Loading...
Approved Minutes - Study Session - 6/15/2002City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Study Session Minutes June 15, 2002 Meadows Branch Library Meeting Room 4800 Baseline 9:15 a.m. -1:15 p.m. The following are the minutes of the Jun.,e 1 S, 2002 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) study session. A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a per•iod of 6 years) are retained iya Central Records (telephone.• 303-441-3043). Board Present: Ed von Bleichert, Chair; Dave Wining, Pam Hoge, Thomas Sanford and Suzanne O'Neill Board Absent: Susan Osborne, Vice Chair; Charles Manlove Staff Present: Jan Geden, Doug Hawthorna, Georgia Jackson, Cate Bradley, Kate Bernhardt, Julya Bridgawater, Teri Olander The following people were also present: Charlie Daans, Planners Ink Blaise Rastello, Planners Ink Teresa Grills, Management and Planning Assistance Team (MPAT) Diana Smith, Royce Arbour, Inc. I. Introduction Geden spoke about revisions to the information in the Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment Preliminary Findings that was sent to Board members. She said it would be confusing if they compared the neads assessment saction to the survey, as the text that was initially written did not include the "Don't know" responses. The "Don't know" rasponses were later included so the Board could see not only what people said but also what they didn't know. Geden informed Yhe Board that Pages 27 through 32 were not good information and Yhe Board would be given corrected text at a later date. II. Recreation Facility Needs Assessment Findings Deans spoke briefly about each aspect of the Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment findings. • Community Outreach Interviews Twenty interviews were conducted with various leadership stakeholders and one of the things heard consistently was the need for increased partnership opportunities with Boulder Valley 3chool Disteict (BVSD), CU/Boulder and the YMCA. There also was a need expressed for more gymnasium space, indoor running track, an aquatic center and a performing arts cultural center. Focus Groups - S~orts, Business & Non-Profit -High need for practice/multi use fields -BVSD facilities not adequate in number, location, condition and cost -Partnership opportunities outside of Valmont -Need for ice sheet (indoor or outdoor), tennis complex (indoor or outdoor), crass country skiing and bicycle race course -More facilities naeded for youth acCivities and sports -Arduous process to develop a partnership agreement -Parks Department needs clearer inission stateinent -Community schools out of space -Partnership opportunities w/private schools, performing arts and museums -Lack of exhibit space and need for 500 to 800 seat performing arts/cultural center Sanford left the meeting at 10 a.m. Hoge asked for clarification [in the report] as to whether dissatisfaction with BVSD facilities was mainiy due to the condition of the facilities. Deans said he would have to listen to the tapes to deCerintne if that were the case, but added that even when the field conditions were adequate, the community schools charged $22.00/hour to use the feeld. Geclen added Zhat she was having prelirreinary discaesslons ~~ith the schood district to look at potential partnerships that would benefit both the school district and Parks and Recreation. Hoge asked which business groups were represented and asked to have that information included in the final draft. O'Neili asked whether these business groups spoke of strengfhs as well as weaknesses. Deans responded in the affirmative and said he could get that sumrraary inforrvtation to the Board. Communitv Workshop - Open house attended by over 35 parCicipants. -Lack of practice fields -Increase accessibility and facilities for those with disabilities -Ultimate Frisbee squeezed out -Need for tennis courts complex for tournaments -No performing arts facilities -Need for more garden p.lots Deans stated that more user groups than general public attended the community workshop. Resident Survev Deans said park usage in Boulder was incredibly high and that Boulder was an active community. He added that the overall satisfaction rate with Boulder facilities was very good. Minutes of PRAB Study Session 06/15/2002-Page 2 Deans spoke about Yhe activities with the highest participation rates - from hiking, walking, bicycling and jogging with a 90% participation rate to softball, which had a 9% participaCion rate. Geden reminded the Board that the needs assessment was primarily looking at future facility development. She added that other information related to programming and collaboration was also being obtained and could ba used for the Master Plan and policy development as it relates to the organization as a whole. Grills reminded the Board that a low partncipaYion rate of 6% was a signifrcant group with 6,000 participants ouY of a population of l OQ000. Geden spoke about the importance of a clear mission statement for the deparhnent as it relaYes to commitment to providing service and prioritization for a methodical approach to future development. von Bleichert added that teenagers and people with disabilities had been identified as two groups that citizens felt were the most important to provide facilities for and therefore those two groups might be placed higher on a prioritization list. SmiYh addressed the high participation rate for Ultimate Frisbee and said it was a sport that crosses ganders and crosses all age levels. Deans said dog parks and off leash areas for dogs was highest on the list of potential new or additional programs or facilities. von Bleichert asked if responses indicated a lack facilities or a lack of facilities in proximity to the responder. :Rastello responded that the question offacility specific location was not included in the survey and therefore that information was not available. Rastello added that provision was a matter of mission and policy on whether to provide a citywide complex or spreadfacilities out. There was discussion about whether the general public understood the term Legion ball field. Deans stated that Boulder was off the charts on the number of pools yet there was a desire expressed for more pools. There was discussion that this could be based on location or the rime available for use - or the fact that the North Boulder Recreation Center was closed for renovation. Likewise, the desire for additional community garden plots could also be a function o£ locaYion and proximity. • Trends & Benchmark Analysis - National Trends Partnershins Deans said that partnerships continue to gain in strength as far as parks and facilities provisions and that Boulder was already utilizing this approach Economic Im~act Parks and Recreation Departments have an economic impact through tourism, tournaments and special events. Minutcs of PRAB Study Session 06/15/2002 - Page 3 Recreation ProgramminQ Providing lifelong opportunities for recreation for families, youth, adults and seniors as well as intergenerational programming - combining seniors and youth in programs. Trends & Benchmark Analysis - Local Trends Demographics Highest growth projected for North Boulder, Crossroads area and southeast Boulder. Local Trends von Bleichert spoke about CU students and how so many remain in the area after graduation. Rastello said he eould look into the matter as CUprobably had that information. Hoge spoke about the increased enrollment at CU and how that could affect the need for more playing fields. von Bleichert asked how to read the peaks and valleys of use - how to determine whether the decline is permanent or cyclical. Geden replied there was no definitive answer as some things are area specific, some related to the culture of the city and some are truly fads. Bradley spoke about the issue as it relates to the life cycle of a facility. Facilitv Usa~e Membership to facilities is approximately 87% resident and 13% non-resident. Lessons (i.e. gymnastics, pottery, dance) taken are approximately 75% residents and 25% non-residents. There was discussion as to how the information could be used to determine fee structure. The Board took a 10-minute break. Board members exprassed a desire for a copy of the materials used for the screen presentation and Deans said he would get that information to them. Hoge also asked for the executive summary. „ • Trends & Benchmark Analysis - Boulder compared to 6 cities on a per capita basis - Ranking There was discussion as to the relevance of the data for Littleton because the population of Littleton was 140,000 yet the South Suburban Recreation District encompasses a larger population. Deans and Rastello said they would get the District population and change the name from Littleton to South Suburban Recreation District. Grills said the same was true for the city of Wesminster as the Hyland Hills Recreation District served it. Minutes of PRAB Study Session 06/15/2002 - Page 4 Deans said Boulder's ranking compared to other communities was not as accurate in light of the above. Hoge asked whether the dat2, included private facilities. Rastello responded in the negative. Hoge added that data on private facilities could be helpful when evaluating need for a facility. For example, Hoge suggested an area with a high number of private pools might not need to be provided with public pools. Rastello stated that the data provided only one element or tool to be used when determining need. The data contained information on what the city provides per population as compared to other communities. von Bleichert asked whether data on private facilities would be collected. Bradley responded that data had been collected on private facilities within Boulder but it had not been done as part of the benchmark survey for other communities. Deans said clarification and revisions would be made for the following: populations of the two recreation districts (South Suburban and Hyland Hills) and a distinction between lap and leisure pools. Wining suggestad park acreage might not be accurately reflected as undeveloped parkland or open space might be included in those figures. He suggested it should be specified as acres of developed city parks per capita, • Boulder Guidelines There was discussion about the 14 multi-use fields, which inctudes 9 fields at Pleasant View that ara only used for soccer. Olander clarified that the term multi-use field was used to define a long, rectangular field that was large enough to program for ultimate frisbee, football, lacrosse, rugby or soccer, The distinction was that multi-use or multi-purpose denoted a programmable field far games or practice. She addad that there were 5 multi-use fields outside of Pleasant View: two at Columbine, two at EBCC and one at Harlow Platts Park. O'Neill said it would be helpful to have a separate sheet of information on the multi- use fields. Wining and Hoge spoke about North Boulder Park and other areas that have potential to be used as multi-use fields. Grills stated that the ground and turf in those parks were uneven and not suitable for some activities. Hoge suggested upgrading fields in those parks to be multi-use fields. Geden said she would consider an even higher percentage of square footage per person for the modeling parametar for recreation centers. She suggested lookiag at raising the figure for the Master Plan to the 2.2 - 2.4 square foot per person range because of the level of fitness in Colorado. Minutes of PRAB Study Session 06/15/2002 - Page 5 Hawthorne asked whether the square footage for the expansion and ranovation of the NBRC was included in the total of square feet for recreation centers. Rastello stated that the NBRC was included in the total. Wining said the number of pools might not be accurate because of how different communities count their pools -separate pools, leisure and lap pools. Geden suggested checking with other communities to see how they determined the number of their pools. Grills stated that there were groups trying to compile databases with all of this information for the industry of parks and recreation. The difficulty was that each center or district was different and distinct. For example, some communities may include senior centers in the square footage for recreation centers while other cominunities do not. Open space versus devaloped parkland was another area that was difficult as it was not measured consistently by all communities. Grills spoke about coming to an intuitive feeling about what was happening nationally and regionally. Geden concurred with Grills and said that there would be no definitives to make good decisions Data would be made available and there wouldn't ba any absolutes; yet the Board and staff would be asked to make decisions. Grills said it would be a philosophical discussion whether Boulder should be at the cutting edge of square footage par person for recreation centers or whether to allocate more money to outdoor facilities because Boulder has a very active outdoor community. Bradley and Daans said the numbers could be debated, but it was important how they were applied and used as just one tool in the decision making process. • GIS Service Area Analysis° Deans spoke about the maps and how they were developed to show service area analysis for each facility. Dog Parks von Bleiehert asked whether the size of each dog park should be considered when determining service area. Deans said it could be, but had not been considered for the information and map included in the 13oard packet. Hawthorne stated that a dog park had been proposed far Tantra several years ago and the neighbors were strongly opposed to the idea because of issues with traffic, parking and noise. The strategy far dog parks has changed over the years from dog parks in smaller locations to more community-wide dog parks that have adequate parking and buffer zones away from the neighborhoods. von Bleichert asked whether the dog park at EBCC was temporary. Hawthorne responded in the a~rmative and said that the dog park was a temporary use facility at EBCC until such time as the undeveloped area at East is Master Planned. Minutes of PRAB 5tudy Session 06/15/2002 - Page 6 Tennis Courts Hoge asked how many courts were at the Millennium Hotel and Hawthorne responded that there were ten courts. Hawthorna said the maps indicated two courts at Angel Pines and that those courts were not being programmed and may eventually be removed. Hawthorne suggested that those courts should not be included in the data and Board members concurred. Wining asked what was meant when a tennis court was programmed by the city. Olander responded that all tennis courts could be reserved and when not reserved were on a first come, first served basis. Geden added that all tennis courts could be programmed for classes and rented out for specific times. Olander added that Fairview was not included on the map because it was used only for overflow in the summer when school was out, Shelters Wining suggested upgrading existing shelters that were not currently programmed if additional picnic shelters were needed. Wining also said there ought to be a footnote to indicate that there are picr.ic shelters in Mountain Parks and Open Space - specifically up on Flagstaff: Geden added that there should be a future discussion far a footnote as a]ot of amenities are offered through Open Space that need to be considered when making decisions. Bradley stated that two additional shelters were proposed for future development at Foothills [Community Park] and East [Boulder Community Center]. Community Gardens Wining inquired about purchasing additional land at the Hickory site for additional garden piots. Hoge said that Gardens might be an area whera proximity should be considered. Geden responded that the Director of Community Gardens had stated that management of the gardens is easier when more plots are in one area rather than spread out over various locations. It would be resource intensive to have small garden areas throughoau the ciry. Hawthorne added that careful consideration would have to be given to expanding the gardens at Hickory because of neighborhood concerns over traffic and parking. Facility Needs Assessment Recommendations Deans spoke about the facility list and methodologies used to identify the quanYity needed and the recommendation. Deans said thaY the recommendation for multi-use fields was not exactly 12 - it could be 10 ar 15 - but the number demonstrated that the need was high. Minutes of PRAB Study Session 06/I S/2002 - Pagc 7 Wining asked whether the need for a ski trail was in addition to the ski trail proposed for Valmont [City ParkJ. Deans responded that the ski trail at Yalmont City Park (VCP) would fill thaC need. Grills stated that what she was hearing from the community was not just the need for more tennis courts, but a need to have eight courts in one place. Deans said that the six additional courts could b2 added to existing areas with courts. Bernhardt questioned the need for one bike raciag facility whea three of the four rankings were Low. Deans responded that the ranking under Focus Groups should be changed from Low to Moderate. Grills said that the discussion for the Master Plan would need to address the following quesfions: • Is there a need for the facility? Would people use it? • Is the facility something the city should subsidize with tax dollars? Geden said the question could also be asked whether the city should build facilities that will allow revenue capabilities to subsidize other programs which could be very important with declining revenue streams. O'Neill said that with regard to bicycle racing the resident survey only totaled 21% and to 60% it was not important at all. She asked how the Moderate, Low and High were determined on the resident survey. Deans responded that some of the Valmont questions about bike racing served to boost the resident survey piece and show a higher level ofsupport. , Wining said it would be helpful to understand quantity of facilities needed as compared to things that already have funds committed. Geden responded that until a project was designed und under construction it was not a reality. Rastello stated that part of the next level would be how to meeY identified needs through partnerships, what was currently bonded and funded and what was proposed. Hoge asked about data on what facilities are available in the comrnunity. Deans responded that the next level wild address how to satisfy identified neecls. O'Neill asked if the need for 12 additional multi-use fields was based on 2001 population rather than the projected 2020 population. Deans responded that it was based on 2001 population as projections were for 12,000 additional people over 20 years, which was less than one- percent growth rate. von Bleichert said it would be usefizl to have a list identifying each typa of existing field (multi-use, little league, and softball), based on uses. A spreadsheet or map identifying each type of field with the following information would be helpful. -Is it programmed? not programmed? -Is there an IGA? -What is the condition of the 6eld? -Quantity of fields Minutes of PRAB Study Session 06/I S/2002 - Page 8 -Fees for use? Geden responded Yhat she was currenfly working wiYh the school district for athletic facility needs assessment. IV. Next Steps • Prepare final draft • Conduct another community meeting - possibly in July • Review meeting results and revised recommendations with the Board • Prepare final Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment report with implementation and funding sYrategy Hoge asked for an explanation for facilities not recommended - such as the Arts, Bowling Alley and Pottery Lab. ~ The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATTON ADVISORY BO~D: Ed von Bleichert Board Chair Attest: ~ Georgia ackson Recording Secretary Minutcs of PRAB Study Scssion 06/I S/2002 - Page 9