S P ®  Co m p a r a t i v e  Da t a     ST A T E C I T Y Y E A R P O P U L A T I O N ST U D Y  AR E A  SI Z E   (A C R E S ) # OF  SI T E S  (P A R K S ,   FA C I L I T I E S ,  ET C ) TO T A L  # OF   CO M P O N E N T S AV G .  #  CO M P O N E N T S  PE R   SI T E TO T A L  GR A S P ®   VA L U E  (E N T I R E   SY S T E M )   GR A S P ®  IN D E X A V G .  SC O R E / S I T E % of  TOTAL  AREA  w/LOS  >0AVG. LOS  PER  ACRE  SERVEDNUMBER OF  COMPONENTS  PER  POPULATIONAVERAGE LOS/POP  DEN  PER  ACREPOPULATION DENSITY  (PER  ACRE) VT E s s e x 2 0 1 1 2 8 , 8 5 8 2 5 , 2 3 0 4 7 1 5 3 3 . 3 8 9 5 3 1 1 9 . 0 7 2 % 1 1 . 0 5 1 0 1 . 1 ID P o s t  Fa l l s 2 0 1 1 29 , 0 6 2 2 4 , 9 2 8 35 2 7 1 7 . 7 1 0 0 5 3 5 2 8 . 7 7 1 % 1 6 9 9 1 4 5 1 . 2 OR O r e g o n  Ci t y 2 0 0 6 2 9 , 5 4 0 5 , 9 4 4 5 1 2 1 5 4 . 2 N A N A N A 8 6 % 4 5 7 9 5 . 0 CO C o m m e r c e  Ci t y 2 0 0 6 3 6 , 0 4 9 2 6 , 2 7 0 9 0 3 5 7 4 . 0 1 0 4 7 2 9 . 0 1 1 . 6 7 3 % 1 1 3 1 0 8 2 1 . 4 CA L a  Qu i n t a 2 0 0 6 3 9 , 6 1 4 2 2 , 8 2 9 2 7 1 4 3 5 . 3 6 1 1 1 5 2 2 . 6 7 9 % 78.0 44 5 1 . 7 UT S o u t h  Jo r d a n 2 0 0 6 4 4 , 2 7 6 1 4 , 0 8 1 4 8 1 7 2 3 . 6 1 5 7 8 3 6 3 2 . 9 4 4 % 2 9 . 8 4 9 3 . 1 CA P a l m  Sp r i n g s 2 0 1 3 4 4 , 4 6 8 6 0 , 4 4 2 1 6 1 6 2 1 0 . 1 1 1 4 9 2 6 7 1 . 8 6 9 % 164.9 42 2 3 0 . 7 NM F a r m i n g t o n 2 0 1 4 4 6 , 8 1 5 21 , 1 7 9 98 3 5 4 3 . 6 2 2 0 4 4 8 2 2 . 5 9 7 % 2 2 3 8 1 0 1 2 . 2 OR C o r v a l l i s 2 0 1 1 54 , 4 6 2 1 8 , 0 0 6 54 3 0 9 5 . 7 2 2 1 7 4 1 4 1 . 1 9 3 % 2 8 9 6 9 6 3 . 0 MO L i b e r t y 2 0 1 3 5 6 , 0 4 1 53 , 1 6 1 39 2 9 8 7 . 6 6 0 7 1 1 1 5 . 6 5 7 % 1 0 7 5 1 0 2 1 . 1 MA B r o o k l i n e 2 0 0 9 6 0 , 0 0 0 N A 7 4 1 2 8 1 . 7 5 5 1 9 7 . 4 N A N A 2 N A N A ID M e r i d i a n 2 0 1 5 9 4 , 2 8 9 18 , 1 5 9 21 * 2 0 7 * 9 . 9 * 1 9 4 7 1 8 5 2 . 1 9 8 % 1 9 6 2 3 7 . 8 5 . 2 FL W i n t e r  Ha v e n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 2 , 1 9 1 3 1 2 3 0 7 . 4 3 2 8 3 1 0 . 6 3 7 % 1 7 5 2 7 3 . 8 2 . 4 TX P e a r l a n d 2 0 1 5 1 0 1 , 9 0 0 30 , 4 6 8 21 1 6 4 7 . 8 1 5 5 6 1 5 7 4 . 1 8 5 % 1 6 2 2 5 5 . 4 2 . 9 OR N o r t h  Cl a c k a m a s 2 0 1 2 1 1 5 , 9 2 4 23 , 0 4 0 93 2 9 5 3 . 2 2 2 0 7 1 9 2 3 . 7 9 7 1 8 3 3 3 6 . 4 5 . 0 CO F o r t  Co l l i n s 1 3 0 , 6 8 1 3 3 , 3 8 8 4 5 6 1 9 1 3 . 8 2 6 7 5 2 0 5 9 . 4 8 3 % 2 1 7 5 5 5 . 4 3 . 9 NC C a r y 2 0 1 1 1 3 9 , 3 8 2 35 , 5 7 8 43 5 6 2 1 3 . 1 2 8 4 3 2 0 6 6 . 1 9 7 % 2 2 1 4 5 6 . 4 3 . 9 IA C e d a r  Ra p i d s 1 4 3 , 7 8 8 4 5 , 9 8 7 9 8 7 5 9 7 . 7 2 4 6 7 1 7 2 5 . 2 8 6 % 3 0 0 5 9 5 . 8 3 . 1 CO L a k e w o o d 1 4 4 , 3 6 9 2 7 , 4 9 4 1 0 5 7 3 8 7 . 0 6 4 7 6 4 5 6 1 . 7 1 0 0 N A 5 5 . 3 IN S o u t h  Be n d 2 0 1 1 1 6 4 , 3 9 6 65 , 3 8 7 64 3 3 9 5 . 3 2 4 1 7 1 5 3 7 . 8 7 2 % 1 3 0 2 5 1 . 7 2 . 5 FL F t  La u d e r d a l e 1 8 1 , 0 9 5 2 3 , 2 3 0 9 1 4 8 3 5 . 3 2 6 6 2 1 5 2 9 . 3 9 8 2 2 1 3 2 8 . 4 7 . 8 VA A r l i n g t o n 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 N A 2 2 5 4 9 4 2 . 2 N A N A N A N A N A 3 WA T a c o m a 2 0 3 , 9 8 4 3 4 , 1 3 3 1 0 4 4 8 8 4 . 7 N A N A N A N A N A 2 6 . 0 OR T H P R D 2 0 1 2 2 2 4 , 6 2 7 2 9 , 0 9 7 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 5 6 8 4 3 3 0 2 7 1 0 0 % 4 8 9 5 6 3 7 . 7 *I n c l u d e s  Ci t y  of  Me r i d i a n  as s e t s  an d  fa c i l i t i e s  on l y   Parks and Recreation Master Plan 65 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 Meridian, Idaho Jun-15 20 1 5 G I S A c r e s Aq u a t i c F e a t u r e , Sp r a y Ba l l f i e l d Ba s k e t b a l l Di s c G o l f Ho r s e s h o e s Lo o p W a l k MP F i e l d , a l l s i z e s Op e n T u r f Pl a y g r o u n d , a l l si z e s Sh e l t e r s , A l l S i z e s Te n n i s Vo l l e y b a l l 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 population 982 2 31 45 3 22 52 54 58 88 39 20 5 Number that should be added by all providers to achieve current ratio at projected population 130 0 4 6 0 3 7 7 8 12 5 3 1 *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 Capacities LOS for Community Components   66 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.    Table 9 shows the GRASP® Indices for the various components based on the 2015 population.     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.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 67 Table 9: GRASP® Community Component Index    Projected Community Components  GRASP® Index 2020 Current  Population  2015 94,289 Projected  Population  2020 108,701 Total   GRASP®  Community  Score per  component  type GRASP®  score per  1000  population (GRASP®  Index) Total   GRASP®  score  needed at  projected  population Additional   GRASP®  score  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   68 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.          Parks and Recreation Master Plan 69 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.    70 City of Meridian, Idaho 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    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 71 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     72 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan 73 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.                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK       Pr o p o s e d  Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n P r o p o s e d  Ge n e r a l  De s c r i p t i o n Ge n e r a l  De s i g n  an d  De v e l o p m e n t   Gu i d e l i n e s Si z e  an d  St r e e t  Fr o n t a g e  Gu i d e l i n e s Pr o p o s e d  Un i q u e   GR A S P ®  Co m p o n e n t   Ra n g e  ba s e d  on   Cu r r e n t  In v e n t o r y Pr o p o s e d  To t a l  GR A S P ®   Co m p o n e n t  Ra n g e  ba s e d  on   Cu r r e n t  In v e n t o r y Sp o r t s  Pa r k S p o r t  or i e n t e d  fa c i l i t y . Ap p r o p r i a t e  co m p o n e n t s  ma y  va r y  ba s e d   on  us e .   Ty p i c a l  Co m f o r t  an d  Co n v e n i e n c e   Am e n i t i e s  (P i c n i c  ta b l e s ,  be n c h e s ,  bi k e   ra c k s ,  dr i n k i n g  fo u n t a i n s ,  re s t r o o m ,  et c ) Va r i e s  by  us e St r e e t  fr o n t a g e  my  va r y  by  us e  an d  si z e Va r i e s V a r i e s Sp e c i a l  Us e  Pa r k Co v e r s  a  br o a d  ra n g e  of  pa r k s  an d   re c r e a t i o n a l  fa c i l i t i e s  or i e n t e d  to w a r d   si n g l e ‐pu r p o s e  us e ,  li m i t e d ,  is o l a t e d  or   un i q u e  re c r e a t i o n a l  ne e d s . Ap p r o p r i a t e  co m p o n e n t s  ma y  va r y  ba s e d   on  us e .   Ty p i c a l  Co m f o r t  an d  Co n v e n i e n c e   Am e n i t i e s  (P i c n i c  ta b l e s ,  be n c h e s ,  bi k e   ra c k s ,  dr i n k i n g  fo u n t a i n s ,  re s t r o o m ,  et c ) Va r i e s  by  us e St r e e t  fr o n t a g e  my  va r y  by  us e  an d  si z e Va r i e s V a r i e s 15  to  30  ac r e s  ba s e d  on  cu r r e n t  in v e n t o r y Vi s i b l e  fr o m  ad j o i n i n g  st r e e t  an d  st r e e t   fr o n t a g e  on  at  le a s t  tw o  si d e s  wi t h  40 0   fe e t  mi n i m u m 7  to  98  to  15 Ne i g h b o r h o o d  Pa r k Th e  ba s i c  un i t  of  th e  pa r k  sy s t e m  an d   se r v e s  as  th e  re c r e a t i o n a l  an d  so c i a l   fo c u s  of  th e  ne i g h b o r h o o d .    Le v e l  of   se r v i c e  is  pr i m a r i l y  pr o v i d e d  to   i n d i v i d u a l ,  fa m i l i e s  an d  sm a l l  gr o u p s   th r o u g h  un i q u e  co m p o n e n t s .    Ge n e r a l l y   se r v e s  re s i d e n t s  wi t h i n  1/ 2  mi l e  wa l k i n g   di s t a n c e  up  to  on e  mi l e  an d  li m i t e d  on ‐si t e   pa r k i n g  pr o v i d e d . Ap p r o p r i a t e  co m p o n e n t s  ma y  in c l u d e  bu t   no t  be  li m i t e d  to :   Lo c a l  Pl a y g r o u n d Op e n  Tu r f Sh e l t e r Ba s k e t b a l l  or  Ot h e r  Co u r t  Ga m e Lo o p  Wa l k Pu b l i c  Ar t   Ty p i c a l  Co m f o r t  an d  Co n v e n i e n c e   Am e n i t i e s  (P i c n i c  ta b l e s ,  be n c h e s ,  bi k e   ra c k s ,  dr i n k i n g  fo u n t a i n s ,  re s t r o o m ,  et c ) .5  to  11  ac r e s  ba s e d  on  cu r r e n t  in v e n t o r y   (C i t y  St a n d a r d  Si z e  is  7  ac r e s ) Vi s i b l e  fr o m  ad j o i n i n g  st r e e t  an d  20 0  fe e t   of  st r e e t  fr o n t a g e 5  to  64 . 5  to  6 Re g i o n a l  Pa r k  (L a r g e  Ur b a n   Pa r k ) Se r v e  a  br o a d  pu r p o s e  to  th e  c o m m u n i t y   an d  re g i o n  wh i l e  st i l l  pr o v i d i n g  ad e q u a t e   ne i g h b o r h o o d  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  to  ad j a c e n t   re s i d e n t s .  Fo c u s  is  on  co m p o n e n t s  th a t   oc c u r  in  qu a n t i t i e s ,  si z e  an d  de s i g n  to   se r v e  la r g e  gr o u p s  or  c o m m u n i t y  wi d e   ev e n t s .    Ma y  se r v e  us e r s  fr o m  ac r o s s  ci t y   or  re g i o n .  Be c a u s e  of  se r v i c e  ar e a  re q u i r e s   ad e q u a t e  pa r k i n g  fa c i l i t i e s . Ap p r o p r i a t e  co m p o n e n t s  ma y  in c l u d e  bu t   no t  be  li m i t e d  to :   De s t i n a t i o n  Pl a y g r o u n d Do g  Pa r k Sp o r t s  Fi e l d s Sp l a s h  Pa d s Ev e n t  Sp a c e Op e n  Tu r f Sh e l t e r Ba s k e t b a l l ,  Te n n i s ,  Pi c k l e b a l l ,  et c . Lo o p  Wa l k Pu b l i c  Ar t   Ty p i c a l  Co m f o r t  an d  Co n v e n i e n c e   Am e n i t i e s  (P i c n i c  ta b l e s ,  be n c h e s ,  bi k e   ra c k s ,  dr i n k i n g  fo u n t a i n s ,  re s t r o o m ,  et c ) 50 +  ac r e s  ba s e d  on  cu r r e n t  in v e n t o r y Fu l l  ac c e s s  on  at  le a s t  tw o  si d e s  of  pa r k .    At  le a s t  on e  si d e  of  th e  pa r k  sh o u l d  ha v e   ac c e s s  fr o m  a  co l l e c t o r  or  ar t e r i a l  st r e e t . 15  to  21 3 9 + Co m m u n i t y  Pa r k Se r v e  a  br o a d  pu r p o s e  to  th e  c o m m u n i t y   wh i l e  st i l l  pr o v i d i n g  ad e q u a t e   ne i g h b o r h o o d  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  to  ad j a c e n t   re s i d e n t s .  Fo c u s  is  on  co m p o n e n t s  th a t   oc c u r  in  qu a n t i t i e s ,  si z e  an d  de s i g n  to   se r v e  la r g e  gr o u p s  or  c o m m u n i t y  wi d e   ev e n t s .  Ge n e r a l l y  se r v e s  us e r s  wi t h i n  1 ‐3   mi l e  ra d i u s .  Re q u i r e s  ad e q u a t e  pa r k i n g  to   mi n i m i z e  ne i g h b o r h o o d  co n f l i c t . Ap p r o p r i a t e  co m p o n e n t s  ma y  in c l u d e  bu t   no t  be  li m i t e d  to :   De s t i n a t i o n  Pl a y g r o u n d Do g  Pa r k Sp o r t s  Fi e l d s Op e n  Tu r f Sh e l t e r Ba s k e t b a l l  or  Ot h e r  Co u r t s Lo o p  Wa l k Pu b l i c  Ar t   Ty p i c a l  Co m f o r t  an d  Co n v e n i e n c e   Am e n i t i e s  (P i c n i c  ta b l e s ,  be n c h e s ,  bi k e   ra c k s ,  dr i n k i n g  fo u n t a i n s ,  re s t r o o m ,  et c )        Ba s e d  on  ex i s t i n g  co n d i t i o n s ,  th e  cu r r e n t  pa r k s  wo u l d  fa l l  in t o  th e  fo l l o w i n g  cl a s s i f i c a t i o n s .     Pr o p o s e d  Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n L o c a t i o n Cu r r e n t  Nu m b e r  of   Un i q u e  GR A S P ®   Co m p o n e n t s Cu r r e n t  Nu m b e r  of   To t a l  GR A S P ®   Co m p o n e n t s GI S  Ac r e s Ju l i u s  M.  Kl e i n e r  Pa r k 2 1 3 9 . 5 5 7 . 9 9 2 1 Se t t l e r s  Pa r k 1 5 5 5 5 6 . 1 2 3 1 Be a r  Cr e e k  Pa r k 7 8 1 8 . 8 0 1 9 He r o e s  Pa r k 9 1 5 3 0 . 1 5 0 1 St o r e y  Pa r k 7 1 1 1 7 . 9 0 4 3 Tu l l y  Pa r k 7 9 1 8 . 4 7 7 8 8t h  St r e e t  Pa r k 3 3 2 . 7 8 2 9 Ce n t e n n i a l  Pa r k 5 4 . 5 0 . 4 5 2 0 Ch a m p i o n  Pa r k 5 5 5 . 9 8 3 0 Ch a t e a u  Pa r k 6 6 6 . 7 1 6 3 Go r d o n  Ha r r i s  Pa r k 5 5 1 1 . 1 3 7 0 Re n a i s s a n c e  Pa r k 5 5 6 . 5 2 6 4 Se a s o n s  Pa r k 6 6 6 . 9 5 3 3 Ci t y  Ha l l  Pl a z a 5 5 0 . 9 2 7 9 Co x  Mo n u m e n t 3 3 0 . 1 0 8 2 Fi r e  St a t i o n  No . 4  Pa r k 1 1 0 . 5 9 0 6 Ge n e r a t i o n s  Pl a z a 3 3 0 . 2 4 7 8 La k e v i e w  Go l f  Co u r s e 2 2 1 1 9 . 4 2 6 3 He r i t a g e  Ba l l  Fi e l d s 3 8 2 2 . 6 8 6 0 Ja b i l  Fi e l d s 1 2 8 . 3 9 8 0 Sp e c i a l  Us e  Pa r k Ne i g h b o r h o o d  Pa r k Sp o r t s  Pa r k Re g i o n a l  Pa r k  (L a r g e  Ur b a n   Pa r k ) Co m m u n i t y  Pa r k E x i s t i n g   C o n d i t i o n s           Parks and Recreation Master Plan 79 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. This translates to  an Urban Forest of around 7,000 trees.     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.           80 City of Meridian, Idaho  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                    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 81 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.       82 City of Meridian, Idaho  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.                    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 83 1. 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.                    84 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 85 Figure 15: Sample Data Chart Generated in GIS Using Data from Current Tree Inventory  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.            86 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                     Parks and Recreation Master Plan 87 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.                             88 City of Meridian, Idaho Figure 16: Working Plan of Kleiner Arboretum                                          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            Parks and Recreation Master Plan 89 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.           90 City of Meridian, Idaho 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    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 91 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.                           92 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                Parks and Recreation Master Plan 93 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.              94 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                Parks and Recreation Master Plan 95 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      96 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                                 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.       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      Parks and Recreation Master Plan 97 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.           98 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.                     Parks and Recreation Master Plan 99 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 I.                                          THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 101 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:  1. Community Survey  2. City Data  3. 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.                    102 City of Meridian, Idaho Table 10: Key Issues Analysis Matrix          Using the Key Issues Matrix, a summary of all research, analysis, and input assembled for this study, a  variety of recommendations have emerged.      Parks and Recreation Master Plan 103      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  park.    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.                                      THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 105 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   106 City of Meridian, Idaho     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.              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    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 107 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.        108 City of Meridian, Idaho 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.           Parks and Recreation Master Plan 109 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.              110 City of Meridian, Idaho 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 II 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 II'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.          Parks and Recreation Master Plan 111 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)    Goal 1: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies  Objective 1.1:  Maintain existing level of service goal  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.1.a   Continue the planning goal of four acres of developed park  land per 1,000 population.  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.2:  Enhance and improve internal and external communication regarding Department activities and services  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.2.a  Continue to implement the Marketing Plan  (Communication Plan).  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  1.2.b  Review annually and update the Marketing Plan as  needed.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing    112 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  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.3.a   Evaluate directional and wayfinding signage to facilities on  roadways, pathways, and within parks.  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  1.3.b  Develop signage standards for parks. $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  1.3.c  Enhance and update existing park signs as parks are  renovated.  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.4:  Maintain existing quality standards for facilities and amenities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.4.a   Continue to improve and upgrade existing facilities and  amenities through the CIP Plan and the Life Cycle  Maintenance Programs.  See CIP Plan  and Life Cycle  Maintenance  Programs  Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.5:  Increase social media use and navigation apps for parks and pathways  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.5.a   Explore additional social media uses and navigation apps  for parks and pathways.  TBD Staff Time Short‐Term  1.5.b  Follow current social media best practices, review  annually, and recommend updates as needed.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.6:  Increase appropriate partnerships within the community  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.6.a   Explore additional partnership opportunities as well as  build on existing partnerships with focus on low service  areas.  $0  Staff Time  TBD  Potential increased  revenue or  decreased  expenses  Ongoing  1.6.b  Ensure all existing and future partnerships are accurately  portrayed in a signed partnership agreement (Sample  Partnership Policy has been provided in Appendix E).  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  1.6.c  Identify desired sports facilities or complexes and establish  partnerships that foster their development.   TBD Staff Time Ongoing    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 113         1.6.d  Continue to explore partnerships with alternative  providers to increase level of service. (Strategic Plan 5.A.2)  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.7:  Increase the utilization of technology to improve customer service and efficiencies  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.7.a   Continue to explore additional opportunities to expand the  use of technology Department wide.  $0    Staff Time    Ongoing  1.7.b   Increase the use of technology by providing online shelter  reservations and a mobile application of the Department’s  website.   TBD Staff Time Short‐Term  Objective 1.8:  Staff appropriately to meet demand and maintain established quality of service  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.8.a  Hire and train staff for current and future parks, facilities,  and pathways maintenance demands.  $0 TBD  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  1.8.b  Hire and train staff for current and future recreation  programming and facility usage demands.  $0 TBD  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  Objective 1.9:  Maintain and keep current the Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Policies  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.9.a  Review Department SOP and policies annually and update  as needed.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  1.9.b  Review the City Code Chapter for Parks and Recreation  annually and recommend updates as needed.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 1.10:  Expand the volunteer program  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  1.10.a  Improve the current Park Ambassador Program.  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  1.10.b  Continue to make use of other volunteer opportunities for  park projects and events.  $0 Staff Time On‐going    114 City of Meridian, Idaho Goal 2: Increase Financial Opportunities  Objective 2.1  Increase special event and activities sponsorships  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  2.1.a   Explore additional sponsorship opportunities and  build on existing sponsorships.  $0  Staff Time  TBD  Potential increased  revenue or  decreased  expenses  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  2.1.b  Ensure that all existing and future sponsorships are  accurately portrayed in a signed sponsorship  agreement (Sample Sponsorship Policy has been  provided in Appendix D).  $0 Staff Time  Short Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  Objective 2.2:  Evaluate Developer Impact Fee Ordinance  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  2.2.a  Review Developer Impact Fee revenue annually to  align with CIP requests and existing LOS.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  2.2.b  Review Impact Fee Ordinance approximately every  five years.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 2.3:  Pursue grant and philanthropic opportunities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  2.3.a  Continue to seek philanthropic donations and grant  opportunities.  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  2.3.b  Consider contracting with a dedicated grant writer to  research, submit, and track federal, regional, state,  and local grants.  Potential Matching  Funds TBD  % of successful  grants TBD Short‐Term  Objective 2.4:  Implement a cost recovery and pricing policy  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  2.4.a  Continue periodic evaluation of fees for programs and  facilities.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  2.4.b  Continue to support the current Care Enough to Share  Scholarship Program.  $0 $0 Ongoing  2.4.c  Develop a cost recovery and pricing policy. $40,000 Staff Time Short‐Term    Parks and Recreation Master Plan 115 2.4.d  Explore feasibility of a dedicated funding source for  parks and recreation through special revenue, sports, or  other available sources.  TBD Staff Time Short‐Term    Goal 3: Continue to Improve Programs and Service Delivery    Goal 4: Maintain and Improve Facilities and Amenities  Objective 4.1  Maintain and improve existing facilities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.1.a   Continue to implement existing plans, CIP, Master Plan,  and Life Cycle Replacement Programs.  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  4.1.b  Review existing plans, CIP, Master Plan, and Life Cycle  Replacement Programs and update as needed.  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  Objective 4.2:  Expand pathways and connectivity  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.2.a  Continue to implement existing Pathways Master Plan,  review annually, and make updates as needed.  $170,000 per  mile $0 Ongoing  Objective 3.1:  Increase year round recreational programming and activities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  3.1.a  Continue to look for opportunities to expand indoor  recreational programs and activities.  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  3.1.b  Continue to monitor recreational trends to stay current  with programming and demand.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  3.1.c   Continue to look for opportunities to expand programs  around working hours and commuting citizens.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  3.1.d  Explore increasing the number of program opportunities  for seniors, special needs, teens, and tweens.  $0 Staff Time Ongoing  3.1.e  Determine, attract, promote, and maintain a “signature”  event for the City. (Strategic Plan 5.B.1)  TBD Staff Time Ongoing  3.1.f  Set targets, identify gaps, and deploy programs,  activities, and events that provide family‐centered  recreational opportunities. (Strategic Plan 5.B.4)  TBD Staff Time Ongoing    116 City of Meridian, Idaho 4.2.b  Add fitness stations and family fun stations in  appropriate locations on pathways.  $100‐$150K per  park $0 Ongoing  Objective 4.3:  Add indoor recreation space  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.3.a  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 a Fieldhouse.  TBD TBD Short‐Term  4.3.b  Explore opportunities to add additional Community  Centers to newly planned elementary schools.  TBD TBD Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Objective 4.4:  Develop new amenities at new and existing parks based on level of service analysis  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.4.a  Look for opportunities to add parks and pathways in new  growth areas.  TBD TBD  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  4.4.b  Look for opportunities to add new components at  existing parks where level of service is below threshold.  TBD TBD  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  Objective 4.5:  Acquire new land for parks  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.5.a  Continue to find and purchase additional land for future  park development.  TBD Staff Time Mid to Long  Term  4.5.b  When considering new Parks, look where LOS is below  threshold.  TBD Staff Time Mid to Long  Term  Objective 4.6:  Improve parking at parks  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.6.a  Explore the need to improve and potentially add more  parking at appropriate parks and amenities.  TBD Staff Time Short to Mid  Term  4.6.b  Consider alternative transportation options to reduce  parking demand.  TBD Staff Time Short to Mid  Term    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-117 Objective 4.7:  Continue to improve ADA accessibility at all facilities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.7.a  Develop and adopt an ADA Accessibility Transition Plan. TBD Staff Time  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  4.7.b  Review and update the ADA Accessibility Transition  Plan every five years.  $0 Staff Time Short‐Term  Objective 4.8:  Upgrade comfort, convenience, and cultural amenities to existing facilities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.8.a  Explore opportunities to add shade, storage, security  lighting, synthetic turf, etc. appropriately at existing  facilities.  TBD Staff Time  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  4.8.b  Explore opportunities to work with the Parks and  Recreation Commission to create an individual identity  for each neighborhood park.  TBD Staff Time  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  4.8.c  Explore opportunities to add public art appropriately at  existing facilities.  TBD Staff Time  Short‐Term  Mid‐Term  Long‐Term  Objective 4.9:  Add destination park amenities  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.9.a  Explore opportunities to add destination playground  and natural play areas with climbing features.  TBD Staff Time Short to Mid  Term  4.9.b  Foster development of Discovery Parks that uniquely  blend arts, entertainment, and culture. (Strategic Plan  5.A.4)  TBD Staff Time Short to Mid  Term  Objective 4.10:  Address current and future needs for athletic fields.  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.10.a  Explore opportunities to add both rectangle and  diamond athletic fields as use and demands warrant.  TBD TBD Short to Mid  Term  4.10.b  Where appropriate, add sports field lighting to new  facilities and improvements to lighting at existing  facilities.  TBD TBD Short to Mid  Term  4.10.c  Consider upgrading or adding synthetic turf fields as  use and demand for use of athletic field increases.  TBD TBD Short to Mid  Term    118 City of Meridian, Idaho Objective 4.11:  Consider programming needs when adding new components to existing parks or when developing new parks  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.11.a  Continue to evaluate the programming needs of the  community when developing new parks or when  adding new components to existing parks.  TBD Staff Time Short to Mid  Term  Objective 4.12:  Monitor use, demands, and trends of recreation components  Actions Capital Cost  Estimate  Operational  Budget Impact  Timeframe to  Complete  4.12.a  Continue to monitor and evaluate the use, demands,  and trends in recreation amenities.  TBD TBD Short to Mid  Term      Parks and recreation Master Plan aPPendiX deceMber 2015   Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-1 Appendix A – Park and Recreation Influencing Trends   The following information highlights relevant regional, and national outdoor recreation trends from  various sources that may influence the City of Meridian’s recreation planning for the next several years.     A. Demographic Trends in Recreation   Adult – The Millennial Generation  The 25–34 age range represents potential adult  program participants. Many in this age group are  beginning long‐term relationships and establishing  families.     The Millennial Generation is generally considered to  represent those born between about 1980 and  1999 (ages 16 – 35). Twenty‐five percent (25%) of  the population in Meridian is included within the  Millennial Generation.    In their book, Millennials Rising, the Next Great Generation, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe  identify seven Millennial characteristics.4 These characteristics were discussed in a 2010 California State  Parks Bulletin article entitled, “Here come the ‘Millennials’: What You Need to Know to Connect with  this New Generation”:  1. Special: Used to receiving rewards just for participating, Millennials are raised to feel special.  2. Sheltered: 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.  3. Team Oriented: This group has a “powerful instinct for community” and places a “High value on  teamwork and belonging.”   4. Confident (and technologically savvy): Upbeat and with a can‐do attitude, this generation is  more “optimistic and tech‐savvy than its elders.”  5. Pressured: Millennials feel “pressured to achieve and pressured to behave.” They have been  “pushed to study hard and avoid personal risk.”  6. Achieving: This generation is expected to do great things, and they may be the next “great”  generation.  7. Conventional (and diverse): Millennials are respectful of authority and civic minded. Respectful  of cultural differences because they are ethnically diverse, they also value good conduct and  tend to have a “standardized appearance.”  The California State Parks article provides a broad range of ideas for engaging Millennials in parks and  recreation.5                                                                 4 Howe, Neil, and William Strauss, (2000). Millennials Rising, the Next Great Generation. Vintage: New York, New York.  5 California State Parks, Recreation Opportunities. (2010) “Here come the ‘Millennials’: What You Need to Know to Connect with  this New Generation,” http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/millennials%20final, accessed January 12, 2015, pages 4‐6.   The highest ranking age cohort in Meridian in  2014 was 35–44 (15 percent of the population)  followed by the 45–54 and 25–34 age cohorts  (12.8% and 12.5% of the population,  respectively). Planning for the next ten years  suggests a growing demand for programs and  services for Baby Boomers and seniors (the 55 – 74 age range is predicted to grow by 2.9% by  2019).    A -2 City of Meridian, Idaho Adult – The Baby Boomers  Baby boomers are defined as individuals born between 1946 and 1964, as stated in Leisure  Programming for Baby Boomers.6 They are a generation that consists of nearly 76 million Americans. In  2011, this influential population began its transition out of the workforce. As Baby Boomers enter  retirement, they will be looking for opportunities in fitness, sports, outdoors, arts and cultural events,  and other activities that suit their lifestyles. With varied life experiences, values, and expectations, Baby  Boomers are predicted to redefine the meaning of recreation and leisure programming for mature  adults. In the July 2012 issue of Parks and Recreation magazine, published by NRPA, Emilyn Sheffield,  Professor of Recreation and Parks Management at the California State University, at Chico, write an  article titled, “Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today.” In it, she indicated that Baby Boomers are driving  the aging of America with Boomers and seniors over 65 composing about 39 percent of the nation’s  population.7    In the leisure profession, this generation’s devotion to exercise and fitness is an example of its influence  on society. When boomers entered elementary school, President John Kennedy initiated the President's  Council on Physical Fitness; physical education and recreation became a key component of public  education. As Boomers matured and moved into the workplace, they took their desire for exercise and  fitness with them. Now, as the oldest Boomers are nearing 70, park and recreation professionals are  faced with new approaches to provide both passive and active programming for older adults. Boomers  are second only to Gen Y/Millennials in participation in fitness and outdoor sports.8    Jeffrey Ziegler, a past president of the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association identified “Boomer  Basics” in his article, “Recreating retirement: how will baby boomers reshape leisure in their 60s?”9  Highlights are summarized below.    Boomer Basics:   Boomers are known to work hard, play hard, and spend hard. They  have always been fixated with all things youthful. Boomers typically  respond that they feel 10 years younger than their chronological  age. Their nostalgic mindset keeps boomers returning to the sights  and sounds of their 1960s youth culture. Swimming pools have  become less of a social setting and much more of an extension of  Boomers’ health and wellness program. Because Boomers in general have a high education level they  will likely continue to pursue education as adults and into retirement.     Boomers will look to park and recreation professionals to give them opportunities to enjoy many life‐ long hobbies and sports. When programming for this age group, a customized experience to cater to the  need for self‐fulfillment, healthy pleasure, nostalgic youthfulness, and individual escapes will be  important. Recreation trends will shift from games and activities that Boomers associate with senior  citizens, as Ziegler suggests that activities such as bingo, bridge, and shuffleboard will likely be avoided  because Boomers relate these activities to being old.                                                                6 Linda Cochran, Anne Roshschadl, and Jodi Rudick, Leisure Programming For Baby Boomers, Human Kinetics, 2009.   7 Emilyn Sheffield, “Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today,” Parks and Recreation, July 2012 p. 16‐17.  82012 Participation Report, Physical Activity Council, 2012.  9 Jeffry Ziegler, “Recreating Retirement: How Will Baby Boomers Reshape Leisure in Their 60s?” Parks and Recreation, October  2002.  In 2010, Baby Boomers  represented 17 percent of the  population in Meridian  (those approximately 51 – 64  years of age).    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-3 Boomers are reinventing what being a 65‐year‐old means. Parks and recreation agencies that do not  plan for Boomers carrying on in retirement with the same hectic pace they have lived during their years  in employment will be left behind. Things to consider when planning for the demographic shift:   Boomer characteristics   What drives Boomers?   Marketing to Boomers   Arts and entertainment   Passive and active fitness trends   Outdoor recreation/adventure programs   Travel programs    Youth – Planning for the Demographic Shift  Sheffield also identified that the proportion of youth is smaller than in the past, but still essential to our  future. As of the 2010 Census, the age group under age 18 forms about a quarter of the U.S. population,  and this percentage is at an all‐time low. Nearly half of this population group is ethnically diverse, and  25 percent is Hispanic.    Multiculturalism  Our country is becoming increasingly racially and  ethnically diverse. In May 2012, the U.S. Census  Bureau announced that non‐white babies now  account for the majority of births in the United  States. “This is an important tipping point,” said  William H. Frey,10 the senior demographer at the  Brookings Institution, describing the shift as a  “…transformation from a mostly white Baby Boomer  culture to the more globalized multi‐ethnic country  that we are becoming.” Cultural and ethnic diversity  adds a unique flavor to communities expressed  through distinct neighborhoods, multicultural learning environments, restaurants, places of worship,  museums, and nightlife. 11    As the recreation field continues to function within a more diverse society, race and ethnicity will  become increasingly important in every aspect of the profession. More than ever, recreation  professionals will be expected to work with, and have significant knowledge and understanding of,  individuals from many cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.                                                                             10 Adam Serwer, “The End of White America,” Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin‐drum/2012/05/end‐white‐ america, May 17, 2012.  11 Baldwin Ellis, “The Effects of Culture & Diversity on America,” http://www.ehow.com/facts_5512569_effects‐culture‐ diversity‐america.html, accessed on Sept. 20, 2012.  While the City of Meridian has an  overwhelmingly Caucasian population  (91.3 percent in 2014), its demographic  profile indicates that two percent of the  population is Asian and .8 percent is  African American. Additionally, 7.5  percent of the population is of Hispanic  origin (irrespective of race).    A -4 City of Meridian, Idaho  Outdoor Participation varies by Ethnicity: Participation in outdoor activities is higher among  Caucasians than any other ethnicity and lowest among African Americans in nearly all age  groups.   Lack of interest reason for not participating: When asked why they did not participate in  outdoor activities more often, the number one reason given by people of all ethnicities and  races was because they were not interested.   Most popular outdoor activities: Biking, running, fishing, and camping were the most popular  outdoor activities for all Americans, with each ethnic/racial group participating in each in varying  degrees.    Recreational Preferences among Ethnic/Racial Groups (Self‐Identifying):  Nationwide participation in outdoor sports in 2013 was highest among Caucasians in all age groups and  lowest among African‐Americans, according to the 2014 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report.”12  The biggest difference in participation rates was between Caucasian and African American adolescents,  with 65 percent of Caucasians ages 13–17 participating and only 42 percent of African Americans in this  age range participating.    African‐Americans  African American youth ages 6–12 (52% participation), are the only age group in this demographic to  participate in outdoor recreation at a rate of more than 50 percent. By comparison, Caucasians in four of  the five age groupings participated in outdoor sports at rates of 60 percent or more, with only those  aged 45+ (40% participation) participating at under 50 percent. According to the 2014 “Outdoor  Recreation Participation Report,” the most popular outdoor activities among African‐Americans are:  running/jogging and trail running (18%); fishing (freshwater, saltwater, and fly) (11%); road, mountain,  and BMX biking (11%); birdwatching/wildlife viewing (4%); and camping (car, backyard, backpacking,  and RV) (4%).     Asian‐Americans  Research about outdoor recreation among Asian‐Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area (Chinese,  Japanese, Korean, and Filipino)13 found significant differences among the four groups concerning the  degree of linguistic acculturation (preferred language spoken in various communication media). The  research suggests that communications related to recreation and natural resource management should  appear in ethnic media, but the results also suggest that Asian Americans should not be viewed as  homogeneous with regard to recreation related issues. Another study14 found that technology use for  finding outdoor recreation opportunities is highest among Asian/Pacific Islander populations. Over 60  percent of these populations use stationary or mobile technology in making decisions regarding outdoor  recreation.    According to the 2014 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report,” the most popular outdoor activities  among Asian/Pacific Islanders are: running/jogging and trail running (24%); hiking (15%); road,  mountain, and BMX biking (14%); camping (car, backyard, backpacking, and RV) (11%); and fishing  (freshwater, saltwater, and fly) (10%).                                                               12 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2014,” Outdoor Foundation, 2014.  13 P.L. Winter, W.C. Jeong, G.C. Godbey, “Outdoor recreation among Asian Americans: A case study of San Francisco Bay Area  residents,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2004.   14 Harry Zinne and Alan Graefe, “Emerging Adults and the Future of Wild nature,” International Journal of Wildness. December  2007.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-5 Caucasians  According to the 2014 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report,” the most popular outdoor activities  among Caucasians are: running/jogging and trail running (19%); fishing (freshwater, saltwater, and fly)  (18%); road, mountain, and BMX biking (17%); camping (car, backyard, backpacking and RV) (16%); and  hiking (14%).     Hispanics   In the United States, the Hispanic population increased by 43 percent over the last decade, compared to  five percent for the non‐Hispanic population, and accounted for more than half of all the population  growth. According to Emilyn Sheffield, the growing racial and ethnic diversity is particularly important to  recreation and leisure service providers, as family and individual recreation patterns and preferences are  strongly shaped by cultural influences.15    Participation in outdoor sports among those who identify as Hispanic is at seven percent nationwide,  according to the “2013 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report.”16 Those who do get outdoors,  however, participate more frequently than other outdoor participants, with an average of 43 outings per  year. Hispanic youth (ages 6–17) are the most likely age group to participate in outdoor recreation,  followed closely by those in the 25–44 age range. The most popular outdoor activities among Hispanics  are: running and jogging (22%); road, mountain, and BMX biking (17%); fishing (freshwater, saltwater,  and fly) (14%); Camping (car, backyard, and RV) (11%); and hiking (9%).    Multiculturalism and Marketing  Today the marketplace for consumers has dramatically evolved in the United States from a largely Anglo  demographic, to the reality that the United States has shifted to a large minority consumer base known  as “new majority.”     The San Jose Group, a consortium of marketing communications companies specializing in reaching  Hispanic and non‐Hispanic markets of the United States, suggests that today’s multicultural population  of the United States, or the “new majority,” is 107.6 million, which translates to about 35.1 percent of  the country’s total population. The United States’ multicultural population alone could essentially be the  12th largest country in the world.17 Parks and recreation trends in marketing leisure services continue to  emerge and should be taken into consideration in all planning efforts, as different cultures respond  differently to marketing techniques.                                                                  15 Emilyn Sheffield, “Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today,” Parks and Recreation, July 2012 p. 16‐17.  16 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2013,” Outdoor Foundation, 2013.  17 “SJG Multicultural Facts & Trends,” San Jose Group, http://blog.thesanjosegroup.com/?p=275, posted October 25, 2010.    A -6 City of Meridian, Idaho B. Facilities  According to Recreation Management magazine’s 2014 “State of the Industry Report,”18 national trends  show an increased user‐base of recreation facilities (private and public). Additionally, parks and  recreation providers responding to the survey indicated an average age of 23.8 years for their  community recreation facilities. To meet that growing need, a majority of the parks and recreation  survey respondents (69%) reported that they have plans to build new facilities or make additions or  renovations to their existing facilities over the next three years. Nearly one‐third (32.5%) of parks  respondents said that they have plans to build new facilities, and 28.9 percent said that they plan to add  to their existing facilities. More than half (52.2%) are planning renovations to existing facilities.    The current national trend is toward “one‐stop” indoor recreation facilities to serve all ages. Large,  multi‐purpose regional centers help increase cost recovery, promote retention, and encourage cross‐ use. Agencies across the U.S. are increasing revenue production and cost recovery. Multi‐use facilities  versus specialized space is a trend, offering programming opportunities as well as free‐play  opportunities. “One stop” facilities attract young families, teens, and adults of all ages.    Also according to the 2014 “State of the Industry Report” (p. 56), “…parks and recreation departments  continue to see a slow recovery from the lowest points of the recent recession.” While 69 percent plan  for construction for parks, the average amount planned for construction in the 2014 budgets saw a  slight decrease of 4.5 percent from an average of $3,973,000 in last year’s survey to an average of  $3,795.000 for 2014. There was very little change in the types of features and amenities included in the  facilities of the survey respondents from last year to this year. The most commonly found features  include splash play areas, trails, dog parks, park structures (shelters and restroom buildings);  playgrounds; disc golf courses, open spaces (gardens, natural areas), synthetic turf sports fields; and  concession areas.    Aquatics/Water Recreation Trends  According to the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA), swimming ranked third nation‐wide in  terms of participation in 2012.19 Outdoor swimming pools are not typically heated and open year round.  Swimming for fitness is the top aspirational activity for “inactives” in 6 of 8 age categories in the SFIA  “2013 Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report,” representing a significant  opportunity to engage inactive populations. Nationally, there is an increasing trend towards indoor  leisure and therapeutic pools. Additional indoor and outdoor amenities like “spray pads” are becoming  increasingly popular as well. In some cities and counties spray pools are popular in the summer months  and turn into ice rinks in the winter months.     The 2014 Outdoor Recreation Participation Topline Report provided nation‐wide trends for various  outdoor activities, including the following water recreation activities: board sailing/windsurfing,  canoeing, fishing, kayaking, rafting, sailing, stand‐up paddling, and wakeboarding (Table 11). Among  water recreation activities, stand up paddling has had the largest increase in participation in the past  three years (23.9% increase) followed by several varieties of the kayaking experience: kayak fishing (20%  increase), recreational kayaking (11.1%) and whitewater kayaking (6.6% increase).                                                                18 Emily Tipping, “2014 State of the Industry Report, State of the Managed Recreation Industry,” Recreation Management, June  2014.  19 National Sporting Goods Association, “2012 Participation – Ranked by Total Participation,” 2013.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-7 Fly fishing participation is up while other fishing activities are down in the past three years. Sailing  participation has increased somewhat over the past three years, while rafting participation is down.20    Table 11: Water Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands)  (6 years of age or older)    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  3 Year  Average  Change  Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,128 1,607 1,151 1,593 1,324 ‐2.4%  Canoeing  10,058 10,553 9,787 9,839 10,153 ‐1.2%  Fishing (Fly) 5,568 5,478 5,360 6,012 5,878 2.4%  Fishing (Freshwater/ Other) 40,961 38,860 39,071 39,135 37,796 ‐0.9%  Kayak Fishing no data 1,044 1,201 1,409 1,798 20%  Kayaking (Recreational) 6,212 6,465 8,229 8,144 8,716 11.1%  Kayaking (White Water) 1,369 1,842 1,546 1,878 2,146 6.6%  Rafting 4,318 4,460 3,821 3,690 3,836 ‐4.6%  Sailing 4,342 3,869 3,725 3,958 3,915 ‐.5%  Stand Up Paddling no data 1,050 1,242 1,542 1,993 23.9%  Wakeboarding 3,577 3,645 3,389 3,348 3,316 ‐3.1%  Source: Outdoor Foundation 2014 (numbers in thousands).    Dog Parks  Dog parks continue to see high popularity and have remained among the top planned addition to parks  and recreational facilities over the past three years. In 2014, a new association was formed, dedicated to  providing informational resources for starting and maintaining dog parks, the National Dog Park  Association. Recreation Management magazine21 suggests that dog parks can represent a relatively low‐ cost way to provide an oft‐visited a popular community amenity. 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. According to Dog Fancy magazine, an ideal dog park should include  the following:   One acre or more surrounded by a 4‐ to 6‐foot fence   Shade and water   Adequate drainage   Parking near the site   A double gated entry   Benches   Pet‐waste disposal stations with pickup bags and covered waste receptacles    Fitness Programming  There have been many changes in fitness programs in the last 15 years. What clients wanted in 2000 is  not necessarily what they want today. The American College of Sports Medicine’s (ACSM’s) Health and  Fitness Journal22 has conducted an annual survey since 2007 to determine trends that would help create  a standard for health and fitness programming.                                                                20 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Topline Report 2014,” Outdoor Foundation, 2014.  21 Emily Tipping, “2014 State of the Industry Report, Trends in Parks and Recreation,” Recreation Management, June 2014.  22 “Walter R. Thompson, “Worldwide Survey of Fitness Trends for 2012,” Health & Fitness Journal, American College of Sports  Medicine, 2011.    A -8 City of Meridian, Idaho Table 12 shows survey results that focus on trends in the commercial, corporate, clinical, and community  health and fitness industry. Some trends first identified in 2007 have stayed near the top of the list year  after year, while others came and went in popularity. Zumba made a brief appearance on the top 10 in  2012, but has fallen off the list of top 20 in 2014. Body weight training appeared as a developing trend in  2014 and is projected to stay strong in 2015 as is high‐intensity interval training. Yoga  is regaining  popularity after falling out of the top 20 in 2009 and staying out of the top 10 until 2014. Fitness  programs for older adults will remain strong in 2014 and 2015.    Table 12: Top 10 Worldwide Fitness Trends for 2007 and Predicted Trends for 2015  2007 Trends for 2015  1. Children and obesity 1. Body weight training   2. Special fitness programs for older adults 2. High‐intensity interval training  3. Educated and experienced fitness professionals 3. Educated and experienced fitness professionals  4. Functional fitness 4. Strength training  5. Core training 5. Personal training  6. Strength training 6. Exercise and weight loss  7. Personal training 7. Yoga  8. Mind/Body Exercise 8. Fitness programs for older adults  9. Exercise and weight loss 9. Functional fitness  10. Outcome measurements 10. Group personal training  Source: American College of Sport Medicine    General Programming   One of the most common concerns in the recreation industry is creating innovative programming to  draw participants into facilities and services. Once in, participants recognize that the benefits are  endless. According to Recreation Management magazine’s “2014 State of the Industry Report,”23 the  most common programs offered by survey respondents include holiday events and other special events  (78.1%), youth sports teams (69.1%), day camps and summer camps (64.7%), adult sports teams  (61.3%), arts and crafts (60.9%), educational programs (60.5%), sports tournaments and races (56.8%),  programs for active older adults (55.2%), fitness programs (61.4%), and festivals and concerts (53.2%).    The report also suggested that more than 3 in 10 (35.7%) respondents are planning to add additional  programs at their facilities over the next three years. The most common types of programming they are  planning to add include:  1. Programming for active older adults (up from No. 5 on the 2013 survey)  2. Fitness programs (up from No. 3)  3. Teen programming (down from No. 2)  4. Adult sports teams (did not appear in 2013)  5. Holiday events and other special events (up from No. 6)  6. Mind‐body/balance programs – yoga, tai chi, Pilates, or martial arts (up from No. 7)  7. Environmental education (down from No. 1)  8. Educational programs (up from No. 4)  9. Festivals and concerts (up from No. 10)  10. Sports tournaments or races (down from No. 8)                                                                 23 Emily Tipping, “2014 State of the Industry Report, Trends in Parks and Recreation,” Recreation Management, June 2013.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-9 Older Adults and Senior Programming  The American Academy of Sports Medicine issues a yearly survey of the top 20 fitness trends.24 It ranks  senior fitness programs eighth among most popular fitness trends for 2015. Whether it’s SilverSneakers,  a freestyle low‐impact cardio class, or water aerobics, more and more people are realizing the many  benefits of staying active throughout life.     According to the National Sporting Goods Association, popular senior programming trends include  hiking, birding, and swimming.     C. Economic Impact of Festivals and Events  In the context of urban development, from the early 1980s, there has been a process that can be  characterized as “festivalization,” which has been linked to the economic restructuring of towns and  cities, and the drive to develop communities as large‐scale platforms for the creation and consumption  of “cultural experience.”     The success rate for festivals should not be evaluated simplistically solely on the basis of profit (sales),  prestige (media profile), or size (numbers of events). Research by the European Festival Research Project  (EFRP)25 indicates there is evidence of local and city government supporting and even instigating and  managing particular festivals themselves to achieve local or regional economic objectives, often defined  very narrowly (sales, jobs, tourists, etc.). There are also a growing number of smaller more local  community‐based festivals and events in communities, most often supported by local councils that have  been spawned partly as a reaction to larger festivals that have become prime economic‐drivers. These  community‐based festivals often will re‐claim cultural ground based on their social, educational, and  participative value. For more information on the values of festivals and events, see the CRC Sustainable  Tourism research guide26 on this topic.    In 2014, festivals grew in popularity as economic drivers and urban brand builders. Chad Kaydo  describes the phenomenon in the January 2014 issues of Governing magazine: “Municipal officials and  entrepreneur see the power of cultural festivals, innovation‐focused business conferences, and the like  as a way to spur short‐term tourism while shaping an image of the host city as a cool, dynamic location  where companies and citizens in modern, creative industries can thrive.”27 Examples of successful  festivals include:   South by Southwest (SXSW) – this annual music, film, and digital conference and festival in  Austin, Texas, is a leading example. Launched in 1987, the festival’s economic impact has grown  steadily over recent years. In 2007, it netted $95 million for Austin’s economy. In 2013, the  event topped $218 million.   Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in California – this two‐week cultural event draws big‐ name bands, music fans, and marketers, attracting 80,000 people per day.                                                               24 “Survey Predicts Top 20 Fitness Trends for 2015,” American College of Sports Medicine, http://www.acsm.org/about‐ acsm/media‐room/news‐releases/2014/10/24/survey‐predicts‐top‐20‐fitness‐trends‐for‐2015, Accessed January 2015.   25 EFRP is an international consortium seeking to understand the current explosion of festivals and its implications and  perspective, http://www.efa‐aef.eu/en/activities/efrp/, accessed October 2012.   26 Ben Janeczko. Trevor Mules and Brent Ritchie, “Estimating the Economic Impacts of Festivals and Events: A Research Guide,”  Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, 2002,  http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com/1005/events/estimating‐the‐economic‐impacts‐of‐festivals‐and‐events‐a‐research‐ guide, accessed October 2012.  27 Chad Kaydo, “Cities Create Music, Cultural Festivals to Make Money,” Governing, January 2014,  http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov‐cities‐create‐mucis‐festivals.html.    A -10 City of Meridian, Idaho  First City Festival in Monterey, California – Private producer, Goldenvoice, launched this smaller  music event in August 2013 with marketing support from the Monterey County Convention and  Visitors Bureau, drawing on the city’s history as host of the Monterey Jazz Festival. Adding  carnival rides and local art, furniture and clothing vendors to the live music performances, the  event drew 11,000 attendees each of its two days.    D. Healthy Lifestyle Trends and Active Living  Active Transportation – Bicycling and Walking  Bicycle friendly cities have been emerging over the last ten years. Cycling has become a popular mode of  transportation as people consider the rising cost of fuel, desire for better health, and concern for the  environment. Some people also use cycling as a mode of transportation just for the fun of it.    The Alliance for Biking and Walking published its “Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2014  Benchmark Report,”28 updating the one from 2012. The report shows that increasing bicycling and  walking are clearly in the public interest. Where bicycling and walking levels are higher, obesity, high  blood pressure, and diabetes levels are lower.     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. The  following trends as well as health and economic indicators are pulled from the 2012 and 2014  Benchmarking Reports:     Public health trends related to bicycling and walking include:   Quantified health benefits of active transportation can outweigh any risks associated with the  activities by as much as 77 to 1, and add more years to our lives than are lost from inhaled air  pollution and traffic injuries.   Between 1966 and 2009, the number of children who bicycled or walked to school fell 75  percent, while the percentage of obese children rose 276 percent.   Bicycling to work significantly reduces absenteeism due to illness. Regular bicyclists took 7.4 sick  days per year, while non‐bicyclists took 8.7 sick days per year.    The economic benefits of bicycling and walking include:   Bicycling and walking projects create 8‐12 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs  created per $1 million spent on highway projects.   Cost benefit analyses show that up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in  bicycling and walking.                                                                           28 2014 Benchmarking Report, Alliance for Biking and Walking, http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/download‐the‐2014‐ benchmarking‐report, Accessed on January 23, 2015.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-11 National bicycling trends:   There has been a gradual trend of increasing bicycling and walking to work since 2005.   Infrastructure to support biking communities is becoming more commonly funded in  communities.   Bike share systems, making bicycles available to the public for low‐cost, short‐term use, have  been sweeping the nation since 2010. Twenty of the most populous U.S. cities have a functional  bike share system.    In November 2013, the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy published a Standard for  Transportation Oriented Design, with accessible performance objectives and metrics, to help  municipalities, developers and local residents design land use and built environment “to support,  facilitate and prioritize not only the use of public transport, but the most basic modes of transport,  walking and cycling.” The TOD Standard, along with its performance objectives and scoring metrics, can  be found at www.itdp.org/documents/TOD_v2_FINAL.pdf.29    National Healthy Lifestyle Trends  The population of the United States is becoming more diverse. As demographics are experiencing an age  and ethnic shift, so too are landscapes, daily lifestyles and habits changing. The number of adults over  the age of 65 has increased, and lifestyle changes have encouraged less physical activity; collectively  these trends have created profound implications for the way local governments conduct business.  Below are examples of trends and government responses.   According to the article “Outdoor Exercise ‘Healthier than Gym Workouts,’” published in  February 2011,30 researchers found that going for a run outdoors is better than exercising in the  gym, because it has a positive impact on mental, as well as physical health. Levels of tension,  confusion, anger, and depression were found to be lowered. This aligns with the trend of adult  fitness playgrounds that are popping up all over the world.   While Americans have been notoriously unhealthy, a recent survey found that 58 percent of  Americans adults are paying more attention to their personal health than in the past; 57 percent  seek to eat a healthier diet, 54 percent seek to achieve a healthy weight; and, 45 percent want  to reduce stress in their lives.31   The link between health and the built environment continues to grow as a trend for local  governments. They are increasingly incorporating active living and physical activity into daily  routines.                                                                          29“TOD Standard, Version 2.0,” Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, November 2013,  http://www.itdp.org/documents/TOD_v2_FINAL.pdf.  30 “Outdoor Exercise Healthier than Gym Workouts,” Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/outdoor‐ activities/8306979/Outdoor‐exercise‐healther‐than‐gym‐workouts.html, accessed March 2011.  31 Sy Mukherjee, “Are Americans inching their way to Healthier Lifestyles?” Think Progress,  http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/02/2403921/americans‐maybe‐getting‐heathier/, Aug 2, 2013.    A -12 City of Meridian, Idaho More and more, local governments are accepting the role of providing preventative health care through  park and recreation services. The following facts are from an International City/County Management  local government survey32:    Eight‐nine percent (89%) of respondents believed P&R departments should take the lead in  developing communities conducive to active living.   Eighty‐four percent (84%) had already implemented recreation programs that encourage active  living in their community.   The highest priority selected for the greatest impact on community health and physical inactivity  was a cohesive system of parks and trails and accessible neighborhood parks.    Health and Obesity   According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), obesity continues to be a serious issue in America,  growing at an epidemic rate—almost tripling since 1990. Overall, more than one‐third (35.7%) of adults  and 17 percent of children in the United States are obese.33 These statistics illustrate the importance of  intercepting the epidemic in youth.     As obesity in the United States continues to be a topic of interest for legislators and our government,  there continues to be research suggesting that activity levels are stagnant among all age groups. The  following are statistics that support this concern.    Only 25 percent of adults and 27 percent of youth (grades 9‐12) engage in recommended levels  of physical activity.    Fifty‐nine percent (59%) of American adults are sedentary.    Nationally, children spend 4.5 to 8 hours daily (30‐56 hours per week) in front of a screen  (television and/or computer).    Shade Structures  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”34; both to  reduce future cancer risk and promote exercise among children. A 2005 study found that melanoma  rates in people under 20 rose three percent a year between 1973 and 2001, possibly due to a thinning of  the ozone layer in the atmosphere. It is recommended that children seek shade between 10 a.m. and 4  p.m., but with so little shade available, kids have nowhere to go. Additionally, without adequate shade,  many play areas are simply too hot to be inviting to children. On sunny days, the playground equipment  is hot enough to scald the hands of would‐be users.    Trees would help, as tree leaves absorb about 95 percent of ultraviolet radiation, but they take a decade  or more to grow large enough to make a difference. So, many communities are building shade  structures instead. The non‐profit Shade Foundation of American is a good resource for information  about shade and shade structures, www.shadefoundation.org.                                                               32 “Active Living approached by Local Government: Survey,” International City/County Management Association,  http://bookstore.icma.org/freedocs/Active%20Living%20and%20Social%20Equity.pdf, 2004.  33 “Obesity and Overweight ‐ Facts,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/facts.html,  accessed on October 3, 2012.  34 Liz Szabo, “Shade: A weapon against skin cancer, childhood obesity,” USA Today, June 30, 2011,  usatoday.30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/2011/06/Shade‐serves‐as‐a –weapon‐against‐skin‐cancer‐childhood‐ obesity/48965070/1, accessed 5/23/3013.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-13 Trails and Health  That a connected system of trails increases the level of physical activity in a community has been  scientifically demonstrated through the Trails for Health initiative of the (CDC)35. Trails can provide a  wide variety of opportunities for being physically active, such as walking/running/hiking, rollerblading,  wheelchair recreation, bicycling, cross‐country skiing and snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, and horseback  riding. Recognizing that active use of trails for positive health outcomes is an excellent way to encourage  people to adopt healthy lifestyle changes, American Trails has launched a “Health and Trails” resource  section in its website: www/americantrails.org/resources/benefits/.    The health benefits are equally as high for trails in urban neighborhoods as for those in state or national  parks. A trail in the neighborhood, creating a “linear park,” makes it easier for people to incorporate  exercise into their daily routines, whether for recreation or non‐motorized transportation. Urban trails  need to connect people to places they want to go, such as schools, transit centers, businesses, and  neighborhoods.36    E. Natural Environments and Open Space  Conservation  The top ten recommendations of the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Conservation  Task Force were published in the November 2011 issue of Parks and Recreation magazine.37 These  recommendations are a compilation of best practices used by trend‐setting agencies.    1) Take a leadership role in the community to promote conservation. Park and recreation agencies  have a unique opportunity to bring governmental agencies, non‐profit organizations,  community leaders, and the public together for the cause of working together on community  wide conservation objectives – clean water, wildlife habitat preservation, reducing energy use  and improving environmental quality. Park and recreation agencies must lead the way in  promoting conservation to diverse and underserved audiences.    2) Lead by example in employing best management conservation practices in parks. Park and  recreation agencies should become the catalyst in the community for conservation by showing  how best practices can be adopted‐not mowing what you do not need to mow; stopping  wasteful energy consumption; and reducing pesticide use for example. Show the public how  conservation practices can benefit everyone.    3) Engage volunteers in conservation and stewardship. Create a sense of belonging and  stewardship for parks by creating a personal sense of ownership and value. Enable people to  identify with their parks and natural resources, and to care about their future. Sustain  stewardship by creating meaningful public participation in implementation of conservation  principles and practices.                                                                 35 “Guide to Community Preventive Services” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html  36 “Health Community: What you should know about trail building,” National Trails Training Partnership: Health and Fitness,  http://www.americantrails.org/resources/health/healthcombuild.html, accessed on May 24, 2013.  37 “Conservation Leaders in our Community,” National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), November 2011 Parks and  Recreation Magazine, pages 85‐101, http://digital.parksandrecreation.org/launch.aspx?  referral=other&pnum=&refresh=Fj302M1i0bE7&EID=8201df86‐57c9‐428c‐b31c‐18125a54265c&skip=    A -14 City of Meridian, Idaho 4) Establish a strategic land acquisition strategy based on knowledge and awareness of significant  natural and cultural resources (watershed protection, unique ecological characteristics, and  sensitive natural areas deserving protection). As the largest owners of public land within most  communities, park and recreation agencies should lead the way in developing a strategic vision  for preserving open space and conserving important landscapes and natural features.     5) Engage youth in conservation. Get kids and teens outdoors and enjoying their parks. The  experience of nature is inherently rewarding for youth. Set as a goal to connect kids in the  community to nature and the outdoors. Children and youth will be fascinated by nature and will  develop a lifelong affinity as well as a conservation ethic if they have early opportunities to  enjoy nature and recreate outdoors in a safe, rewarding way.    6) Conserve energy in all ways. Park and recreation agencies must lead by example, showing the  public how and why they should adopt practices that they can see demonstrated in parks and  recreation facilities. Park and recreation agencies should adopt energy conservation measures  that make sense and save public taxpayer funds.    7) Protect natural resources in parks and in the community. A core mission of public parks is to  protect land and water resources and to be stewards of natural resources. This means  committing personnel and resources to protect natural and cultural resources and creating  sustainable long‐term methods of funding this conservation mission. Parks and recreation  agencies are entrusted with some of the most important public assets of a community and the  conservation and long‐term protection of this public trust is and should be a core component of  every parks and recreation agency’s mission.    8) Create sustainable landscapes that demonstrate principles of conservation. Utilize sustainable  landscape practices to save taxpayer funds, to measurably improve conservation benefits, and  to educate the public about conservation. For example, agencies can reduce turf grass and  mowing frequency; replace turf with native plants; manage floodplains for multiple uses  including conservation and public recreation; enhance wetlands for water filtration and  groundwater recharge; plant model landscapes of drought tolerant native plants adapted to  climate and culture; and promote parks as food sources through edible landscapes and  community gardens.    9) Forge partnerships that foster the mission of conservation. The greatest and most beneficial  conservation successes most often occur as a result of collaboration. Park and recreation  agencies should partner with non‐profit and community service organizations, universities and  colleges, school systems, other governmental agencies, and non‐traditional partners for  conservation outcomes. Promote health, education, and other goals while working toward a  common mission of conservation.    10) Utilize technology to promote conservation. Park and recreation agencies need to embrace  technology to promote conservation. This is not only in applications such as GIS, but in utilizing  social media to engage the public, especially youth. Technology is not to be feared as something  that detracts from the conservation mission of parks agencies, but rather it is to be accepted as  a means of sharing knowledge and connecting people to conservation and stewardship.      Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-15 Economic & Health Benefits of Parks   There are numerous economic and health benefits of parks, including the following:   Trails, parks, and playgrounds are among the five most important community amenities  considered when selecting a home.    Research from the University of Illinois shows that trees, parks, and green spaces have a  profound impact on people’s health and mental outlook.38    U.S. Forest Service research indicates that when the economic benefits produced by trees are  assessed, the total value can be two to six times the cost for tree planting and care.39    Fifty percent (50%) of Americans regard outdoor activities as their main source of exercise.40    The Trust for Public Land has published a report titled: “The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More  City Parks and Open Space.” The report makes the following observations about the health, economic,  environmental, and social benefits of parks and open space41:   Physical activity makes people healthier.   Physical activity increases with access to parks.   Contact with the natural world improves physical and physiological health.    Residential and commercial property values increase.   Value is added to community and economic development sustainability.   Benefits of tourism are enhanced.   Trees are effective in improving air quality and act as natural air conditioners.    Trees assist with storm water control and erosion.    Crime and juvenile delinquency are reduced.   Recreational opportunities for all ages are provided.   Stable neighborhoods and strong communities are created.    Researchers have long touted the benefits of outdoor exercise. According to a study published in the  Journal of Environmental Science and Technology by the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, “as  little as five minutes of green exercise improves both mood and self‐esteem.”42 A new trend started in  China as they prepared to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. Their aim was to promote a society that  promotes physical fitness and reaps the benefits of outdoor exercise by working out on outdoor fitness  equipment.     The United States is now catching up on this trend, as park and recreation departments have begun  installing “outdoor gyms.” Equipment that can be found in these outdoor gyms is comparable to what  would be found in an indoor workout facility, such as leg and chest presses, elliptical trainers, pull down  trainers, etc. With no additional equipment such as weights and resistance bands, the equipment is  fairly easy to install.                                                                  38 F.E. Kuo, “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior, Volume 33,  pp 343‐367.  39 Nowak, David J., “Benefits of Community Trees,” (Brooklyn Trees, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, in review).  40 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2010,” Outdoor Foundation, 2010.  41 Paul M. Sherer, “The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space,” The Trust for Public Land, San  Francisco, CA, 2006.  42 Cited in: Sally Russell, “Nature Break: Five Minutes of Green Nurture,” Green Nurture Blog,  http://blog.greennurture.com/tag/journal‐of‐environmental‐science‐and‐technology, Accessed on November 14, 2012.    A -16 City of Meridian, Idaho Outdoor fitness equipment provides a new opportunity for parks and recreation departments to  increase the health of their communities, while offering them the opportunity to exercise outdoors.  Such equipment can increase the usage of parks, trails, and other outdoor amenities while helping to  fight the obesity epidemic and increase the community’s interaction with nature.    Nature Programming  Noted as early as 2003 in Recreation Management magazine, park agencies have been seeing an  increase in interest in environmental‐oriented “back to nature” programs. In 2007, the National  Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) sent out a survey to member agencies in order to learn more  about the programs and facilities that public park and recreation agencies provide to connect children  and their families with nature.43 A summary of the results follow:   Sixty‐eight percent (68%) of public parks and  recreation agencies offer nature‐based  programming and 61% have nature‐based facilities.    The most common programs include nature hikes,  nature‐oriented arts and crafts, fishing‐related  events, and nature‐based education in cooperation  with local schools.    When asked to describe the elements that directly  contribute to their most successful programs,  agencies listed staff training as most important  followed by program content and number of  staff/staff training.    When asked what resources would be needed most  to expand programming, additional staff was most  important followed by funding.    Of the agencies that do not currently offer nature‐based programming, 90 percent indicated  that they want to in the future. Additional staff and funding were again the most important  resources these agencies would need going forward.    The most common facilities include: nature parks/preserves, self‐guided nature trails, outdoor  classrooms, and nature centers.    When asked to describe the elements that directly contribute to their most successful facilities,  agencies listed funding as most important followed by presence of wildlife and community  support.                                                                   43 National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), “NRPA Completes Agency Survey Regarding Children and Nature,”  http://www.narrp.org/assets/Library/Children_in_Nature/  nrpa_survey_regarding_children_and_nature_2007.pdf, April 2007.   “There’s a direct link between a lack of  exposure to nature and higher rates of  attention‐deficit disorder, obesity, and  depression. In essence, parks and  recreation agencies can and are  becoming the ‘preferred provider’ for  offering this preventative healthcare.”     – Fran P. Mainella, former director of  the National Park Service and  Instructor at Clemson University.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-17 Figures from the Association for Interpretative Naturalists, a national group of nature professionals,  demonstrate that nature‐based programs are on the rise. According to Tim Merriman, the Association's  Executive Director, the group was founded in 1954 with 40 members. It now boasts 4,800 members,  with research indicating that about 20,000 paid interpreters are working nationally, along with an army  of more than 500,000 unpaid volunteers staffing nature programs at parks, zoos, and museums. 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. 44     In his book Last Child in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature Deficit Disorder,45 Richard Louv  introduced the concept of the restorative qualities of being out in nature, for both children and adults.  This concept, and research in support of it, has led to a growing movement promoting connections with  nature in daily life. One manifestation of this is the development of Nature Explore Classrooms in parks.  Nature Explore46 is a collaborative program of the Arbor Day Foundation and the non‐profit  organization, Dimensions Educational Research Foundation, with a mission of helping children and  families develop a profound engagement with the natural world, where nature is an integral, joyful part  of children’s daily learning. Nature Explore works to support efforts to connect children with nature.    F. Sports and Recreation Trends   General Sports and Recreation Trends  The National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) survey on sports participation in 201247 found the top  five athletic activities ranked by total participation included: exercise walking, exercising with  equipment, swimming, camping, and aerobic exercising. Additionally, the following active, organized, or  skill development activities remain popular: hiking, running/jogging, bicycle riding, basketball, golf, and  soccer. Table 13 outlines the top twenty sports ranked by total participation in 2012.                                                                   44 Margaret Ahrweiler,” Call of the Wild – From beautiful blossoms to bugs and guts, nature programs are growing as people  return to their roots” Recreation Management Magazine, Http://recmanagement.com/200310fe04.php, October 2003.  45 Richard Louv, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, North  Carolina, 2005.  46 “What is the Nature Explore Program,” http://www.arborday.org/explore/documents/  NE_FAQ_002.pdf, accessed on August 12, 2012.  47 2012 Sport/Recreation Activity Participation,” National Sporting Goods Association, 2013, http://www.nsga.org.    A -18 City of Meridian, Idaho Table 13: Top Twenty Sports Ranked by Total Participation (in millions) in 2012  Sport   Total   1. Exercise Walking  102.1  2. Exercising with Equipment  57.7  3. Swimming  48.6  4. Camping (vacation/overnight) 45.2  5. Aerobic Exercising  44.8  6. Hiking  42.2  7. Running/Jogging  40.0  8. Bicycle Riding  39.3  9. Bowling 35.5  10. Workout at Club  35.2  11. Weight Lifting  31.1  12. Fishing (Freshwater) 30.8  13. Wrestling 28.4  14. Basketball  25.6  15. Yoga 22.9  16. Billiards/Pool 21.8  17. Target Shooting 21.7  18. Golf  21.1  19. Hunting with Firearms 19.4  20. Boating, Motor/Power  17.0              Source: NSGA 2012    The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) produces a yearly report on sports, fitness, and leisure  activities in the US. The following findings were highlighted in the 2013 Report48:   Overall participation in sports, fitness, and related physical activities remained relatively steady  from 2011 to 2012.   Fitness Sports had the largest increase in participation (2% increases to 61.1%).   Racquet Sports participation also increased (1% increase to 12.8%), but still remains below the  2008 peak rate of 14%.   Both team (21.6%) and water sports 12.5%) participation increased slightly while individual  (36%) and winter sports (6.6%) participation decreased slightly.   Outdoor Sports participation remained stable at around 49%.   Spending on team sports at school and lessons/instruction/sports camp was expected to  increase in 2013 as it has in 2011 and 2012.   Twenty‐eight percent (28%) of all Americans are inactive, while 33% are active at a healthy level  (engaged in high calorie level sport/fitness activities in a frequent basis). Idaho ranked among  the states with the highest among five activity levels measured (from 38% to 43.6%).    The Ten ‐year History of Sports Participation Report49 published by NSGA shows national trends in team  sports and individual sports. Overall participation trends indicate a general increase in 2011 for most  team sports. However, softball and volleyball show a decrease in participation through 2011.                                                                48 “2012 Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report,” Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association  (renamed Sports and Fitness Industry Association in 2012, http://www.sfia.org/reports/all/.  49 Ten‐Year History of Sports Participation (2001‐2011), National Sporting Goods Association, 2012,  http://www.nsga.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3346.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-19 Over the decade individual sports show a dramatic increase in aerobic exercising, exercise walking,  exercising with equipment, hiking, kayaking, running/jogging, target shooting and target shooting with  an airgun, tennis, weightlifting and working out at a club. Table 14 illustrates a ten year change in  participation for selected activities including both team sports and individual sports.     Table 14: Ten‐Year History of Sports Participation (in millions) 2001‐2011   2001  2003  2005  2007  2009  2011  Aerobic Exercising  24.3  28.0  33.7  34.8  33.2  42.0  Archery (Target)  4.7  3.9  6.8  6.6  7.1  6.3  Backpacking/Wilderness Camping  14.5  13.7  13.3  13.0  12.3  11.6  Baseball  14.9  14.6  14.6  14.0  11.5  12.3  Basketball 28.1  27.9  29.9  24.1  24.4  26.1  Bicycle Riding 39.0  36.3  43.1  37.4  38.1  39.1  Billiards/Pool 32.7  30.5  37.3  29.5  28.2  20.0  Boating, Motor/Power 22.6  24.2  27.5  31.9  24.0  16.7  Bowling 40.3  39.4  45.4  43.5  45.0  34.9  Camping  45.5  51.4  46.0  47.5  50.9  42.8  Dart Throwing 16.9  n/a  n/a  12.1  12.2  9.3  Exercise Walking  71.2  79.5  86.0  89.8  93.4  97.1  Exercising with Equipment 43.0  48.6  54.2  52.9  57.2  55.5  Fishing (Freshwater) 39.1  33.2  37.5  30.8  29.0  28.0  Fishing (Saltwater) 11.3  10.6  10.0  10.4  8.2  9.7  Football (tackle) 8.6  8.7  9.9  9.2  8.9  9.0  Golf 26.6  25.7  24.7  22.7  22.3  20.9  Hiking  26.1  25.0  29.8  28.6  34.0  39.1  Hockey (ice)  .2  1.8  2.4  2.1  3.1  3.0  Hunting w/Bow & Arrow 4.7  5.0  6.6  5.7  6.2  5.1  Hunting with Firearms 19.2  17.7  19.6  19.5  18.8  16.4  In‐Line Roller Skating 19.2  16.0  13.1  10.7  7.9  6.1  Kayaking 3.5  4.7  7.6  5.9  4.9  7.1  Mountain Biking (off road)  6.3  8.2  9.2  9.3  8.4  6.0  Muzzleloading  3.0  3.1  4.1  3.6  3.8  3.1  Paintball Games 5.6  7.4  8.0  7.4  6.3  5.3  Running/Jogging  24.5  22.9  29.2  30.4  32.2  38.7  Skateboarding 9.6  9.0  12.0  10.1  8.4  6.6  Skiing (Alpine)  7.7  6.8  6.9  6.4  7.0  6.9  Skiing (Cross Country) 2.3  1.9  1.9  1.7  1.7  2.3  Snowboarding 5.3  6.3  6.0  5.1  6.2  5.1  Soccer  13.9  11.1  14.1  13.8  13.6  13.9  Softball 13.2  11.8  14.1  12.4  11.8  10.4  Swimming 54.8  47.0  58.0  52.3  50.2  46.0  Target Shooting 15.9  17.0  21.9  20.5  19.8  19.6  Target Shooting (Airgun) 2.9  3.8  6.7  6.6  5.2  5.3  Tennis 10.9  9.6  11.1  12.3  10.8  13.1  Volleyball 12.0  10.4  13.2  12.0  10.7  10.1  Water Skiing 5.5  5.5  6.7  5.3  5.2  4.3  Weight Lifting 21.2  25.9  35.5  33.2  34.5  29.1  Workout at Club 26.5  29.5  34.7  36.8  38.3  34.5  Wrestling 3.5  n/a  n/a  2.1  3.0  3.2  Note: Participated more than once (in millions), seven (7) years of age and older.  Source: NSGA 2012    A -20 City of Meridian, Idaho Youth Sports  The 2013 SFIA sports participation report indicates that in 2012, youth (ages 6‐12) participation was  highest for outdoor (63.1%), team (53.1%), and individual sports (49.8%). Children in this age group have  increased interest in camping, while young adults ages 18–24 are becoming more interested in  running/jogging.     The NSGA “Youth Sports Participation Report” from 2001 – 2011 indicates that specific offerings for  children’s fitness are slowly increasing in health and fitness facilities. Facilities are offering more youth‐ specific exercise equipment. Individualized youth sports training opportunities are becoming more  popular as well. In 2011, in‐line roller skating experienced the largest percentage decrease in  participation. For youth ages seven to 17 years, exercise walking, exercising with equipment, and  swimming, followed by overnight/vacation camping had the highest number of participants in 2011.50     In 2009, an article in the Wall Street Journal observed that lacrosse had become one of the country’s  fastest growing team sports. Participation in high school lacrosse has almost doubled this decade. An  estimated 1.2 million Americans over age seven played lacrosse in 2009.51 A 2011 report, “U.S. Trends in  Team Sports,” finds that lacrosse and other niche team sports and volleyball are continuing to  experience strong growth for youth and adults.52    Adult Recreation: Pickleball  No adult recreational sport is taking off faster than pickleball.53 Pickleball is a racquet sport played on a  badminton court with a lowered net, perforated plastic ball and wood paddles. While it originated in the  Pacific Northwest in the 1960s, it has grown exponentially since 2000. The USA Pickle ball Association  (USAPA) estimates that there were about 500 pickleball players in 2000, with that number growing to  125,000 in 2013. It’s especially popular with the 50 plus crowd because it is low impact but gets the  heart rate pumping.54 Pickle ball is an attractive programming option for recreation managers because it  is adaptable to a variety of existing facilities – four pickleball courts fit in one tennis court.    Outdoor Recreation   The Outdoor Foundation releases a “Participation in Outdoor Recreation” report, annually. According to  the 2014 report,55 while the actual number of outdoor recreation outings increased since 2012, the  participation rate fell slightly, due to population growth. The foundation reports that the top outdoor  activities in 2013 were running, fishing, bicycling, camping, and hiking. Birdwatching is also among the  favorite outdoor activities by frequency of participation.                                                                        50“2011 vs 2001 Youth Sports Participation,” National Sporting Goods Association, 2012,  http://www.nsga.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3494.  51 Evans and Trachtenberg, “Lacrosse Muscles its Way West,” Wall Street Journal, May, 2009.  52 “2011 Preview: U.S. Trends in Team Sports, Fall 2011,” SMGA, 2011.  53 Chris Gelbach, “Never Stop Playing: Trends in Adult Recreational Sports” Recreation Management, September 2013,  http://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=201309fe02, Accessed January 2015.  54 David Crumpler, “Pickleball a fast‐growing sport, especially for the 50 and older crowd,” Florida Times Union, January 26,  2015, http://jacksonville.com/prime‐time/2015‐01‐26/story/pickleball‐fast‐growing‐sport‐especially‐50‐and‐older‐crowd,  Accessed January 2015.   55 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2014,” Outdoor Foundation, 2014.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-21 The Outdoor Foundation’s research brought the following key findings.    Participation in Outdoor Recreation   Return to Nature: Nearly 50% of Americans ages six and older participated in outdoor  recreation in 2013. That equates to a total of 143 million.   Top Five Biggest Participation Percentage Increase in Outdoor Activities in the Past three years  (2014 Topline Report): Adventure Racing, Triathlon (Off Road), Stand up paddling, Kayak fishing,  Recreational Kayaking.   Recreation for Exercise: More than 70 percent of outdoor participants were motivated to  recreate outdoors as a way of getting exercise.    Youth Participation in Outdoor Recreation   Good News about outdoor participation rates of female youth: Participation rates among girls  and young women increased by two percentage points – bringing young women’s participation  to the highest since 2006.   The Influence of Family: Most youth are introduced to outdoor activities by parents, friends,  family, and relatives.    Physical education in schools: The importance cannot be understated. Among adults ages 18  and older who are current outdoor participants, 74% say they had PE in school between the  ages of 6 and 12.     Outdoor recreation trends are also a recurring topic of study by the United States Forest Service through  the Internet Research Information Series (IRIS). An IRIS report dated January 201256 provides the  following recent nature‐based outdoor recreation trends: Participation in walking for pleasure and  family gatherings outdoors were the two most popular activities for the U.S. population as a whole.  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.     Trail Recreation and Cycling Trends  For trail‐related recreation activities such as hiking, bicycling, and running, the 2014 “Outdoor  Recreation Topline Report” indicates a positive three‐year trend for running/jogging, hiking, road biking,  and BMX biking. Additionally, participation in trail running and mountain biking is up significantly over  the past two to three years.                                                                                   56 “Recent Outdoor Recreation Trends,” USDA Forest Service Internet Research Information Series (IRIS) Research Brief, January  2012, http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/  IRISRec23rpt.pdf, accessed August, 2012.    A -22 City of Meridian, Idaho Table 15: Trail Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands) (6 years of age or older)   2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 3 Year  Change  BMX Bicycling 1,904 1,811 2,369 1,547 2,175 2,168 1.9%  Bicycling (Mountain/Non‐Paved  Surface) 7,592 7,142 7,161 6,816 7,714 8,542 6.4%  Bicycling (Road/Paved Surface) 38,114 40,140 39,320 40,349 39,232 40,888 1.4%  Hiking (Day) 32,511 32,572 32,496 34,491 34,545 34,378 1.9%  Running/Jogging 41,130 43,892 49,408 50,713 52,187 54,188 3.1%  Trail Running 4,857 4,833 5,136 5,610 6,003 6,792 9.8%  Source: Outdoor Foundation 2014.    Other Cycling Trends   Bicycle touring is becoming a fast‐growing trend around the world, including the U.S. and  Canada. “Travelers are seeking out bike tours to stay active, minimize environmental impact,  and experience diverse landscapes and cityscapes at a closer level.”57   Urban bike tours, popular in cycle‐friendly cities in Europe, are taking hold in the United States  as well. Bikes and Hikes LA, an eco‐friendly bike and hike sightseeing company founded last  September, offers visitors the opportunity to “see the city’s great outdoors while getting a good  workout.” In New York, a hotel and a bike store are partnering to offer guests cruisers to explore  the city during the summer of 2014.58   One of the newest trends in adventure cycling is “fat bike,” multiple speed bikes that are made  to ride when other bikes can’t be ridden, with tires that are up to five inches wide run at low  pressure for extra traction. Most fat bikes are used to ride on snow but they are also very  effective for riding on any loose surface like sand or mud. They also work well on most rough  terrain or just riding through the woods. This bike offers unique opportunities to experience  nature in ways that would not be possible otherwise.59    Therapeutic Recreation  Nationally, therapeutic recreation as a service is experiencing many struggles and challenges. The  changing face of health care is having a dramatic effect on therapeutic recreation (TR) services in many  rehabilitation settings and specifically in physical rehabilitation settings, thus affecting community  recreation programs.     A secondary issue caused by the decreased stay is the need for a clinical facility to promote community  reintegration. In the past, clinical facilities provided programs such as wheelchair basketball, but due to  the reduction of expenditures, facilities no longer provide such services and expect communities to  address these needs.                                                                  57 Hope Nardini, “Bike Tourism a Rising Trend,” Ethic Traveler, http://www.ethicaltraveler.org/2012/08/bike‐tourism‐a‐rising‐ trend/, Accessed on Marcy 24, 2014.  58 Michelle Baran, “New trend: Urban bike tours in Los Angeles and New York,” Budget Travel Blog,  http://www.budgettravel.com/blog/new‐trend‐urban‐bike‐tours‐in‐los‐angeles‐and‐new‐york,11772/, accessed on March 24,  2014  59 Steven Pease, “Fat bikes, how to get the most out of winter cycling,” Minnesota Cycling Examiner,  http://www.examiner.com/article/fat‐bikes‐the‐latest‐trend‐adventure‐cycling, February 1, 2014.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-23 The fundamental goal of TR services is to enable participants to return successfully to their  communities. This not only means they need to have the functional skill, but also that they have physical  and social environments in the community that are receptive to the individual.    Another trend is the renewed focus on serving people with psychiatric disabilities. In 2004, The National  Council on Disability (NCD) issued a comprehensive report, “Livable Communities for Adults with  Disabilities.”60 This report identified six elements for improving the quality of life for all citizens,  including children, youth, and adults with disabilities. The six elements are:  1. Provides affordable, appropriate, accessible housing  2. Ensures accessible, affordable, reliable, safe transportation  3. Adjusts the physical environment for inclusiveness and accessibility  4. Provides work, volunteer, and education opportunities  5. Ensures access to key health and support services  6. Encourages participation in civic, cultural, social, and recreational activities    The right to enjoy services and programs offered to all members by both public and private entities is  the essence of the elements. Unlike persons with physical disabilities, people with psychiatric disabilities  face attitudinal barriers of those around them. Attitudinal barriers are exemplified by policies, programs,  and beliefs about psychiatric disabilities. Fortunately, the mental health system is moving toward a  model based on recovery. This model believes that everyone with a mental health diagnosis is able and  capable of living independently within the community with supports.    G. Role and Response of Local Government  Collectively, these trends have created profound implications for the way local governments conduct  business. Some local governments are now accepting the role of providing preventative health care  through parks and recreation services. The following concepts are from the International County/County  Management Association.61    Parks & Recreation departments should take the lead in developing communities conducive to  active living.   There is growing support for recreation programs that encourage active living within their  community.   One of the highest priorities is a cohesive system of parks and trails and accessible  neighborhood parks.    In summary, the United States of America, its states, and its communities share the enormous task of  reducing the health and economic burden of obesity. While numerous programs, policies, and products  have been designed to address the problem, there is no magic bullet to make it go away. The role of  public parks and recreation as a health promotion and prevention agency has come of age. What  matters is refocusing its efforts to insure the health, well‐being, and economic prosperity of  communities and citizens.                                                                    60 National Council on Disability, “Livable Communities for Adults with Disabilities,” December 2004,  http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2004/12022004.  61 www.ICMA.org, Accessed in 2012.     A -24 City of Meridian, Idaho Administration Trends for Recreation and Parks  Municipal parks and recreation structures and delivery systems have changed, and more alternative  methods of delivering services are emerging. Certain services are being contracted out and cooperative  agreements with non‐profit groups and other public institutions are being developed. Newer partners  include the health system, social services, justice system, education, the corporate sector, and  community service agencies. These partnerships  reflect both a broader interpretation of the  mandate of parks and recreation agencies and the  increased willingness of other sectors to work  together to address community issues. The  relationship with health agencies is vital in  promoting wellness.    The traditional relationship with education and the  sharing of facilities through joint‐use agreements is  evolving into cooperative planning and  programming aimed at addressing youth inactivity  levels and community needs.    Listed below are additional administrative national  trends:   Level of subsidy for programs is lessening  and more “enterprise” activities are being  developed, thereby allowing subsidy to be  used where deemed appropriate.    Information technology allows for better  tracking and reporting.    Pricing is often determined by peak, off‐ peak, and off‐season rates.    More agencies are partnering with private,  public, and non‐profit groups.     Agency Accreditation   Parks and Recreation agencies are affirming their  competencies and value through accreditation.  This is achieved by an agency’s commitment to 150  standards.     There are currently 116 agencies around the nation  that have received the Commission for  Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies  (CAPRA) accreditation.             Accreditation is a  distinguished mark of  excellence that affords  external recognition of  an organization's  commitment to quality and  improvement.     Accreditation has two  fundamental purposes; to  ensure quality and to  ensure improvement.   The National Recreation and  Parks Association  administratively sponsors two  distinct accreditation  programs. The Council on  Accreditation of Parks,  Recreation, Tourism and  Related Professions (COAPRT)  approves Academic  institutions and Commission  for Accreditation of Parks  and Recreation Agencies  (CAPRA) approves agencies.  It is the only national  accreditation of parks and  recreation agencies, and is a  valuable measure of an  agency’s overall quality of  operation, management, and  service to the community.       Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-25 Additional benefits of CAPRA accreditation include:   Boosts staff morale   Encourages collaboration   Improves program outcomes   Identifies agency and cost efficiencies   Builds high level of trust with the public   Demonstrates promise of quality   Identifies best management practices    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ‐ Compliance   On September 14, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an amended regulation  implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA 2010 Standards).62 On March 15, 2011 the  amended Act became effective and, for the first time in history, it includes recreation environment  design requirements. Covered entities were to be compliant with design and construction requirements  and the development of three‐year transition plan by March 15, 2012. Implementation of the three‐year  transition plan must be complete by March 15, 2015.    Funding  According to Recreation Management magazine’s “2014 State of the Industry Report,” survey  respondents from parks and recreation departments/districts reporting about their revenues from 2011  through 2013 reveals the beginning of a recovery from the impact of the Recession of 2008. From 2011  to 2012, 82.6 percent of respondents reported that their revenues had either stabilized or had  increased. This number grew to 84.8 percent of respondents when reporting on the 2012 to 2013 time  frame, and by 2015, 95 percent of parks and recreation department respondents are expecting revenues  to either increase (49.7%) or remain stable (45.4%).     Marketing by Parks and Recreation Providers  Niche marketing trends have experienced change more frequently than ever before as technology  affects the way the public receives information. Web 2.0 tools and now Web 3.0 tools are a trend for  agencies to use as a means of marketing programs and services. Popular social media marketing tools  include:   Facebook    Twitter   Instagram   You Tube   Pinterest   LinkedIn    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. For example, 95 percent of 18‐to‐29‐year‐old cell phone  owners send and receive text messages, compared to 82 percent of 30‐to‐49‐year‐olds, 57 percent of  50‐to‐64‐year‐olds, and 19 percent of 65 and older.                                                                62U.S. Department of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA Home Page, http://www.ada.gov/, accessed on November  15, 2012.    A -26 City of Meridian, Idaho It is also a fact that minority Americans lead the way when it comes to mobile internet access. Nearly  two‐thirds of African‐Americans (64%) and Latinos (63%) are wireless internet users, and minority  Americans are significantly more likely to own a cell phone than are their white counterparts (87  percent of Blacks and Hispanics own a cell phone, compared with 80 percent of whites).63 By 2015,  mobile internet penetration is forecast to grow to 71.1% for Hispanics compared to 58.8% for whites.64                                                                    63Aaron Smith, “Mobile Access 2010,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center, July 7, 2010,  http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile‐Access‐2010/Summary‐of‐Findings.aspx, Accessed on November 15, 2012.  64 Erik Sass, “Minority Groups Heaviest Users of Mobile Net,” Media Daily News, Nov. 18, 2011,  http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/162699/minority‐groups‐heaviest‐users‐of‐mobile‐net.html#axzz2CK9zYGFw,  Accessed on November 15, 2012.    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-27 Appendix B – Community and Stakeholder Input                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  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.     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 offered currently 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.    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    Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -2- Values  The 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.    Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -3- Focus Group Questions    1) How long have you been a resident of Meridian?     <5 years: 9     5‐9 years: 8        10‐19 years: 24   20+ years: 12   Not a resident but use programs / facilities: 21    2) What are the strengths of the Parks and Recreation Department that should be continued over the  next several years?    Partnerships******   High Quality Programs (quality over quantity)****   High Quality Parks****   Park Maintenance*****   Parks well run and well maintained*****   Innovative Unique Parks*   Talented Forward Thinking Cooperative Staff***   Flexibility responsive and adapt to change**   Safety & Security**   Variety/Diversity of Activities*   Ability to keep up with growth*   Number of Parks   Customer Service   Friendly Atmosphere   Teamwork   Technology   Family Oriented***   Internal Expertise   Internal Support   Young Park System   Good geographic parks distribution   Keep developing open space into parks and activities   Responsive   Soliciting input and feedback from community   Community programs   Special Events   Commitment to Youth   Committed Leadership   Annual Investment in Infrastructure   Wise water use methodologies   Recycling Program   Availability of Land   Planning   Lots of open space  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -4-  Fishing Options   Parking   Playgrounds   Volunteers   Use funding well      3) Conversely, what are the major weaknesses that need to be addressed through the Parks and  Recreation Master Plan?   Disconnected Pathway System******   Lack of Parking at most parks during events***   Lack of Communication‐ Internal and External (Marketing and Public Relations)***   Lack of Facilities – open space, gymnasiums, ball fields, indoor classrooms, etc.***   Growing Pains – Demand and Fast Growth**   Need more Youth Programs and Facilities*   Lack of Dedicated Funding to develop new facilities*   Lack of Open Field Ball Field Space for Diversity of Sports**   Lack of Funding**   Need a Large Recreation Center***   No year round disc golf*   Lack of Off Leash Dog Parks**   Lack of Shade and Mature Trees in Parks**   Need indoor Aquatic Center*   Need more splash pads*   Need Indoor Performing Arts Center*   Lack of Security   Lack of Community Center Multipurpose Space for Community Organizations   Short on Staff   Lack of Capacity   Opportunities for future park land diminishing   Resting athletic field turf is challenging   Need Asset Replacement Plan – Life Cycle of Capital Replacement   Lack of quality of ball field lighting in parks   Lack of Dedicated use facilities   Need improved wayfinding signage and to trail connectivity   Need Developers Impact requirement for trail connectivity   Need more iconic parks (destination parks)   Need a larger downtown park   Need a Shade Policy for parks   Lack of winter water availability – restrooms, irrigation, drinking fountains, etc.   Traffic noise and shade around performance area in    Need to add a vapor policy to the non‐smoking policy   Need better operational partnerships such as sharing school facilities   Need Comprehensive Plans with all City Departments   Poor maintenance of ball fields at Gordon Harris Park (school facilities)  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -5-  Over dependency on partnerships   Website needs ability for online registration and reservations   Need more seating in parks (shaded)   Need more non‐bleacher seating at game fields   Rely of Volunteers      4) How satisfied are you with the quality of current programs offered?  Why?        5 Excellent ‐ 8  4 Very Good ‐ 28  3 Good ‐ 13  2 Fair ‐ 0  1 Poor ‐ 0      5) What additional programs or activities do you feel the Department should offer that are currently  not available?   Non‐sports Activities****   Aquatic Programs – Swim Lessons, Water Aerobics, etc.***   Teen Programs***   Community‐wide Special Events*   Senior Programs*   Pickleball**   Indoor Hockey*   Lacrosse*   Outdoor Recreation and Adventure Programs****   Continuing Education Programs for all ages   Mobile Rec – Traveling Programs   Adaptive Recreation Programs   Activities for Millennials   Youth Sports   More Leagues   More Tournaments   Drop‐in Programs – Gym, walking, workout, etc.   Indoor Field House Sports   Fishing / Fly Fishing – need more stocking, instruction   Expand recreational equipment rental system at concession stands   Improved Farmer’s Market   Art in the Park   Volunteer Maintenance Program – “Love Your Parks”   Winter Programs for Youth   Flag Football   Hunter Education Classes   Arts and Crafts Classes   Performing Arts Programs*  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -6-  Year round walking group      6) How satisfied are you with the overall quality of the existing park and recreation facilities provided  by the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department?   Why?       5 Excellent ‐ 19  4 Very Good ‐ 36  3 Good ‐ 6  2 Fair ‐ 1  1 Poor ‐ 0      7) How would you rate the overall level of maintenance at the facilities owned or operated by the  Department?  Please identify the location and specifics of any maintenance concerns.        5 Excellent ‐ 35  4 Very Good ‐ 25  3 Good ‐ 4  2 Fair ‐ 0  1 Poor ‐ 0    8) What improvements are needed at existing facilities?  Where are these improvements needed?   More Parking*****   Shade in parks****   Upgraded and Renovate Community Center***   Upgrade lighting technology and modernization – timing, no bleed lights, etc.**   Better maintain and/or repurpose Legion Baseball Field into a Softball Field, re‐grade, irrigation,  lights, etc. – Storey Park**   Ballfield lights*   Pickleball markings on tennis courts*   Frost free drinking fountains, irrigation, restrooms, etc.*   Off leash dog areas in all parks*   Concession Opportunities ‐ Upgrades   Parking at Settlers Park – Develop a Parking Plan    Beautify Pathways   Band Shell at Kleiner Park ‐ Shade, Sound buffers, etc.   Replacement of Adventure Island Playground surfacing   Need more swings at parks   More Pathway connectivity   Air stations for bicycles in parks and on trails   Water bottle stations in parks and on trails   Healthy food and beverage options at concessions   Policy Signage in Parks – smoking, off lease dog areas (Kleiner Park), etc.    More dog pick‐up bags stations in parks & trails   Electricity, Water and Sewer at Rodeo grounds   ADA Accessibility  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -7-  Conflict between neighborhood parks and sports events (parking, driving through  neighborhoods, field designs, etc.)   Better Quality Water Fountains in Parks   Artificial / Synthetic Turf   Website – Online registration and reservations   Add restrooms at Settlers Park   More shaded seating in parks   More flowers and landscaping in parks   Add security systems   Flooding  in Heroes Park   Heavy grass clippings in some parks   Renovate or repurpose the Community Center      9) Are there any portions of the community that are underserved?  Please explain (i.e., where and  what type of amenities are needed, what market segment needs more attention, etc.).   South Meridian*******   Dog Owners***   Teens***   Adventure Sports: Skateboarders, BMX   Adaptive – Special Needs**   Seniors / Active Adults**   Biking Community**   Youth Activities*   Aquatics – Swimmers*   Running Community   Cat Owners   Young Adults   Homeless   Competitive Club Soccer   Equestrian Community   New residents   Lacrosse Community   10 mile and West   East of Eagle (Industrial)      10) What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see the community provide?   Bike Pathway Connectivity*****   Athletic Fields****   Fieldhouse including hard surface courts and indoor turf*****   Indoor Aquatic Center (competitive and family leisure)******   Multipurpose Open Space to use for Athletic Fields****   Dog Parks with water facilities to swim in & dog agility facility****   Destination Softball Tournament Complex – 6 to 8 fields***  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -8-  Destination Baseball Tournament Complex – 6 to 8 fields***   Destination Multipurpose Rectangular Field Tournament Complex***   Large Community Center***   Botanical Gardens**   Splash pads***   Indoor Tennis / Pickleball**   Ice Rink**   Pocket Parks, HOA parks*   Lacrosse Fields*   Exercise Fitness Trail*   Year Round Disc Golf Course*   Off leash dog areas**   Multipurpose Parks (Active and Passive)   Dedicated use facilities*   Performing Arts Center*   Natural Landscape Parks*   Multipurpose Artificial / Synthetic Turf with Lights*   Indoor Lacrosse (Box Lacrosse)   Farmer’s Market   Concessions   Art themed parks   Need more iconic parks (destination parks)*   Need a larger downtown park   Need a park on the West side   Nature Reserve*   Additional Community Gardening   Arboretum   Special Event Space with Large Outdoor Performance Space   Shade Structures   Historical and Cultural Park   Skate park**   Convention Center   Picnic Shelters   Picnic Areas   Outdoor Shooting Range   Sledding Hill on Southside   Children’s Working Farm   BMX   Fishing pond south of the highway   Climbing Wall, boulder area   Wi‐Fi access at parks       11) Are there any facilities and/or programs currently available that should be eliminated?  If so, which  ones and why?  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -9-  Adult Baseball at Story Park*   Horseshoe Pits at Story Park   Community Center   Belly Dancing    12) How would you rate the quality of customer service provided by the Parks and Recreation staff?   Please elaborate.      5 Excellent ‐ 42  4 Very Good ‐ 14  3 Good ‐ 0  2 Fair ‐ 0  1 Poor ‐ 0    13) How effective is the Department in seeking feedback from the community and users on improving  its performance?      5 Excellent ‐ 23  4 Very Good ‐ 23  3 Good ‐   2 Fair ‐ 2  1 Poor ‐ 0    14) The Parks and Recreation Department’s programs and facilities are currently funded through a  combination of revenue sources, including General Fund, User Fees, Impact Fees, and  Partnerships.  Do you think this is an appropriate way to fund the department?       Yes: 38  No: 2  Do Not Know: 14    15) Who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community with regards to assisting with the  implementation of this plan?   School District******   Youth Sports Organizations******   YMCA*****   Boys & Girls Club****   Senior Center**   Western Ada Recreation District – WARD**   Service Clubs – Optimist, Lions Club, etc.***   Developers (including non‐residential property)***   Local Corporations / Business Community***   Library*   Children’s Theater*   Irrigation Districts**   Transportation Agencies – ITD, MDC, Railroad, ACHD, COMPASS**   User Groups and Daily Users***   PAL*  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -10-  Faith Based Community*   Boys/Girl Scouts*   Tax Paying Residents*   State and Local Governments (Idaho Fish and Game, adjacent municipalities)**   Foundations (Albertson’s)   Volunteers   Community Clubs   Meridian Arts Commission   Meridian Downtown Business Society   Regional Tennis Organizations   Medical Community – Health Care, St. Luke’s Hospital, Central District Health Department, etc.   Other City Departments*   City Council   Non‐governmental Organizations   HOAs   Land Owners*   Speedway Owner      16) What are the key issues and values in the Meridian community that need to be considered while  developing this Master Plan?   Family Oriented*******   Safety***   Accessibility***   Sustainability***   Quality**   Aesthetics**   Connectivity**   Fiscally Responsible*   Develop in underserved areas*   Traffic / Drive Time*   Community   User Friendly   Fun   Affordability   Identity   Active Lifestyles**   Partnerships*   Suburban Design   Civic Minded   Inclusive   Leadership   Balance Active and Passive Activities   Balance organized sports and unorganized sports activities   Growth  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -11-  Land Value   Air Quality   Historical & Cultural connection to farming and dairy   Convenience   Value of outdoor recreation*   Economic Impact Value   Key Identity for each park   Destination amenities      17) Are there any political sensitivities we should be aware of that could impact the success of the  city’s planning efforts?   Conservative ‐ Do not raise taxes*****   Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability**   Government cannot fund and/or operate everything   City of Meridian is not going to build Indoor Aquatic Center, Ice Rink, Performing Arts Center,   Moore Brooks Legion Baseball Field Renovation   Rodeo Grounds   Trying to please all residents   Sharing the open process to public   City Council Support for Parks & Recreation   Open Information Sharing of Future Needs   Residents want it all but do not want to pay for it   Educate public on benefits of new facilities   Parks and Facilities West of 10 Mile   Changing political landscape – elections   Impacts to our providers*   Diversity of the community   Neighboring factors      18) During the next 5‐10 years, what are the top priorities for the Parks and Recreation Department?    1‐5 years   Land Acquisition*****   Pathway Connectivity****   Recreation Center***   Gymnasium Space**   Field House****   Outdoor Rectangular Field space**   Outdoor Diamond Field space**   Partner better with school facilities*   Regional Park in South Meridian**   New Dog Park**   New Neighborhood Parks in CIP*  Focus Group Questions Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan -12-  Increase Development Impact Fee Policy In Lieu Of for Land Acquisition Endowment  Fund*   Maximize use of existing facilities****   Implement Master Plan*   More public space South of Interstate*   Staffing Plans   Outdoor Spaces   Pickleball Courts*   Equipment to maintain new park amenities   Life Cycle Plans*   Upgrade Ball field Lighting   Upgrade Story Park   City Christmas Tree   Shade Policy   Funding Sources*   Public Relations and Marketing   Endowment for park maintenance (1%) with donation of land   Sell the Quality of Life message to the public   Focus on the priorities   Create a position to solicit grants, sponsorships, private donations, etc.   Develop West of 10 mile   Upgrade Landscaping*   Outdoor Recreation and Adventure Trips    10 Years   Pathway Connectivity**   Outdoor Rectangular Field space*   Outdoor Diamond Field space*   Indoor Recreational Space   Implement Master Plan   Increase in Staff   Increase Partnerships*   Additional Parking   Develop undeveloped parks   Aldape Park   Forestry Upgrade   New Neighborhood Parks in CIP   Two new dog Parks   Botanical Gardens   Indoor Aquatic Center   Additional park in South Meridian and North West          Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-41 Appendix C – Survey Results                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 1 DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................... 2 CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS ............................................... 6 PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, AND SPECIAL EVENTS .............................. 28 VALUES AND VISION ............................................................................. 32 FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND SERVICES ............................. 37 COMMUNICATION .................................................................................. 43 FINANCIAL CHOICES/FEES ................................................................... 44 ADDITIONAL OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS ............................................. 47 Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. DEMOGRAPHICS • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 1: Demographic Profile Invitation Sample Open Link 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Female Male Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 or over Single, no children Couple, no children Single with children at home Couple with children at home Single, children no longer at home Couple, children no longer at home Under $25,000 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-74,999 $75,000-99,999 $100,000-149,999 $150,000-199,999 $200,000-249,999 $250,000 or more 76% 24% 63% 37% 37% 19% 15% 12% 9% 7% 19% 36% 24% 12% 8% 2% 57% 19% 7% 6% 5% 6% 62% 16% 6% 9% 6% 1% 13% 18% 25% 17% 20% 5% 2% 1% 13% 23% 24% 25% 1% 9% 3% 3% Demographic Profile Average Invitation Sample Open Link 45.9 49.9 Average Invitation Sample Open Link $100,217 $79,496 Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 2: Residential Profile Invitation Sample Open Link 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Respondents 0% 50% 100% Percent of Respondents Where in the city do you live? South (south of I-84) Central (between I-84 and Cherry Lane/Fairview Ave.) Northwest (west of Meridian Rd. and nort.. Northeast (east of Meridian Rd. and north of Fairview Ave.) Other Number of Years Lived in Meridian Less than 1 1 to 3 4 to 10 11 to 20 21 or more Own vs. Rent Own Rent Other Household Need for ADA- Accessible Facilities Yes No 25% 22% 32% 22% 20% 11% 32% 23% 14% 32% 48% 19% 1% 10% 38% 31% 15% 7% 87% 11% 2% 85% 6% 9% 12% 88% 94% 6% Residential Profile Average Invitation Sample Open Link 12.0 16.5 Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS Figure 3: Importance of and Familiarity with Local Recreation Opportunities Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 4: Use of and Satisfaction with Classes and Programs Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 5: Most Used Facilities/Parks Invitation Sample Open Link 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents Settlers Park Storey Park Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park Tully Park Bear Creek Park Renaissance Park Gordon Harris Park Jabil Fields Chateau Park City Hall Plaza Community Center Heroes Park Heritage Middle School Ball Fields Generations Plaza Centennial Park 8th Street Park Seasons Park Champion Park 70% 53% 46% 39% 17% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 80% 26% 58% 28% 17% 14% 12% 8% 4% 3% 7% 4% 7% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% Top Three MPRD Facilities & Parks Used Most Often Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 6: Most Used Facilities/Parks by Area of Residence Invitation Sample Only Central Northeast Northwest South 0% 50% Percent of Respondents 0% 50% 100% Percent of Respondents 0% 50% 100% Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Settlers Park Storey Park Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park Tully Park Bear Creek Park Renaissance Park Gordon Harris Park Jabil Fields Chateau Park City Hall Plaza Community Center Heroes Park Heritage Middle School Ball Fields Generations Plaza Centennial Park 8th Street Park Seasons Park Champion Park 3% 0% 6% 5% 4% 8% 7% 6% 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% 6% 48% 39% 62% 67% 1% 1% 6% 10% 7% 22% 1% 1% 5% 32% 60% 49% 77% 4% 6% 1% 2% 6% 14% 3% 61% 36% 65% 86% 2% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 14% 3% 5% 1% 2% 24% 27% 52% 8% 48% 34% 47% Top Three MPRD Facilities & Parks Used Most Often - by Area of Residence Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 7: Most Used Facilities/Parks by Household Status Invitation Sample Only Children Present in Home No Children Present in Home 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of Respondents Settlers Park Storey Park Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park Tully Park Bear Creek Park Renaissance Park Gordon Harris Park Jabil Fields Chateau Park City Hall Plaza Community Center Heroes Park Heritage Middle School Ball Fields Generations Plaza Centennial Park 8th Street Park Seasons Park Champion Park 2% 1% 2% 0% 4% 7% 4% 1% 8% 8% 7% 9% 17% 45% 42% 51% 80% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3% 1% 6% 15% 2% 0% 7% 3% 16% 27% 51% 54% 51% Top Three MPRD Facilities & Parks Used Most Often - by Presence of Children in Household Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 8: Importance of Facilities Operated by MPRD – Percent Important vs. Not Important Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percent of Respondents Pathways/Trails Playgrounds Picnic Shelters Community/Recreation Center Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Indoor Gym Space Splash Pads Athletic Fields Outdoor Basketball Courts Tennis Courts Ball Fields Dog Parks Rodeo Grounds 82% 7% 77% 12% 69% 19% 56% 16% 56% 16% 49% 24% 48% 30% 43% 26% 43% 32% 37% 37% 31% 29% 31% 35% 14% 62% Importance of Facilities Operated by MPRD - Invitation Sample Only % 4 & 5 (Important) vs. % 1 & 2 (Not Important) Percent 4 & 5 (Important) Percent 1 & 2 (Not Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 9: Importance of Facilities Operated by MPRD – Average Rating Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating Pathways/Trails Playgrounds Picnic Shelters Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Community/ Recreation Center Indoor Gym Space Splash Pads Athletic Fields Outdoor Basketball Courts Ball Fields Tennis Courts Dog Parks Rodeo Grounds 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.8 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.1 Importance of Facilities Operated by MPRD Average Rating (1=Not at all Important, 5=Very Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 10: Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by Facilities Operated by MPRD – Percent Needs Met vs. Needs Unmet Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percent of Respondents Playgrounds Athletic Fields Ball Fields Picnic Shelters Splash Pads Outdoor Basketball Courts Community/ Recreation Center Pathways/Trails Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Dog Parks Rodeo Grounds Tennis Courts Indoor Gym Space 84% 4% 73% 10% 69% 5% 67% 4% 59% 14% 57% 17% 55% 25% 50% 28% 44% 30% 41% 31% 38% 34% 38% 11% 25% 47% Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by MPRD Facilities - Invitation Sample Only % 4 & 5 (Needs Met) vs. % 1 & 2 (Needs Unmet) Percent 4 & 5 (Needs Met) Percent 1 & 2 (Needs Unmet) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 11: Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by Facilities Operated by MPRD – Average Rating Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Needs Met Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Needs Met Rating Playgrounds Picnic Shelters Athletic Fields Ball Fields Splash Pads Outdoor Basketball Courts Tennis Courts Pathways/Trails Community/ Recreation Center Dog Parks Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Rodeo Grounds Indoor Gym Space 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.8 Degree to Which Household Needs Are Met by MPRD Facilities Average Rating (1=Not at all, 5=Completely) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 12: Current Facilities – Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix Invitation Sample Only 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) 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities Splash Pads Rodeo Grounds Picnic Shelters Outdoor Basketball Courts Community/Rec. Center Ball Fields Athletic Fields Tennis Courts Playgrounds Pathways/Trails Indoor Gym Space Dog Parks Fac Imp Fac Needs High Importance/ Low Needs Met High Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ Low Needs Met Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Facilities - Invitation Sample Only Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 13: Importance of Programs Operated by MPRD – Percent Important vs. Not Important Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent of Respondents Family Programs (All Ages) Youth Sports Youth Programs (Non-Sports) Senior Programs Outdoor Adventure Programs Youth Camps Teen Programs Adult Programs (Non-Sports) Adult Sports 69% 14% 64% 15% 57% 18% 50% 30% 50% 14% 41% 24% 40% 24% 36% 16% 31% 34% Importance of Programs Operated by MPRD - Invitation Sample Only % 4 & 5 (Important) vs. % 1 & 2 (Not Important) Percent 4 & 5 (Important) Percent 1 & 2 (Not Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 14: Importance of Programs Operated by MPRD – Average Rating Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating Youth Sports Family Programs (All Ages) Outdoor Adventure Programs Youth Programs (Non-Sports) Senior Programs Adult Programs (Non-Sports) Youth Camps Teen Programs Adult Sports 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.9 3.6 Importance of Programs Operated by MPRD Average Rating (1=Not at all Important, 5=Very Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 15: Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by MPRD Programs – Percent Needs Met vs. Needs Unmet Invitation Sample Only 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Percent of Respondents Senior Programs Youth Programs (Non-Sports) Adult Sports Youth Sports Teen Programs Family Programs (All Ages) Adult Programs (Non-Sports) Youth Camps Outdoor Adventure Programs 65% 11% 63% 6% 62% 8% 60% 6% 60% 9% 57% 12% 54% 9% 51% 9% 50% 14% Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by MPRD Programs - Invitation Sample Only % 4 & 5 (Needs Met) vs. % 1 & 2 (Needs Unmet) Percent 4 & 5 (Needs Met) Percent 1 & 2 (Needs Unmet) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 16: Degree to Which Household Needs are Met by MPRD Programs – Average Rating Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Needs Met Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Needs Met Rating Youth Programs (Non-Sports) Youth Sports Senior Programs Adult Sports Teen Programs Youth Camps Adult Programs (Non-Sports) Family Programs (All Ages) Outdoor Adventure Programs 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.1 Degree to Which Household Needs Are Met by MPRD Programs Average Rating (1=Not at all, 5=Completely) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 17: Current Programs – Importance vs. Needs Met Matrix Invitation Sample Only 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 How Well Needs Are Currently Being Met (Average Rating) 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Youth Sports Youth Programs Youth Camps Family Programs Adult Programs Teen Programs Senior Programs Outdoor Adventure Programs Adult Sports Prog Needs Prog Imp High Importance/ Low Needs Met High Importance/ High Needs Met Low Importance/ Low Needs Met Low Importance/ High Needs Met Level of Importance vs. Needs Met for Current MPRD Programs - Invitation Sample Only Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, AND SPECIAL EVENTS Figure 18: Household Need for Programs Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent of Respondents Community events Swim lessons/aquatic programs Fitness and wellness programs Summer camps - youth Family programs Athletic leagues - youth Senior programs Adult programs (non-sports) Cooking/enrichment classes After school programs Youth sports camps Arts programs Volunteer opportunities Performing arts programs Athletic leagues - adult Outdoor adventure programs Teen programs Youth programs (non-sports) Intergenerational programs Adaptive recreation programs 70% 54% 52% 44% 44% 41% 34% 34% 32% 31% 30% 30% 28% 27% 27% 22% 21% 18% 7% 5% Household Need for Programs - Invitation Sample Only Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 19: Household Need for Programs by Household Status Invitation Sample Only Children Present in Home No Children Present in Home 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents Community events Swim lessons/aquatic programs Fitness and wellness programs Summer camps - youth Family programs Athletic leagues - youth Senior programs Adult programs (non-sports) Cooking/enrichment classes After school programs Youth sports camps Arts programs Volunteer opportunities Performing arts programs Athletic leagues - adult Outdoor adventure programs Teen programs Youth programs (non-sports) Intergenerational programs Adaptive recreation programs 73% 68% 52% 62% 51% 59% 17% 21% 34% 41% 43% 34% 26% 30% 35% 24% 30% 23% 6% 4% 64% 27% 52% 12% 30% 67% 58% 28% 12% 21% 31% 22% 11% 18% 10% 7% 7% 4% 8% 8% Household Need for Programs - by Presence of Children in Household Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 20: Top Three Most Important Programs to Add, Expand, or Improve Invitation Sample Only 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Invitation Sample Community events Fitness and wellness programs Family programs Swim lessons/aquatic programs Athletic leagues - youth Senior programs Teen programs Cooking/enrichment classes Adult programs (non-sports) Performing arts programs Volunteer opportunities Summer camps - youth Youth programs (non-sports) Athletic leagues - adult Outdoor adventure programs Youth sports camps Adaptive recreation programs Arts programs After school programs Intergenerational programs 21% 11% 16% 11% 14% 17% 10% 13% 12% 10% 7% 9% 3% 5% 8% 8% 7% 4% 5% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 6% 42% 31% 31% 28% 26% 19% 13% 12% 11% 10% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 2% Top Three Most Important Programs to Household - Invitation Sample Only Most Important Program Second Most Important Program Third Most Important Program Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 21: Top Three Most Important Programs to Add, Expand, or Improve Combined Invitation Sample Open Link 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent of Respondents Community events Fitness and wellness programs Family programs Swim lessons/aquatic programs Athletic leagues - youth Senior programs Teen programs Cooking/enrichment classes Adult programs (non-sports) Performing arts programs Volunteer opportunities Summer camps - youth Youth programs (non-sports) Athletic leagues - adult Outdoor adventure programs Youth sports camps Adaptive recreation programs Arts programs After school programs Intergenerational programs 2% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 10% 11% 12% 13% 19% 26% 28% 31% 31% 42% 1% 4% 10% 3% 9% 11% 22% 7% 14% 7% 10% 10% 9% 9% 13% 37% 31% 18% 24% 36% Top Three Most Important Programs to Household Combined Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. VALUES AND VISION Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 22: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Invitation Sample Only 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Invitation Sample Pathway connectivity Promoting healthy, active lifestyles Family-oriented activities Maintenance of parks and facilities Safety and security Community-wide special events Aquatic facilities/programming Developing new parks in under-served areas Expanded classes and programs for all ages Balance of organized sports and passive park facilities Land preservation/acquisition Accessibility Public art and landscaped areas Volunteer opportunities Customer service Leveraging partnerships 33% 11% 12% 11% 14% 13% 13% 14% 13% 10% 4% 3% 8% 8% 5% 9% 7% 8% 3% 4% 4% 3% 9% 4% 3% 5% 7% 4% 5% 5% 6% 4% 3% 44% 33% 30% 25% 25% 25% 24% 16% 16% 16% 11% 8% 5% 4% 3% 2% Top Three Community Issues for MPRD - Invitation Sample Only Top Community Issue for Parks & Rec. Second Community Issue for Parks & Rec. Third Community Issue for Parks & Rec. Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 23: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined Invitation Sample Only Invitation Sample Open Link 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of Respondents Pathway connectivity Promoting healthy, active lifestyles Family-oriented activities Maintenance of parks and facilities Safety and security Community-wide special events Aquatic facilities/programming Developing new parks in under-served areas Expanded classes and programs for all ages Balance of organized sports and passive park facilities Land preservation/acquisition Accessibility Public art and landscaped areas Volunteer opportunities Customer service Leveraging partnerships 44% 33% 30% 25% 25% 25% 24% 16% 16% 16% 11% 8% 5% 4% 3% 2% 53% 17% 30% 25% 16% 17% 28% 29% 12% 22% 15% 4% 5% 5% 1% 2% Top Three Community Issues for MPRD Combined Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 24: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined by Area of Residence Invitation Sample Only Central Northeast Northwest South 0% 80% Percent of Respondents 0% 50% Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% Percent of Respondents 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Pathway connectivity Promoting healthy, active lifestyles Family-oriented activities Maintenance of parks and facilities Safety and security Community-wide special events Aquatic facilities/programming Developing new parks in under-served areas Expanded classes and programs for all ages Balance of organized sports and passive park facilities Land preservation/acquisition Accessibility Public art and landscaped areas Volunteer opportunities Customer service Leveraging partnerships 52% 21% 26% 23% 28% 16% 32% 13% 13% 14% 16% 7% 7% 6% 7% 5% 44% 61% 39% 16% 44% 33% 17% 11% 4% 8% 3% 7% 5% 6% 3% 34% 36% 36% 22% 32% 34% 22% 19% 8% 8% 9% 8% 3% 3% 1% 50% 16% 18% 38% 21% 16% 26% 38% 10% 18% 16% 7% 4% 3% 2% 5% Top Three Community Issues for MPRD Combined - by Area of Residence Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 25: Top Three Areas MPRD Should Focus on Improving Combined by Household Status Invitation Sample Only Children Present in Home No Children Present in Home 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents Pathway connectivity Promoting healthy, active lifestyles Family-oriented activities Maintenance of parks and facilities Safety and security Community-wide special events Aquatic facilities/programming Developing new parks in under-served areas Expanded classes and programs for all ages Balance of organized sports and passive park facilities Land preservation/acquisition Accessibility Public art and landscaped areas Volunteer opportunities Customer service Leveraging partnerships 46% 38% 36% 25% 19% 24% 30% 16% 17% 16% 9% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 41% 25% 19% 24% 35% 27% 13% 18% 15% 14% 14% 15% 9% 6% 6% 1% Top Three Community Issues for MPRD Combined - by Presence of Children in Household Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND SERVICES Figure 26: Three Areas that, if Addressed, Would Increase Your Use of MPRD Facilities Invitation Sample Only 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% Percent of Respondents Awareness of programs (communications) Shade Additional facilities and amenities Pricing/user fees Accessibility Safety and security Parking Condition/maintenance of parks or buildings Quality of equipment Programs I want Customer service/staff knowledge Hours of operation 3% 3% 6% 8% 9% 12% 15% 19% 20% 38% 51% 55% What are the three most important areas that, if addressed by the City, would in- crease your utilization of MPRD facilities? - Invitation Sample Only Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • o o o o o • o o o o o o o o o o o o o Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 27: Importance of Adding/Expanding/Improving MPRD Facilities – Percent Important vs. Not Important Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent of Respondents Community/Recreation Center Indoor Aquatics Facility Ice Rink Fieldhouse/Gymnasium Space Performing Arts Center 12% 62% 12% 62% 31% 41% 18% 38% 17% 36% Indoor Facilities Importance of Potential Future Facilities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved - Invitation Sample Only % 4 & 5 (Important) vs. % 1 & 2 (Not Important) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent of Respondents Shade Structures in Parks Pathways & Trails Improved Park Amenities Playgrounds Lights for Outdoor Athletic Facilities Fishing Ponds Public Art in the Parks Splash Pads Dog Parks Exercise Stations Along Trails in Parks New Parks Outdoor Athletic Fields/Courts Parking at Recreational Facilities Disc Golf Rodeo/Equestrian Facility Pickleball Courts 78% 6% 78% 5% 11% 70% 11% 65% 17% 49% 30% 42% 27% 40% 25% 40% 33% 39% 26% 39% 18% 33% 20% 31% 25% 28% 37% 20% 52% 9% 43% 7% Outdoor Facilities Percent 4 & 5 (Important) Percent 1 & 2 (Not Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 28: Importance of Adding/Expanding/Improving MPRD Facilities – Average Rating Invitation Sample Only Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating Indoor Aquatics Facility Community/Recreation Center Fieldhouse/Gymnasium Space Performing Arts Center Ice Rink 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.7 Indoor Invitation Sample Open Link 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Average Importance Rating Pathways & Trails Shade Structures in Parks Improved Park Amenities Playgrounds Lights for Outdoor Athletic Facilities New Parks Exercise Stations Along Trails in Parks Splash Pads Outdoor Athletic Fields/Courts Public Art in the Parks Fishing Ponds Parking at Recreational Facilities Dog Parks Disc Golf Pickleball Courts Rodeo/Equestrian Facility 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.7 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.1 Outdoor Importance of Potential Future Facilities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved Average Rating (1=Not at all Important, 5=Very Important) Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 29: Top Three Most Important Facilities to Add, Expand, or Improve Invitation Sample Only 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Invitation Sample Pathways & trails Indoor aquatics facility Community/recreation center Improved park amenities Shade structures in parks Dog parks Playgrounds Outdoor athletic fields/courts Fishing ponds New parks Exercise stations along trails in parks Ice rink Performing arts center Public Art in the Parks Splash pads Lights for outdoor athletic facilities Disc golf Parking at recreational facilities Fieldhouse/gymnasium space Other (indoor or outdoor) Rodeo/equestrian facility No second or third priority listed Pickleball courts 14% 11% 16% 10% 11% 21% 14% 13% 14% 7% 4% 5% 4% 7% 7% 7% 6% 3% 5% 6% 4% 7% 8% 5% 6% 9% 4% 4% 2% 49% 33% 26% 22% 22% 18% 16% 13% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% Top Three Indoor & Outdoor Facilities to Add, Expand, or Improve - Invitation Sam- ple Only Highest Priority to Be Added/Expanded/Improved Second Priority to Be Added/Expanded/Improved Third Priority to Be Added/Expanded/Improved Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 30: Top Three Most Important Facilities to Add, Expand, or Improve Combined Invitation Sample Open Link 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Respondents Pathways & trails Indoor aquatics facility Community/recreation center Improved park amenities Shade structures in parks Dog parks Playgrounds Outdoor athletic fields/courts Fishing ponds New parks Exercise stations along trails in parks Ice rink Performing arts center Public Art in the Parks Splash pads Lights for outdoor athletic facilities Disc golf Parking at recreational facilities Fieldhouse/gymnasium space Other (indoor or outdoor) Rodeo/equestrian facility Pickleball courts 49% 33% 26% 22% 22% 18% 16% 13% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 1% 43% 34% 21% 27% 18% 20% 17% 11% 13% 13% 17% 5% 6% 5% 9% 5% 8% 7% 7% 2% 1% 4% Top Three Indoor & Outdoor Facilities to Add, Expand, or Improve Combined Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. COMMUNICATION Figure 31: Current Methods of Receiving Information and Best Method for Reaching You Invitation Sample Only Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. FINANCIAL CHOICES/FEES Figure 32: How do you feel about the current program and facility fees charged by MPRD? Current Facility Fees Current Program Fees 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of Respondents Fees are underpriced for the value received Fees are acceptable for the value received Fees are too high for the value received Don't know/ unsure 2% 2% 1% 2% 30% 48% 29% 54% 11% 7% 14% 8% 57% 43% 56% 36% How do you feel about the current program and facility fees charged directly to you by MPRD? Invitation Sample Open Link Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 33: Potential Impact of Fee Increases on Current Level of Participation Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. Figure 34: Allocation of Funding Towards Facilities/Services/Programs – Average Allocation Amount Invitation Sample Open Link $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 Average Amount Allocated $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 Average Amount Allocated Expand aquatics Add more pathways Make improvements and/or renovate and maintain existing park facilities Expand programs and activities Recreation center Add new parks Add outdoor athletic fields and courts New or expanded Community Center Provide more City-wide special events Other enhancements $17.69 $11.29 $19.44 $12.62 $8.75 $8.63 $6.16 $3.27 $7.14 $5.02 $16.29 $10.79 $16.84 $11.74 $10.91 $5.85 $5.79 $6.59 $5.37 $9.82 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? Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS • • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Meridian Parks and Recreation Survey RRC Associates, Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •   Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-97 Appendix D – Sample Sponsorship Policy                                                                                                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  Sample    XX   Parks & Recreation Department    Sponsorship Policy        Created for XX by:  211 N. Public Road, Suite 225  Lafayette, CO 80026  Phone: (303) 439‐8369  Fax: (303) 664‐5313  Info@GreenPlayLLC.com  www.GreenPlayLLC.com  © 2003, 2008, 2012  © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 2 XX Parks & Recreation Department  Sponsorship Policy      Introduction  The following guidelines in this Sponsorship Policy have been specifically designed for  the XX Parks & Recreation Department, while considering that these guidelines may be  later adapted and implemented on a city‐wide basis. Some assumptions regarding this  policy are:     Partnerships for recreation and parks facilities and program development may be  pursued based on the XX Partnership Policy, encouraging the development of  partnerships for the benefit of the city, its citizens, and potential partners.  Sponsorships are one type of partnership, and one avenue of procurement for  alternative funding resources. The Sponsorship Policy may evolve as the needs of  new projects and other City departments are incorporated into its usage.    Broad guidelines are offered in this policy primarily to delineate which types of  sponsors and approval levels are currently acceptable for the XX Parks & Recreation  Department.    The policy should ensure that the definition of potential sponsors may include non‐ commercial community organizations (for example: YMCAs and Universities), but  does not include a forum for non‐commercial speech or advertising.   Sponsorships are clearly defined and are different from advertisements.  Advertisements are one type of benefit that may be offered to a sponsor in  exchange for cash or in‐kind sponsorship.   The difference between sponsors and donors must be clarified, as some staff and  the public often confuse and misuse these terms.      Structure  Part A of this document gives the Sponsorship Policy  Part B gives the Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits  Part C provides the vocabulary and Glossary of Sponsorship Terms   © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 3 Part A.  Sponsorship Policy  XX Parks & Recreation Department      I. Purpose    In an effort to utilize and maximize the community’s resources, it is in the best interest  of the City’s Parks & Recreation Department to create and enhance relationship‐based  sponsorships. This may be accomplished by providing local, regional, and national  commercial businesses and non‐profit groups a method for becoming involved with the  many opportunities provided by the Parks & Recreation Department. The Department  delivers quality, life‐enriching activities to the broadest base of the community. This  translates into exceptional visibility for sponsors and supporters. It is the goal of the  Department to create relationships and partnerships with sponsors for the financial  benefit of the Department.     Sponsorships vs. Donations  It is important to note that there is a difference between a sponsorship and a  philanthropic donation. Basically, sponsorships are cash or in‐kind products and services  offered by sponsors with the clear expectation that an obligation is created. The  recipient is obliged to return something of value to the sponsor. The value is typically  public recognition and publicity or advertising highlighting the contribution of the  sponsor and/or the sponsor’s name, logo, message, products, or services. The Sponsor  usually has clear marketing objectives that they are trying to achieve, including but not  limited to the ability to drive sales directly based on the sponsorship, and/or quite often,  the right to be the exclusive sponsor in a specific category of sales. The arrangement is  typically consummated by a letter of agreement or contractual arrangement that details  the particulars of the exchange.     In contrast, a donation comes with no restrictions on how the money or in‐kind  resources are used. This policy specifically addresses sponsorships, the agreements for  the procurement of the resources, and the benefits provided in return for securing  those resources. Since donations or gifts come with no restrictions or expected benefits  for the donor, a policy is generally not needed.    © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 4 II. Guidelines for Acceptable Sponsorships    Sponsors should be businesses, non‐profit groups, or individuals that promote mutually  beneficial relationships for the Parks & Recreation Department. All potentially  sponsored properties (facilities, events, or programs) should be reviewed in terms of  creating synergistic working relationships with regard to benefits, community  contributions, knowledge, and political sensitivity. All sponsored properties should  promote the goals and mission of the Parks & Recreation Department as follows:    NEED SPECIFIC MISSION STATEMENT   Sample XX Parks & Recreation Mission Statement:       NEED SPECIFIC GOALS   Sample Goals of the Park & Recreation Department:      III. Sponsorship Selection Criteria    A. Relationship of Sponsorship to Mission and Goals  The first major criterion is the appropriate relationship of a sponsorship to the above  outlined Parks & Recreation Department’s Mission and Goals. While objective analysis is  ideal, the appropriateness of a relationship may sometimes be necessarily subjective.  This policy addresses this necessity by including Approval Levels from various levels of  City management staff and elected officials, outlined in Section B, to help assist with  decisions involving larger amounts and benefits for sponsorship.    The following questions are the major guiding components of this policy and should  be addressed prior to soliciting potential sponsors:   Is the sponsorship reasonably related to the purpose of the facility or programs as  exemplified by the Mission Statement and Goals of the Department?   Will the sponsorship help generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant  than the City can provide without it?    What are the real costs, including staff time, for procuring the amount of cash or in‐ kind resources that come with the generation of the sponsorship?    Sponsorships which shall NOT be considered are those which:   Promote environmental, work, or other practices that, if they took place in the City,  would violate U.S. or state law (i.e., dumping of hazardous waste, exploitation of  child labor, etc.), or promote drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, or that constitute violations  of law.    Duplicate or mimic the identity or programs of the Parks & Recreation Department  or any of its divisions.  © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 5  Exploit participants or staff members of the Department.   Offer benefits which may violate other accepted policies or the Sign Code. DO YOU  HAVE A SIGN CODE?    B. Sponsorship Plan and Approval Levels  Each project or program that involves solicitation of Sponsors should, PRIOR to  procurement, create a Sponsorship Plan specific to that project or program that is in line  with the Sponsorship Levels given in Part B. This plan needs to be approved by the  Management Team Members supervising the project and in accordance to City  Partnership, Sponsorship, and Sign Code policies. In addition, each sponsorship will need  separate approval if they exceed pre‐specified limits. The Approval Levels are outlined  below:    Under $1,000 The program or project staff may approve this level of  Agreement, with review by their supervising Management  Team Member.  $1,001 to $10,000 The Agreement needs approval of a Management Team  Member.  $10,001 to $25,000 The Agreement needs approval of the entire Senior  Management Team and Department Director.   Over $25,000 The Agreement needs approval of the City Supervisor (the City  Supervisor may recommend a City Council or Board of Trustees  review).    C. No Non‐Commercial Forum is Permitted  This criterion deals with the commercial character of a sponsorship message. The City  intends to create a limited forum, focused on advertisements incidental to commercial  sponsorships of Parks & Recreation facilities and programs. While non‐commercial  community organizations or individuals may wish to sponsor Department activities or  facilities for various reasons, no non‐commercial speech is permitted in the limited  forum created by this policy.     Advertisements incidental to commercial sponsorship must primarily propose a  commercial transaction, either directly, through the text, or indirectly, through  the association of the sponsor’s name with the commercial transaction of  purchasing the commercial goods or services which the sponsor sells.     The reasons for this portion of the Policy include:     (1) The desirability of avoiding non‐commercial proselytizing of a “captive  audience” of event spectators and participants.  (2) The constitutional prohibition on any view‐point related decisions about  permitted advertising coupled with the danger that the City and the Parks &  Recreation Department would be associated with advertising anyway.  © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 6 (3) The desire of the City to maximize income from sponsorship, weighed against  the likelihood that commercial sponsors would be dissuaded from using the  same forum commonly used by persons wishing to communicate non‐ commercial messages, some of which could be offensive to the public.   (4) The desire of the City to maintain a position of neutrality on political and  religious issues.  (5) In the case of religious advertising and political advertising, specific concerns  about the danger of “excessive entanglement” with religion (and resultant  constitutional violations) and the danger of election campaign law violations,  respectively.     Guidelines for calculating the Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits are provided and  outlined in Part B.      IV. Additional Guidelines for Implementation    A. Equitable Offerings  It is important that all sponsorships of equal levels across divisions within Parks &  Recreation yield the same value of benefits for potential sponsors.     B. Sponsorship Contact Database  A designated staff person or representative of the Parks & Recreation Department will  keep an updated list of all current sponsors, sponsored activities, and contacts related  to sponsorship.    Purpose of Maintaining the Database:   Limit duplicate solicitations of one sponsor   Allow management to make decisions based on most appropriate solicitations and  levels of benefits offered   Keep a current list of all Department supporters and contacts   Help provide leads for new sponsorships, if appropriate    For staff below Management Team level, access to the database will be limited to  printouts of listings of names of sponsors and their sponsored events. This limited  access will provide information to help limit duplicated solicitations, and will also  protect existing sponsor relationships, while allowing the evaluation of future  sponsorships to occur at a management level.             © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 7 If a potential sponsor is already listed, staff should not pursue a sponsorship without  researching the sponsor’s history with the most recently sponsored division. If more  than one division wishes to pursue sponsorship by the same company, the Management  Team shall make a decision based on several variables, including but not limited to:     History of sponsorship, relationships, and types of sponsorship needed.   Amount of funding available.   Best use of funding based on departmental priorities.    C. Sponsorship Committee  A committee consisting of the supervisors of each program using sponsorships and  other management team designees shall meet twice per year to review the database,  exchange current contract samples, and recommend adjusting benefit levels and policy  as needed. Changes shall not take effect before approval by the Management Team.      © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 9 Part B.  Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits    The following tiers are presented as a guideline for types of benefits that may be  presented as opportunities for potential sponsors.    Each sponsorship will most likely need to be individually negotiated. One purpose for  these guidelines is to create equity in exchanges across sponsorship arrangements.  While for the sake of ease the examples given for levels are based on amount of  sponsorship requested, the level of approval needed from City staff is really based on  the amount of benefits exchanged for the resources. The levels of approval are  necessary because the costs and values for different levels of benefits may vary,  depending on the sponsorship. It is important to note that these values may be very  different. Sponsors will not typically offer to contribute resources that cost them more  than the value of resources that they will gain and, typically, seek at least a 2‐1 return  on their investment. Likewise, the City should not pursue sponsorships unless the total  value the City receives is greater than its real costs.    A hierarchy of Sponsors for events, programs, or facilities with more than one sponsor is  listed below from the highest level to the lowest. Not all Levels will necessarily be used  in each Sponsorship Plan. Note that the hierarchy is not dependent on specific levels or  amounts of sponsorship. Specific levels and amounts should be designed for each  property before sponsorships are procured within the approved Sponsorship Plan.  Complete definitions of terms are included in Part C.    Hierarchy of Sponsorship Levels (highest to lowest)    Parks and Recreation Department‐Wide Sponsor    Facility/Park Title or Primary Sponsor    Event/Program Title or Primary Sponsor    Presenting Sponsor (Facility, Event, or Program)    Facility/Park Sponsor   Program/Event Sponsor  Media Sponsor  Official Supplier   Co‐sponsor                © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 10 This hierarchy will help decide the amounts to ask various sponsors for, and will  determine what levels of benefits to provide. It is important to build flexibility and  choice into each level so that sponsors can have the ability to choose options that will  best fit their objectives. Note that the benefits listed under each level are examples of  value. The listing does not mean that all of the benefits should be offered. It is a menu  of options for possible benefits, depending on the circumstances. These are listed  primarily as a guideline for maximum benefit values. It is recommended that each  project create a project‐specific Sponsorship Plan for approval in advance of  Sponsorship procurement, based on the benefits available and the values specific to the  project.      I. Sponsorship Assets and Related Benefits Inventory      TO BE DETERMINED FOR EACH AGENCY BASED ON OFFERINGS  (PROPERTIES), VALUATION, AND DETERMINED BENEFITS      A tiered structure of actual values and approval levels should be  determined as part of a Sponsorship Plan.  © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 11 Part C.   Glossary of Sponsorship Terms      Activation  The marketing activity a company conducts to promote its sponsorship. Money spent on  activation is over and above the rights fee paid to the sponsored property. Also known  as leverage.    Advertising  The direct sale of print or some other types of City communication medium to provide  access to a select target market.    Ambush Marketing  A promotional strategy whereby a non‐sponsor attempts to capitalize on the  popularity/prestige of a property by giving the false impression that it is a sponsor.  Often employed by the competitors of a property’s official sponsors.    Audio Mention  The mention of a sponsor during a TV or radio broadcast.    Business‐to‐Business Sponsorship  Programs intended to influence corporate purchase/awareness, as opposed to  individual consumers.    Category Exclusivity  The right of a sponsor to be the only company within its product or service category  associated with the sponsored property.    Cause Marketing  Promotional strategy that links a company’s sales campaign directly to a non‐profit  organization. Generally includes an offer by the sponsor to make a donation to the  cause with purchase of its product or service. Unlike philanthropy, money spent on  cause marketing is a business expense, not a donation, and is expected to show a return  on investment.    Co‐sponsors  Sponsors of the same property.    CPM (Cost per Thousand)  The cost to deliver an ad message to a thousand people.    Cross‐Promotions  A joint marketing effort conducted by two or more co‐sponsors using the sponsored  property as the central theme.    © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 12 Donations  Cash or in‐kind gifts that do not include any additional negotiated conditions in return.  Synonyms: Philanthropy, Patronage.    Editorial Coverage  Exposure that is generated by media coverage of the sponsored property that includes  mention of the sponsor.    Emblem  A graphic symbol unique to a property. Also called a mark.    Escalator  An annual percentage increase built into the sponsorship fee for multi‐year contracts.  Escalators are typically tied to inflation.    Exclusive Rights  A company pays a premium or provides economic benefit in exchange for the right to be  the sole advertised provider, at the most competitive prices, of goods purchased by  consumers within Parks & Recreation Department facilities and parks.     Fulfillment  The delivery of benefits promised to the sponsor in the contract.    Hospitality  Hosting key customers, clients, government officials, employees, and other VIPs at an  event or facility. Usually involves tickets, parking, dining, and other amenities, often in a  specially designated area, and may include interaction with athletes.    In‐Kind Sponsorship  Payment (full or partial) of sponsorship fee in goods or services rather than cash.    Licensed Merchandise  Goods produced by a manufacturer (the licensee) who has obtained a license to  produce and distribute the official Marks on products such as clothing and souvenirs.    Licensee  Manufacturer which has obtained a license to produce and distribute Licensed  Merchandise.    Licensing  Right to use a property’s logos and terminology on products for retail sale. Note: While a  sponsor will typically receive the right to include a property’s marks on its packaging and  advertising, sponsors are not automatically licensees.    Mark  Any official visual representation of a property, including emblems and mascots.      © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 13 Mascot  A graphic illustration of a character, usually a cartoon figure, used to promote the  identity of a property.    Media Equivalencies  Measuring the exposure value of a sponsorship by adding up all the coverage it  generated and calculating what it would have cost to buy a like amount of ad time or  space in those outlets based on media rate cards.    Media Sponsor  TV and radio stations, print media, and outdoor advertising companies that provide  either cash, or more frequently advertising time or space, to a property in exchange for  official designation.    Municipal Marketing  Promotional strategy linking a company to community services and activities  (sponsorship of parks and recreation programs, libraries, etc.)    Option to Renew  Contractual right to renew a sponsorship on specified terms.    Philanthropy  Support for a non‐profit property where no commercial advantage is expected.  Synonym: Patronage.    Perimeter Advertising  Stationary advertising around the perimeter of an arena or event site, often reserved for  sponsors.    Premiums  Souvenir merchandise, produced to promote a sponsor’s involvement with a property  (customized with the names/logos of the sponsor and the property).    Presenting Sponsor  The sponsor that has its name presented just below that of the sponsored property. In  presenting arrangements, the event/facility name and the sponsor name are not fully  integrated since the word(s) “presents” or “presented by” always come between them.    Primary Sponsor  The sponsor paying the largest fee and receiving the most prominent identification  (Would be naming rights or title sponsor if sponsored property sold name or title).    Property  A unique, commercially exploitable entity (could be a facility, site, event, or program)  Synonyms: sponsee, rightsholder, seller.      © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 14 Right of First Refusal  Contractual right granting a sponsor the right to match any offer the property receives  during a specific period of time in the sponsor’s product category.    Selling Rights  The ability of a sponsor to earn back some or all of its sponsorship fee selling its product  or service to the property or its attendees or members.    Signage  Banners, billboards, electronic messages, decals, etc., displayed on‐site and containing  sponsors ID.    Sole Sponsor  A company that has paid to be the only sponsor of a property.    Sponsee  A property available for sponsorship.    Sponsor  An entity that pays a property for the right to promote itself and its products or services  in association with the property.    Sponsor ID  Visual and audio recognition of sponsor in property’s publications and advertising;  public‐address and on‐air broadcast mentions.    Sponsorship  The relationship between a sponsor and a property, in which the sponsor pays a cash or  in‐kind fee in return for access to the commercial potential associated with the  property.    Sponsorship Agency  A firm which specializes in advising on, managing, brokering, or organizing sponsored  properties. The agency may be employed by either the sponsor or property.    Sponsorship Fee  Payment made by a sponsor to a property.    Sports Marketing  Promotional strategy linking a company to sports (sponsorship of competitions, teams,  leagues, etc.).    Supplier  Official provider of goods or services in exchange for designated recognition. This level is  below official sponsor, and the benefits provided are limited accordingly.    Title Sponsor  The sponsor that has its name incorporated into the name of the sponsored property.  © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 15 Venue Marketing  Promotional strategy linking a sponsor to a physical site (sponsorship of stadiums,  arenas, auditoriums, amphitheaters, racetracks, fairgrounds, etc.)    Web Sponsorship  The purchase (in cash or trade) of the right to utilize the commercial potential  associated with a site on the World Wide Web, including integrated relationship building  and branding.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-115 Appendix E – Sample Partnership Policy                                                                                                                       THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  Sample Partnership Policy and Proposal Format Created By: www.greenplayllc.com Phone: 303-439-8369 Email: info@greenplayllc.com www.greenplayllc.com © 2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 2 Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy And Proposal Format Table of Contents Part One Page I. The Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy A. Purpose 3 B. Background and Assumptions 4 C. Partnership Definition 5 D. Possible Types of Partners 6 E. Sponsorships 7 F. Limited Decision-Making Partnerships 8 G. Benefits of Partnerships 8 II. The Partnering Process 9 III. The Partnership Evaluation Process A. Mission and Goals 13 B. Other Considerations 13 C. Selection Criteria 15 D. Additional Assistance 16 Part Two The “Proposed Partnership Outline Format” 17 Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 3 I. Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy A. Purpose This policy is designed to guide the process for XX Parks and Recreation Department in their desire to partner with private, non-profit, or other governmental entities for the development, design, construction, and operation of possibly partnered recreational facilities and/or programs that may occur on City property. The XX Parks and Recreation Department would like to identify for-profit, non-profit, and governmental entities that are interested in proposing to partner with the City to develop recreational facilities and/or programs. A major component in exploring any potential partnership will be to identify additional collaborating partners that may help provide a synergistic working relationship in terms of resources, community contributions, knowledge, and political sensitivity. These partnerships should be mutually beneficial for all proposing partners including the City, and particularly beneficial for the citizens of the community. This policy document is designed to: • Provide essential background information. • Provide parameters for gathering information regarding the needs and contributions of potential partners. • Identify how the partnerships will benefit the Sample Parks and Recreation Department and the community. Part Two: The “Proposed Partnership Outline Format,” provides a format that is intended to help guide Proposing Partners in creating a proposal for review by Sample Parks and Recreation Department staff. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 4 B. Background and Assumptions Partnerships are being used across the nation by governmental agencies in order to utilize additional resources for their community’s benefit. Examples of partnerships abound, and encompass a broad spectrum of agreements and implementation. The most commonly described partnership is between a public and a private entity, but partnerships also occur between public entities and non-profit organizations and/or other governmental agencies. Note on Privatization: This application is specific for proposed partnering for new facilities or programs. This information does not intend to address the issue of privatization, or transferring existing City functions to a non-City entity for improved efficiency and/or competitive cost concerns. An example of privatization would be a contract for a landscaping company to provide mowing services in a park. The City is always open to suggestions for improving services and cost savings through contractual arrangements. If you have an idea for privatization of current City functions, please call or outline your ideas in a letter for the City’s consideration. In order for partnerships to be successful, research has shown that the following elements should be in place prior to partnership procurement:  There must be support for the concept and process of partnering from the very highest organizational level – i.e.: the Board or Trustees, a council, and/or department head.  The most successful agencies have high-ranking officials that believe that they owe it to their citizens to explore partnering opportunities whenever presented, those communities both solicit partners and consider partnering requests brought to them.  It is very important to have a Partnership Policy in place before partner procurement begins. This allows the agency to be proactive rather than reactive when presented with a partnership opportunity. It also sets a “level playing field” for all potential partners, so that they can know and understand in advance the parameters and selection criteria for a proposed partnership.  A partnership policy and process should set development priorities and incorporate multiple points for go/no-go decisions.  The partnership creation process should be a public process, with both Partners and the Partnering Agency well aware in advance of the upcoming steps. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 5 C. Partnership Definition For purposes of this document and policy, a Proposed Partnership is defined as: "An identified idea or concept involving Sample Parks and Recreation Department and for- profit, non-profit, and/or governmental entities, outlining the application of combined resources to develop facilities, programs, and/or amenities for the City and its citizens." A partnership is a cooperative venture between two or more parties with a common goal, who combine complementary resources to establish a mutual direction or complete a mutually beneficial project. Partnerships can be facility-based or program-specific. The main goal for XX Parks and Recreation Department partnerships is enhancing public offerings to meet the mission and goals of the City. The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in promoting partnerships which involve cooperation among many partners, bringing resources together to accomplish goals in a synergistic manner. Proposals that incorporate such collaborative efforts will receive priority status. Partnerships can accomplish tasks with limited resources, respond to compelling issues, encourage cooperative interaction and conflict resolution, involve outside interests, and serve as an education and outreach tool. Partnerships broaden ownership in various projects and increase public support for community recreation goals. Partners often have flexibility to obtain and invest resources/dollars on products or activities where municipal government may be limited. Partnerships can take the form of (1) cash gifts and donor programs, (2) improved access to alternative funding, (3) property investments, (4) charitable trust funds, (5) labor, (6) materials, (7) equipment, (8) sponsorships, (9) technical skills and/or management skills, and other forms of value. The effective use of volunteers also can figure significantly into developing partnerships. Some partnerships involve active decision making, while in others, certain partners take a more passive role. The following schematic shows the types of possible partnerships discussed in this policy: Types of Partnerships Active Partnerships Management Agreements Program Partnerships Facility Leases Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) Marketing Partnerships Semi-Limited Decision Making Partnerships Sponsorships Limited Decision Making Partnerships Grant Programs Donor Programs Volunteer Programs Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 6 D. Possible Types of Active Partnerships The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in promoting collaborative partnerships among multiple community organizations. Types of agreements for Proposed “Active” Partnerships may include leases, contracts, sponsorship agreements, marketing agreements, management agreements, joint-use agreements, inter-governmental agreements, or a combination of these. An innovative and mutually beneficial partnership that does not fit into any of the following categories may also be considered. Proposed partnerships will be considered for facility, service, operations, and/or program development including associated needs, such as parking, paving, fencing, drainage systems, signage, outdoor restrooms, lighting, utility infrastructure, etc. The following examples are provided only to illustrate possible types of partnerships. They are not necessarily examples that would be approved and/or implemented. Examples of Public/Private Partnerships • A private business seeing the need for more/different community fitness and wellness activities wants to build a facility on City land, negotiate a management contract, provide the needed programs, and make a profit. • A private group interested in environmental conservation obtains a grant from a foundation to build an educational kiosk, providing all materials and labor, and is in need of a spot to place it. • Several neighboring businesses see the need for a place for their employees to work out during the work day. They group together to fund initial facilities and an operating subsidy and give the facility to the City to operate for additional public users. • A biking club wants to fund the building of a race course through a park. The races would be held one night per week, but otherwise the path would be open for public biking and in-line skating. • A large corporate community relations office wants to provide a skatepark, but doesn't want to run it. They give a check to the City in exchange for publicizing their underwriting of the park's cost. • A private restaurant operator sees the need for a concessions stand in a park and funds the building of one, operates it, and provides a share of revenue back to the City. • A garden club wants land to build unique butterfly gardens. They will tend the gardens and just need a location and irrigation water. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 7 Examples of Public/Non-Profit Partnerships • A group of participants for a particular sport or hobby sees a need for more playing space and forms a non-profit entity to raise funds for a facility for their priority use that is open to the public during other hours. • A non-profit baseball association needs fields for community programs and wants to obtain grants for the building of the fields. They would get priority use of the fields, which would be open for the City to schedule use during other times. • A museum funds and constructs a new building, dedicating some space and time for community meetings and paying a portion of revenues to the City to lease its land. Examples of Public/Public Partnerships • Two governmental entities contribute financially to the development and construction of a recreational facility to serve residents of both entities. One entity, through an IGA, is responsible for the operation of the facility, while the other entity contributes operating subsidy through a formula based on population or some other appropriate factor. • Two governmental public safety agencies see the need for more physical training space for their employees. They jointly build a gym adjacent to City facilities to share for their training during the day. The gyms would be open for the City to schedule for other users at night. • A school district sees the need for a climbing wall for their athletes. The district funds the wall and subsidizes operating costs, and the City manages and maintains the wall to provide public use during non-school hours. • A university needs meeting rooms. They fund a multi-use building on City land that can be used for City community programs at night. E. Sponsorships The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in actively procuring sponsorships for facilities and programs as one type of beneficial partnership. Please see the Sample Parks and Recreation Department Sponsorship Policy for more information. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 8 F. Limited-Decision Making Partnerships: Donor, Volunteer, and Granting Programs While this policy document focuses on the parameters for more active types of partnerships, the City is interested in, and will be happy to discuss, a proposal for any of these types of partnerships, and may create specific plans for such in the future. G. Benefits of Partnerships with Sample Parks and Recreation Department The City expects that any Proposed Partnership will have benefits for all involved parties. Some general expected benefits are: Benefits for the City and the Community:  Merging of resources to create a higher level of service and facility availability for community members.  Making alternative funding sources available for public community amenities.  Tapping into the dynamic and entrepreneurial traits of private industry.  Delivering services and facilities more efficiently by allowing for collaborative business solutions to public organizational challenges.  Meeting the needs of specific groups of users through the availability of land for development and community use. Benefits for the Partners:  Land and/or facility availability at a subsidized level for specific facility and/or program needs.  Sharing of the risk with an established stable governmental entity.  Becoming part of a larger network of support for management and promotion of facilities and programs.  Availability of professional City recreation and planning experts to maximize the facilities and programs that may result.  Availability of City staff facilitation to help streamline the planning and operational efforts. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 9 II. The Partnering Process The steps for creation of a partnership with the XX Parks and Recreation Department are as follows: A. XX Parks and Recreation Department will create a public notification process that will help inform any and all interested partners of the availability of partnerships with the City. This will be done through notification in area newspapers, listing in the brochure, or through any other notification method that is feasible. B. The proposing partner takes the first step to propose partnering with the City. To help in reviewing both the partnerships proposed, and the project to be developed in partnership, the City asks for a Preliminary Proposal according to a specific format as outlined in Part Two - Proposed Partnership Outline Format. C. If initial review of a Preliminary Proposal yields interest and appears to be mutually beneficial based on the City Mission and Goals, and the Selection Criteria, a City staff member or appointed representative will be assigned to work with potential partners. D. The City representative is available to answer questions related to the creation of an initial proposal, and after initial interest has been indicated, will work with the proposing partner to create a checklist of what actions need to take place next. Each project will have distinctive planning, design, review, and support issues. The City representative will facilitate the process of determining how the partnership will address these issues. This representative can also facilitate approvals and input from any involved City departments, providing guidance for the partners as to necessary steps. E. An additional focus at this point will be determining whether this project is appropriate for additional collaborative partnering, and whether this project should prompt the City to seek a Request for Proposal (RFP) from competing/collaborating organizations. Request for Proposal (RFP) Trigger: In order to reduce concerns of unfair private competition, if a proposed project involves partnering with a private "for-profit" entity and a dollar amount greater than $5,000, and the City has not already undergone a public process for solicitation of that particular type of partnership, the City will request Partnership Proposals from other interested private entities for identical and/or complementary facilities, programs, or services. A selection of appropriate partners will be part of the process. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 10 F. For most projects, a Formal Proposal from the partners for their desired development project will need to be presented for the City’s official development review processes and approvals. The project may require approval by the Legal, Planning, Fire and Safety, Finance, and/or other City Departments, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning Board, The Board of Trustees, and/or the City Supervisor’s Office, depending on project complexity and applicable City Charter provisions, ordinances or regulations. If these reviews are necessary, provision to reimburse the City for its costs incurred in having a representative facilitate the partnered project’s passage through Development Review should be included in the partnership proposal. G. Depending on project complexity and anticipated benefits, responsibilities for all action points are negotiable, within the framework established by law, to ensure the most efficient and mutually beneficial outcome. Some projects may require that all technical and professional expertise and staff resources come from outside the City’s staff, while some projects may proceed most efficiently if the City contributes staff resources to the partnership. H. The partnership must cover the costs the partnership incurs, regardless of how the partnered project is staffed, and reflect those costs in its project proposal and budget. The proposal for the partnered project should also discuss how staffing and expertise will be provided, and what documents will be produced. If City staff resources are to be used by the partnership, those costs should be allocated to the partnered project and charged to it. I. Specific Partnership Agreements appropriate to the project will be drafted jointly. There is no specifically prescribed format for Partnership Agreements, which may take any of several forms depending on what will accomplish the desired relationships among partners. The agreements may be in the form of:  Lease Agreements  Management and/or Operating Agreements  Maintenance Agreements  Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)  Or a combination of these and/or other appropriate agreements Proposed partnership agreements might include oversight of the development of the partnership, concept plans and project master plans, environmental assessments, architectural designs, development and design review, project management, and construction documents, inspections, contracting, monitoring, etc. Provision to fund the costs and for reimbursing the City for its costs incurred in creating the partnership, facilitating the project’s passage through the Development Review Processes, and completing the required documents should be considered. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 11 J. If all is approved, the Partnership begins. The City is committed to upholding its responsibilities to Partners from the initiation through the continuation of a partnership. Evaluation will be an integral component of all Partnerships. The agreements should outline who is responsible for evaluation and what types of measures will be used, and should detail what will occur should the evaluations reveal Partners are not meeting their Partnership obligations.                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 13 III. The Partnership Evaluation Process A. Mission Statements and Goals All partnerships with Sample Parks and Recreation Department should be in accord with the City’s and the Parks and Recreation Department’s Mission and Goals to indicate how a proposed partnership for that Department would be preliminarily evaluated. SAMPLE MISSION STATEMENT The XX Parks and Recreation Department will provide a variety of parks, recreation facilities, and program experiences equitably throughout the community. Programs will be developed and maintained to the highest quality, ensuring a safe environment with exceptional service while developing a lifetime customer. Services will demonstrate a positive economic investment through partnerships with other service providers, both public and private, ensuring a high quality of life for citizens of XX. (Sample) GOALS – • Promote physical and mental health and fitness • Nourish the development of children and youth • Help to build strong communities and neighborhoods • Promote environmental stewardship • Provide beautiful, safe, and functional parks and facilities that improve the lives of all citizens • Preserve cultural and historic features within the City’s parks and recreation systems • Provide a work environment for the Parks & Recreation Department staff that encourages initiative, professional development, high morale, productivity, teamwork, innovation, and excellence in management B. Other Considerations 1. Costs for the Proposal Approval Process For most proposed partnerships, there will be considerable staff time spent on the review and approval process once a project passes the initial review stage. This time includes discussions with Proposing Partners, exploration of synergistic partnering opportunities, possible RFP processes, facilitation of the approval process, assistance in writing and negotiating agreements, contracting, etc. There may also be costs for construction and planning documents, design work, and related needs and development review processes mandated by City ordinances. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 14 Successful Partnerships will take these costs into account and may plan for City recovery of some or all of these costs within the proposal framework. Some of these costs could be considered as construction expenses, reimbursed through a negotiated agreement once operations begin, or covered through some other creative means. 2. Land Use and/or Site Improvements Some proposed partnerships may include facility and/or land use. Necessary site improvements cannot be automatically assumed. Costs and responsibility for these improvements should be considered in any Proposal. Some of the general and usual needs for public facilities that may not be included as City contributions and may need to be negotiated for a project include:  Any facilities or non-existent infrastructure construction  Outdoor restrooms  Water fountains  Roads or street improvements  Complementary uses of the site  Maintenance to specified standards  Staffing  Parking  Utility improvements (phone, cable, storm drainage, electricity, water, gas, sewer, etc.)  Snow removal  Custodial services  Lighting  Trash removal 3. Need The nature of provision of public services determines that certain activities will have a higher need than others. Some activities serve a relatively small number of users and have a high facility cost. Others serve a large number of users and are widely available from the private sector because they are profitable. The determination of need for facilities and programs is an ongoing discussion in public provision of programs and amenities. The project will be evaluated based on how the project fulfills a public need. 4. Funding Only when a Partnership Proposal demonstrates high unmet needs and high benefits for City citizens, will the City consider contributing resources to a project. The City recommends that Proposing Partners consider sources of potential funding. The more successful partnerships will have funding secured in advance. In most cases, Proposing Partners should consider funding and cash flow for initial capital development, staffing, and ongoing operation and maintenance. The details of approved and pending funding sources should be clearly identified in a proposal. For many partners, especially small private user groups, non-profit groups, and governmental agencies, cash resources may be a limiting factor in the proposal. It may be a necessity for partners to utilize alternative funding sources for resources to complete a proposed project. Obtaining alternative funding often demands creativity, ingenuity, and persistence, but many forms of funding are available. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 15 Alternative funding can come from many sources, e.g. Sponsorships, Grants, and Donor Programs. A local librarian and/or internet searches can help with foundation and grant resources. Developing a solid leadership team for a partnering organization will help find funding sources. In-kind contributions can, in some cases, add additional funding. All plans for using alternative funding should be clearly identified. The City has an established Sponsorship Policy, and partnered projects will be expected to adhere to the Policy. This includes the necessity of having an Approved Sponsorship Plan in place prior to procurement of sponsorships for a Partnered Project. C. Selection Criteria In assessing a partnership opportunity to provide facilities and services, the City will consider (as appropriate) the following criteria. The Proposed Partnership Outline Format in Part Two provides a structure to use in creating a proposal. City staff and representatives will make an evaluation by attempting to answer each of the following Guiding Questions. • How does the project align with the City and affected Department’s Mission Statement and Goals? • How does the proposed facility fit into the current City and the affected Department’s Master Plan? • How does the facility/program meet the needs of City residents? • How will the project generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant than the City can provide with its own staff or facilities? • What are the alternatives that currently exist, or have been considered, to serve the users identified in this project? • How much of the existing need is now being met within the City borders and within adjacent cities? • What is the number and demographic profile of participants who will be served? • How can the proposing partner assure the City of the long-term stability of the proposed partnership, both for operations and for maintenance standards? • How will the partnered project meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements? • How will the organization offer programs at reasonable and competitive costs for participants • What are the overall benefits for both the City and the Proposing Partners? Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 16 D. Additional Assistance The XX Parks and Recreation Department is aware that the partnership process does entail a great deal of background work on the part of the Proposing Partner. The following list of resources may be helpful in preparing a proposal: • Courses are available through local colleges and universities to help organizations develop a business plan and/or operational pro-formas. • The Chamber of Commerce offers a variety of courses and assistance for business owners and for those contemplating starting new ventures. • There are consultants who specialize in facilitating these types of partnerships. For one example, contact GreenPlay LLC at 303-439-8369 or info@greenplayllc.com. • Reference Librarians at libraries and internet searches can be very helpful in identifying possible funding sources and partners, including grants, foundations, financing, etc. • Relevant information including the City of XX Comprehensive Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, site maps, and other documents are available at the _______. These documents may be copied or reviewed, but may not be taken off-site. • The XX Parks and Recreation Department Web Site (www.XXXX.com) has additional information. • If additional help or information is needed, please call 000-000-0000. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 17 Part Two Sample Proposed Partnership Outline Format Please provide as much information as possible in the following outline form. I. Description of Proposing Organization: • Name of Organization • Years in Business • Contact Name, Mailing Address, Physical Address, Phone, Fax, Email • Purpose of Organization • Services Provided/Member/User/Customer Profiles • Accomplishments • Legal Status II. Decision Making Authority Who is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the organization? Who or what group (i.e. Council/Commission/Board) is the final decision maker and can authorize the funding commitment? What is the timeframe for decision making? Summary of Proposal (100 words or less) What is being proposed in terms of capital development, and program needs? III. Benefits to the Partnering Organization Why is your organization interested in partnering with the XX Parks and Recreation Department? Please individually list and discuss the benefits (monetary and non-monetary) for your organization. IV. Benefits to the Sample Parks and Recreation Department Please individually list and discuss the benefits (monetary and non-monetary) for the XX Parks and Recreation Department and residents of the City. V. Details (as currently known) The following page lists a series of Guiding Questions to help you address details that can help outline the benefits of a possible partnership. Please try to answer as many as possible with currently known information. Please include what your organization proposes to provide and what is requested of XX Parks and Recreation Department. Please include (as known) initial plans for your concept, operations, projected costs and revenues, staffing, and/or any scheduling or maintenance needs, etc. Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012, 2015 GreenPlay LLC Page 18 Guiding Questions Meeting the Needs of our Community:  In your experience, how does the project align with park and recreation goals?  How does the proposed program or facility meet a need for City residents?  Who will be the users? What is the projected number and profile of participants who will be served?  What alternatives currently exist to serve the users identified in this project?  How much of the existing need is now being met? What is the availability of similar programs elsewhere in the community?  Do the programs provide opportunities for entry-level, intermediate, and/or expert skill levels?  How does this project incorporate environmentally sustainable practices? The Financial Aspect:  Can the project generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant than the City can provide with its own staff or facilities? If not, why should the City partner on this project?  Will your organization offer programs at reasonable and competitive costs for all participants? What are the anticipated prices for participants?  What resources are expected to come from the Parks & Recreation Department?  Will there be a monetary benefit for the City, and if so, how and how much? Logistics:  How much space do you need? What type of space?  What is critical related to location?  What is your proposed timeline?  What are your projected hours of operations?  What are your initial staffing projections?  Are there any mutually-beneficial cooperative marketing benefits?  What types of insurance will be needed and who will be responsible for acquiring and paying premiums on the policies?  What is your organization's experience in providing this type of facility/program?  How will your organization meet ADA and EEOC requirements? Agreements and Evaluation:  How, by whom, and at what intervals should the project be evaluated?  How can you assure the City of long-term stability of your organization?  What types and length of agreements should be used for this project?  What types of “exit strategies” should we include?  What should be done if the project does not meet the conditions of the original agreements?   Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-135 Appendix F – GRASP® Methodology                                                                                                            THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  1  GRASP® Level of Service Analysis  A. Introduction  GRASP® is a unique toolset that allows service providers to identify gaps and prioritize improvements.  For the parks and recreation field, this means that you can accurately target needs and develop effective  strategies to address them.   Provides more robust evidence for action than traditional master planning techniques   Decisions are based on customizable demographics and other factors specific to YOUR  community, rather than generalized standards   The needs and desires of the public are incorporated into the process and reflected in the  outcomes    The GRASP® methodology was developed collaboratively by GreenPlay, LLC, and Design Concepts, CLA,  Inc. specifically to advance the state of the art in master planning for parks and recreation systems. It  has been proven over the past 15 years on more than 100 plans representing many of the nation’s top  accredited and Gold Medal agencies. Recognizing the value that GRASP® has brought to parks and  recreation planning, other firms have adopted similar methods. Meanwhile, we have continued to  evolve our proprietary GRASP® methodology to remain at the forefront of innovation and expertise in  the field. We are able to offer a much more detailed and refined picture of the level of service for the  parks and recreation system in any community. GRASP® goes beyond the typical lands‐and‐features  analysis to incorporate historical values, cultural arts, and other unique aspects of your system while  taking into account the quality and condition of each asset.  B. Level of Service Analysis   Analysis of the existing parks, open space, trails, and recreation systems are often conducted in order to  try and determine how the systems are serving the public. A Level of Service (LOS) has typically been  defined in parks and recreation master plans as the capacity of the various components and facilities  that make up the system to meet the needs of the public. This has traditionally been expressed in terms  of the size or quantity of a given facility per unit of population.     Brief History of Level of Service Analysis  In order to help standardize parks and recreation planning, professionals and academics have long been  looking for ways to benchmark and provide “national standards” for how much acreage and how many  ballfields, pools, playgrounds, etc., a community should have. For example, in 1906 the fledgling  “Playground Association of America” called for playground space equal to 30 square feet per child. In  the 1970s and early 1980s, the first detailed published works on these topics began emerging (Gold,  1973, Lancaster, 1983). In time “rule of thumb” capacity ratios emerged with 10 acres of parklands per  thousand population becoming the most widely accepted standard application. Other normative guides  have also been cited as “traditional standards,” but have been less widely accepted. In 1983, Roger  Lancaster compiled a book called, Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, published  by the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA). In this publication, Mr. Lancaster centered on a  recommendation “that a park system, at minimum, be composed of a core system of parklands, with a  total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population.” (Lancaster, 1983, p. 56) The  guidelines went further to make recommendations regarding an appropriate mix of park types, sizes,  service areas, acreages, and standards regarding the number of available recreational facilities per  thousand people. While the book was published by NRPA and the table of standards became widely  2  known as “the NRPA standards,” for Level of Service Analysis, it is important to note that these  standards were never formally adopted for use by NRPA.     Since that time various publications have updated and expanded upon possible “standards”, several of  which have also been published by NRPA. Many of these publications did benchmarking and other  normative research to try and determine what an “average LOS” should be. Yet organizations such as  the NRPA and the prestigious American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration have focused  in recent years on accreditation standards for agencies which are less directed towards outputs,  outcomes, and performance, and more focused on planning, organizational structure, and management  processes. The following table gives some of the more commonly and historically used “capacity  standards.”  3  Common Historically‐Referenced LOS Capacity “Standards”    Activity/  Facility  Recommended  Space  Requirements  Service  Radius and  Location Notes  Number of  Units per  Population    Baseball  Official      Little League    3.0 to 3.85 acre  minimum      1.2 acre minimum    ¼ to ½ mile  Unlighted part of neighborhood complex; lighted  fields part of community complex    1 per 5,000;  lighted 1 per 30,000  Basketball  Youth    High school    2,400 – 3,036 vs.    5,040 – 7,280 s.f.  ¼ to ½ mile  Usually in school, recreation center, or church  facility; safe walking or bide access; outdoor courts  in neighborhood and community parks, plus active  recreation areas in other park settings    1 per 5,000  Football Minimum 1.5 acres 15 – 30 minute travel time  Usually part of sports complex in community park or  adjacent to school  1 per 20,000  Soccer 1.7 to 2.1 acres 1 to 2 miles  Youth soccer on smaller fields adjacent to larger  soccer fields or neighborhood parks  1 per 10,000  Softball 1.5 to 2.0 acres ¼ to ½ mile  May also be used for youth baseball  1 per 5,000 (if also used for  youth baseball)  Swimming  Pools  Varies on size of  pool & amenities;  usually ½ to 2‐acre  site  15 – 30 minutes travel time    Pools for general community use should be planned  for teaching, competitive, and recreational purposes  with enough depth (3.4m) to accommodate 1m to  3m diving boards; located in community park or  school site  1 per 20,000 (pools should  accommodate 3% to 5% of  total population at a time)  Tennis Minimum of 7,200  s.f. single court  area (2 acres per  complex  ¼ to ½ mile  Best in groups of 2 to 4 courts; located in  neighborhood community park or near school site  1 court per 2,000  Volleyball Minimum 4,000 s.f. ½  to 1 mile  Usually in school, recreation center or church  facility; safe walking or bide access; outdoor courts  in neighborhood and community parks, plus active  recreation areas in other park settings  1 court per 5,000  Total land  Acreage   Various types of parks ‐ mini, neighborhood,  community, regional, conservation, etc.  10 acres per 1,000    Sources:    David N. Ammons, Municipal Benchmarks ‐ Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community   Standards, 2nd Ed., 2002  Roger A. Lancaster (Ed.), Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (Alexandria, VA:  National   Recreation and Park Association, 1983), pp. 56‐57.  James D. Mertes and James R. Hall, Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenways Guidelines, (Alexandria, VA:    National Recreation and Park Association, 1996), pp. 94‐103.    4  In planning work it is important to realize that the above standards can be valuable when referenced as  “norms” for capacity, but not necessarily as the target standards for which a community should strive.  Every community is different, and there are various factors and details not addressed by the standards  above, such as:     What about quality and condition?  What if there are multiple ballfields, but they haven’t been  maintained in the last ten years?     What if the agency is an urban land‐locked community?  What if the agency is a small town  surrounded by open Federal lands?   Does “developed acreage” include golf courses?  What about indoor and passive facilities?     What are the standards for skateparks?  Ice Arenas?  Public Art?  Etc.?    And many other questions….    C. GRASP® Component‐Based Level of Service Analysis   In order to address these and other relevant questions, a new methodology for determining Level of  Service was developed. Since 2001 GRASP® Component Based Level of Service Analysis has been applied  in many communities across the nation to provide a better way of to measure and portray the service  provided by parks and recreation systems. A component is an asset such as a playground, picnic shelter,  court, field, indoor facility or other elements that allows a system to meet the recreational needs of a  community. The GRASP® methodology focuses on these essential pieces and parts to glean and  understanding of a system as a whole.      Primary research and development on this methodology was funded jointly by GreenPlay, LLC, a  management consulting firm for parks, open space, and related agencies, Design Concepts, a landscape  architecture and planning firm, and Geowest, a spatial information management firm. While a  component based system can be utilized by anyone, the proprietary trademarked name for the process  used by these three firms is GRASP® (Geo‐Referenced Amenities Standards Process).     For GRASP® analysis, the traditional idea of  capacity based on acreage and asset quantity is  only part of the LOS equation. Other factors are  brought into consideration including quality,  condition, location, comfort, convenience, and  ambience. In a GRASP® analysis parks, trails,  open space, and other recreation amenities and properties are studied as part of an overall  infrastructure for a community made up of various components such as playgrounds, ballfields,  swimming pools, etc. This methodology is unique in that it values the context and setting of a  component in addition to the characteristics of the component itself, based on the assumption that but  an enhanced setting in proximity to a component enhances the value of the component.   5  The characteristics of components include:    Quality –            The service provided by anything, whether it is a playground, soccer field, or  swimming pool is determined in part by its quality. A playground with a variety  of features, such as climbers, slides, and swings provides a higher degree of  service than one with nothing but an old teeter‐totter and some “monkey‐bars.”     Condition –        The condition of a component within the park system also affects the amount of  service it provides. A playground in disrepair with unsafe equipment does not  offer the same service as one in good condition. Similarly, a soccer field with a  smooth surface of well‐maintained grass certainly offers a higher degree of  service than one that is full of weeds, ruts, and other hazards.    Functionality – Functionality is a measure of how well something serves its intended purpose,  and is a result of its quality and condition.     Location –          To receive service from something, you need to be able to get to it. Therefore,  service is dependent upon proximity and access. All components are  geographically located using GPS coordinates and GIS software.    Comfort –           The service provided by a component is increased by having amenities. For  example, outdoor components are often enhanced by attributes such as shade,  seating, and a restroom nearby. Comfort enhances the experience of using a  component.    Convenience – Convenience encourages people to use a component, which increases the  amount of service that it offers. Easy access and the availability of trash  receptacles, bike rack, or nearby parking are examples of conveniences that  enhance the service provided by a component.    Ambience –        Simple observation will prove that people are drawn to places that “feel” good.  This includes a sense of safety and security, as well as pleasant surroundings,  attractive views, and a sense of place. For example, a well‐designed park is  preferable to poorly‐designed one, and this enhances the degree of service  provided by the components within it.    Capacity is still part of the LOS analysis and the quantity of each component is recorded as well. By  combining and analyzing the overlapping values of each component on a map, it is possible to measure  the service provided by a parks and recreation system from a variety of perspectives and for any given  location in a study area. Typically this begins with a decision on “relevant components” for the analysis,  collection of an accurate inventory of those components, analysis and then the results are presented in  a series of maps and tables that make up the analysis of the study area.     6  Data for Analysis and Making Justifiable Decisions  All of the data generated from the GRASP® evaluation is compiled into a digital database that is then  available and owned by the agency for use in a variety of ways. In addition to determining LOS, the  database can help keep track of facilities and programs, can be used to schedule maintenance or  replacement of components, and can be used to project long‐term capital and life‐cycle costing needs.  All portions of the information are in standard available software and can be produced in a variety of  ways for future planning or sharing with the public.     It is important to note that GRASP® analysis not only provides accurate LOS and facility inventory  information, but also works with and integrates with other tools to help agencies make decisions. It is  relatively easy to maintain, updatable, and creates easily understood graphic depictions. Combined with  a needs assessment, public and staff involvement, program, and financial assessment, GRASP® analysis  allows an agency to make defensible recommendations on priorities for ongoing resource allocation,  along with capital and operational funding.     D. Inventory Data Collection Process  A detailed inventory of relevant components for the project is conducted. The inventory locates and  catalogues all of the relevant components for the project, and evaluates each one as to how well it was  serving its intended function within the system. The planning team first prepares a preliminary list of  existing components using aerial photography and the community’s Geographic Information System  (GIS). Components identified in the aerial photo are given GIS points and names according to a list of  standard components.    Next, field visits are conducted by the consulting and project team staff to confirm the preliminary data  and collect additional information. Additionally, indoor facilities are scored and for the purposes of this  study, each relevant space is considered a component and is scored based on its intended function.  During the field visits and evaluations, any missing relevant components are added to the data set, and  each component is evaluated as to how well it meets expectations for its intended function. During the  site visits the following information is collected:      Component type and location   Evaluation of component functionality    Evaluation of comfort and convenience features   Evaluation of park design and ambience   Site photos and general comments    After the inventory is completed, it is given to the project team for final review and approval for  accuracy.  7  E. Standardized Process for Scoring Components  Component Scoring  The approved inventory is the basis for the creation of values used in analysis. Each component received  a functionality score that is related to the quality, condition, and ability of the space to meet operational  and programming needs.    For the GRASP® process, the range of scores for each component is as follows:     Below Expectations (BE) – The component does not meet the expectations of its intended  primary function. Factors leading to this may include size, age, accessibility, or others. Each such  component is given a score of 1 in the inventory.   Meeting Expectations (ME) – The component meets expectations for its intended function.  Such components are given scores of 2.   Exceeding Expectations (EE) – The component exceeds expectations, due to size, configuration,  or unique qualities. Such components are given scores of 3.   If the feature exists but is not useable because it is unsafe, obsolete, or dysfunctional, it may be  listed in the feature description, and assigned a score of zero (0).    If a feature is used for multiple purposes, such as a softball field that is also used for T‐Ball or youth  soccer games, it is scored only once under the description that best fits the use that for which the  component is designed.     Neighborhood and Community Scoring  Components are evaluated from two perspectives: first, the value of the component in serving the  immediate neighborhood, and second, its value to the entire community.     Neighborhood Score  Each component is evaluated from the perspective of a resident that lives nearby. High scoring  components are easily accessible to pedestrians in the neighborhood, are attractive for short  and frequent visits, and are unobtrusive to the surrounding neighborhood. Components that do  not have a high neighborhood score may not be located within walking distance of residents,  may have “nuisance features” such as sports lighting, or may draw large crowds for which  parking is not provided.    Community Score  Additionally each component is evaluated from the perspective of residents in the community  as a whole. High scoring components in this category may be unique components within the  parks and recreation system, have a broad draw from throughout the community, have the  capacity and associated facilities for community‐wide events, or are located in areas that are  accessible only by car.    Indoor Components  Indoor components are generally thought to be accessible to the entire community, partially  because it is often not financially feasible to provide indoor facilities at a walking distance from  every distance from each residence. Additionally, indoor facilities often provide programs and  facilities that are geared to the community as a whole, or in larger communities, are intended  8  for a region of the community. For these reasons, unless a detailed indoor analysis is completed,  indoor facilities are given only one score.     Modifiers (Comfort and Convenience Features) Scoring    Outdoor Modifiers  Besides standard components, this inventory also evaluates features that provide comfort and  convenience to the users. These are things that a user might not go to the parks specifically to  use, but that may enhance the user’s experience by making it a nicer place to be and include:  drinking fountains, seating, BBQ grills, dog stations, security lighting, bike parking, restrooms,  shade, connections to trails, park access, parking, picnic tables, and seasonal and ornamental  plantings. These features are scored as listed above with the 1‐3 system. In this case it is not  important to get a count of the number or size of these components; instead the score should  reflect the ability of the item to serve the park.     Indoor Modifiers  For indoor facilities, the comfort and convenience features change slightly to reflect the  characteristics of the building. Building modifier categories include: site access, setting  aesthetics, building entry function, building entry aesthetics, overall building condition, entry  desk, office space, overall storage, and restrooms and/or locker rooms.     Activity and Sports Lighting  This modifier accounts for lighting that allows for component use in the evening/night hours and  is applied to the quantity of the component as it affectively expands the capacity of the  component. This modifier does not apply to security lighting.     Shade  Like Activity and Sports lighting, shade can be added to outdoor components to extend use  beyond normal hours or seasons.     Design & Ambience Scoring  Using the same rating system that is used for components and modifiers, the quality of Design and  Ambience is scored. Good design not only makes a place look nice, it makes it feel safe and pleasant,  and encourages people to visit more often and stay longer     Trails and Greenways Scoring  Trails and/or greenways can be scored as independent parcels or as individual components within  another parcel. The former type of trail receives its own set of scores for modifiers and design and  ambiance. The trail in the latter situation takes on the modifiers and design and ambiance of the larger  park in which it resides. Multi‐use trails are assumed to consist of three components including one  active component, one passive component, and the parcel itself. Because traveling the length of any  given trail is time consuming, trail information is often collected with the aid of staff.     For the purposes of most studies, a list of trails is obtained to provide a reasonable dataset that offers  some park and recreational value to the public. While no specific listing of components at each greenway  or trail is generated, it is assumed that each greenway provides a value equivalent to three (3)  components. Think of these as one active component (walking, running, biking, etc.), one passive  9  component (quiet contemplation along the trail), and one experiential component (observing nature,  perhaps art and interpretive signage).    These three components and the parcel are assumed to be meeting the expectations (scores 2) of the  community in the same way that park components meet expectations. The other parts to the GRASP®  score relate to the comfort and design of the location, and are called modifiers. The aesthetic and  recreational standards for greenways are typically similar to those for parks, so modifiers at greenways  are generally assigned a value of meeting expectations (score 2). Multi‐use trails that typically are  adjacent to major roads are assumed to have less aesthetic and recreational standards and are therefore  assigned a value of below expectations (score 1). The final component in the GRASP® score is the  ownership modifier. This is a percentage that is applied to the score that relates to the general public’s  ability to access the facility.     This translates into the following formula for calculating the GRASP® score:    Trails or Greenway Scoring    (Component number + Parcel) x Component score x (Comfort x Design) x ownership = GRASP® score or  (3 +1) x 2 x 2.2 x 1 = 17.6  Multi‐Use Trail Scoring  (Component number + Parcel) x Component score x (Comfort x Design) x ownership = GRASP® score or  (3 +1) x 2 x 1.1 x 1 = 8.8    In the GRASP® Perspectives t, that value is assigned to the location where each trail is found and buffered  accordingly. This value also is included in computations for the GRASP® Indices that are calculated along  with each Perspective.     Ownership Modifier  This modifier is generally weighted with a percentage that is applied to the GRASP® score after other  modifiers have been applied. It accounts for access and control of components that are provided by  alternative providers. For example, in most cases components that are owned and managed by schools  are given a 50% weighted ownership modifier, which halves the GRASP® score to account for the limited  access that the neighborhood has to school facilities (it’s only open to the public outside of school  hours).    F. Calculating GRASP® Functional Scores    Once the components are inventoried and scored, calculations can be made for any combination of  components to derive average scores, scores per combinations of various components, scores per sub‐ areas, etc., depending on the key issues being studied and objectives for the project. These are very  helpful for analyzing area comparisons and setting of target scores for component service and agency  target standards.    For example, a total composite GRASP® score for each individual component is determined by using the  following formula:      (total component score) x (adjusted modifier score) x (design and ambiance score) x (ownership  modifier) = Composite GRASP® Score  10    These individual scores can be additively combined in various ways to examine service from various  subsets of the agency’s system.     G. GRASP® Perspectives and Target Threshold Scores    GRASP® scores are often used to create analysis maps to show how the study area is being served for  parks and recreation benefits. These maps are called Perspectives, because each one provides a certain  perspective on the way service is being provided. Types of Perspectives include heat maps, threshold  maps, and composition maps, as well as others.     On heat maps, the numerical value of LOS available to a person at any given location is represented by  an orange tone. Where the tone is darker, the available LOS is higher.  Locations on the map with no  orange tone (i.e a grey tone) have no service.  Heat maps can be produced from any set of components  in the inventory. For example, if the intent is to measure the relative LOS available for seniors, then a  heat map can be generated using only those components in the inventory that relate to seniors.    Heat maps can be further analyzed to determine where the LOS on them falls above or below a certain  threshold. The threshold may vary, and can be set to represent an assumed “target” value for LOS, or  can be the median, average, or other value for the Perspective. On the threshold maps, colors are used  to show whether any given location is above or below the threshold value.    The types of Perspectives used to analyze and depict the community’s LOS will depend upon the key  issues being studied.    Typical and Standard GRASP® Perspectives  Below are some types of Perspectives typically used to analyze service in an area.    Neighborhood Composite   This Perspective depicts service from a neighborhood point of view. Multiple buffers (or  “catchment areas”) are used to reflect multiple ways of travelling to reach components. The  threshold for this Perspective is typically the value that results from being within 1/2 mile of 4  recreation components and one recreational trail.     Walkability (same as Neighborhood Composite but with only 1/2 mile buffers)  The threshold scores for this Perspective are normally the same as for the Neighborhood  Composite.    Component‐Specific Analysis  The threshold here is equivalent to being within 1/2 mile of the selected component, and  assumes that the component, modifiers, and design and ambiance are meeting expectations.     Note: Aside from meeting a single goal, the mix of components also needs to be considered. For  example, a home that is within 1/2 mile away from four tennis courts and no other amenities would  meet the basic numeric standard, but not the intent of the standard. Component Specific Analyses can  examine one single type of component or an array of types to analyze the mix of options available to  residents.     11  H. GRASP® Project Technical Standards for GIS Data     The GRASP® Team utilizes the most up to date computer hardware and software to produce and  enhance project‐based GIS data. The following technical details are standard with all GRASP® Team  projects.     All GRASP® Team GIS workstations employ Microsoft® Windows® operating systems. All project  files conform to PC‐based architecture and extension naming standards.   The GRASP® Team employs ESRI® ArcGIS™ 10.2 for all GIS applications. Final project GIS data is  submitted to the client in Microsoft® Access™‐based Geodatabase (*.mdb) Feature Class format  and/or Shapefile (*.shp/*.dbf/*.shx) format. ArcMap™ Layer files (*.lyr) are submitted to ease  client replication of all project map legend formats. The GRASP® Team will not resubmit original  client source data that has not undergone enhancement.    All final GIS datasets (deliverables) area submitted to the client using the geographic coordinate  system(s) from the original client source data. The GRASP® team will assign a coordinate system  that is most appropriate for the client location if the client does not require a predetermined  standard coordinate system. Most GRASP® project data is submitted in State Plane Coordinates  (Feet) with a NAD83/NAD83 HARN datum.   All GRASP® Perspectives and Resource Maps (deliverables) are submitted to the client in  standard PDF and JPEG formats. The project PDFs are high resolution, print‐ready files for  scalable print operations. Most project map‐based PDFs are 300dpi, 24” x 36” images. The  project JPEGs are lower resolution digital presentation‐ready files for insertion into Microsoft®  Office® productivity suite applications – MS Word®, MS Power Point®, etc. Most project map‐ based JPEGs are 300dpi 4”x6” images.        Project Deliverables and Future Use  All information and deliverables are transmitted “as‐is” to fulfill specific tasks identified in a  scope of services for a contract. While these may be useful for other purposes, no warranties or  other assurances are made that the deliverables are ready for such use.  The database can be  modified to add, change, or delete information as needed by personnel trained in use of these  standard software applications. For example, if new parks or facilities are constructed, the  components of these may be added to the database to keep it current. The database may also  be queried in a variety of ways to produce tables, charts, or reports for use in operations,  management, and planning or other agency tasks. Such modification, updating, reformatting, or  other preparation for other purposes is the sole responsibility of the client.     Similarly, the database information can be used to prepare a variety of maps and analysis  perspectives using GIS software. Such use by the client is beyond the scope of a single contract,  and no warranties or assurances are made that the deliverables are ready or intended for such  future use. If desired, the GRASP® Team can make such modifications, and/or prepare additional  or updated maps or Perspectives upon request for a negotiated fee.    The GRASP® name for the methodology for analysis is proprietary, but the component based  process is generic and the software used is common and typical for most agencies. The data and  information collected is owned and can be updated and managed by the agency for ongoing  usage                                      THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-149 Appendix G – Level of Service Analysis Maps                                                                               Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-175 Appendix H – Strategic Goals for Urban Forestry                                                                                                              THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  Strategic goals as identified in Section III, pp. 4‐5 of the Urban Forestry chapter are included below, with  additional detail, recommended action items, and estimated timeframe to complete.     Timeframe to complete is designated as:   Short‐term (up to 3 years)   Mid‐term (4‐6 years)   Long‐term (7‐10 years)    Goal 1: Define a Vision/Direction for Meridian Urban Forestry  Objective 1.1:  Anticipate a change in leadership and facilitate a smooth leadership transition  Actions   Timeframe to  Complete  1.1.a  Define skill set of future City Arborist.     Short‐Term  1.1.b Document existing data; current procedures and practices. Short‐Term  Objective 1.2:  Continue to provide a high level of service   Actions       Timeframe to  Complete  1.2.a Retain a Certified Arborist on staff.    Ongoing  1.2.b Continue to respond to forestry‐related calls from the community.  Ongoing  1.2.c Risk management to remain a top priority. Ongoing –   Mid‐Term  1.2.d Review and comment on development applications relative to tree mitigation. Ongoing  1.2.e Provide regular updates to Parks and Recreation Commission to share progress and  successes (quarterly). Ongoing  1.2.f Provide updates to Meridian Development Corporation on state of urban forest in  downtown core (biannually). Ongoing    Goal 2: Strengthen Approach to Management of the Urban Forest  Objective 2.1  Use GIS data on existing urban forest as a primary management tool  Actions       Timeframe to  Complete  2.1.a Complete GIS tree inventory.   Short‐Term  2.1.b Provide additional staff training in Forestry‐specific GIS program / Treeworks™   software to maximize effectiveness of this tool.  Mid‐Term       Goal 3: Evaluate Impacts of Projected Park System Expansion on Urban Forestry    Goal 4: Guarantee the Present and Future Health of the Urban Forest  Objective 4.1  Ensure diversity   Actions     Timeframe to  Complete  4.1.a Maintain diversity of tree species in urban forest. Ongoing  4.1.b  Maintain diversity of tree age in urban forest. Ongoing  4.1.c Use GIS database as tool to manage for diversity.  Ongoing  Objective 4.2:  Implement standards for tree planting    Actions     Timeframe to  Complete  4.2.a Adjust standards to achieve larger tree planting areas to ensure strong root growth,  canopy development, and long life. Ongoing  4.2.b Ensure proper planting techniques per ANSI standards. Ongoing  4.2.c    Institute guidelines for proper tree selection so that tree habit & culture are suited to  planting location.   Ongoing  4.2.d Create and maintain an approved list of tree contractors. Short‐Term     Objective 3.1:  Conduct annual assessment during the budget development process to determine staffing needs.  Actions   Timeframe to  Complete  3.1.a Determine thresholds/triggers for hiring of staff that will allow Urban Forestry to  maintain current level of service.  Short‐Term  3.1.b Relate these thresholds/triggers to forest size(# of trees). Short‐Term  Objective 3.2:  Conduct annual assessment during the budget development process to determine maintenance equipment  needs  Actions   Timeframe to  Complete  3.2.a Assess need for replacement equipment. Short‐Term  3.2.b    Assess need for any new equipment due to increase in volume or scope of in‐house  maintenance work. Short‐Term  Objective 4.3:   Anticipate pests and other potential threats to forest health so as to minimize future impacts    Actions Timeframe to  Complete  4.3.a Stay current with Urban Foresty trends, including the effects of climate change on the  urban forest, by attending conferences and networking with other arborists. Ongoing  4.3.b Provide close tracking and management of pests through GIS and other tools. Mid‐Term  4.3.c Institute chemical control programs as necessary. Mid‐Term    Goal 5: Maintain and Promote the Kleiner Arboretum as a Community Asset         Objective 5.1:  Develop strategic management plan  Actions  Timeframe to  Complete  5.1.a Continue working with CWI horticulture student, with supplemental input from local  experts, to complete this plan. Short‐Term  5.1.b Generate budget projections to fund future improvements and ongoing specialized  maintenance. Short‐Term   5.1.c Form and solicit a community group to operate the Arboretum, similar to that of the  community garden.    Mid‐Term  Objective 5.2:  Celebrate and raise awareness of the arboretum as a community and regional resource  Actions  Timeframe to  Complete  5.2.a Increase marketing and outreach efforts. Short‐Term  5.2.b Enhance signage and interpretation for more interactive visitor experience on multiple  levels.  Mid‐  Long Term  5.2.c Partner with area colleges, universities, and K‐12 schools to provide education and  receive support. Ongoing  Objective 5.3:  Provide higher‐level, specialized maintenance   Actions  Timeframe to  Complete  5.3.a Provide staff training, specific to arboretum needs. Mid‐Term  5.3.b Train volunteers as a maintenance resource. Mid‐Term  Goal 6: Preserve Strong Relationship with the Community/ Seek Additional Opportunities for  Education and Outreach    Goal 7: Revise City Policy as Necessary to Strengthen Urban Forestry         Objective 6.1:  Involve City Arborist in public education and other forestry‐related events  Actions Timeframe to  Complete    6.1.a Continue to respond to forestry‐related calls from the community. Ongoing   6.1.b Offer tree pruning classes, and others on related subject matter. Mid‐Term  6.1.c Partner with ACHD to work with Homeowners Associations to meet standards for tree  limb height over sidewalks. Mid‐Term  6.1.d Remain a Tree City, USA. Ongoing  Objective 7.1:  Periodically review and update forestry ordinance  Actions Timeframe to  Complete    7.1.a  Update existing forestry ordinance to reflect changes to industry or national standards,  including Terms, Definitions, Best Practices, or other changes as required to maintain  current standards of practice.  Ongoing‐   Mid‐Term   Objective 7.2:  Be a sustainability leader    Actions Timeframe to  Complete    7.2.a  Consider revisions to City Ordinance to address relationship of urban street tree  plantings to stormwater management and encourage use of Green Stormwater  Infrastructure.  Short‐Term  7.2.b Consider revisions to City Ordinance to reference existing plans or study data relative to  street trees, stormwater, and/or other infrastructure. Short‐Term  Goal 8:  Continue to Offer and Develop Special Programs Related to Urban Forestry                                            Objective 8.1:  Continue City Christmas Tree program    Actions  Timeframe to  Complete  8.1.a Ensure adequate stock for Christmas Tree Program     Ongoing  8.2.a Provide temporary, accessible growing space for donated trees Ongoing  Objective 8.2   Support and develop new programs to enhance Meridian’s Urban Forest  Actions  Timeframe to  Complete  8.2.a Continue current programs with Idaho Power, ACHD, MDC, and West Ada School  District.     Ongoing  8.2.b When developing new programs, seek community support first, then follow through  with City budgeting process to determine staffing impacts and necessary funding.  Mid‐ to  Long‐Term                                      THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    Parks and Recreation Master Plan A-183 Appendix I – Future Park Concept Plans                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  SOUTH MERIDIAN REGIONAL PARK | 77 ACRES CONCEPT STATEMENT: 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 sageland area to the north (for non-irrigated turf areas), and also integrated art works to dovetail with local history and culture. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:  Diamond ball fields – 4 or 5. Sufficient to host tournament play.  Fishing Pond/ Surface Irrigation Water Storage – Locate on north side. Size - approx. 1-2 acres.  Restroom Buildings – 3  50-60 acres of turf grass -- estimated  Parking 700-750 spaces – consider layout to minimize walking distance to amenities so as to preclude users from parking on area roadways. (Estimated parking requirements were increased during conceptual design process).  Integrate drop-off zones with parking lots  Primary vehicular access from north off Lake Hazel Road  Potential for future roadway along east and south property lines. This would be ideal. Would likely also include streetside parallel parking.  Rectangular ball-fields -- flexible, adaptable -- for soccer, lacrosse, other.  Significant destination playground  Minor splash pad – complementary to playground. Shall have a one-pass water system – no re- circ., waste to pond (needed adjacency). Shall be smaller than splash pad planned as part of nearby YMCA.  Pathways – Provide hierarchy of, to include a loop within the park, plus other options for circulation and exercise. Consider including distance information for loops.  Large Picnic Shelter – 1 shelter, 200-400 person capacity. Partitionable, if possible. Playground adjacency important.  Small picnic shelters – 3 shelters, 20’x20’ approx.  Maintenance yard -- Fenced. With garage structure and material storage bins. ½-acre yard min.  Dog area – off-leash, fenced. 1-2 acres; consider a completely nonliving surface with plenty of shade.  Shade structures – located strategically, to maximize shade. Provide strong relationships to playgrounds, spectator areas, etc. POSSIBLE PROGRAM ELEMENTS:  Disc golf – this site could be an option for year-round disc golf course.  Tennis Courts – If included, should be dual-use, and striped for pickle ball as well.  Possibility of public works well site – would include small well/pump house GENERAL NOTES/ OTHER CONSIDERATIONS  It is anticipated this property will be developed ahead of or in tandem with adjacent housing, to avoid complications of coming in later with a lighted softball complex.  A septic system will be installed initially, with eventual tie-in to city sewer when development reaches the area.  Irrigation well located at northeast part of site, near existing residence.  Gas line – identified as the Pipeline Trail corridor – traverses site. Limitations as to what amenities may be located over this utility easement. No major excavation, no footings or foundations, hand-digging required.  Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District  Tom Roy/ IYSA – Potential partnership with Idaho Youth Soccer Association for ballfield development and use.  City water – currently exists at LDS Church to the east. Will be routed from that general area.  Irrigation Water info: EXIST. SURFACE WATER = 540 GPM – not continuous GROUNDWATER WELL = 750 GPM TOTAL 1300 GPM – approximate So u t h M e r i d i a n S i t e DĞ ƌ ŝ Ě ŝ Ă Ŷ  W Ă ƌ Ŭ Ɛ  Θ  Z Ğ Đ ƌ Ğ Ă Ɵ Ž Ŷ DĞ ƌ ŝ Ě ŝ Ă Ŷ ͕  / Ě Ă Ś Ž  ϴ ϯ ϲ ϰ Ϯ Si t e I n v e n t o r y & A n a l y s i s GE N E R A L N O T E S : IR R I G A T I O N W A T E R I N F O R M A T I O N : dž ŝ Ɛ Ɵ Ŷ Ő  ^ Ƶ ƌ Ĩ Ă Đ Ğ  t Ă ƚ Ğ ƌ  с  ϱ ϰ Ϭ  ' W D  Ͳ  Ŷ Ž ƚ  Đ Ž Ŷ Ɵ Ŷ Ƶ Ž Ƶ Ɛ 'ƌ Ž Ƶ Ŷ Ě ǁ Ă ƚ Ğ ƌ  t Ğ ů ů         с  ϳ ϱ Ϭ  ' W D dŽ ƚ Ă ů                                    ϭ ϯ Ϭ Ϭ  ' W D  Ͳ  Ă Ɖ Ɖ ƌ Ž dž ŝ ŵ Ă ƚ Ğ FU T U R E SE W E R LO W PO I N T HI G H PO I N T FU T U R E TH R O U G H RO A D CI T Y WA T E R IN P U T IR R I G A T I O N WE L L EX I S T I N G RE S I D E N C E TO R E M A I N PR I M A R Y SI T E AC C E S S RU N O F F FUTURE THROUGH ROAD G A S P I P E L I N E E A S E M E N T Su m m a r y o f Pu b l i c C o m m e n t s 77 - A C R E S O U T H M E R I D I A N P R O P E R T Y P U B L I C C O M M E N T S Pa g e 1 o f 5 7 - 9 - 1 5 RE C E I V E D FR O M CO M M E N T S M. C a p e l l v i a e m a i l da t e d 7 / 1 / 1 5 I w a n t e d t o s a y o n e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d b e ni c e i s i f f u t u r e p a r k s a l l i n c l u d e d t e n n i s co u r t s . T h e T r e a s u r e V a l l e y h a s a h i g h am o u n t o f p e o p l e t h a t p l a y t e n n i s p e r c a p i t a , a n d i f y o u n o t i c e , m o s t B o i s e p a r k s h a v e te n n i s c o u r t s . T h a t i s m y 2 c e n t s . I f yo u h a v e q u e s t i o n s o r w a n t m e to e x p a n d i n t h a t l e t m e k n o w . J. A l d e r e t e v i a e m a i l da t e d 6 / 3 0 / 1 5 I c a n ’ t m a k e i t t o t h e m e e t i n g , b u t I s u r e h o p e t h a t t e n n i s c o u r t s a r e p a r t o f t h e p l a n s, a s t h e r e a r e n ’ t any on this side of to w n ! An o n y m o u s e m a i l d a t e d 6/ 3 0 / 1 5 Pr o v i d e d t h e n e w p a r k i n c l u d e s s o f t b a l l f i e l d s ( a s s h o w n o n t h e b r o c h u r e ) m y f i r m w i l l p r o v i d e g e o t e c h n i c a l c o n s u l t i n g se r v i c e s a t c o s t . I w i l l n e e d t o i n v o i c e f o r i t e m s I p a y f o r , s u ch a s d r i l l r i g o r b a c k h o e t o ex c a v a t e t e s t p i t s , h i g h e n d s o i l s la b w o r k , e t c . , b u t m y t i m e a n d m y s t a f f ' s t i m e w i l l b e d o n a t e d a s n e e d e d . A s a l o n g t i m e p a r t i c i p a n t i n y o u r s p r i n g a n d fa l l s o f t b a l l s e a s o n s , i t i s n i ce t o b e a b l e t o g i v e b a c k . M. C o x v i a p h o n e me s s a g e d a t e d 7 / 7 / 1 5 I h o p e t o s u p p o r t p i c k l e b a l l i n t h e p l a n n i n g o f t h e p a r k . T. & K . S a u e r v i a e m a i l da t e d 7 / 8 / 1 5 Fo r t h e n e w p a r k , w e w o u l d l i k e t o s u g g e s t th a t P i c k l e b a l l C o u r t s a r e ad d e d . I t i s a g r o w i n g s p ort, and permanent courts wo u l d b e a n a d d e d a t t r a c t i o n f o r M e r i d i an r e s i d e n t s . P l e a s e t a k e t h i s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h e n p l a n n i n g t h e p a r k . D. N i c h o l l s v i a e m a i l da t e d 7 / 1 0 / 1 5 I’ m a t t a c h i n g a s k e t c h m a p o f t h e ar e a o f m y c o n c e r n ( s e e b e l o w ) . Th e r e a r e t w o m a i n p o i n t s o f a c c e s s t o t h e n e w S o u t h M e r i d i a n P a rk s i t e : t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f L a k e H a z e l R o a d w i t h b o t h Ea g l e R o a d a n d M e r i d i a n R o a d ( H i g h w a y 6 9 ) . B o t h a r e u n d e ve l o p e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s t h a t s h o u ld be kept in mind in the pl a n n i n g s t a g e . My b i g g e s t c o n c e r n i s t h e L a k e H a z e l / E a g l e i n t e r s e c t i o n . I t ’ s h a l f w a y u p a b l u f f a nd n o w i s j u s t a f o u r - w a y s t o p . T h a t ar e a i s r a p i d l y b e c o m i n g a d e s t i n a t i o n f o r g r o u p s p o r t s , w h a t wi t h t h e n e w Y M C A c o m p l e x n e a r E a g l e a n d A m i t y a n d t h e NO V A y o u t h s o c c e r c o m p l e x n e a r t h e L a ke H a z e l / E a g l e i n t e r s e c t i o n . Th e N E q u a d r a n t f r o m L a k e H a z e l / E a g l e w a s o w n e d b y t h e T u r f Co . a n d t h e H i l l f a m i l y . T h e o w n e r s o f t h e T u r f C o . a r e yo u t h s o c c e r s u p p o r t e r s a n d s o l d a p a r c e l fo r t h e N O V A c o m p l e x . T h a t a r e a i s n o w pr i m e f o r d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d t h e T u r f Co . a n d t h e H i l l f a m i l y h a v e s o l d t h e i r l a nd t o f o r m t h e n e w C e n t u r y F a r m s u b d i v i s i o n . Th e a c t u a l s o d g r o w i n g f i e l d s f o r t h e T u r f C o . n o w l i e o n t h e S E q u a d r a n t o f V a n t a g e P o i n t L a n e a n d E a g l e R o a d , a n d al s o t o t h e s o u t h o f H u b b a r d r o a d i n la n d a d j a c e n t t o “ L a k e H u b b a r d ” . D u r i n g s o c c e r t o u r n a m e n t s , g a m e s a r e p l a y e d n o t ju s t a t t h e N O V A c o m p l e x b u t a l s o a t t w o ov e r f l o w s i t e s : t h e T u r f C o . g r o w i n g f i el d s a s s h o w n o n m y m a p . T h i s c a u s e s 77 - A C R E S O U T H M E R I D I A N P R O P E R T Y P U B L I C C O M M E N T S Pa g e 2 o f 5 7 - 9 - 1 5 ex t r e m e t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n a t t h e L a k e H a z e l / E a g l e i n t e r s ec t i o n . I ’ m p o i n t i n g t h i s o u t s i n c e y o u w o u l d n o t k n o w a b o u t th i s u n l e s s y o u l i v e d i n t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a . Co n s i d e r t h e t r a f f i c i m p a c t o f j u s t t h e f i ve s o f t b a l l f i e l d s i n t h e ne w S o u t h M e r i d i a n P a r k . W i t h 9 p l a y e r s p e r t e a m a n d 2 te a m s p e r g a m e t i m e s 5 f i e l d s . . . . t h a t ’ s a m i n i m u m o f 9 0 p e o p l e s h o w i n g u p t o p l a y. W i t h y o u t h y o u m a y h a v e 9 0 c a r s i f a pa r e n t b r i n g s t h e m i n a c a r . A d d i n t r a f f i c f r o m t h e ot h e r p l a y i n g f i e l d s a n d y o u c a n s e e t h e r e w i l l b e a p r o b l e m . I’ m p o i n t i n g t h i s o u t a s a n a r e a r e s i d e n t w h o s e e s t h i s s i t u a t i o n un f o l d . I w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t y o u a t M e r i d i a n P & R g e t yo u r n e e d s k n o w n t o A C H D a s e a r l y a s p o ss i b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , y o u n e e d a d e d i c a te d r i g h t t u r n l a n e c o m i n g o f f E a g l e Ro a d g o i n g w e s t b o u n d o n t o L a k e H a z e l R o a d . 77 - A C R E S O U T H M E R I D I A N P R O P E R T Y P U B L I C C O M M E N T S Pa g e 3 o f 5 7 - 9 - 1 5 M. B e r t e l v i a C o m m e n t Ca r d d a t e d 7 / 9 / 1 5 Li k e h a v i n g t h e d o g p a r k . L o v e h a v i n g a n i c e p a r k i n S . M e ri d i a n . R e a l l y l i k e a n o u t d o o r g r e e n s p a c e t o w a l k . Pa t h w a y s a n d t r a i l s a n d g e t c o n n e c t e d . Li k e l o t s o f t r e e s . R e a l l y l i k e t h e w a y M e r i d i a n i s d e v e l o p i n g w i t h a l l t h e be a u t i f u l l a n d s c a p i n g . 77 - A C R E S O U T H M E R I D I A N P R O P E R T Y P U B L I C C O M M E N T S Pa g e 4 o f 5 7 - 9 - 1 5 T. P i n k e r t B r a n n e r v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 I t h i n k t h i s i s a r e a l l y b e a u t i f u l l y d e s i gn e d p a r k . I ’ d l i k e t o s e e a l a r g e r p l a y a r e a a n d s p l a s h p a d f o r k i d s a n d s o m e co v e r e d s e a t i n g a r o u n d t h e p l a y a r e a , s o p a re n t s c a n w a t c h t h e i r k i d s w i t h o u t o v e r h e a ti n g ( t r e e s w i l l t a k e s e v e r a l y e a r s t o pr o v i d e s h a d e ) . J. M o y e r v i a C o m m e n t Ca r d d a t e d 7 / 9 / 1 5 Ho w d o e s t h e P a r k ’ s D e p a r t m e n t c o n f i g u r e i t s i r r i g a t i o n ? W h a t is r a t i o o f f i n a l i r r i g a t e d l a nd s c a p e t o o r i g i n a l l a n d a r e a ? Po c a t e l l o p l a n n e d a n a m p h i t h e a t e r t o g e n e r a t e s o m e r e v e n u e t o h e l p o f f - s e t s o m e e x p e n s e s . L. M c M u l l a n v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Th e n e e d f o r m o r e b a s e b a l l a n d s o c c e r f i e l d s i s F A R l e s s th a n t h e n e e d f o r a n o u t d o o r c o m m u n i t y s w i m m i n g p o o l . W e ’ d ra t h e r s e e a p o o l ! M e r i d i an i s d e s p e r a t e l y d r y ! J. & P . C r o t t y v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Th r e e r e s t r o o m s s e e m q u i t e i n a d e q u a t e f o r a p a r k t h i s s i z e , e s pe c i a l l y i f t o u r n a m e n t s a r e e xp e c t e d t o b e p l a y e d t h e r e . Pa r k i n g w i l l a l w a y s b e a c h a l le n g e d u r i n g t o u r n a m e n t s a l s o ! C. H o l l i s t e r v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Ra d i o c o n t r o l f l y i n g f i e l d w o u l d b e a n i c e f e a t u r e . T. D o n o h u e ( B o i s e A r e a Pi c k l e b a l l A s s o c i a t i o n ) vi a C o m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Th i s d e s i g n c o n c e p t i s v e r y i m a g i n a t i v e . W e h o p e t h a t t h e f i n a l d e s i g n i n c l u d e s te n d e d i c a t e d p i c k l e b a l l c o u r t s f o r t h e fa s t e s t g r o w i n g s p o r t i n N . A m e r i c a . Ou r c l u b i n c o r p o r a t e s p e o p l e f r o m 1 5 to 8 5 y e a r s y o u n g , s h a r e d e q u a l l y b y m a l e s an d f e m a l e s . E x c l u d i n g o t h e r P B g r o up s i n t h e a r e a , B A P A h a s g r o w n b y 4 to 5 t i m e s i n t h e l a s t 4 y e a r s . Th e f e n c e d “ d o g p a r k ” i s 4 t i m e s l a r g e r t h a n t h e p i c k l e b a l l c o u r t s ! I s s o f t b a l l t h a t bi g t h a t 1 / 3 o f t h e 7 7 a c r e s i s d e v o t e d t o it ? J. V a r g a s v i a C o m m e n t Ca r d d a t e d 7 / 9 / 1 5 1. Ad d m o r e r e s t r o o m s . 2. No t s u r e t h a t 2 e x t r a f i e l d s f o r L i t t l e L e a g u e o r S r . S o ft b a l l i s e n o u g h t o s e r v i c e t h e g r ow i n g n e e d . M i g h t n e e d 2 - 3 mo r e . 3. Pa r k i n g w i l l a l w a y s b e a p r e m i u m. M a k e s u r e t h e b u l k o f t h e s o f t b a l l / s o c c e r p a r e n t s / u s e r s h a v e t o p a r k i n t h e b i g l o t or a l l t h e o t h e r l o t s w i l l a l w a y s b e f u l l a n d t h e n n o o n e w i l l u s e t h e o t h e r a m e n i t i e s b e c a u s e t h e y c a n ’ t f i n d a p a r k i n g sp o t . T h e n o v e r t i m e t h e p a r k w i l l o n l y b e u s e d f o r s o f t b a l l / s o c c e r . W. & T . L . C a y s v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 We w o u l d l i k e t o s e e s o m e p o r t i o n o f t h e pa r k d e s i g n e d t o i n c l u d e c u l t u r a l p r o g r a m s, s u c h a s m u s i c , o u t d o o r s t a g e e v e n t s , et c . M o r e l i k e K l e i n e r P a r k b a n d s h e l l ! B. L a w s ( M V H S G i r l s La c r o s s e ) v i a C o m m e n t Ca r t d a t e d 7 / 9 / 1 5 I a m v e r y p l e a s e d t o s e e a m u c h n e e d e d pa r k p l a n n e d f o r s o u t h o f t h e f r e e w a y . I am c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e o v e r d u e n e e d f o r la c r o s s e f i e l d s p a c e . I t a p p e a r s t h a t a l l o t h e r s p o r t s h a v e be e n a d d r e s s e d i n c u r r e n t p a r k s . H o w e v e r , a s t h e S t a t e s m a n re p o r t e d , l a c r o s s e i s t h e o n l y y o u t h s p o r t g r ow i n g i n t h e U . S . , a n d I d a h o i s t h e t op t e n s t a t e e x p e r i e n c i n g t h a t g r o w t h . La c r o s s e g r e w b y 6 % f o r y o u t h s p o r t s ; a l l o t h e r y o u t h s p o r t s e xp e r i e n c e d d e c l i n e s b e t w e e n 2 - 5 % . I want to see Meridian 77 - A C R E S O U T H M E R I D I A N P R O P E R T Y P U B L I C C O M M E N T S Pa g e 5 o f 5 7 - 9 - 1 5 pl a n n i n g w i t h t h o s e n u m b e r s i n m i n d . I s u g g e s t t h a t t h e m u l t i - u s e f i e l d s b e d e ve l o p e d i n p h a s e o n e . F o r t h e a m o u n t o f d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d e d , i t w o u l d b e v e r y fi n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e . A l s o , w i t h t h e g r o w th o f l a c r o s s e i n y o u t h s p o r t s , i t w o u l d b e g o o d f o r t h e C i t y t o s e e h o w q u i c k l y th o s e f i e l d s a r e n e e d e d o n a y e a r - r o u n d a n d r e g u l a r b a s i s . Be a u t i f u l p a r k d e s i g n . An o n y m o u s v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 To o m u c h e m p h a s i s o n s o f t b a l l a s a w h o l e . W o u l d l i k e t o s e e m o r e “ p a s s i v e ” a r e a s. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e s p l a s h p a d — w o u l d lo v e t o s e e i t b e f o r o l d e r k i d s a s w e l l — o r b i g g e r . C a n p i c k l e b a l l b e p l a y e d on t e n n i s c o u r t s ? T h a n k s ! K. B a i r ( W e s t A d a Sc h o o l D i s t r i c t ) v i a Co m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Sh a d e p r o v i d e d o v e r p l a y s t r u c t u r e s , s u c h a s s a i l s t o r e d u c e h ea t d u r i n g s u m m e r o f m e t a l s t r u ctures, would be appreciated fo r i n c r e a s e d u s e . T. L e a c h ( B o i s e A r e a Pi c k l e b a l l A s s o c i a t i o n ) vi a C o m m e n t C a r d d a t e d 7/ 9 / 1 5 Ne e d m o r e p i c k l e b a l l c o u r t s . Y o u c a n p u t 4 pi c k l e b a l l c o u r t s i n t h e s a m e s p a c e a s 1 te n n i s c o u r t . S o i f w e c o u l d h a v e t h e sa m e s p a c e a s t e n n i s f o o t p r i n t t h a t c o u l d g i v e u s 1 2 c o u r t s . T h r e e c o u r t s a r e n o t e n o u g h . D. D r a k e ( I d a h o S e n i o r So f t b a l l ) v i a C o m m e n t Ca r d d a t e d 7 / 9 / 1 5 Wo u l d l i k e t o s e e a s o f t b a l l f i e l d f o r s e ni o r s a n d d e d i c a t e d t o v e t e r a n s . M o s t p l a y e r s i n t h e I d a h o S e n i o r S o f t b a l l As s o c i a t i o n a r e v e t s . Ho p e t h a t t h e s e n i o r f i e l d w i l l b e b u il t e a r l y , s i n c e w e a r e a ll o v e r 6 0 a n d d o n ’ t k n o w h o w m u c h t i m e w e h a v e l e f t .                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  WEST MERIDIAN REGIONAL PARK | 47 ACRES CONCEPT STATEMENT: The Borup-Bottles property is envisioned as a community park with primarily active recreation facilities of a scope similar to 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 not a priority for the City to provide and will not be included in this park. Theming elements, art, and other design materials for this park could focus on the agrarian/dairy heritage of the area that is representative of the “Old Meridian,” much of which has been lost to new development in recent decades. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:  Fishing Pond/ Surface Irrigation Water Storage – Sized at 0.5-1 acres  Restroom Buildings – (2)  Parking -- 500+ spaces. Consider layout to minimize walking distance to amenities so as to preclude users from parking on area roadways  Integrate drop-off zones with parking lots  Vehicular access from the south off Cherry Lane per ACHD requirements  Consider moving the residential access easement to the east.  Potential for future roadway along east property line. Investigate this potential with ACHD. May also include streetside parallel parking.  Dog area – off-leash, fenced. Approximately 1-2 acres in size. Consider layout with small dog area in center with large dog areas at either end that may be rotated for turf recovery. Explore options for a completely non-living surface with plenty of shade.  Rectangular ball-fields -- flexible, adaptable -- for soccer, lacrosse, other.  Maintenance yard. Fenced. With garage structure, asphalt paving storage bins. 1-acre max. size.  Significant playground element. Destination.  Pathways – Provide hierarchy of. Loop within park, plus other subsidiary options for circulation and exercise. Consider including distance information for loops.  Provide bridge/ pedestrian connection to existing pathway north of canal  Picnic Shelters – 3 Total – (2) 20’x20’ and (1) 20’x30’  Shade structures – strategic locations for, to maximize shade. Strong relationships to playgrounds, spectator areas, etc. POSSIBLE PROGRAM ELEMENTS:  Disc golf – this site could be an option for year-round disc golf course.  Community Gardens – that might be integrated with maintenance yard, as in Kleiner Park. GENERAL NOTES/ OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:  As part of the purchase agreement, access to the existing residence to remain must be provided per this master plan. Could be a shared parking lot or access road.  This site is not in the 10-yr CIP plan  Could be developed with a septic system, initially, with eventual tie-in to city sewer when development reaches the area  Gas line – identified as Pipeline pathway corridor – traverses part of the site. Limitations exist as to what amenities may be located over this utility easement.  Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District  Water rights for irrigation EXIST. SURFACE WATER = 329 GPM OTHER WATER, ANTICIPATED = 400 GPM TOTAL 730 GPM – approximate We s t M e r i d i a n R e g i o n a l P a r k Me r i d i a n P a r k s & R e c r e a Ɵ on Me r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Si t e I n v e n t o r y & A n a l y s i s IR R I G A T I O N W A T E R I N F O R M A T I O N : Ex i s t . S u r f a c e W a t e r = 3 2 9 G P M Ot h e r W a t e r , A n Ɵ ci p a t e d = 4 0 0 G P M To t a l 7 3 0 G P M – a p p r o x . GE N E R A L N O T E S : TO T A L = 4 7 A C R E S RA I L S W I T H T R A I L S C O R R I D O R TO S O U T H ( N O R T H O F F R A N K L I N ) TE N M I L E C R E E K EX I S T I N G RE S I D E N C E TO R E M A I N PR I M A R Y SI T E AC C E S S AG R I C U L T U R E AG R I C U L T U R E EX I S T I N G R E S I D E N C E TO R E M A I N W. C h e r r y L a n e M c D e r m o t t R o a d F u t u r e C o n n e c t i o n t o H W Y 1 6 - E m m e t t CA N A L A C C E S S R O A D UN D E R G R O U N D G A S L I N E RI G H T O F W A Y PR E S E R V E AC C E S S MERIDIAN LOOP PATHWAY PI P E L I N E PA T H W A Y TE N M I L E C R E E K P A T H W A Y                                     THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  We s t M e r i d i a n R e g i o n a l P ar k Me ri d i a n P a r ks & R ec r ea Ɵ on M er i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 S um m a r y o f Pu b l i c C o m m e n t s y NOTE: Pro j ect will be phased . 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Sc a l e (#) Nu m b er comment s in p arentheses indicate how often a m eetin g a pp eared on the p lans p rovided at the p ublic m . If no p arentheses, comment a pp eared once . We s t M e r i d i a n R e g i o n a l P ar k Me ri d i a n P a r ks & R ec r ea Ɵ on M er i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 NOTE: Project will be phased.NO TE Su m m a r y o f Pu b l i c C o m m e n t s y 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Sc a l e (#) Nu m be r e nt s s in p ar en n th t eses indicate ho w of ten a comm e g ap pe ared on the plans prov id ed at th e pu bl ic mee ti ng . If no p arentheses, comment a pp eared once . 47-ACRE WEST MERIDIAN PROPERTY PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 1 of 5 7-30-15 RECEIVED FROM COMMENT S D. Farnham via email dated 7/21/15 As a longtime, 4th Generation Idahoan/’Meridianite,’ I am inquiring as to the possibility of adding an ‘Outdoor Archery Range’ at the new park that is proposed for McDermott and Cherry Lane Roads. I believe this would be a positive addition so local residents would not have to travel to Boise for archery practice and also to build or interest our youth into the sport. Actual space-wise would be small proportionally, and upkeep at a minimum. Maybe some volunteer work to get it started. I brought up this proposal/wish to the City a year or two ago and was told that there were not any plans set at that time. I sure hope this could be brought up or earmarked at this juncture and feel the timing is perfect. A. Mehl via email dated 7/21/15 I do like the plan of additional softball fields. How about 4? R. & K. Poulin via email dated 8/11/15 The plan as shown in the presentation is simply just awesome. We live in the Castlebrook sub-division nearby. We would set our morning walk destination for the park each morning for sure if there was a way to get there on foot. My wife and I have no issue with anything we read in the presentation; however, if we were asked to vote on our preferred plan, we would probably vote for Concept #1 for the simple reason that it opens the park up to a wider audience than mostly soccer. However, we do realize that for large public venues, Concept #2 would probably work out better, but then, we already have a park with large venues in mind near The Village. The only wish we have is that the City/County move a little faster on the walking paths. We hope that, in our lifetime, we would have the ability to walk from the Franklin Christian Church to the new park using the path along the Ten-Mile Creek. That, to us, is just as important as the new park because it would encourage people to walk and promote a healthy lifestyle. T. Faubel via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 How about using North McDermott Road as an entrance, once it’s redone? I just talked to the guy who owns the land at the southwest corner of the park/area. I think he might sell some of his land. The new McDermott Road will be ¼ mile west of where it is now. What about uses of the park during the winter months? Any plans for that? G. Huskey via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Needs more shelters. Please be considerate of the needs of the existing homeowners in the area. D. Beehler (Meridian Lions) via Comment Would like to see accommodations for the Meridian Lions Rodeo or assistance in relocation. 47-ACRE WEST MERIDIAN PROPERTY PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 2 of 5 7-30-15 Card dated 7/30/15 R. Hagadone (Meridian Lions) via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 I am disappointed that there is not a space for the rodeo grounds. We do make money, and this money goes to the people in the community. We donate to the Meridian Food Bank and provide community service to check the food and help organize the shelves. We also provide for eyeglasses and hearing devices for those who apply that have a limited income. J. Bokenkamp via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Excited to see Community Garden space in both concepts—curious about their design and size and vision. With the growth to the west in Meridian, would be nice to create another nice-sized dog park. Concerns about entrances/exits—I almost think I’d consider coming around to the left of the parking area and north of the dog park to come out on McDermott. B. Freeland via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Year-round aquatic facility. Handicap access for all facilities. #1 Concept seems to make more sense. Dog park with restrooms available nearby. J. Frasier via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 I live across Cherry Lane from one of your entrance and egress streets. I asked that they not do this, as people will be entering and exiting the park throughout the day and if fields are lighted into the night. I would like to be contacted within 30 days to see if anyone in Planning thinks this is a real concern. M. Massett (MYAC) via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Prefer Concept 2 – will attract various groups. • When games are finished at sport complexes, consider parking traffic in and out (other exits). • Consider residences trying to get home or out with traffic. • Open grass: for picnic/free space/sport jams (Frisbee). • Put big trees along trail/small trees nearing parking (roof damage). • Maintain park structure cleanliness. • Utilize waterways for attraction and function (hot weather cools air). • Hills. S. Day via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Thanks for the invitation to attend this meeting. I like the mix of active sports with pond/trails. I recommend a third exit for vehicles is added. I recommend including a hill area near sand volleyball courts (see Boise State sand courts). I’d prefer arranging parking so there are spaces in at least 3 sections vs. 1 large and strip. Sand volleyball is becoming “trendy”/popular (and competitive). So I like having those 2 courts in this concept. 47-ACRE WEST MERIDIAN PROPERTY PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 3 of 5 7-30-15 Lacrosse is gaining in popularity; therefore, facilitating lacrosse fields makes some sense. I think a concept that includes an indoor ice rink would be great. Short-track speed skaters could train and race in a rink at this park. I’d think a concept with: 1) ice rink, 2) sand volleyball courts, 3) lacrosse/soccer fields, and 4) fishing pond sounds lovely. J. Lucker via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 60+ wood bat softball “Veterans Memorial Softball Field” Regional softball tournaments Time to fund a field for veterans who have given so much for our country. Anonymous via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 More pickleball courts—You can put 4 pickleball courts in the same footprint as 1 tennis court. So if you had 2 tennis courts and 8 pickleball courts, that would be awesome. Twelve would be even better!!! F. DePold via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Love it. Personally I think the multiuse option will get more use. Also I think people would love to have exercise stations around the park. My only complaint is it’s too far out. G. Mossett via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 Design Concept #2 would work better, since there is already a plethora of fields currently in Settlers Park. The multi-field option would work better, especially if there were to be a large lacrosse, soccer, football, etc. tournament taking place throughout the valley. J. Moyer via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 If a park is planned at McMillan and McDermott, why another park so close? If McDermott is the county line, are we building for Meridian or Nampa? M. Frasier via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 • Move 2nd entrance. • Purchase property on McDermott for additional 10 acres and McDermott entrance. • Where will irrigation water come from for grass? • Where will “overflow” parking be? On Cherry Lane? Overflow to Settlers is on Ustick. • Speed limit on Cherry Lane? D. Anderson via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 1. Will sports fields be lit at night? 2. What type of fence on the west? Security for pathway to help people jumping the fence. I like all the trees. Thank you for removing the animal shelter. R. & B. Schumacher via Possibility of a Bocce Ball Court? Like the idea of a multi-use field, rather than totally dedicated to softball, but team use 47-ACRE WEST MERIDIAN PROPERTY PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 4 of 5 7-30-15 Comment Card dated 7/30/15 may dictate otherwise. Looks like a wonderful first concept of a park! D. Farnham via Comment Card dated 7/30/15 I absolutely love the idea/concept of the softball complex. I would love even more for the addition of an outdoor field archery range similar to Fort Boise. I have forwarded a few emails on concepts, community enhancement, etc. and will include a ‘very rough’ drawing (see below) (and pictures on file from my phone). Thank you for listening to a LONGTIME (51 years) Idaho/Meridian resident. Appreciate any comments or listening from the City. 47-ACRE WEST MERIDIAN PROPERTY PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 5 of 5 7-30-15       MARGARET ALDAPE PARK | 70 ACRES, APPROX.   CONCEPT STATEMENT  Margaret Aldape Park is envisioned as 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 – 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 trails 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  that live in and migrate through the park.    Determination of the final 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, Basque culture and  history, and elements of Aldape family history as may relate to paths and architectural elements,  materials, place names, integrated art pieces, and other opportunities as they arise.     PROGRAM ELEMENTS    Note:  Final determination of the park program elements will be based on feedback from the donors,  Sherrie and John Ewing, and their family.     Margaret Pond – exists already on park site   Provide a second pond that will provide boat access to the Boise River   Restroom Building(s) – 2 desired.  Must be outside of floodway and situated to comply with  FEMA requirements for floodplain development.  There will likely also be a need for above‐ ground portables in the further reaches of the property, proximate to river.   Parking ‐‐ 500 spaces min., plus overflow     Vehicular access from the south – through existing and proposed neighborhood developments.   Secondary future access assumed.   Maintenance yard – 1/2‐ acre minimum   One large destination play structure, themed to match the park.  In addition, a less‐traditional  play area with options for unstructured, task‐oriented play that may be integrated with  landforms, trees and canopy areas, or other.     Limited acreage of irrigated turf grass.  Irrigated turf areas shall be designed strategically so as  to serve areas of higher use and pedestrian traffic.     Pathways – Provide hierarchy of.  Assume riverside pathway, pedestrian loops and options  within park.  General transition from primary paved loop to branches and offshoots of  compacted gravel.      Pathway structural elements such as boardwalks and bridges will be required to make the site  [mostly] accessible during periods of high water   Picnic Shelters (4) – 1 large shelter, 3 family size.  Capitalize on opportunities for integration of  Basque cultural element through theming and use of materials, interpretive signage.      Area for Boise River ingress/egress to control and minimize negative impacts on erosion and  riparian vegetation   Kayak/ Canoe launching sites – at both ponds and river   Provide a dock at Margaret Pond.  Look into Fish and Game grants to fund these.   Interpretive signs – Basque Culture, property history, wildlife – type, habitat, water cycle       POSSIBLE PROGRAM ELEMENTS   Disc golf – consider potential for integration at this site.   Potential Integration of water cycle interpretive exhibits     Explore possibility of connecting pond to river for access via kayak, other non‐motorized boats      GENERAL NOTES/ OTHER CONSIDERATIONS   Understand and design for seasonal high water areas   It is expected that there will be times during periods of high water when the site, or a portion of  the park, is closed to public use for safety reasons   Roadways and parking permitted in floodway.  Limitations exist with regards to fill, or any  modification that would reduce capacity of floodway area.   Potential additional park land will be South of the riverfront portion of the park, comprised of a  strip roughly 250’ wide and running the length of the southern floodway boundary.    Southern boundary is assumed for the preliminary design concept.    Irrigation water rights to be applied for upon acquisition of property. Need to calculate  anticipated irrigation water requirements.   Research locations of any existing bald eagle nesting sites on or near the park site.        Ma r g a r e t A l d a p e P a r k DĞ ƌ ŝ Ě ŝ Ă Ŷ  W Ă ƌ Ŭ Ɛ  Θ  Z Ğ Đ ƌ Ğ Ă Ɵ Ž Ŷ DĞ ƌ ŝ Ě ŝ Ă Ŷ ͕  / Ě Ă Ś Ž  ϴ ϯ ϲ ϰ Ϯ De s i g n C o n c e p t 0 100 200SCALE DR O P O F F FU T U R E PO N D TH R O U G H C O N N E C T I O N AMPHITHEATER RESTROOM SH E L T E R ART PARKING MA R G A R E T PO N D (E X I S T I N G ) BO I S E R I V E R PA R K I N G (1 6 7 ) AR T ME A D O W PL A N T I N G S LA W N (I R R I G A T E D ) PI C N I C SH E L T E R LAWN (IRRIGATED)PARKING(150)SLOUGH &HIGH WATERSEASONAL (193)FISHING DOCK BOAT DROP OFF SH E L T E R RESTROOMART PRIMARY VEHICULAR ACCESS BE A C H BOIS E R I V E R TO AR T AR T ART DI S C G O L F CO U R S E DI S C G O L F CO U R S E DI S C G O L F CO U R S E BE A C H APPROXIMATE FLOODWAY BOUNDARY S L O U G H (1 4 ) NO T E S • T H I S I S A P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N C E P T , I N T E N D E D T O S H O W P O S S I B I L I T I E S F O R DE V E L O P M E N T O F T H E M A R G A R E T A L D A P E P A R K S I T E . • N O S U R V E Y D A T A W A S A V A I L A B L E A T T H E T I M E T H I S C O N C E P T W A S P R E P A R E D . B A S E IN F O R M A T I O N W A S C O M P I L E D F R O M E X I S T I N G B O U N D A R Y D A T A A N D A E R I A L PH O T O G R A P H Y . • T H I S P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N C E P T H A S N O T Y E T B E E N P R E S E N T E D I N A P U B L I C F O R U M , A N D DI D N O T U N D E R G O A N I N D I V I D U A L P U B L I C I N P U T P R O C E S S . • R O A D S A N D P A R K I N G A R E A S M A Y B E P A V E D O R S U R F A C E D W I T H P E R M E A B L E P A V E R S OR C O M P A C T E D G R A V E L , T O B E D E T E R M I N E D . PU B L I C A R T • A R T W I L L B E F O C U S E D P R I M A R I L Y O N A L D A P E F A M I L Y H I S T O R Y , B A S Q U E CU L T U R A L H E R I T A G E , L O C A L W I L D L I F E A N D R E L A T E D T H E M E S • A R T E L E M E N T S W I L L B E I N T E G R A T E D W I T H P A R K A R C H I T E C T U R A L F E A T U R E S • A R T W I L L B E P L A C E D S O A S T O C R E A T E A S E N S E O F D I S C O V E R Y F O R P A R K V I S I T O R S GR E E N B E L T VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, TYP. ME A D O W PL A N T I N G S PE D E S T R I A N BR I D G E , T Y P . EX I S T I N G U N D E R S T O R Y VE G E T A T I O N , T Y P . EX I S T I N G T R E E S , T Y P . AR T AR T AR T AR T DR A F T Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Department Reports ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Parks and Recreation Department: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Presentation MEETING NOTES e(CA- Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION 7A DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 11AXTA L1111►vi Nq =1 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Department Reports Public Works: Utility Rates and Assessment Fees Update MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 8, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Department Reports ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: City Council Liaison/Committee Updates MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION 7C DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS