6A - Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment ReportDO NOT REMOVE -
PRAB File Matenal
_ CITY OF BOULDER
~ PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 25, 2002
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 6, 2002)
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Cate Bradley, Planner
FISCAL IMPACT: None
PURPOSE: The purpose of ttus item is for members of the Pazks and Recreation Advisory
Board to review and accept the Recreadon Facilifles Needs Assessment Report. Chazhe Deans
of Planners Ink wIll attend the meet~ng discuss the final recommendations and to answer
quest~ons from the Boazd.
~ BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreauon Department hired the consultmg firm Planners
Ink, with assistance from RRC Assceiates, to conduct a comprehensive recreat~on faciliues needs
assessment. The needs assessment and the pazks and recreation citizen survey, which was
completed by Nat~onal Reseazch Center in 2001, will form the basis for the update and revision
of the Parks and Recreatron Master Plan. The PRAB has reviewed earher versions of tlus needs
assessment report at a study session on June 15`~, 2002 and at the September PRAB meeting.
ANALY3IS: A revised ChaBter 6• Needs Assessment Recommendat~ons is provided as
Attachment A. To prepare for our discussion, please review once again the updated Chapter 6
wluch details the number and type of new recreational faciht~es recommended by the consultants
A revised matrix showing the pnonty grouping of the recommended facihties is mcluded
Copies of the previous pnority matrix and a memo from Planners Ink explaimng the changes is
mcluded as Attachment B, Planners Ink Memo Editonal changes and correcUons have been
made to other portions of the report previously reviewed by the PRAB.
A public meetmg to present the needs assessment results to the commumry, members of sports
organizauons and other interested groups was held on November 7th. Approxunately 22 citizens
attended. A summary of couunents from the public meetuig is included as Attachment C, Public
Meeun~ Comments.
The Needs Assessment Report provides the framework for future plamm~g work to be
~-- accomplished by the Department. Acceptance of the report does not commit the Department to
..,, implementuig the specific recommendat~ons presented by the consultants. The Pazks and
~
AGENDA ITEM # VI-A ; PAGE 1
Recreation Master Plan update will determine the final recommendatrons and prionhes for
recreat~on facility development, based on additional PRAB, staff and public discussion, a review ~
of the departmental mission, goals, policies and standazds and updated revenue forecasts. `"
Tn considenng acceptance of the Recreation Facilit~es Needs Assessment Report we would ask
Boazd members focus their discussion on the following questions
• Is there any addidonal mformation Boazd members would need to understand the
rauonale for the recommendations~
• Are Board members comfortable with the presentauon of the recommendahons in the
matnx and text~
• Does the Boazd accept the consultanYs recommendations as the basis for future
discussion of facility needs dw7ng the Master Plan update process?
PUBLIC CONIlVIENT AND PROCESS• Ttus item is bemg heazd at tlus public meetrng, as
advertised in the Daily Camera.
$TAFF RECONIlI~IENDATION: Staff recommends that the PRAB accept the final Recreation
Facilitres Needs Assessment Report prepared by Planners Lilc.
ATTACtIMENTS:
A. Chapter 6: Needs Assessment Recommendat~ons
B. Planners Ink Memo
C. Public Commenu ~~
AGENDA ITEM # VI-A ; PAGE 2
°° Table of (ontents
M
..
List of Fxhibits
'" # T~le Page
~. I REGIONA~ CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
2 Tornl PopulnrioN Dervsiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
" 3. YourH Populnrion Densiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
~. 4. SENIOR POPUTATION Densiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
S. ~LO YR Tornl PopulaTion C{iANfjE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
^ G. INVENTORY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4
r 7. UNdEVE~OPEd PARICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ S
S. SC{I00~ INVENTORy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~
~ 9.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BASEbAII FIEIdi SERVICE Anen .... .. 64
~ ~~. CENTERS $ERVICE ARen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
~ ~. COMMUNIIy GARdENS ~ERVICE AaEa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
~ ~ L. DOG PAR~CS SERVICE Anen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
,~ 13. GROUp SHelrEes SERVICE AaEn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
~4. PROGRAMMEd MU~TINSE FIE~dS SERVICE Aeen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
~ ~ S.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PIAyC{ROUNdS SERVICE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~O
16. SoFrbnll Fietds SERVICE AREn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
~ I7. SWIMMINfj POOLS SERVICE ARFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
~! IA. TENNIS COURTS SERVICE AREA . . . . . . . . . 73
I ~I. NEIy{IbOiillOOd PARI(S SERVICE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4 2~. COMMUNIIY PARI( SERVICE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7S
^ ~L~. CIiY PARIC SERVICE Arsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
r
~
M
r
r
^
i
a
r
~
r
~
r
~
~
~
` Gty af Baulder Reueat~an Fauunec ~eedc Asuesmeat
., Pagc t
..
.~
- (hapter 6: flecreat~on Facilines Recommendations
~ ~VERVIEW The primary purpose of the Recreation Faality NeedS As5ee5ment i5
r" to a55es5 the need for new recreation facilitiee within the City. The
,. facilitiee choaen for recommendation5 were ba5ed on the following
cnteria•
~
• they had the highe5t ranked reeult5 in the reeident 5urvey for
*" current partiupation ratee by adult5 and children, and ranked
y high on importance of potential new or additional program5
and faahtie5,
r
"" • the GIS eervice area analy5i5 and modeling parameter5
,. 5howed a deficiency in population/facility gwdeline5 and/or
~ geographic di5tribution within the community,
~ • the benchmark analyei5 with other comparable atie5
.., identified a below average ranking on a per capita ba5i5,
~
• they were generally expre55ed in both the focus group5 and
+' public workehop ae having moderate to high demand, and,
,.
• interview5 with informed community leader5 and aty 5taff
~
confirmed all or mo5t of theee facilitie5 were in high demand,
r+ exceeding the park5 & recreation 5yetem'e capacity to 5erve
r
BaSed on the pro~ected demographic data, the 61S Service Area
~ analy5ie and community input, the following recommended facilitie5,
r' c~uantities and locatione were identified to satiefy the need5 af
,r, Boulder re5ident5 m the future. The criteria to determine location5
wae a hierarchal approach of reviewing park eite5 that could eatiefy
~r
the neede utilizing
.?+ • new facditie5 mcluded in exi5ting Capital Improvement Plane
,^ (CIP), Approved MaSter PIanS (AMP), or Approved 5ite Review
Plans (ASRP);
~
~ • propo5ing new facilitie5 in an exi5ting park that may reauire
,~ an Amendment to an Approved Plan (AAP); or
` • proposing new facilitiee in undeveloped park5 (UP)
~
~ Due to the lack af developable land and the high co5t5 of any
potentially available land in Boulder, acqwring new park land wa5 not
"' con5idered an option in thie approach. Therefore, no new park land
r acqweition i5 propo5ed ae a mean5 to 5ati5fy facility needa.
,.+
" Gty of Balder flecreanon 6almet Necds Assessment
., Pagc Sq
~
~
(hapter 6: Recreation Faalities Recammendationi °
.
7he City/Boulder Valley School District Master Joint Uee agreement
wa5 alao evaluated for any new potential u5es or 5chool aitee that °'
could be utdized, but it was determmed, on a prehmmary review, that ~s
the exi5ting agreement already included ail the 5chool site5 and
~
facilitiee that were of adec~uate condition and eize to be ueed for
programming purpo5ee by the city. A5 a reeult, no new 5chool site5 ~~
or facilitie5 are propo5ed to be incorporated into the Maeter w
agreement.
~
CIP ANd 7he ParkS and 12ecreation Department has eeveral park5 and facility ~
AppROVEd maeter plan concept5 approved by the ParkS and Recreation ~
1~1ASiER P~ANS AdviSOry Board and the Boulder Gity Council. Moet of the5e new
facilities were counted toward5 5atiefying the future need5 of +
Boulder utizen5. Table 3 1i5t5 the facditie5 m the exieting CIP or ^'
approved plan5 -
Table 3. Facilit~es in ExiSting Approved Plane "'~"'
~
F/N Name Appro~ed Fscl/rtaes
29 East Boulder 1 Group shelter (AMP)
1 Non-programmed multruse turf area (AMP)
37 Foothills 2 Outdoor basketball court5 (AMP)
4 Dutdoor tenm5 caurty (AMP)
2 Outdoor racauetball/handball (AMP)
2 5oftball/Little League fields (AMP)
1 Non-programmed multi-use turF area (AMP)
1 Dog Park (AMP)
2 Group 5heltere (CIP)
3 Ghildren'y play area (GIP)
2 5and volleyball courts (CIP)
78 Valmont 175,450 sf of indoor facdities (ASRP)
1 Skateboard facility (ASRP)
4 lighted Little League fields (ASRP)
2 lighted Legwn Baseball fields (ASRP)
10 Hard-surface CourtS (A5RP)
1 Chddren'S play area (ASRP)
1 Commumtiy garden (ASRP)
1 Dog park (ASRP)
1 Group picnic area (ASRP)
2 6ike raang loop trails (ASRP)
1 CrosS-country eki traii (ASRP)
1 Non-programmed multru5e turf area (ASRP)
Note AMP=Approved Mayter Plan
CIP= Capital Improvement Plan
ASRP_Approved Site Review Plan
.+.
A
r:-
W
l~
r
fi~
r
~
.r
~~
r
•
.r
~
..
N
...
Cny of Boulder Reaarion Fadhna Nccds Asscsancnt
PaSc bo .
n.
-~ (hapter 6: flecreation Fatilit~es Becommendations
~ UNdEVELOPEd The City of Boulder currently own5 a number of undeveloped parke In
~ Paaks order to meet pre5ent and future demand of recreational facditie5
-~ 5pecific undeveloped park5 have been identified a5 location5 for
~ future development of faalitie5 Table 4 li5ts the undeveloped park5
and the new faulitie5 propo5ed in each park
,..
.. Table 4. Proposed Facilitie5 in Undeveloped Parks
~
+~r
aii
~
~
w
~
w
f~
F/N Name Prop~ed Facditie5
5 Area III 2 Programmed Multru5e fielde
2 Baeeball fielde
2 SoRball fields
1 Bike raang cour5e
31 Eaton 1 Programmed Multruye field
33 EIkS 1 Programmed Multru5e field
44 Heatherwood 2 Programmed Multruee fielde
84 MeSa Memorial 1 Playground
~
~ After reviewing potentiai eite5 u5ing thi5 hierarchical criteria, Table
ir 5 summarize5 the total number of propo5ed faulitie5 and how they
may be implemented. The implementation deecription5 are baeed on
~ four designation5 to achieve the community's needs
~" • Amendment to an Approved Plan (AAP)- thi5 applie5 when a
~ recommended faality may not be included in, or will rec~uire a
recon5ideration of, an approved plan
Yr
~ • Approved Maeter Plan (AMP) and Approved 5ite Review Plan
~. (ASRP)- the proposed facility is already included on an
approved plan
~
"' • Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)- the proposed facdity ie
~, already approved and funded for conatruction
+.+
• Undeveloped Park (UP)- thi5 applie5 to propo5ed facihtie5 in
r. undeveloped park5 that do not have an exi5ting approved
~, plan
~
~
..
`' Gty of Baulder Recrcanon faalmes tleeds Assnsmcnt
~, Pagc 6~
r
(hapter 6: flecreanon Facilities Recommendanons
PROpoSEd Table 5 Total PropoSed Facilities and Locations
FACI~ITIES Total FacilrtyType Quantity PotenUalLocat~on Implementation
4 Baseba(I 2 LL Area III UP
(LL and Legion) iLL,1L Valmont ASRP
AAP= Amendment to an ~ Center 1 Valmont ASRP
Approved Plan (W/ gymna5ium)
150 Community 100 plote Valmont ASRP
AMP= Approved Maeter
plots 6ardene 50 plots Harlow Platte AAP
Plan
1 Dog Park 1 Foothills AMP
ASRP=Approved Site
Review Plan 5 Group Shelters 2 Valmont 1 AAP/1 ASRP
i East Boulder AMP
CIP= Capitai 2 Foothdls CIP
Improvement Plan
9 Programmed 1 Foothills AAP
UP= Undeveloped Park Multruee 1 Eaton UP
FieldS 2 Valmont AAP
2 Area III UP
t Elks UP
2 Heathenvood UP
3 Playground5 1 Foothills CIP
1 Valmont ASRP
1 Mesa Memonal UP
6 Softball 2 Area III UP
t East Boulder AAP
2 Valmont ASRP
1 Foothill5 AMP
1 Swimming pool 1 Valmont AAP
8 Tennie Courts 8 Valmont ASRP
i Ice Arena 1 Valmont AAP
1 GrosS-country i Valmont ASRP
5ki trail
1 Bike Racing i Area III UP
Course
There i5 a rea5onable level of confidence that the5e new faalitie5
can be accommodated in their respective recommended park
location5, but a 5ite plan level of analy5i5 wa5 not completed a5
part of thi5 need5 ae5e5ement for each facility in the park. For
example, at the Valmont Gity Park 5ite, in order to accommodate
the two propo5ed programmed multruae fielde, and 5till maintain a
non-programmed multru5e turf area in the park, it may eliminate
~
.~
~
~Ak
~
s
Gty of Boulder Recreanon Faalmcs Nceds assessment
Pagc 6z
~,
- (hapter 6. Necreation Facilities Recommendations
,.
two ballfelde fielde a5 currently 5hown on the approved eite review
~ plan. Alternative5 to thie recommendation would allow either
K„ increaeing the ballfield5 and/or decrea5ing the proposed
~ programmed multru5e field5 and/or elrminating the non-programmed
multruse turP area. Baeed on thi5 5tudy'S priority of faality need,
"'" the recommendation of two programmed multruse fields and four
r ballfielde, and retaining the non-programmed multru5e turf area,
~ appear5 to allow for an optimal mix of facilities on a limited 5ite
`~ The following exhibit5 (listed alphabetically) repreeent the 5ervice
w Area analy5i5, ba5ed on the GI5 modeling parameter5, for all
r exieting facilities and park5, and aleo indicate the potential
locatione of the above propo5ed facilitie5
w~.
~
~
r
+I~1
•
-.`
w
~~
M
r.q
~
r
V
~
i~l
A
~
~
r
w-
M
~
` Gq of Bonlder Rcaeahon Faulitia flceds Asscsunent
~. Page 6;
~
[°~ ~ ~ [ ~ I"'~ [ L f ~ ~ i f 1 ~ ~ t' 1 ! _ ~ E 1- ~ ~ t 1 ( ~ [ ~ ~E 1 t ~ E t
6ddMt q
~ ~ ~ t ~ Nwa~R~ °-- ' .~° , 'o` - - - afl OF BOUIDfA PAR~S AIID Rf(RfAlIOM
~ ~ . ~ ~ , N~w~+ ea, r ,,, Niwor a ~ - - BauDall krritt Artas
! ° 'i'
~
i
i
o ~ ~ e~i Monereh R~~~ .-~'~•„' ~ •'
•,
~~ z
N : w~•
w ~ ~ tj C ~Z _
~ ~ <~ Z~ ~ iw ,~ - -
NlLL p1 z
~-
__
R. ~_ A h , ` I \4 IA '~S
_~ p~ i y %p\ ~° i' =
y
~ INmLIU ~ ~ ~~ ~y ~1
~~,.~.,,, ~
'
~'~ -1
i
E~,
leoknt_~.~ -
i - - - -
~
p -
~
l
, ~+
;!
, io~e..~x
'
~
~
~
,
.~,~m ~ ~
' ~ ~ ~,~ ~~ i~ ^~ v.~ ~ ~~
v - ~
* , x
~_` ~ ~~
5 ~ ..
_
~
„
. ~,. ~
- -- ~;"ri , •a
~~~~
~ A \
!,._~A~•~
' I
_ -
~ ~
~~ • _ ' ' _
(1
_
i~
QR \ Nonn ~e~Y~ v ~ ~ M1e ~
~9~•~ W ~ ~~ I ~I ~ I ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
-- --- -
~
l
~~ _ I• ~
~'~ ;
;
~
~
~
-
' ;
- - -
~
~ F
~ -_
,
~ ,
!
, i
` ~~~ ~ .,~ /~q ~QM• ' _ _ .. ~_
Vt~P -
'
~
N ~
\
.
~~ ~
~
~
~ ,~
\ '+1
1
54
-
i ~ t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~
'~ ~
~ -
8 , ~ „~~,,,,,~
uo ~.oi~
1 ~
II
iY
mre~.~~wa~n.wio~n~veni~.mo, w~~ew~r.~
"~ ~ ~'pn4d}
QOIEx ~
~ ~
~W~
k~~ ~RLL~
'onmi6ti ~
i Y6YYM1nfY4fdarMlbN~mIDx
~
\ '•
~•
- -'
`, , ~
~
~ N
. tl~
i~ ~~: e.. ~.. '
°~"" ,~ ~ ~
Exi~Nn~ BneShc Fiald~
.
~~
,
• ~~
~
. ~
• ~.
~, v
-
.a~ p~
~
~~
~
, ~
" ~ !0;
~
s
'~
~'
-
''
~ -
- -- -
- - - , - - io w.i w. o.~wwW
C^`_{,~
~~
~~
-
~
\
~ .r~
.. i
~..~s. ~ w ,,
i (
:uEwAx+w ~
~ ~
' • A ~u. w~wiww
,1 ' ~g
~~~`~
~
`
' - - a ~
~,fiJ
_ )
- _- ~~~
- a 1
f ,•
`
,
~'
:~ •a..,~ ~'l~,y. - - -
~ --'- B~eI
~~.,a~~o
i
'
m Ma- ~
so ~
Ma.
wx~ ~
t
~•
, ~, e` 4
~I
wr, „ ~'
~~ ~i.~ ~
~
~
, S!
6y 14AA~w
I '
~~ ~
~°~' ~ ~P~ j , ls in dw~ ~
E
i
~ ~
~ ~i
~
Somh Ba~Lder Rd.
__
_, -~
"~ ~--
Proyaed Bu~b~ll Fbld~
, iahle o ~...~. .~ ~ p u. M r
'
~ s~m e a. ~
~~
~
_ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
s M+ui =
~ - ~ ' ' , ,-~~
-__ rt Ni.~~m r.r +
~
~
° '
; ~
uisvt ~.E ~~_.
S - . r -- ~ --
1 ~~ I MaeM110~ \
`~ ~.l--~w:U~~
~
.~7 ~
~
~i
~
'~
[ i f 1 C ~ 1 1 f ~t L~ [ l T L i I[~ f l f I 1) 1~ ~ [~~. '~ t~[! ~~[ 1
F~hidtlo
pn OF BOUIDER PARKS AND Rf(RfAlIOtl
(t~ers Strvla Areac
le~eed
~E c~~tm
'* inp~d Calm
Q 613 Mddlq Ym~N~n
Q Cimnf OpMb~d I~r~b
2000 AMI PqddN~ Do~iry
0- 6 Nn~u pr ~en
b - 21 (ma~ pr nn
~ 41 - 54 pm~i pe ~en
~ 3~ -12t pnui pr un
~ t2! - 457 pmai pr ~en
I Vbi A Ru~N~h~
Q 3ulu~mulfle
/~/ Hl~hr~W
/~/ 31neFi
~. , ~. m r .,. ~.... ..„., a,. ~ ~ .. ~.., a ~
M4u~n Y NM NnWn DRwNC! 1FI A/pYp~lem
YB4tl M1nf~[ 6bM Wr1MmLn
E~b1i~' Ced~n
II Nw AMI N
90 B~IN~YwRrirlWGnM Si960
SS M~AWd4rWnrWe0.dr 6l000
~~ awr~r~w.w~a~~ enoo
Propul C~dm
io u.~ n. r ~
1/ VdwN hA 6 000
.~
""~' -'~s""' ~.N,..,,w'
r ~ r ~ t ! i y ~r r~ r ~~ rt ~ ~ ~ r t J t t ~ r ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ -
f~hidtn
qn OF BDULDfR PARKS A~ID RE(flEAIIOM
iommum aaraem xrria nrcati
le~end
CemAnniiy 9~rdm~
~ Cem~unlly
• Paekd
n 01ha
* irops~dCemmunlt~B~rJens ~
Q 613 Moblla~ Pu~mHUe
~ CurrMi Op~ntio~d urole
2000 Tahl Populdlo~ Denilly
0 - 6 yu~oae pa ~on
6 - 21 Nrmu p~r ~a~
~ 21 - 54 p~rrom pn ~a~
~ 54 • 128 Mnone y~r ~ero
~ 128 - 457 pusone pr ~en
I ' L~ke~ 8 Re~ervoire '
Q Sulaon~munitlu
/~/ x~,Mrqs
/V Sfreett
m~ m, _...~. ~,.Fw.,, ~ o.,~,.. ~s ~
.sM.~..~.,,~o~.m~ ~..~,,.u,
Etistiay Communily B~rJen Plof~
Y hr11Ww NwMi/M~
~~ I ~ nwnl IS
S6 n ~ tS0
16 b Y!
Prapeted CommanHy 6edea Plob
M Nr MNMN M~n
4! NnH~PINb SD
II Ydmn p hrl: 100
e C-~
~~ ~p,~,..~...o~~..
t~ t~ ~~ t t t~.~ ~ r~~ r f r t ~~ ~ r~ r ~ ~ x> i~~ r ~~ i~ i 3~;
an
le~end ~
D~~ P~~ki »
• ~ry '
~ C~~eo~Ny ~r
O Nd~~b~Ae~d "
~;
* Yn~ad D~s P~~k~
~ 813 M~61ie' P~nmf~ei ;s~
s
Q Qrnd OpMp~d lad~ r'
J
1000 Ttld iqddiu Da~Nr ~
0• 6 pnai pr un ';
6- 21 pneni pr un £,
~ z~ - s+ r~~.~, ~~~ ~eN
~ sa - ~:e pr,~~~ p~ ~e~. ,
~126-457pm~iprun ra
,a
t
I 1 4ku & Ra~min ~~,
Q Sde~~minlNu ~
N H~'~~ r
A~
/~/ StroM~ ~
IN ny,y~wv~ ui~NNnlJlm R¢Fr15 ][pl
um N Nvln Mnh~n UR~m W] ib mrYlr~id/ium
YBU4 f+mFSi WnW MWmLrc
EMitld~ D~~ P~~k~
p ~dWM MM
ri WIwxW hrY ~ M.
16 IAwI Na4e 1
e9 fMMdlw 1 b
vnr,~ u.'v~~,
N Mr. In tl
)1 Fw1NIL ~
z!"'~~
~ %w~.~.,~,. ,
~ 1 t 1 ! 1 [ 1 t 1 t 1 t i f ~ t! I 1 f i t i f 1 t 1 ~ 1 1 1 t i i 3 ~ ;
~h~ac,3
(In OF BOUIDffl P~AKi AMD Rf(RfAlIOfl
ll~l~n krritt are~s
le~end
sti~e~~,
p x.rytiw*~d
• v~e~~
* in~ad SbNm
~ 813 M~I~IIq Pm~dm
O~mM OpMb~d l~rdi
2000 T~Id Y~pIdA~ D~mih/
0 - 6 ym~ni pr ~en
6- t i pn~~~ pe wn
~ 21 • 54 rn~~~ (n ~en
~ S4 - 12d pnu~ pr on
~12l-457pro~~pr~m '•
~ I 4Nu 8 Rumeln
Q Sdw~~ullbi
/~/ HI'hriri
/~/ stneb
M. ~.r...~wu w...rrn.ei.~ami.,e moi
TM ro.. ~ rwu i u~.rv.. wu~ aes i~. m~sM. ar.r.~ ~
~ess r~..v.s mur.m u.a.mm.
E~IdU, 9rw~ S6dbn
~ II ~ MIMw ~ lY14n ~
!! Elw B Rn I
SO NxX~ ~
ri N~Ai 0.AMr ~
6f Y ~
15 6~ Wtlx~ ~
inp~d 8nq SluMm
I pl M~. IOwxhl~Nn1 I
t • t
it rd t
t9 n ~
'
"1- a~^~~»>,...w
[ 1 t 1 t 1 i 1 t t t 1 t 1 I i t 1 C 1 f 1 t~ t I [ 1 ~ t~ t I t i [ l [ y
o j
: ~
w =
~ y
~ ~
d ~
, ,.
o _ #
37 Y
~
'\,_ NonhBoN~d~i
~ ~~~~
/ /1~-~
~~., '
S~
'c~ "
~~
~
~~ ~' --
u Monaroh
G~ ~~ ~
' "' '8`'3~
e ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~~ u~~~m~~
` Rc>a~vo1r `
S /~
''~. ~_ ~~ --~ J
, ~
~.w
`~ .4 ~ u
( 3
~ r
q ~ ~, --" ~d 0
^9t
;~ " ~~ ~ 49A, dM'.
r':,''i:o. jiPS~`~ ~
~
r.'~ R ,`['~i*3~~~ ~"
_ v o
.~„ a Q "~,y'~~ a ~ ~
V.T e .
n. ~
',;°'• r,.. _ :
~ y w
U
~7 ~
~~~
.~ fi'.'`~
i ~~~ i
.~~
~
~'~'~`
r ~ ~'
T~ble Mp~~ R ` d
~--~~ ,
loNh '"i
n: .,~2
_,n y'~ > w,"-_ ,
..~7L
e..+eo~ta. I v_ o
- ~~~y - -,.
- ~
z z
+- __ _ _ «_'_
,1a1 A =
N y
!- v
• '.'~
~g'~~' ll~kbui~
OuR ~ I ~, .~V Y
C:~'~ ~
'T , 3~` 1~ n
~.>'~o~ ~ ~~.Y44
~'~l ; r ,: ~ ~ - -a~.
~q ~' t ~~ t ~ 1
-'~-+ n. u~:
I~~n ~~ ~R oir
~ ~
~ `~ ~
:r,.. ~ ~ l
- ~.
.
`t iy'+,~ 1~ _ _
, ~ ..."'~~ _
- c`_~ ~ /
`~,._
[
~
` ,
`~~ "a~
~4~ .~„
'
~
~
~I~]~'~' ~
i~.T
~ , ~
~
~y~YJ - -
~7 ~r
J
J
/ V~- n
~~.~ VJ ~7
[
~
~
~nlmo~t ~ O
Rewrvo~r
c
~
IillcreYl •
IaA -' f 7
~ ` - -- °c, ~1- -.
, a°
~~_
0
hBoul~
G'
~ ~
a -- M~n~!!,11 D~_ ; -
P I ' `
fxhi01t14
Qn OF BOUIDffl P~RKS AflD RE(RFAlIOM
Pr~ramm~d MNH•u~ fl~ds S~rvice Areat
ts,eeJ
MdN-uu Fldb
~ C~s~uily
• Peakd
" Rea hellih
j SeA~d~ w/Mdtbw Flelh
* Pnp~el MdN•U~e FIeNi
[] 813 M~Mll~e Pmofen
~] Gmd O~~Mbed Lwd~
2000i~1d Pqddien Deulh
0 • 6 pn~u Nr ~ero
i 6- 21 pnai pr nn
~ 21 • 54 pno~ pr ~m
S4 - 12! pneu pr ~en
t t! - 457 ~ma~ pr ~en
~_ _~ 4Ye~&Ru~ndn
Q Solu~m~nitlu
/~/ xi~ti~~~,
/~/ SfnHi
rv. rw~x w'w...xo.~ m..~ee~ in m..a~.~. ~
M eu4 ~Yn iNt 6bW 14~NmIDn
Etidie Pn nnmd Mdll-Ut~ Fiellt
II MN~r MM~~wfMW
H N~An IYIM I
6! PIW~AYYrFYl4 9
:s e~mmow i
!9 6dM~Yw t
N WNOw~ XdIFw
Pnpirl Yn~n~~n~l M~kl-Uu Fidl~
N Mr M
s ~u. m ~
~~ ~~~ ~
!! f1Y I
9 FMIIIN 1
11 NwlbmJ t
it MlwedhM t
.~'. (°""~"~.~,.,...
f 1 f 1 t T I 1 C 1 ( 1 / 1 ! 1 t! [ 1 f / t i t 1 ! 1 1 1 f I[ i: i F 1
bdiibitis
4n OF BOULDfR P~RKS AND Rf(RfAlION
Pla~row~df SerYiu areat
Lyend
Plrypn~L
• dsA~M~
o Nd~1M~Fw1
• I~id
Rx hdd/
^ OIAM
* hepJ Phryrrd ReNiry
Q &S Md~lin~ Pr~nd«e
Q drcwl0~xdiaall~wlt
t0o0 Tdd Yoplels Wniry
0 - 61~w~ /r w~
6- YI prnn p rn
~ 1t - 54 ~xwn~ ~a r~
54 -126 pnw~ Px w~
x
1T6~4T7/a~w~p~p~
liu' L RaxreM~
Q S~hwnnmNb~
/~/ x~drm
/~/ 3hM~
ERI~II~ Yh wd~
i/ ixIYIYW~rI...h* 1
N 14rM~nAi 1
)~'hl~Nd 1
< <"_' .~ G. ~ Lt~.
~ %.n...i~.
r ~ r~[ i r l t~ i~ r e t ~ c 1 r a r~ r r ~ l t~ t i r 3~~~~~~
Fxhibht6
Qn OF BOULDfR PMKS AtlD RKRFAiIOfl
Softball fltlds Strvitt Artat
le9end
s~r~~n Fi~w
. Re F,enx~
* PnpnIS~M-dlfldl
Q 81S M~MIi~~ Ymm~be
Q dmM O~enNad lr~h
2000 idd Pqd~B~e D~n~ky
0 • 6 ~es }u wn
~, 6• 21 pna~ pr ~en
~ 21 - S4 pna~~ pr nn
~ 54 - 1tD Nne~~ prun
~ 1Y8 - 4S7 pn~u pr ~m
[_] 4ku6Ra~min
Q S~YaseuelHu
/~/ Hytiw~~,
/~/ SInM~
~«..w mr•...ww.r. nmr.e~ M a~n, r,. so~
M Ywn Y WM MsrW Dltunl9B].ib QorYpY BHlmi
Ezisiin~ 3oftbdl Field~
I a i ~ IaM~~k I
,o_ w~M~~.wxwa ~
I ~s-la~u s.~ uma~ r
Proyo~ed Softbdl Fieldi
~b !-~__ "~°"""
s b.n :
t9 EWl~dlv 1
tl FMWh I
rl YtlsNGyM t
.~..
.-~- ~~',~°::~
r~ r~ r ~ ~~ tti r~ i ~ t~ i ~ r~ r~ r~ rt ra tr ~ a x t~~ t~
- ~
o NIWOT RD ~
~~ H
z
~
~~
~
H
h n
1
' h~~3 S
\
~ 1~1
_'~'
~
°~~, ZY
~ , ~
m ' ~~
j
~ ~' ;
I
0
n'
~
.i `.~
~- IJ ~
y
~ 0'
., ~ ~
~ c
. y I
iY -
i
~ ~ , ~ ~
V
~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~ t1 ~: ~ .
`_ I
'
~ ~
~~ ~
6c~ar,~
Qn OF BOUIDfR PARKS AtlD Rf(RFATION
Swimmmg Paoh Service Arta~
~E'E01~
3wlmmU~ Peole
~ OWdaor Poolt
• Inloer Poeb
* Prepeed $winmlas Poab
Q BIS Malelly Ya~ANU~
Q Curr~atOp~rdladlevele
2000 TMd Pepul~tke Oaelty
0- 6 perrone On wre
6- 21 pneu pr wre
~ 21 • 54 p~neu y~r ~an
~ S4 - 128 yerroni p~r wre
~ 128 - 457 p~nem pa ~en
~ _ _ ~ 4kee & Ruerveln
Q $uloenmu~INet
/~/ N~,1rry: ~
/~~ 3heetr ~
+v~~~~+~e~Rw.si~a.w«is zca
w~wm~ao~ ~.wa+m.~.s~.~
..~.wro.r.uwa.m u.,.
Ezlelln~ 3wimmiy Pwl:
ro ~ r.n
90 Eul BxNv RwnNr frhr t
66 LNI M 1
]T S PNI 1
SS X~rNBalYrRmWiwfrohr 1
ll tsIAWllnRxrulbE~Mr f
Vrop~d $wlmmiq Ped~
W Mr
1~ Vd~M1EIqhA ~
a~
~~ -,~„ ~u M~
( 1 t 1 [! t 1 t~ ! 1 t 1 (! t t f 1 t l [ 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 t 1 F 3 i i E 1
b~hibitt8
qn OF BOULDfR PARKS AND Rf(RFAlIOfl
Trnnis (ourtf krvla Anas
~r~+
rw~i: c.a~
o w.iew.w~
• PxM~I
~ MYu
t Sdwhr/fnd~Ce+N~
~' Pnyq~I Twn1~ Carlt
Q 913MddM~Y~nniN«~
Q aR~~~ orNni^d twd~
zaoo ui~i Powieu~ o^d~~
0- 6 yw~w~ Mr an
,„' b• II1 pnen~ tM ~a~
~ 41 - 54 ymm~ Nr ~e~
~ s~ • ~2e rx~a. Px i..
~ 12A • ~57 prme ~u xr~
~] 4ku 8 Rauro4~
Q $ulnnnunlllM
N Ho~+m
/~/ Sh~d~
X~ nq r~ww~ Wry ~re1W )Im RPM 9 N~I
r~uBWm
YGYtlNn WSfaM~b~lYnWmZwil~
Etitting Tenni~ Courf~
Y N~M TwkGYM
II YY~40WY
toi r~u. t
:w ~ ~ ~
tos awr ~
~a u.r.w ~
:i~ w.a.. :
:a r~w+w ~
Proyo~ad T~nni~ CourF~
~ w. Mrwa+~,
1! Vdr~ld MY 1
"'~` c.'""~dl~'lira" ~!~"~
.. ~ w'NU~ ~~ v~
o:i ~~rv~nw n
S NMI X WM iL
if +N~M ~4 H
SSt ~WR fL
li N~i 99
LS MIYV l9
YI Iw3qV 09
S 1Y~10 95
il +~M~9Mql i5
Y TIIPoNI IS
1 W~M OS
N t ~MwN WM 91
S 1~91w11 f1
Ot ~ ff
fi W9 If
59 MYwi !i
il5 °~MYp i2
91 ~ 9~4'I tt
t9 ~M~/ YI
it[ IN I'A~MPM fl
i r•7+~e oi
l t~Y t
s M Y 1
~+wr~ .~ m
..,.,.N„ ~..m ,.,.,, ..~,
~.W..~ v. ~a~_,~ ~_. ~.~, ~.~ w
~~ ~.,~ W ~~.w„..~.,.~,.. ~.,,m~ .~
~wws /~/
~~.ys,N N
nNpwrnpg ~
r~~oNOn718 ~M~1 I _ 7
aw nl tr~ed L54 • BE {~
N0111I tY~II~I i~ ~ " +S ~
aoulru~ud;5• td~
uo~~dtuot+dlS•9' i
Ni11~ fY~H1~ 9' Q
Aqa~d ~e~pP~~d IH~1000L
~p,'~'I p~q~wlp NwvJ ~
uqwu~d w11M~q SI8 Q
qnd I~~W~14~IoN OO
puo6h
seutl ~I~un ~W P~W~9Ufl~l
NOILVdN)~H OW~ ~IHVd 8~01009 d0 UD
6~A914~g
F ) t ~ [) l 1 !} t } 1 1 L i i 1 1 1 { 1 [ 1 l! ( 1 l 1 [ 1 ( A t) t 1
f 1 F i t i t) ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 1 1 t i 1 1 f) t i 1 1 t I t 1 ( 1 i 1 f i t i
~~ u e '~~ e f~hlDlttA
J t ~~~ N~~ ~~ ~~ ,, (In OF BOULDfR PARKS AflD RKRfA11011
I ` c~ Z~ Niww Re. __~__ ~_~ Niwor eu. Y_~ (ommun~ry Parb Snnrearea~
r ~ ~. •
Legend
• Cen~nuelly Peeh~
Q 613 Mebliy P~n~neim
Q dm~} Oy~nTbe~l lw~b
2000 TNd Pep6N~n D~e~lry
0- 6 pnon~ pr rn
~, ,~. 6- 21 puuns pr wn
~ 21 - 34 pneae Nr ~en
i4 - 128 ~ena~e pr un
128 - 457 rrwu pr rn
[_] 41n~ & R~nnein
Q 3~6a~nm~IN~e
/~/ e~~hwq,
/~/ Sin~h
«~.,~.~...~.~.~..~,~«~~,~«a.~ ~~
r~. auM aw~u.N.n., o.~.~~sa~.ro mdm~n. s,w.m
wwdn.v.au,,.mwm.mv.
ro ~+. nw~w
!7 NNAIIb d~m~lry hA 69 ao
1! MIMlYIY SI 00 ~~
i9 Erl&iWr 3460
6 ~~ ~lnxn
~ dn....~., ~
~
t 1 E l ! 1 t 1 t 3 1 1 ( 1 t i f i f 1 i 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 1 I i i f ~ t i
f~hidtzl
UTf OF BOULDfR PAflKS AflD flf(RFAlIOM
Leyend
~ ciq v~*,
Q 91S MeMll~~ P~naM~ei
Q Gmd O~enliad 4reb
2000 T~fd Y~pldla D~ndry
0• 6 pn~~~ pr un
i_ i 6- 21 pna~ pr ure
~ 21 - 54 pne~i pr ~en
~ S4 - 128 ~ene~~ pr ~en
~ 14! - 457 pna~ pr an
~ _ i I+ku 8 RumNn
Q Sula~~ulllu
/~/ Hl~hw~p
/~/ Slndi
tr~ rw~~~wm M.h.~au.~mme i~~. mMw ho.~~
Y Bw ryn fuc mbnm rbN~man
I V I ,M~~ . I ~~~l.. ~
71 Vdwd hA
S Anlll
~~
~ ~ p~..... ~.
~ (hapter 6: Recreation Facilitia Rerommendations
~ FACI~ITy NEEdS The YIBBdS 255855YI1CYIt pI2Y1111Y19 pl'OG855 IJtIIIZBGI 58V81'2I
$UMMARy ANd methodologie5 in developing the recommendation5 for propoeed
~ PRIORITIZATION recreation facditiee in Boulder. TheSe methodologie5 included over
,,, twenty interview5 with stakeholder5 and community leaderehip, three
targeted focu5 groups, a community workehop, a benchmark analyei5
^ of 5ix comparable atie5, a atizen 5urvey of 817 reaident5, and a GI5
"" 5ervice area analyeie/modeling parameter ratio of the exi5ting
,,, facilitie5 and city population.
~
A matrix wae developed to aseea5 and evaluate the relative level of
~ 5upport for the facility from each of the methodologie5 ueed in the
,~ neede ae5essment proces5. BaSed on that level of 5upport, it
identifie5 a relative priority grouping of the facilitie5 ba5ed on the
~ reeults of the evaluation. Ae noted before, the5e particular faalitiee
'~ were initially 5elected for recommendation5 becauae of their
~ expreseed high need and importance to the community. ThiS matrix
attempts to prouide a re/ati~e sense ofpriorityamong facdltie5 th~t
` haue a/ready been ~Jetermined to ha~e a need.
~
~„ ThiS priority grouping repreaent5 the relative priority of need between
the5e indwidual facilities It doe5 not repreeent a phaeing plan for
'" eec~uence of conetruction of these facilitie5 nor doe5 it commit the
~- Parke and Recreation Department to developing theee facihtie5 It i5
~ anticipated that a pha5ing plan will be included in the ma5ter
planning implementation procee5, and will repreeent the tim~ng of
` development of theee facilitie5 ae the re5ource5 become available for
.~ their con5truction
~
The methodologie5 are liated below in the order of weighting on their
'~' importance to the determination of need. The weighting of
~ methodologie5 ~a determmed by ita abdity to be 5tati5tically-reliable,
..
auantitatively meaeurable and ite relative repreeentation of a
population 5egment. The resident eurvey had the higheat weighting
~ eince it represented a 5tatistically valid sampling of the community.
~ Typically, a 10% re5ponee ie con5idered eignificant for participation or
~
de5ire to participate in an activity or for a new facility ThiS was
ueed a5the baeeline participation rate to establi5h high (20°fo or
" greater), moderate rate (10% to 20%) and low (below 10%) 5upport.
r
A de5ignation of "High" 5upport or need wa5 determined when the
^
following criteria wae met for a facility in each re5pective
" methodology
r. • Resident 5urvey- when a facifity received a participation rate
~
Gty of Bwlder Rccrcano~ 6ahtia tleeds Assasmem
~ Page 11
~
(hapter 6: flecreation Facilities Recommendations
of 20% or more by both adult5 and children and wae
con5idered "very important" by 15% or more of the
reapondent5 as a potential new or additional program or
facihty.
• GI5 5ervice Area analy5i5/modeling parameter ratio- when
the facility'S current operational level wae 5ignificantly below
(by 50%) the de5ired modeling parameter ratio and the
facility hae large geographic 5ervice gap5, typically greater
than two mile5, between faalitie5 (aee Tabie 2 and Service
Area map exhibite).
• Benchmark analy5i5- when a faulity fall5 below a fourth
ranking in compari5on to the other comparable atie5.
• FocuS group5 and community work5hop- when a facility need
wa5 mentioned by three or more of the four focu5 group5 and
eeveral eimilar comment5 were recorded at the work5hop.
• Interviews- thi5 i5 the leaet c~uantitative of all the
methodologie5, ae they repre5ented the opinion of one
individual and were the mo5t sub~ective in an analyaie.
Facility need wa5 high if more than ten individual5 mentioned
it in the interview.
A deeignation of "Moderate" 5upport or need wa5 determined when
the foliowing criteria wa5 met for a facility m each respective
methodology:
• ReSident eurvey- when a faulity received a participation rate
of 15% or more by adult5 and children or wa5 con5idered "very
important" by over 10% of the respondente a5 a potential new
or additional program or facility.
• Gi5 5ervice Area analysi5/modeling parameter ratio- when
the facility'S current operational level ie moderately below (by
30%) the de5ired modeling parameter ratio or the facility ha5
large geographic aervice gaps, typically greater than two
miles, between facilitie5 (5ee Table 2 and Service Area map
exhibit5)
• Benchmark analy5ie- when a facility falle within a third
ranking in comparreon to the other comparable citie5.
Gq of BaMer Revanon Faulmcs Needs Asussmc~rc
~8e 18
~- (hapter 6: Recrea6on Faalitiet Recommendationt
~ • Focus groups and community workshop- if a facdity need
.. was mentioned by two of the four focus groups or several
similar comments for that facdity were recorded at the
'"'" workshop
~ • Interviews- facdity was moderate rf five or more mdividuals
-- mentioned it in the interview
,.
A designation of "Lov~' support or need was determined when the
~ followmg cntena was met for a facdity in each respective
" methodology
~ • Resident survey- when a facdity received a participation
.. rate of 10% or less of adults and chtldren or was
considered'Srery importanC by 10°/a or less of the
° respondents as a potential new or additional program or
,,, facihty.
^ • GIS Service Area analysis/modeling parameter ratio- when
r, the faality's current operational level is within 10% of the
desired modeling parameter ratio or the facility has small
~ or no geographic service gaps between facdities (see
...
Table 2 and Service Area map exhibits).
.. • Benchmark analysis- when a facility falls within the brst or
second ranking in companson to the other comparable
" c~Ues.
,,..,
• Focus groups and community workshop- if a factlity need
" was menGoned by one or less of the four focus groups or
few simdar comments for that faality were recorded at the
"~ workshop.
r
• Interviews- faciliry was low rf a less than five individuals
~ mentioned it in the interview
..
Additional factors that could mfluence the facifity's pnority
^ groupmg included trends in resident panc~ipat~on from previous
", surveys, national trends for the sport or facdity, or circumstances
that effected the avadability or access to ewsting facdit~es, These
~- additional factors are descnbed in the narrative for each facdity
„ beginrnng on page 81
+~ The followmg matrix, Table 6, diagrams the results of the relatroe
pnority of each recommended faality within the three prionty
` groups of A, B, or C.
..
r
~
~, Gry af Balder Rccrcat~on Faulmcs htcds Assessm~nt
P~Se l9
..
~
. ,
.
.
~
~ a
1 -
~
.
1.
Priority
Group
A
B
C
Level of expressu
H=High M=I
*Faahtie5 are h5t
""RepreSents picn
9haded area repn
(hapter6: flecreation Facilities Recommendations
Table 6• Priority Grouping of Facilities BaSed on 5upport Level of Methodology
Facility' IZeSident Survey 615 5ervtce Area Benchmark Focue Comm
(Percentage of ReSpondent5) .Ar~alysis Analy5i5 GroupS WorkShop
Ranking
Adult Ghifdren "Very Ranking C~~vgraph~ Modsiing
Paf~ticipation ParCicipafi,ion ~mporCant" r-,~ervice Parameter
a~ new or ~ap5 Deficiency
additional
faciHty
~
Center/Gym 51~ 24% 24% H M M M M M
Dog Park 4t~ 38°~ 34% H M M L M M
Ice 5kating Rink 2O'~ 4$b, 20'ti H N~A N/A Na M M
Programmed Multi-u5e 29°~ 417. 17% H H H H H H
Fields
5wimming Pool 48% 75% 33~
Community Garden5 Na Na 25°,6
Crose-country 5ki Trail 35°6 94°~ 22k
Softball Fields 9% Sk 1t~
Tennis Courts 24% 31% 14%
BaSeball Fields 3% 8°1e 10°L
Bike Racing Facihty 6°L 4ti 9~
Group 5helters"" 6670 74°k t3k
Playgrounds Na Na Na
need for the faality firom methodology
doderate L= Low Na = Not aeked N/A = Not Applicable
sd alphabetically and are not pnoritized within their re5pective Priority Group
cking parCicipation rates, not nece55arily u5e of ehelters
:sent5 c~uantitative methodologies receiving higher weighting in determining fa ality priority
Cn~ of BouWer Rttrano~ tkMt Actatmcm
Page 80
H N
n kt L ~ I M I M I M
M M M M M L
M NtA N/A Na M M
M M H M H M
M L L M H M
L M M M H M
L NJf~ t~~, Na M L
a„ -.. .......
M M 3 M -
Na -
L L
NA L L Na L M
Interviews I
Additional
Needed
Additional
Recommended
M 1 1
L 1 1
M 1 1
M 12 9
M t i
L 150 plots 150 plot5
L 1 1
M 8 6
L 8 8
M 6 4
L 1 1
L 5 5
L 3 3
°~ (hapter 6: Recreation Facilities Re~ommendat~ons
~ The matrix provide5 an as5ee5ment of the prior~ty of need for each
^ faulity a5 determined by the variou5 methodologie5 utilized in the
.. neede a55e5ement proce5e ThiS a55e55ment reeulted in a
determination of "number of additional needed facilitie5" and
~ "number of additional recommended faulitie5". The following
'~ 5ummary identifies the baei5 for the priority ranking and the
,,.. determination for the additional number of each facility The
number of new facihtie5 were ba5ed on•
~ • additional faalitiee needed to meet the community needa to
~ the year 2020 ba5ed on population pro~ection5 and the GIS
,,,,, 5ervice area analyei5 and modeling parameter5 for that
facility,
..
'~ • the additional recommended number of new faulitie5 that
„~ can be provided withm the available site5 Since new park
land acc~w5ition is not an option to 5atisfy facility neede,
~ and all the BVSD'S 5wtable facilitiee are aiready utilized in
~ the Joint U5e agreement5 or rented through BVSD's
,,, Community schooi5, and ueing the approach of
geographically-distributing facditie5 within eubcommunitie5
~ a5 oppoaed to developing large aty-wide complexe5, the
~ availability of land in exi5ting parka for facility development
~ became a limiting factor in meeting the recreational facility
need5 of the community ThiS caueed, in 5ome in5tancee,
`~ fewer recommended faalitiee than the additional need
~ identified, and,
Y~
• a description of the finding5 from the methodologies ae they
"" relate to evaluating and grouping the facdities accordmg to
.. priority (facdrtie5 are /rsted a/phabetica//y and are not
~ ~rroritized wrthin their re5~ectiue groupJ
" Prsioairy Geoup A ' Center/gymnasium
Additional need:l center, Recommended: 1 center
r
From the resident eurvey re5ulte and GIS 5ervice area analy5i5,
" there is a high need for a new center to provide opportunitiee for
«. activitiee euch a5 claSSee and indoor activitiee ReSidente have
high participation rate5 in activitie5 involving centere 5uch a5
~ weight training (51%), fitne55 and yoga cla55ee, (29%) and
'~ gymnastics for youth (24%). With regard to new or additional
.. facilitie5, 24% thought that indoor weight training and 14% felt that
` Gty of Baulder Reatanon fanlma Needs Assessment
,~ Pagc 8~
~
(hapter 6: Recreation fanlities Recommendations
an ~ndoor runnmg track would be very important. The GIS eervice
area analy5i5 al5o indicates a moderate geographic need for a new
center to provide greater acce5eibility to the community and to
achieve the 175 of building sc~uare footage per per5on guideline for
center5 When compared to 5ix comparable citie5 Boulder ranked
fifth in term5 of total number of centers but second on a Square
footage per per5on basi5 There was a moderate number of u5ee
mentioned a5 need from the community parGicipation proce55
• Dog Park
Additional need: 1 Dog park; Recommended• 1 Dog park
The high need for an additional dog park wa5 demonstrated through
the participation ratee of adult5 (41%) and youth (38%) who
exerciae a pet, the high uae of the exi5tmg dog park5 m the aty,
and the GIS eervice area analyeie. Areae to exeruee doga ofF-(eaeh
had the highe5t eupport (34% felt it wa5 very important) of all new
or additional facilitiee in the eurvey. Boulder ranked low in need a5
number two in total number of dog park5 when compared to other
aties in the benchmark analy5i5, and had moderate 5upport for thi5
activity m the community parGicipation proces5
• Ice Skating Rink
Additional need: 1 Ice 5kating rink; Recommended: 1 Ice ekating rink
The need for an Ice 5kating rink in the city wa5 documented in the
focu5 groupe, community meeGing and the resident 5urvey There is
a large and growing u5er group with no facility in the uty to use,
and who are willing to partner with the aty in developing the facility
Ice akating received high participation rate5 among both adult5
(20%) and chddren (48%), and an ice ekating rink wa5 coneidered
"very important" a5 a new facility by 20% of the re5ident5 Since
6oulder does not have an existing facility, there ie no applicable 615
analy5is, but for a population ite eize, the City could eupport thie
facility The community participation proces5 reaulted in a
moderate level of eupport for thie facihty
• Programmed Multi-use Fielde
Additional need: 12 field5; Recommended: 9 fielde
Many of the activitie5 accommodated on Programmed Multru5e
Fields (eoccer, football, lacrosse, and Ultimate fri5bee) have high
participation rates by the resident5 (41 % of the children engaged in
eoccer and football; and 29% of adult5 partiapated in soccer and
ultimate fri5bee) and there i5 a 5trong need expreeaed for
additional facditiee in the 5urvey (17/o con5ider them very
important) Ultimate fri5bee has al5o 5een a 5urge of intereyt in
Gty of Baulder Recreanon Faalifics Bceds Assessment
Pagc 8t
~~ (hapter 6. Recreation Facilities Recommendations
^-~ Boulder, being the fa5te5t growing 5port activity in the city,
_, increa5ing from 9% partiapation in 1996 to 17/a in 2001 The GI5
analyei5 identified 5ignificant "gap5" in the eervice provi5ion within
'~ the community and is far below (by over 50%) the field per pereon
- guideline, In the benchmark analy5ie, soccer fielda in Boulder rankec~
„~ fifth on a per 1000 population when compared to the 5ix other
aties. A5 a reeult, Programmed Multru5e FieldS repre5ent one of
~ the highe5t unme~ need5 in the community. The need for 12
+ additional field5 can only be partially met due to the lack of
,r, developable park land in area5 where the 5ervice gap5 exi5t With
the nine new fielde propo5ed, the city will Still be four fields 5hort of
~ future 20 year need5. ThiS need i5 further exacerbated by
~ re5tricted acce55 to the nine field5 at the PleaSant View complex
National guideline5 are ba5ed on full acceasibility to the faalitie5 eo
~ thi5 mu5t be con5idered when con5tructing game-only field5 The
~ nationai trend for sport5 utilizing Programmed Multruse Fields ha5
~ been increa5ing in popularity, and will continue to 5teadily ri5e,
, particularly for 5occer, a5 the U5 increa5e5 it5 ranking5 in the
~ men'S and women'S World Cup standing5 Ultimate fri5bee ha5 5ome
~ particularly difficult challenge5 due to the limited large turF area5
~ within ite parke and 5chool5
~
• Swimming pool
- Additional need:l pool; Recommended: 1 pool
,.. The high need for an additional pool wae expreseed primarily through
r the resident 5urvey. 5wimming ha5 one of the highest participation
ratee among both adulte (48%) and children (75%). With the5e
"' high partiupation ratee, 5trong eupport wa5 also expre55ed for an
~. additionai facility in the 5urvey, particularly for an indoor pool
~ (33%) The GIS analyei5 identified a 5ervice need for an additional
pool location ba5ed on meeting the modeling guidelines for poois
"' The focus groupe (Master5 ewimming and Youth awim teame) and
.. the community work5hop attendee5 expre5sed a moderate to high
` need for an additional pool, particularly a 50 meter pool, in order to
increa5e ewim lane5, hours of availability and provide opportunitie5
"' for competitive 5wim meete Scott Carpenter pool i5 the only 50
., meter pool in the city, but ie not a regulation-5ize pool due to
inadec~uate dimen5ione
~
~ • Community Gardens
"' Paiorsiry Gaoup B Additional need:150 plat5; Recommended• 150 plot5
Although the reeident 5urvey didn't include gardening in the
c~uestion on freauency of participation for thi5 activity, there i5 a
~ high de5ire from re5ident5 for additional garden plot5 in the city
` Gty of Ba~ider Re[reat~on Faulma Needs Assetsmcnt
., Pagc ~
~
~
(hapter 6: flecreation Facilmes Recommendat~ons `
(25% felt thi5 wae very important a5 a new or addit~onal faality) n11
This 5upport, combined with the relative 5ucce55 of the exieting .r
community garden activitie5, and the lack of adee~uate geographic
distribution of garden5 in the city, provide5 a 5trong ~u5tification to ~
expand this activity in the city, but relative to the higher 5upport "°
level5 for other facihtie5, place5 it within Priority Group B ~
• Croee-country SkiTrad ~
Additional need• 1 Ski trail; Recommended• 1 Ski trad ~!
7he need for a Gro55-country 5ki trad wae expre55ed m the re5ident ,..
5urvey and focu5 group5 CroeS-country 5kung received high
partiupation rate5 among adult5 (35%) and children (14%), and a ~
croes-country 5ki trail located in Valmont Park is 5upported by a "'
high proportion of residents (49%) There wa5 al5o a 5trong ~
5entiment among re5idente (22%) who felt potent~al or new cro55-
country eki trad5 in park5 ae "very important" Boulder hae an
actroe cro55-country skung user group who annually provide5 trail5 w
m city parka for the re5idente. .~.
• SofCball Fielde ~
Additional need: 8 fielde; Recommended: 6 field5 '~'
Modera~ely 5trong sofGball need5 were identified m the 5urvey m ~
participation ratee of 9% for adult5 and 8% for children, and a need
for new or additional field5 wa5 very important by 11 % of the i
re5ident5. The Gi5 service area analy5is identified 5ignificant gaps ~I
in aervice provi5ion5 of 5oftball field5 With only ten city field5 .,~
available, and alI of tho5e (at Stazio and Mapleton park5) with
limited availability only for games, 5oftball field5 are well below the ~
Gl5 modehng parameter and a eignificant defiaency exiet5 m the ~
community to meet practice and programming need5 Although the ~
eix field5 recommended will certainly aesi5t in providing faalitiee for
5oftball part~apant5, there wdi 5tdl be a future need for `
approximately two additional fielde With the dramatic increase in ~
women'S sports at both collegiate and profee5ionai levels, the ,,,,,
populan~y of 5oftball, eepecially in the girls and womens age groupe,
i5 expected to increa5e The need for eight additional field5 cannot ~
be met due to the limitation of available developable land in areas W
identifed with 5ervice gap5 through the GIS analyei5
~
• tenni5 CourtS `
Additional need• 8 courte: Recommended: 8 courrs ,~
TenniS continue5 to en~oy a high partiapation rate (24% by adult ~
and 31! by children) among aty reeidents With re5pect to new or
additional courts, the reeidente gave a low to moderate 7/ for ~
(~+ ~ Sonlder Ae~cauon Facdmn Nccdt Astasmem r
~Sc ~4 ~r
~
- (hapter 6: fleaeation Facilities Recommendations
*^~ withm the central area of the city for additional courts, but overall,
_ the geographic di5tribution of court5 ia very good. A need wae
expree5ed in the community participation proce55 for a tennis
~ center for tournament play with a mmimum of eight court5 There
'~' ie a private facility m the city with thi5 number of court5, but they
~ are not available to the public for tournament play.
s
PRIORITY GROUP C • Baseball
e Additional need• 6 field5; Recommended: 4 fielde
,~ BaSeball ha5 a low to moderate participation rate oP 3% of adult5
and 8% of children Baeeball ha5 aleo 5een a decline 5ince 1996 in
"~ participation from 6% for adult5 and from 21 % for children New or
~ additional Little League field5 were identified a5 "very important" by
„~ 10% of the re5pondents and Legion ba5eball field5 were identified ae
"very important° by 5% of the reeidente in the 5urvey. Baeed on
~ the GIS 5ervice analyeis, the four additional fields recommended, in
+~ con~unction with the 13 city fielde available and the four ~eld5 at
,,,, the County'S IriS Genter (which were not included in the inventory
and 5ervice area analy5re), will eati5fy preeent and future need5.
"~ BecauSe there ie a po55ibdity the IriS fielde may become unavailable
~ due to development for office u5e5, baaeball field neede may
~ increa5e in the future for additional field5. Moderate to high
baseball neede for Little League and Legion fielde were expre5sed in
~ the focus group meetings, community workahop, and from
~ regi5tration information provided by the organization. There i5 a
r, relatwely higher need for an additional Legion field due to the high
demand for this facility by high 5chool team5.
• Bike Racing Facility
^ Additional need: 1 racing facility; iZecommended: 1 racing facility
Although a5 an activity it has low participation by adults (6%) and
"" children (4%), it doe5 have low to moderate support (9% con5idered
.. it "very important") a5 a potential new faahty 5mce there are no
,,, public bike racing facilitiee available, a eervice area analysi5 wa5 not
performed for thie facility A moderate level of support for a bike
"' racing cour5e was expresaed in the focus groupe There i5 an active
.. user group that neede an area to eafely conduct their evente off
the pubhc street5, and who are wdling to partner with the city m
..
r
developing a faality.
.. • Group Shelters
Additional need: 5 ehelters; Recommended• 5 5helter5
Picnicking continuee to be one of the mo5t popular activities among
^ Bouider re5idents (64% of adults and 74% of children), although
~
Gty of Boulder Reveanon Facdincs Needs Asscssment
-- Pagt 8S
..
(hapter 6: Recreation Facilities Recommendations
much of thi5 activity occurs without u5ing a 5helter. There are
moderate gap5 in the geographic di5tribution of 5helters within the
city. Theee five additional 5helter5, able to accommodate groupe of
50 to 75, wilf make theee faalitiee more accee5ibfe to the
community.
• Playgrounds
Additional need: 3 Playgrounds; Recommended: 3 Playground5
The city has done a very good ~ob related to locating playgrounda in
their park development The need for new playgrounde ie 5een in a
few area5 that are not well-5erved geographically ba5ed on the GI5
eervice area analy5i5.
Gty of Baulder Rcacanon Facihnes tleeds Afsessment
Page 86
._
m (hapter 6: flecreanon Facihties Recommendations
~ CoST ESTiMATES The following are preliminary co5t e5timates to provide an
~ approximate idea of the relative magnitude of the con5truction
" costs of new faalitie5. Theye estimates do not inc/ude co5ts for
.. /and acqursition, p/anning and design, city re~iews, taxes,
infrastructure deve%pment euch as roads and uti/ity exten5ion5 or
~
othe~ 5ite ypecific conytraints such as drainage, wet/andy retaining
"' wa//5 etc The Center faality is an eetimated range due to the
.,, po55ible range of amenitiee that can be included in the faality and
mclu5ion of "green building" consideration5 ae per LEED guideline5
~ A mmimal allowance for hghting, parking and landecaping are
"' included m the co5t5.
,,,, Table 7. Coet Estimate of PropoSed Facil~tie5
"' FadNty Type Quantity CoSt per lSnit' Total Cost'
,,,. BaSeball-Little League 3 $410A00 $820,000
(1 w/light5)
r.
Baeeball-Legion (7 w/ lights)
1 $620,000
$620,000
~
Center (w/ gymnaswm and
1 $10-14 million
$10-14 million
~ p~~~
~ Gommunity Gardens 150 $7501p1ot $112,000
+ Dog Park 1 $100,000 $100A00
.. Group Shcltere 5 $h0,000 $200A00
.~ Programmed MuIU-use 9 $280,000 $2.520.000
Fielde (2 w/lights)
...
Playground5 3 Y150.000 $450,000
SoFtball (2 w/ lights) 6 $410A00 $2,460,000
...
...
Swim Pool/Ac~uatic Genter
1 Included in
Center wsts
w Tennis Gourte (w/ Iights) 8 $55,000 $4'~OA00
Ice Arena 1 TBD TBD
X-Gountry Ski Trad 1 TBD TBD
..
Bike Racmg Couree 1 TBD TBD
~
TOTAL GOSTS $18,342,000-
'~ $ 22,3h2,000
,~, TBD= To Be Determined (due to the wide range of undefined program and design
speafics)
'~ "Estimates do not include costa for land acqui5ition, p(anning and de5~gn, city
~ reviews, taxe5, infrastructure development 5uch ae roads and u tility exun5ions,
or other 5ite specific constramts such a5 dramage, wetland5, retaining wall5, etc
..
..
Cty of Bouldrr Rc~rcatron Fanhtia Needi Atsasmcnt
~ p~ge g~
~
(hapter 6: flecreat~on Facilit~es Recommendations "
FUNdING SOURCES The Gity of Boulder'S Parke and Recreation Department primary
funding for new capital con5truction program5 are~
• The Permanent !'ark5 and Recreation Fund
Generate5 about $1 5 million annuaily Includes property tax and
park5 and recreation development fees. Development or "impact°
feee are expected to dechne m the year5 to come a5 the aty
approache5 bwld-out.
• .25~ 5a/ey Tax Fund
Approved by voter5 in 1995 and to continue through 2015, the eale5
tax fund generates about $6.0 million annually Currently, due to
the economic alowdown, 5alee tax revenue5 in the Gty have been
declining (down 11 % through May 2002 compared to la5t year),
meaning future cut5 for parks and recreation might be a po55ibility
(a5 with other Gty 5ervice5)
• Lottery Fund
ThiS funding eource from the Colorado 5tate Lottery generates
about $800,000 annualiy and can be expected to continue
• Bond /s5ues
If revenue5 or revenue producing faalitie5 are created where u5er
fee5 are 5uch that they pay off debt 5ervice, the i55uance of bonded
indebtedne5a can be a viable funding 5ource for 5uch park5 and
recreation facilitiee At pre5ent, there are no ma~or faalitiee
available or planned to be built that would permit additional bonding
gond i55uance rec~uiree approval by a vote of the citizen5
• G~antS
A variety of speaal grante either currently exi5t through federal and
5tate governmental ey5tem5 or will be e5tablished through the life of
current and propoeed facilities. Examplee include the Community
Development Block Grant (GDBG), HiStoric PreServation Grante,
Division of Wildhfe for fi5hmg, and 6reat Outdoors Colorado (60C0)
among other5.
Operation and maintenance funding 5ource5 come largely from the
general fund, u5er fee5 and charge5, as well ae eale5 taxee
Approximately 50% of the Department'S general fund budget is
recovered from fee5 and charge5, which is con5i5tent with national
trend5 of 35% to 50% of operating expenditure5. Feee and charge5
~
.~
Gry of Boulder Rccreanon Faahnes flceds Assessment
Page 88
~
-~ (hapter 6: Becreation Facilities Recommendations
"' muet be positioned to be market driven, ba5ed on both public and
..,, private faalitie5
~ Other funding eource5/opportunitie5 that are mo5t appropriate for
""` 6oulder for both new capital conatruction programs, and operation
.~ and maintenance, include~
~
• Extending the Sa/e5 Tax//ldditiona/Bonding Gapacrty
^ Reeulte from the 2001 City of Boulder ParkS and Recreation survey
.~ indicate very 5trong 5upport for extendrng the exi5ting 0.25% salee
tax beyond 2015 in order to 5upport additional bonding capacity for
~ park5 and recreation tacilitiee in Boufder (81% are somewhat or
"' Strongly eupportive). At the 5ame time, only 41% agree that new
~„ sale5 taxe5 5hould be increa5ed to fund more faalitie5
~
• f artner5hi~
~ Partner5hip5 are a ~oint development funding 5ource or an
,,,, operational tunding source between two aeparate agenciee, euch as
two government entitie5, a non-profit and a city department, or a
^ private bu5ine5s and a city agency Two partner5 ~ointly develop
~- revenue-producing park and recreation facihtie5 and ehare riek,
,,, operational coete, re5pon5ibilitie5, and a55et management baeed on
the 5trength5 and weakne55ea of each partner The Gity ha5 been
~ actively pur5uing 5everal potential public-private partner5hip5 for
~- faalitie5 development at Valmont City Park, such ae with Boulder
~„ Nordic Club, Boulder Ice, Boulder Community Loop, and Boulder
Community Velodrome A5 partnerehips wdl hkely be a primary
°" mechaniem for achieving recommended future facilities need5 in
~- Bouider, additional poseibilitie5 might include expanding existing
~ partner5hipa with the Boulder Valley School District and the YMGA,
and pureuing new partnerehip5 with public/non-profits organizatione
~ 5uch as the Univereity of Golorado, the Collage Chddren'S Museum,
.. and private schoole 5uch as September School and Shining Mountain
,~ Waldorf School 5urvey reeulte ehow 78% of re5pondent5 are
5upportive of the Gity pur5uing partnerehip5 with other public or non-
" profit organizations to build and manage new faahtiee, whde 53%
~- 5upport partnering with private organizatione
..
• Specia/ DrStrict5 //mpro~ement DiStrrct5
' Special di5tncts, 5uch a5 tawng di5trict~ and asse5sment districte,
.~ are establiahed to provide fund5 for certain type5 of improvementa
that benefit a 5pecific group of affected properties or population in a
~
certain geographic area Speaal di5trict5 can be organized for a
^ single purpose (e.g., fire protection or ~anitation) or multiple
~
Gry of Boulder Recreanon Faolmet Needs Assessmcnt
~ Page 8q
~
~
(hapter 6: flecreanon Facdities Recommendanons °
purpo5e5 (e.g., a metropolitan di5trict which provide5 at least two of ~
ten municipal servicea such a5 water, sanitation, fire protection, ...
etreet improvement, parke and recreation, etc). The idea of creating
one or more special dietrict(5) 5urfaced in the focus group ~
diecu55ion5 with the 5port5 group5 and bu5ine55 leader5 a5 a way `""
to fund new parks and recreation facilitie5 in the Boulder region ~
Creation of a park5 and recreation di5trict could be de5igned to
~
cover a large geographic area, incorporating both the City of Boulder
and areas out5ide of the city limita into the county and/or nearby I~
communitie5, or it could involve a relatively 5mall area, even a ~r.
neighborhood, that might de5ire a 5pecific local faality to the extent
they wouid be willing to "tax" them5elve5 to provide the facility The ~
larger dietrict would allow taxe5 to be collected from non-re5ident ""
u5ere of Gty facditie5, whde aleo funding new facihtie5 outside of the w
aty limite that would be mutually benefiaal to re5ident5 in the
county and other communitie5, a5 weil a5 Boulder re5idents needing ~
additional facilitie5 to meet need (euch a5 additional 5port5 playing ~1
field5). In Golorado, there are eeveral different kind5 of "epeual ,~
di5trict5" or "improvement di5tricte" that can be created varying in
size and 5cope and extent of authority or power to tax and ~
con5truct facditiee DiStricte can be organized in one county, "
5everal countiea, one or more municipalitie5, or in both a county and ~
municipahty The di5trict may aleo conyist af noncontiguou5 parcel5
of property ~
~
Taxing district5, a type af improvement district, are generally defined ,,,,
ae financing entitie5 having the authority to impo5e property taxe5
These type5 of improvement di5trict5 are called Public Improvement '~
Dietrict5 (PIDS) in countie5 and General Improvement Dietricte ~
(61D5) m municipalitie5 TheSe dietrict5 are created to construct, ~
in5tall, acc~uire, operate, and maintain any eervice that the county or
municipality that form5 the district i5 authorized to provide Taxing `
di5tnct5 are eeparate pohtical 5ubdivi5ion5 of the 5tate that have ,~
board5 of directore, although the5e are the county or municipal ,~
governing boarde eerving exofi9cro The dietricts have perpetual
exi5tence and have the power to levy ad valorem taxe5, and to fix ^
rate5, tolle, and chargee to pay for 5ervice5, faulitiea, and `
indebtedne55 They may enter into IGA'S and i5sue general
~
obligation bond5 and revenue bonde. The "a5ee55ment" type of
improvement di5trict5 are called Special Improvement Dietrict5 "
(SIDs) in municipalitie5 and Local Improvement DiStricte (LIDS) in *
countie5. These diatrict5 have lee5 independence and exiet only as ~
geographic area5 within which improvement5 are con5tructed and a5
administrative 5ubdivision5 of a county or muniapality. They have no ~I
Gty of Boulder Recrcanon Fanlines Needs Assessmcnt
Page qo
~
~° (hapter 6: Recreation Facilities Recommendatioos
"' board of d{rectore and the county or mun{cipa4 governing body make5
~ all decieion5 on behalt of the admmi5trative entity TheSe districta'
primary purpoee i5 to a55ee5 the coet5 of pubhc improvements to
~' thoee who are 5pecially "benefitted" by the improvemente The co5t5
"~ are payable from a55e5sment5 A55esyments can be paid in ene fuil
,,, payment or in in5tallment payment over a per~od time, for exampVe,
ten year5 A5see5ment payment5 are not deductible from individual
~
income taxe5, thu5, other typee of finanung mechani5m5 may be
^ more advantageou5 to homeownere
..
• spon5o.~hp5
_
ThiS i5 another area that might have potential, with 67/a of 5urvey
r re5pondent5 agreeing that the City 5hould pur5ue spon5or5hip of
„ park5 and recreation faulities, where the eponsoring organization
would not place logoa and adverti5ing on the 5ite (fewer re5pondente,
~ 44%, would 5upport 5pon5orehip5 that would place logo5 and
~^ adverti5ing at the 5ite) ThiS revenue-funding 5ource allow5
,~ corporatione and other organizations to invest in the development or
enhancement of new or exieting facilitiee in park 5y5tems
^ Sponsor5hip5 are aleo highly recommended for program5 and events
• Faundations/~'iifCy
^ These fund5 are rai5ed from tax-exempt, non-profit organization5
` eetabli5hed with private donation5 in promotion af 5pecific cau5es,
~-- activitie5, or i5sue5 They offer a variety of inean5 to fund new
` capital con5truction pro~ecte, mcludmg capital/campaign5, gift
catalog5, fundrai5er5, endowments, 5a1e5 of iteme, etc.
A
• Friendy Assocrations
5imdarly, theee groupe are formed to rai5e money typically for a
.,
aingle focue purpo5e that could include a park facility or program
" that will better the community a5 a whole and their epecial intere5t
..
` • 5pecia/Fundraisers
Many parke and recreat~on agenciee have apec~al fundraiser5 on an
^ annual basie to help cover epecific program coet5 and new capizal
r. con5truction pro~ect5
~
Additional funding source5 are de5cribed in the Appendix at the end
° of this document.
~
~
..
~ Cny of Baulder Recrcanon Facilides Needs Assessmcnt
- Pagc qi
~
..
(hapter 6: flecreation Facilitia Rerommendations °'
~
WW
CONC~USION The City of Boulder is facing difficult challenge5 in meeting the
pre5ent and future neede of the community with regard to ~'
recreational facditiee. Thie neede a5eeeament identified thirteen '"'"
typee of recreational facilitie5 with the highe5t need in the ~,
community. In mo5t case5, the preeent need5 can be met for
~
today's population, but the pro~ected growth of the uty population
over the next twenty yeare wdl cau5e d~cienciee These deficienae5 I~
will be due to a large degree to the lack of available land for park5 r.
and facility development These unmet need5 are becoming
particularly apparent with programmed multruee field5 (5occer, ~
football, rugby, lacroe5e, ultimate friabee) and 5oftball fielde, ae "
there is a gap between what the need i5 and what can be phy5ically ~
accommodated in the city. Funding ie aleo a limiting factor a5 the
~
co5t of the5e faalitie5 ie 5ub5tantial, exceeding $22 million doliar5, in
a time of reduced revenuee and funding 5ourcea. iw
r
In addition to the proposed facilitiee, there were eeveral i5sues
expree5ed during the needa a5se55ment planning proce55 that ~
5hould be addres5ed ae future policie5 in updating the Parke and ""
Recreation MaSter Plan• ~
•
• Explore the need for a performing art5 center with 5eating for
500-800 people ThiS wa5 highlighted a5 a city-wide need by ^
a focus group but is not under the purview of the Parks ~„
Department. This will entad a marketing and feaeibility 5tudy
to determine the aty'S need and demand to undertake thi5 ~
5pecialized facdity. ~`
~
• Park claeeificatione currently uyed by the Parks and
`
Recreation Department, as defined on Table 2, page 55,
5hould be updated to reHect a re-d~nition of neighborhood ~II
and community park 5izee within the city. The recommended ,.
park categorie5 and their eize5 are•
Park Cat~gory Size
Pocket Park < 5 acre5
Neighborhood Park 5-19 acre5
Community Park 20-100 acre5
City Park > 100 acree
ThiS will have the eFfect of 5hifting four parks (Eaton,
Wonderland, 5cott Carpenter, and Tom Wateon) from a
Gty of Boulder Acoeanan Facditics Meedc Asussment
Pagc qz
~
~- (hapter 6: Recreation Facilities flecommendations
°^ neighborhood park category to a community park deaignation
_. ThiS will allow better di5tribution of community park5 and
their a5eoaated u5e level5 within the city, without negatwely
"r affecting the neighborhood park 5ystem
,~ • IZeinforce and enhance governmental reiation5hip5 by
partnering and working cloeefy with other City Department5
~ the Boulder Valley 5chool DiStrict and the Univer5ity of
•^ Colorado to help meet the recreational neede of the
,,,. community Due to the 5hortage of fand in the park5 5y5tem
appropriate for active park development, increa5ed
'~ partnership opporGunitie5 with other agencie5 and
~ in5titution5 will need to be forged to meet the growing need5
^ For example, there may be opportunitie5 to u5e GU South for
future facilitie5 when floodplain and drainage i55ue5 are
~
re5olved.
..
,Y, • There is a need to prepare a facihty a55e55ment atudy of the
city's and 5chool di5trict'S facilities to a55ure that they are
" to a 5tandard that can be u5ed for programmed play This
~ re5earch and evaluation will e5tabh5h a ba5eline regarding
^ existing field 5izes and condition5
` Boulder ha5 a very recreationally-active population, and the uty
..~ contmues to en~oy high 5ati5faction ratee from the resident5 on its
~ park5 and recreation eySGem. It wdi reauire mcreaeing ddigence and
creat~ve approache5 in the future provi5ion of the5e 5ervices to
'" maintain the high quality recreational experience5 expected of the
.. ParkS and Recreation Department from the city re5ident5
^
...
..
~
~
r
~
^
` Gty of Bouldcr Recrcanon Faalmcs hreds Assessmcnt
~.. Pagc q;
..
Attachment B
MEMORANDUM
DO NOT REMOVE -
PRAB File Material
DAT'E: November 25, 2002
P~ANN
_~, TO• Crty oe souiaer raz~ ~.~a u~reac~on Advisory Board Members c o R P o q
.~~ ~
FROM: Chadie Deans
This memo is to provide you with an update on. (1) revisions to the November
13 Needs Assessment draft dceument; and (2) the results oF the November 7 commumty meedng.
As previously reported to you m the October e-mail/memo, some revisions aze wcluded m this drafr that
resulted from our d~scussions at your September 30 meetmg regazding programmed multi-use fields and
baseball fields at Valmont City Pazk, pnvate tetuus courts avatlable for toumaments, and relocating the
proposed dog park to Foothills Pazk. There are also some revisions m response to the Boazd's and staffs
comments on clanfymg the ~ushficaUOn for the recommendations, mcludmg rev~smg the FaciliUes Pnonty
Matnx with specific response rates from the resident survey and thetr correspondmg ranktng, and providmg the
cntena on page 77 on how the data was weighted to support the pnonty goupmgs and recommendauons
As mendoned m the October e-mail/memo, the add~taonal~usuficahon on the Pnonty Groups resulted m a sh~ft
of the Center and Ice skatmg nnk facihties from Grovp B to Group A, and the Cross-county ski trail from
Group A to Group B. As an explanaaon for how the facilrties were categonzed mto pnonty groups, act~viaes
with pazticipat~on rates greater than 10% from the resident survey aze considered siguficant, and when those
acavrties use faciht~es requumg ma~or caprtal vnprovements such as swimiwng pools, centers, fields, etc, these
faciLhes aze typically mcluded m the needs assessment process. Th~s cntena was used m the beginnmg of the
study to mitiatly determine the 13 facihhes that are mcluded m the needs assessment analysis In order to
develop a pnonnzahon among these 13 faciliues, three Fnonty groups (A, B and C) were created, smce it was
,'"'~ not possible to rank each facihty mdividually from 1 to 13 wrth the mformation that had been coIlected
~,,,,J (although this could be done but would requue a process of ranking these tlurteen facilIIies t6rough addihonal
focus groups or surveys).
Included m your packet are the commenu from the November 7 Commumty meetmg and the attendance sheet
of panc~ipants. The meehng was an open house format followuig a presentarion on the Needs Assessment
recommendaaons. There were four stauons that the public could provide wntten comments:
• #1 Background InformaUon and General Comments
• #2: Centers, Shelters, Gazdens, Pools, Tennis, Dog parks and Playgrounds
• #3 Ice rmk, Cross-country sla trail and Bike racing facility
• #4: Baseball fields, Softball fields and Progammed Multi-use fields
The most notable comments were regazdmg Golf course and Disc golF facilities not bemg addressed m the
Needs Assessment. With Golf courses, u was expiamed that Golf course studies are based on market and
Fmancial feasibihty studies. The City completed such a study two yeazs ago, so this facilrty was not tncluded m
the scope of work for this study. This response has been mcluded m the November Needs Assessment
document
Disc golf facilmes may deserve to be menhoned in the plan, smce theu pardcipahon rate is 13% by adults m
the 2001 resident survey, which is up from 6% m 1996. Ch~ldren's participauon is low at Z%, and this facihty
was not mcluded on the quesrion regazdmg "~mportance of potentxal new of additional programs or faciluies"
The Disc golf representahve appazendy did not attend the Focus group meehng. While I don't beLeve there
should 6e a spec~c recommendahon on Disc golf m the report, it could be mcluded m ihe Ust of acuvities that
use programmed multi-use fields m the document
`~- We look forwazd to reviewmg this mformahon at your November 25 meeung
AGENDA lTEM # V I'A' , PAGE__~,_
Chapter6: Beaeation Fa~~t flecommendationt
Table 1
Kefative Priority 6rouping of Facilitle5 6aeed on 5upporG Level of Methodology
PrloriCy Group
~
6
c
~~
FaclAty Intervfews
l Focus
, Comm Benchmark
I GIS 5ervice
I KeSident
I Additlonal
Grou~s WorkShop Analyeis Area Survey Needed
Lross-country eki trail N/n M M N/A N!A H 1
Dog Park L M L L M H 1
Multt-uss flelds H H H H li H 12
Swimming Pool M M M M M H 1
Center M M M M }~ ~{ ~
Community GarAens N/A M L M N H 150 plote
Ice 5kating rink M M M N/~ N/A 11 1
Softball fields M H M M li M 8
Bagebalt M H M M M M 6
Bike racing facNity L M L N/~ N/~ M 1
Group Sheltere N!~ N/A N/A N/A M H 5
7enni3 Courts L FI M M L M 8
Suprort level for that facllity from meLhodology H~ High M= Maderate L= I_ow
Faclilties are Ileted alphabeUCaliy and are nob prloriCized wlbhln thelr reepectlve Prlority Group
~'
a
'1
~
~W
F
Q
O
Z
W
~
Q
(Ity a( Beu{dcr Rereanan Ned~ A~rectme~t
Page ~6
Attachment C
Gity of Boulder Recreation Facility Needs Assessment Workshop
_ Thursday, November 7, 2002 Do NoT ~MOVE -
~ Station #1: General Comments pRAB File Matenal
• We need an approved disc golf course for recreation/toumament play, preferably in North Valmont park
area.
Golf being excluded m this needs assessment was unjust to the golf users of the City. It unfairly excludes a
segment of the active rec user. Where's the water coming from (for golf courses?)
Disc golf course - championship can be built for less than a dog park = current facilities are sub-standard:
existing needs to be re-designed or create/develop another better one
Pottery Lab - the facifiiy needs to be greatly expanded. Aithough perhaps not a large percentage of the
population of Boulder uses the lab - it is FULL! Wait lists are typically more than twice the number of spaces
in a class, so it is very difficult to even get into a class. If you get in the lab is crowded - there is not enough
locker space, wheels, hand-building area, storage space for work, etc. Often the shelves are too full to
placed finished pieces waitmg to be fired. It is a wonderful facdity that serves a large community and needs
more space to serve d well.
• Facility Fee Structure - I very much en~oy the city recreation facdities, however I am not wealthy enough to
afford them. Here is my typical use in a year (one person):
General Parks & Rec membership $400
Yoga $350
~ Pilates $350
`-- Weight liftmg class 150
$1,250 (that is $2,400/year with my spouse!)
Pattery 700
$1,950~~i~
Flatirons Athletic Club would on{y cost approximately $600 for everythmg except the pottery. Thai is less
than half the cost of the City facdities. I think the fee structure needs to be re-worked to make this less
burdensome. One possibiliiy would be to provide discounts for other class registrations to people who have
memberships, but 1 am certain other options exist as well. Please feel free to contact me with questions:
Katharine Misken (303) 641-4539
Station #2: Centers. Shelters. Gardens. Pools. Tennis. Dog Parks. Playgrounds
• Butterfly gardens
• Native plants/trees
• Expanded access to off-leash dog parks!
• S tennis courts at Valmont not enough to even run toumaments
• Plot a service area map for Boulder tenms players served by a"tennis cente~' (staffed, with seroices such as
instruction, competitive league play and toumament competition).
_ Station #3: Ice Rink. Cross Country Ski Trail. Bike Racing Facility
~
• B~ke Racmg Fac~{ity
-Possibie race venue ior cycio-cross aiscipline - North Valmont Proposed Park.
AGENDA ITEM #y,~,~, PqGE ~o
City of Boulder Recreation Facility Needs Assessment Workshop
_ Thursday, November 7, 2002
-Used exact venue for National Caliber bicycle race in 1997. 400 participants, 800 spectators. ~
-Issue at time was parkmg, especially with security concem with ~atl.
-Parking could utilize proposed parking lots.
• Stazio Complex for road disciplme of cycling
-Although races are twice a year, many more could be held, but time is very limited because of softbail
parking. Promoter need backing ov c~ty to open more time gaps. Resource 2000 Power Company business
are also a factor.
• Resident Survey Results?
-Survey addressed cycling as "track cycling," track cycling is the smallest disapline of cycling
-Competitive cycling community should be addressed in future (need for competitive cycling venues).
• Competitive Cycling Community
-Group is organized regionally as opposed to local "leagues," but Boulder has largest population of Front
Range and growing.
-Partiapation is larger than actually portrayed m survey results
• Track Racing Facildy
-Although the current track racing community is small, it has a large potential for growth - issue is no venue~
-Colo Spnngs is closest venue - 2.5 hour drive condition of track is marginal
-For success stories, look into Trexeltown, PA - very large community , profitable and great image and ~
attraction for town. ~
Small plot size can provide many hours of participation
-Day practice
-Evening races
-Weekend events
Mountain Bike Venue
-Currently partnered with CU for use of land at CU Research (in city limits - Colorado Boulevard and
Foothdls), very small plot, but lots of use -15 events - average 20 participants 2002
-Good example of possibdities of land north of town
Brian Hledzinski
Boulder Racing.com President
(303) 440-4824
Station 4• Baseball Fields Softball Fields Programmed Multi-Use Fields
Existing baseball fields at North Boulder and Ins Fields need senous attention - they are becoming unsafe
(rusted broken fencing, hard dirt mfields). The Planners Ink report mentions the cnsis unfolding at these
fields. ..~
...r
AGENOA ITEM #~, pq~~
City af Boulder Recreation Facility Needs Assessment Workshop
_ Thursday, fVovember 7, 2002
r",
L
• North Boulder little League tnes to accommodate kids as far away as GunbarreUNiwot. Putting up 2 new
fields (with lights~) out near Gateway Wall would help a lot. Also, the basebail field north of the Elks Club is
an excellent location given the increased densdy that is expected (see Exhibit 9).
• The children's response to the survey (165) was low. Baseball partiapation seems to be low-balled in the
survey, and Ellen Bleichart agrees that the children participation figures need to be `Yaken with a grain of
saft " Page 32 states that Boufder residents are having to leave town to play basebafl.
• Recommend increased access to existing fields as part of the solution.
• Don't include Pleasant View in # of fields available, start with accurate #
• Look at 1989 needs assessment (BASIC)
r
~.r-
.M--
i
~
AGENDA ITEM #~~~, PAGE b
~~ ~~ ~
City of Boulder Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment Workshop
f17_Nnv-(19
v v Address City/State ZIP Phone E-mail
Name
H
Ch 5661 Juhls Boulder 80301 303 449-2131 chansen~colorado rou com
ansen
ns
John Bird 1301 LeRhand Dnve Lonpmont 80501 (303) 678-7448 bird~~ci boulder co.us
Vernon Scott 801 Gillaspie Dr Boulder 80305 (720) 304-9909 vhscoh~creativeconsultinp.com
John Chmnery 3105 24th Street Boulder 80304 (303) 444-9899 ~ chinnery~attbi com
Diana Smdh 5353 Manhattan Cvcle, Swte 101 Boulder 80303 (303) 4993272 vcp~roycearbour.com
Misty Arroyo 2855 Rock Creek Circle #197 Supenor 80027 (720) 304-2042 misty.arroyo~ymcabv.org
Stan Wilkes 2968 Virnan Lakewood 80215 233-3474 s wdkes~csa.net
Dale Kne er 1705 14th Street #291 Boulder 80302 (303) 818-4801 daleknepper~hotmad com
h
d
Brant Seibert 4966 Dakota Blvd Boulder 80304 (303) 545-6398 otma
.com
brantseibert~
Chuck Palmer 2270 Bluebell Ave Boulder 80302 (303) 786-8502 chuck~nver com
Donn Cook & Cathy Gnswold 5000 Butte St. #37 Boulder 80301 (303) 245-8846
Bob LaPointe 5608 Pioneer Rd Boulder 80301 (303) 581-9920 blaPointez~msn com
Jeff Brown 4168 Amber Place Boulder 80304 (303) 449-1477 ~brown~boulderbeer com
Chns Power 2360 Valmia Boulder 80304 (303) 441-4398 powerc~boulder lib co.us
Barb Roper 216 Seminole Boulder 80303 (303) 494-8104 ~mroper~prodipy net
Jim Swippart PO Box 881537 Steamboat 80488 (970) 879-6743 ~ms~10s com
Ashley Clarke 2218 1/2 Mapleton Ave Boulder 80304 (303) 442-4830 aclarke~boulderice.com
Don Glen 658 Furman Way Boulder 80305
Michael Johan 4800 28th St Boulder 80301 (303) 449-2214 m~center~earthnet net
Joseph Richey 2737 Kalmin Ave Boulder 80304 (303) 413-9649 nchey80304~yahoo com
Roy S. Kullby 665 Northston Boulder 80304 (303) 443-5206 drkullby~aol com
Kathanne Misken 1485 Kendall Dnve Boulder 80305 (303) 641-4539 kmisken~qwest com
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
z
~
¢