Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15-1106 Adopting Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 15- //() BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ADOPTING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO FULFILL HIS DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to enhance the Meridian community's quality of life by providing innovatively-designed parks, connected pathways, and diverse recreational opportunities, to create lasting memories for all citizens of Meridian; WHEREAS, in furtherance of this mission, a team of City staff and consultants worked together to prepare and propose the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, which process included a public input process, services inventory and analysis, needs assessment, operational and maintenance analysis, and financial analysis; WHEREAS, on December 9, 2015, the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, pursuant to its authority under Meridian City Code section 2-4-2(10), which charges the Commission with reviewing and commenting on the Parks and Recreation Department's Master Plan, recommended that the Meridian City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as proposed; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Meridian to implement such the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby accepted and adopted by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian. Section 2. That the Director of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is authorized to fulfill his duties as set forth in Title 13, Chapter 2, Meridian City Code, in general accordance with the provisions of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan as adopted by this resolution. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 15th day of December, 2015. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 15th day of December, 2015. F 9 . 911"l ,? A s E PIDIAT',T MayorT y de Weerd SFAL J tr . °f flee i3E �6Ue`,•�'t! RESOLUTION ADOPTING PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN L. Holman, City Cleric PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT A MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN RESOLUTION ADOPTING PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN PAGE 2 OF 2 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 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 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