Loading...
4A - Public Hearing on Parks & Recreation Master Plan ItemsCITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: MARCH 20, 2006 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: March 17, 2006) AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on Parks and Recreation Master Plan Items PRESENTERS: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Sarah DeSouza, Policy and Information Services Manager Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent James Reasor, Business and Finance Manager Jamie Sabbach, CPRP, Recreation Superintendent Carol Adams, Studio Terra, Consultant Executive Summary: The intent of this agenda item and public hearing is to continue gathering public input on draft master plan materials. Items included in this packet for public comment were discussed at the Mazch 15 Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB) study session and were revised based on the PRAB discussion. These materials include draft Pazk Service Area Guidelines (Attachment A), draft Prioritizing Pazk Development (Attachment B), draft Core Services Business Model (Attachment C) and draft Investment Priorities (Attachment D). Fiscal Impacts: All financial impacts for the Master Plan recommendations will be addressed and quantified at a later date. Board and Commission Feedback: The PRAB reviewed the materials at its Mazch 15 study session and provided comments that staff incorporated. Additional input will be solicited at this public hearing and throughout the remainder of the Master Plan process. The Planning Boazd provided input on the draft Park Service Area Guidelines atihe joint PRAB and Planning Boazd study session on December 5, 2005 that was also incorporated. Public Feedback: Public comment from the public hearing will be incorporated as appropriate Staff Recommendation: Staff requests further board review of draft Pazk Service Area Guidelines (Attachment A), draft Prioritizing Park Development (Attachment B), draft Core Services Business Model (Attactunent C) and draft Investment Priorities (Attachment D). AGENDA ITEM # ; PAGE 1 Analvsis: Draft Park Service Area Guidelines These guidelines (Attachment A), revised after review and input by PRAB and Planning Boazd in December 2005, describe the desired standazds to be met in providing parks throughout the city and identify gaps in our current system. New emphasis on smaller parks reflects the reality of development trends in Boulder and the scazcity of lazge pazcels of land for pazk development. Draft Prioritization of Undevetoped and Partially Developed Parks There aze twelve undeveloped and three partially developed parks within the current system. Completion of these pazks has not kept pace with development in Boulder. This document (Attachment B) proposes a set of criteria to analyze the relative need, opportunities and constraints for developing undeveloped parkland. The process is intended to be flexible to respond to changing conditions and new opportunities. This process will be revisited annually, as part of the budgeting and Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process and whenever a significant event occurs. The analysis presented here is a"snapshot in time" and is used to demonstrate the use of this tool far prioritizing completion of the undeveloped and partially developed parks. These recommendations aze linked to the three funding plans that will be identified through the Master Plan process - Current Funding, Action Plan (what happens when/if additional funding is available) and Vision Plan (what would it take to complete all of the recommendations?). Core Services Business Model The city's business plan requires that each department categorize their facilities and services as either "essential", "discretionary" or "desirable" based on set criteria (see Attachment C). Standard pazks and recreation practice uses a"Core Services Model" to categorize facilities and services on a continuum from "basid' to "enterprise," highlighting the primary beneficiaries of the facility or service. For example, basic services benefit the community as a whole, while enterprise services generally benefit the individual. Additionally, a Core Services Model will set cost recovery expectations for each facility or service. The Boulder Pazks and Recreation Core Services Business Model (Attachment C) marries these two approaches. Draft Investment Priorities Investment priorities (Attachment D) will guide current and future allocation of funds. They are linked to the master plan goals and identify what might be accomplished at each plan funding level (Current Funding, Action and Vision). The "rationale" will be incorporated for the April study session with PRAB. Master Plan Process and Timeliree Over the next few months, the department will seek a significant amount of feedback from the public regarding information provided in the draft Master Plan. Study sessions are scheduled with the PRAB once a month from January through May and additional sessions will be scheduled as necessary after May. Open Houses aze scheduled for the hour prior to monthly PRAB meetings. Pubiic hearings on Master Plan topics will be held at monthly PRAB meetings through May. Additional public meetings and Open Houses may be scheduled as needed. A roundtable will be held with interested community members Yo help develop a draft public/private partnership agreement for consideration by PRAB and City Council. Focus groups are planned for the Latino AGENDA ITEM # ; PAGE 2 community and past PRAB members and staff is working with the city's Neighborhood Liaison to contact neighborhood groups and homeowner associations. Round tables will be scheduled on other topics as needed. A joint City CounciUPRAB study session is planned for May 23. As part of the communication outreach efforts, staff is tracking the public's concerns, comments and questions and updating the website weekly. This information will be made available to the PRAB and the public at a later date. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Pazk Service Area Guidelines Attachment B: Draft Prioritizing Pazk Development Attachment C: Draft Core Services Business Model Attachment D: Draft Investment Priorities AGENDA ITEM # ; PAGE 3 Park Service Gaps and Standardr 3/17/06 Attachment A Draft Park Service Area Guidelines Page 1 Park Service Guidelines The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has established national guidelines for quantities of pazk and recreation facilities according to population, suggesting th ese ~ _. guidelines should be adapted to individual municipalities. The city of Boulder4~r s and Recreation Department used the NRPA guidelines as a starting point, and ~nsidered Boulder's unique geography, recreation preferences, and other circumsta~ ,y ch as the high cost of land. ,~ ~ ~s~~?G,,~ The guidelines listed below are used to evaluate if pazk services~ea~isting neighbo~'oods are sufficient in quantity and quality, to determine the need for n~~paz~s to serve new`or redeveloping residential or commercial azeas and to monit 'progre~~ meeting departmental goals. They are intentionally flexible to allow the city tc~ ° a~ ,do~i opportunities and constraints. r=;,.,,~ 3 x, w~s Types of Parks `~~~~. ~ ~.~ , ~~. ~ ~. Pocket Parks and Urban Plazas ~~ Boulder's pazk system includes a number of cke p x~ch aze typically smaller than three acres and serve residents living within a.25 m 'ng distance. Urban plazas aze often smaller, hazdscaped and landscaped spaces tha ovide open space for surrounding residences, offices, and commercial buildings. Pocket park d urban plazas will be acquired when lazger ~~... pazcels are not available or ,a, t~que oppo ' es present themselves. Characteristics of 1. Smaller than=Yliie `""' .s`~"~ ~~'"`" ~~ 2. Easily accessed by " din~ neighborhood 3. Often i eating ~~children's play area 4. Gen~ u' passi~ce (not active) recreation 5. F~pensive to m~t~tain due to size, materials and features it ~" ' tics of Ur~ian Plazas 1. S ban~iace, often with a higher amenity level (hardscaped areas, street ~ ~~ , ; plantings, etc.) 2. Often ~ounded by buildings and uses that generate activity 3. Consi~ered outdoor "rooms" for passive recreation and civic uses 4. Attractive and usable to a wide range of people 5. Include flexible space that can be used for outdoor festivals, mazkets and other public events 6. Expensive to build and maintain due to high amenity level and size. Park Service Gaps and Standards 3/17/06 Page 2 Neighborhood Parks Neighbarhood parks often are considered the most fundamental pazk type in a city's pazk system because they provide a focal points for neighborhood identities, gathering places for friends and family, opportunities for informal play and natural settings for quiet reflection. Historically, Boulder's neighborhood pazks are five acres or larger. With limited availabiliry of lazger pazcels, future sites between three and five acres will be considered only when larger sites cannot be acquired. The department develops specific features for individual pazks on the basis of a design process that includes e~ensive neighborhood participation. , „ Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhood Parks 1. Typically five acres or larger ~ 2. Typically serve residents living within easy walking and biking~distance (~$ mile), :~~,;. 3. Offer nonprogrammed outdoor space including paths, seati~ng areas, places't~~rcnic and play catch, children's play azeas and landscaping that eutiznces and preservesthe site's natural character. Characteristics of SmaUer Neighborhood Parks 1. Minimum of three acres 2. Flat, grassy, flexible use space of at least one acre that is `riaYgr'ogrammed for active recreation use or used for stormwater detention 3. Area for children's playground equiprt~e~~~ ~> `~ ~~ ~ . ~A- 4. ACeas for sitting and picnicking ~ ~~~,; 5. Easily accessible to neighbors by sidewalks'and/or paths h= "" Community Parks Community parks aze lazger ~ti;~aacres and iriClude a mix of active and passive pazk areas and active recreation facilitie$S;~'s`"uch aS`~ourts and ~ormal sports fields. They include playgrounds and picnic facilities. Bould~c~omrs~~~~~~~~guidelines aze met by East Boulder Community Park, Foothills Comriiurir~~~k anc~Harlow Platts Community Park. The department plans additional development at L'~s~ Boulder and Foothills Community Parks. No additional community patk s1t~s, are planriet~ ~although the department remains open to fuhue possibiliYies. City Pa~lic City ~~~s serve the en~e community. They provide space for high-intensity recreational faciTifr` `~'~ well as natural azeas and features typical of neighborhood and community parks. ~ ~~.,a Valmont' ~~"`~:Park ~siii the Area III site meet the city's guideline for city parks. Part of Valmont City Pazkh~~~en~developed and the Area III site will be held in reserve to meet long-term ~,. recreational needs. No additional city park sites are planned, although the departrnent is open to future possibilities. Park Service Gaps and Standards 3/17/06 Park Guidelines Size Walking Distance Park Type (acres) (miles) AmounU1000 Populatic Pocket Pazk/ Urban Plaza < 3 .25 mile 1.5 acre/ 1,000 Neighborhood Pazk > 5* .5 mile 1.5 acre/ 1,000 Community Pazk > 50 3.5 miles** 1.5 acre/ 1,000 City Park 100-300 n/a 100-300 acr$s to'Eal ~~ * Smaller neighborhood parks will be considered ifguidelines can be ~' e above). ** Residents living within .5 mile of a communiry park are consider~to h 3 '~ eir ~ ~ ~~~ neighborhood park needs met. ~; ~~;~;~ ~ ~ ~~. t~, ~~ . ` - <, a'::: Gaps in Boulder's Par1cF~,~ystem~~;~ Page 3 j. ` _;. There aze approximately 178 acres of undeveloped pazkland system. This includes 28 acres of neighborhood and pocket parks, 35 acres of communi ,~nd 115 acres of city pazk at Valmont. There aze also 191 acres of city park land in Area III i eserve for future consideration. Due to funding constraints, development in certain parts of the city. L northernmost part of the city (see Pazk Se~ parks will meet the departmenYs service € and will provide additional parks in well-: Gunbarrel and azeas neaz New "' High agreements with the ~ ment has not kept pace with residential ` " ocated primazily in the ~ Cor~p etion of Boulder's undeveloped in most of the existing underserved azeas, as. Exceptions include several azeas in id CU, where land is scazce and joint-use (BVSD) aze in place to help mitigate needs. The 2005 Pazks and ~~"~''" ' ~~~'` ~~~~ ~'rn"irmed that residents place a high priority on completing undeveloped p a°'tes. Developing neighborhood pazks was the highest priority, followed by deve~~}~g pock y and finish developing East Boulder Community Park. Park Ne~§ in Develo~g Areas Due t e high price an~ ack of available land to develop in Boulder, future growth generally wil~, °' ace in infill~g~tes that are not currently zoned for housing, including commercial and industri ~~as. Rez~nng and redevelopment of infill sites may require the city to acquire and develop ne ~" 1~}~iids for urban open space and recreation. Infill developments may have an even greater '~ than other neighborhoods for parks and urban green space because of higher density (more`people per squaze mile) with more vertical development (multi-story housing, often mixed-use housing over offices or commercial space). New infill housing will include a variety of housing types and a range of prices, including more affordable units than in most Boulder neighborhoods. With smaller housing lots, more young singles and seniors, and families living in "starter" homes, infill developments will need public spaces for residents to play and relax. These sites may not be large enough to provide a neighborhood park of five or more acres, Park Service Gaps and Standards 3/17/06 Page 4 so smaller neighborhood pazks, pocket pazks or urban plazas will be considered. The department wi11 explore creative ways to acquire, develop and maintain these park sites. The azeas where significant change is anticipated are Gunbarrel and the Transit Village. The need for an additional pazk site was identified through the Gunbarrel Area Plan and the next step will be to identify where and how it will occur. Pazk needs for the Transit Village will be considered through the Transit Village Area Plan. ~~~ Future Population Projections and Park Needs Current population projections estimate a population in Boulder of 124,40~~1~„rea I and I~ by the yeaz 2030. The current pazk acreage (developed and undeveloped) exceeds t~e~;~~ artment's guidelines established for park acreage peT 1,Q00 residents. It also me~ts the gui ~~y s fQt this projected population; however, the geographic distribution of the ~~y's park land'~~eed adjushnent to meet future community needs. Through the city'sai~ea planning and >~°~ subcommunity planning processes, futwe park needs in ne~y and redeveloping neighborhoods will continue to be addressed. Subcommuniry and azea pl~s~addre~ptanning issues at a detailed 1eve1 and explore new land use ideas, including specifie par~~t~s, for an enrire subcommunity, specific azeas or neighborhoods. ~ ^~~ ;~ When Park Service Needs Cannot be Met ~, New park locations aze determined by an evaY~`~~~£~~~s such as those listed below: • distance to the neazest pocket, neighboi"hood~o~" co~iulity park • availability of a suitable pazk site • nature and density of the surrounding ne~ghborhood • access to Open Space/M~tain Pazks lapds~ • availability ofprivatez~h~om~4wner assocziafion parks • competing commtinity go~s far suita~sTe parcels 4~ t`' : ~ r;°~ ~ ~ ,, . f.., Where acquisition of addittppal_park 1and is not feasible, the department will explore ~re.~;.: collaborations such as: ~ :;~a~~ ~<~`~:::.r~ ~ „-,,.,, . • long-~~~lease:agreements with the Soulder Valley School District • pr~~ate schools;,zchurches or child care centers ~ • „~lreet closures o~3ransportation right-of-way "vacations" ~°~~"`~ut developme'nt of privately-owned property ~~~~= ;. • >mdoorspaces, terraces and rooftops de~ mcrease the effective capacity of smaller spaces • ~~€'~~~~ Attachment B ypF BOU~ G~~ /~~9 PRIORITIZING PARK DEVELOPMENT '~~'~~~~ Y~M1S & flernaion 3.1 ~.06 Setting Priorities for the Development of Undeveloped and Partially Developed Parks The Parks and Recreation Department developed criteria to analyze the relative need, opportunities and constraints for developing undeveloped parkland. The process is intended to be flexible to respond to changing conditions and new opportunities. This process will be revis- ited annually, as part of the budgeting and Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) process and whenever a significant event occurs. The analysis presented here is a"snapshot in time" and is used to demonstrate the use of this tool for prioritizing completion of the undeveloped and partially developed parks. In determining priorities for park development projects, the Parks and Recreation Department considers the following criteria: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. 1• Demonstrated Need Does it fill a gap in an already underserved area? Does it fill a priority need identified in the 2005 Parks and Recreation Survey or in other sources? Development Constraints Is the site ready for design and development with no significant physical or legal constraints? .25 Cent Sales Tax Analysis Does it meet an unmet ballot measure commitment? Known Collaborative Opportunity Is there a high potential for partnership or other collaboration? (Could involve acquisition, maintenance, fundrasising, etc.The department is open to creative suggestions). Maintenance Dollars Identified Have maintenance dollars been identified and earmarked for this project? Population Served Does the area have a high percentage of low income residents and/or children, youth, and seniors? Is it high density? Revenue Potential Will the development have revenue potential (rental of fields, etc.)? Development Efficiency Will development be more efficienU cost-effective if timed with other public projects? Environmental Constraints Are there environmental constraints on the property that would need to be mitigated? Project Status Is the project partially built? n E ~~ K =• .,. h, ~ . _ C 1'' ~ :~ 'r , ~. _ , . . _ ~ _ _ . ' - d .-. _ _ ~ ?-1 '_ - ~, .- Yrroritizing Yark Development, page Z Draft Prioritization of Undeveloped and Partialiy Developed Parks A B C D E F G H 1 J ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ '- o d ; ~ c ~ ~ ~ ° z c ,~ m ~ ~ a v, ~ o .~ a ~ v> ~ a ~ ~ m '° e`~ ~ 'c o Q d. ~ Ea ~~ cn ~ ~ y ` " ~ a 6a e ° ' E ti ~ o .°,~ ~ o Q~ ~ C o ~ u~ ~ C « m d Q ~ o G d m ~ a A C7 ~ o• - U j~ o= ~n ~ C ~ C~ C7 ,.~, Undeveloped Parksites ~ ~; ~ o u y a 0 a o W W ~ a o ~ p ~'• ~e ,~ ~ g ~ ~ a Area III 1997 City-191 -(3) -(12, 15) IV AlPine 1998 Pocket-0.3 III Dakota Ridge 2000 Neigh-3 T 111 ~(6) I East Boulder Phase 2 1985 Com-15 +(2j . +(10) -(12) +(16) II Eben G. Fine East 2001 ~'ocket-0.5 III Elks 1999 Neigh-7.9 + (1) + (6) + (1 1) - (13) II Foathills Phase 3 1985 Com-12.5 +(10) -(12) +(16) II Heatherwood 1985 Neigh-5 - (4) + (6) II Hickory (portion) 1999 Pocket-0.7 III Holiday 2003 Pocket-1.1 + (1) -r (7) + (9) I Mesa Memorial 2002 Pocket- 1.7 III $inton 1993 Pocket- 0.7 III Valmont 1997 City - 119 * (?i - (5) + (8j + (101 - (12) IV Volet 1987 Neigh- 7.2 +(1 ) + 16) +(111 -(13) II W of Justice Center 1972 Pocket- 2.5 -(14) IV Note: Shaded areas are a negative, a!! others are positive. Chart Legend: A Demonstrated Need (1) Underserved area within city limits on Service Area Map (2) High recreation facility need - multipurpose fields (programmable) B Development Constraints (3) Area III - not available for development (4) Not in city limits (5) Access road not ready C .25 Cent Sales Tax Analysis (6) Neighborhood parks needed to comply with sales tax ballot language D Known Collaborative Opportunity f7) Neighborhood cost sharing proposed (8) BVSD partnership proposed E Maintenance Dollars Identified none identified at this time F Population Served (9) High level of affordable housing, families with children G Revenue Potential (10) Sports field rentals H Development E~ciency (11) Floodplain work will prepare site for park development I Environmental Constraints (12) Prairie dogs on site (13) Floodplain work needed prior to park development (14) Environmental hazards ~15) Threatened and endangered species J Project Status (16) 5ignificant portion of park built Pnorinzmg Park Development, page 3 Draft Prioritization Results (A "snapshot in time") Priority Group # of pluses # of minuses Funding Plan Prioritv Group 1(at least one plus and 0 minuses) Fiscallv Constrained Holiday Pocket Park 3 0 Dakota Ridge Pocket Park 2 0 Priority Group 11 (at least 1 plus and only 1 minus) Elks Neighborhood Park 3 * 1 Action Plan Violet Neighborhood Park 3 * 1 East Boulder Community Park Phase 2 3 * 1 Foothills Community Park Phase 3 2 * 1 Heatherwood Neighborhood Park 1 * 1 * Comp/etion of any Priority Group ll park assumes that the "minus" listed can be resolved. Park site can potentially move to Priority Gro~p / if "minus" is resolved and funding identified. III ( 0 pluses and 0 minuses) - in alphabetical order Eben G. Fine East Hickory Pocket Park Mesa Memorial Pocket Park Action Plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sinton Pocket Park 0 0 Note: Could move up to Priority Group / with an identified co/laborative opportunity. Priority Group IV (1 minus and 0 pluses or more than 1 minus) Vision Plan Valmont City Park 3 2 West of Justice Center 0 7 Area III City Park 0 3 ?ficK.~-._ .__.,_. ~. _ __.,___. .=_a"_"'_ REV ~SCD ~~h1PRGH ~ 6~ 2~~ ATTACHMENT C City of Boulder Parks and Recreation "~ ~~"~`~,~. ~~_ . `~.~ ~'9 Ct~lRE SERVICES BUSINESS MODEL ,.~k.~...~... BOULDER'S PARKS, FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS ^ CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS / \ Boulder Reservoir (except park land at Reservoir); Plalirons Golf Course; Private I essons (all kinds); Personal Training; Community Gardens, Harbeck House; Special/ Dedicated Use Groups; Rentals Enhanced services or cally targeted to mterest groups, age groups or abilrty levels. The mdi- ANCED (acilities should recover vidual and the communiry both typically benefit. These activities take 35-70% of cnsts. p~ace at more specialized parks or facilities with higher operating cosu. / Enterprise Services can compete in the free-market bu1 may require assistance for large capital improvements. They are targeted to specific users based on an expressed ENTERPRISF ~emand and willingness to pay. They henefit the individual primarily and, to a lesser over tOD % o degree, the community. These services typically indude golf courses, reservoirs and xt & indirect COSIS. other highly specialized and technical venues and programs. Specialized Services benetit a relatively small range of user groups and are Specialized ser targeled to specific imerest groups or ability Ievels. These services generally EDices or facilities include highly speciali~eei youth and adult programs. Facilities are typically shnuld recover expensive to huild and maintain. These facilities may be o( high quality and 70-90 % of costs. capable ot adracting special events and promoting tourism. Enhanced Services beneFit a wide range of user groups but are specifi- Park ShcUers; Satelli~e Rallfields Merit Services benefit a large proponion oi the community, Annual Flower Program MERtT Merit services or facilities bui can indude a specific user charge. These generally should recover 35% of costs. ircJude recreation programs, nomprofit rentals and service „r program enhancements. Columbia Cemctery Basic Servires are the Foundation of parks and Park Restrooms; Park Facility Replacement; $kate Park; ~AS~C eafic services m facili5es can recover recreation. They provide widespread enjoyment Multi-purpose Fields (soccer, fool6all, ultimate frisbee, etcJ beiween 0 and 15°Yo of cosis. and are central to the mission of the organiza- s and Park !n(rastructure; Playgrounds; Maintenance (mowing, snow & trash tion. 7hese generally indude thc provision and val); Woody Florticulture and Urban Porestry; Park $hop and Equipmenh, maintenance of parks and provision of services nd (i~clusion); Public Open Swim; Group Swimming Lessons; Roulder to underprivileged community members. Business Plan Categories Path; Chautauqua Park & Historic District; Youth Services Initiative DISCRFTIONARY DESIRABIE ~ ESSENTIAI P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N ........ T H E B E N E F I T S A R E E N D L E S S From the City of Boulder's Business Plan Each City depaRment is challenged to create a fiscally constrained budget m which services are pri- oritized according ro their con[nbution to the mission and objectives of [he department and aligned with good pubhc stewardship principles. Services should be priorit~zed into the three categaries shown, according to the following principles. Essential o Programs, services or facili[ies essen[ial [o ensuring the health and safety of the people and property in [he commumty and municipal cotpot'a[ion o Services insu~ng [he in[egrity of [he mos[ fundamen[al responsibili[ies of governmen[ o Programs or expenses tha[ are legally manda[ed by federal or s[a[e law or City Chatter o Funding for ongoing operation and maintenance of an existing facihty and/or infrastmcture o Investments [hat wn[ribu[e [he mos[ [o achieving Ihe core miss~on of [he ciTy. o Businesses [he City of Boulder is reqmred ro be in and/or essen[ial services Iha[ no o[her en[ity provides o Actions required by obliga[ions such as bond covenan[s, laws and other requiremen[s in order to avoid fines or penalties Desirable o Services that enhance programs or facilihes in ways that advance desired community values o Services that enhance essential services or quality of life improvements o Funding for replacemen[ of an existing facility and/or infras[ruc[ure o Services valued by the commumty and created by [he legisla[ive action of [he C~ty of BoWder Ciry Council o Actions required ro meet Council's adop[ed budget and financial policies o Programs maintained as °seed com" to provide a base for restoration in an econom~c recovery o For essen[ial programs that have been reduced, main[aining [he elements of a pmgram neces- sary in order to make future restoration possible Discretionary o Creates or maintains discretionary services/facilities that serve limited purposes or specialized interests. o Programs desired by the communiry but not reqmred to provide or enhance an essential service o Services [ha[ people could obtain Ihrough other means, private or other govemmen[al and non- profit agencies Each department will create its prioritization logic, based on the principles above, and in terms that are meaningful [o its unique business. This should be expressed as short, cleaz sta[ements of the investment svategy that will guide a departmenPs prioritization of its programs/services. Attachment D 3. V.06 OF BpU~O INVESTMENT PRIORITIES ~'~ ~~`"P (SPENDING PLAN) "~"~~~ PerLa & Prt~olion Master Plan Goals (not in order of priority) 1. Maintain and protect our parks and recreation facilities and programs. 2. Become economically sustainable. 3. Fill in the gaps in our parks and recreation system. 4. Reach out to a broader range of the community, especially under-represented populations. 5. Be a community-wide leader in environmental sustainability. 6. Enhance our quality of life. Priority 1- Take care of existing assets. (Goals 1, 5) Rationale: Priority 2- Develop our highest priority park sites. (Goals 3, 6) Rationale: Priority 3- Invest in revenue producing facilities. (Goals 2, 4, 5, 6) Rationale: Priority 4- Broaden access to programs and services to meet changing demographics. (Goal 4) Rationale: Priority 5- Increase maintenance funding. (Goals t, 5, 6) Rationale: Priority 6- Complete remaining gaps in park system. (Goals 3, 6) Rationale: Priority 7- Adapt to changing needs. (Goals 2, 4, 5, 6) Rationale: Priority 8- Implement vision plans and enhance our system. (Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Rationale: ~ .4 R 6' p c ~ _ -Y._~, ^ ~.. ~:.~ t', . _ ~ _ . _ ~-.r _ - _ ~ X'-. _ -__..