Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - Master Plan Update - 10/22/2012 CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 22, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) Master Plan Update PRESENTERS: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager Jeff Haley, Parks and Planning Manager Alison Rhodes, P&R Master Plan Staff Lead Steve Wolter, Executive Director Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Austin L. Hochstetler, Project Manager Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to update the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on the status of the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) Master Plan and obtain feedback on the key issues identified during the research phase of this project. The current Master Plan was last prepared in 2006 and is being updated to reflect current and emerging trends including aging facilities, change in program and services needs, changing demographics, increased inactivity and connection to nature by youth, and advances in technology. The updated Master Plan is being restructured within the context of the City's Sustainability Framework that reflects the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the city's approach to Priority Based Budgeting. The Master Plan is intended to guide the BPRD for the next five years in addressing the delivery of park and recreation services in a mariner that meets the community's service standards and sustainability goals. Agenda Item VI-A Pagel BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Meeting Tonics The October 22nd study session with PRAB will be a working session to focus on the following: 1. Master Plan relationship to city plans and processes (Attachment A) including an introduction to the City's Sustainability Framework (Attachment 13) 2. Research discussion among PRAB members, the consultants and P&R staff to review questions (Attachment C) related to the topical reports (Attachment D-K) 3. Key issues The October 22nd PRAB business meeting will focus on: 1. Project timeline and update 2. Master plan framework/contents 3. Summary of Public Engagement 4. Master Plan document access Public Engagement A wide variety of public engagement tools have been used to gather information from the public, stakeholder groups, staff from BPRD as well as other departments from within and outside the city as well as with PRAB. These tools have included stakeholder interviews, focus groups, public survey, web based survey, and a number of study sessions with PRAB and staff (Attachment L and M) This week a series of three public meetings (October 24, 25 and 27) will be held to gather additional information from the general population. Using input from these various public engagement methods a series of key issues have been identified and included for discussion as part of the update process. These issues relate in a variety of ways to the research papers that have been prepared and distributed to PRAB, staff and available to the general public on line at: http:~~1)OUI(Iei-.harksaiiclJiOC.1)] li org/. Key Issues Some key issues are emerging due to changing conditions in the community and reflect state wide and national trends. These key issues will impact the delivery of future park and recreation services in a variety of ways depending on the policies and processes that are adopted through this Master Plan update. Key issues are related to: • Community Health and Wellness • Youth Connection and Activity • Asset Management • Recreation Programming Agenda Item VI-A page2 • Community Building/Relationship • Financial Sustainability • Environmental Stewardship Sustainability Framework The issues described above should be viewed through the fiscal, economic, environmental, and social concepts of the Boulder community. This informs the Sustainability Framework (Attachment B), which is built upon the foundation of the Boulder Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) (www.bouldervalleycombplan.net) and the city's Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) Program. Many of the key policies in the BVCP stem from long-standing community values and represent a vision of the community and the commitment to sustainability as a unifying framework to meet environmental, economic and social goals for the department. Priority Based Budgeting is the iterative process of prioritizing department programs in terms of their influence on achieving defined "results" which are the high level, overarching objectives that represent the priorities of the City Council and the community. These results were developed as part of the 2011 budget process, and incorporated community and Council input. PBB's major results (or city wide goals) describe the community values and ultimately guide the department's programs and services. To develop a sustainability framework, the BVCP key policy areas and PBB results were combined to create seven category areas. Applying the Sustainability Framework to decision-snaking in the department requires staff to consider the issues within the context of all seven strategy areas. At the intersection of all these areas is the community's ability to sustainably meet its needs now and in the future. The categories are: • Community Character Natural Environment PFJ Energy 11~ Safety & Community Well-Being Good Governance Economic Vitality i Mobility and Connectivity Agenda Item VI-A page3 Next Steps The information from October 22°d as well as the final results from the three public meetings held this week (October 24, 25 and 27) and the survey will be used to prepare the findings that will be presented at a PRAB Study Session in November. Staff is recommending the study session be scheduled the week of November 5`h. This study session is critical for preparing for the joint City Council/PRAB study session on November 27, 2012. Input from the November 27`h meeting will be used to prepare the final research papers and form the discussion that will take place during the community needs assessment over the winter. A community work session ("PATHFINDER" session) will be conducted in the first quarter of 2013 to finalize strategies incorporating the City's Sustainability Framework to address those key issues that City Council, the PRAB and the community have identified as most important for public parks and recreation services in Boulder. This work session will include key stakeholders, elected and appointed officials, local business and social leaders as well as key staff in a discussion of the issues and strategies needed to move forward. From this discussion the consultant team will prepare the strategic action plan that will inform the Master Plan. Attachments A Master Plan relationship to city plans and processes B City Sustainability Framework C P&R Master Plan Research Discussion Questions D Topical Report: Overview of Planning Area E Topical Report: Related Planning Documents F Topical Report: Charter, Mission and Vision G Topical Report: Trends H Topical Report: Benchmarking I Topical Report: Recreation Programs and Services J Topical Report: Financial Sustainability K Topical Report: Asset Management L Preliminary Public Engagement Findings (Stakeholder Interviews Summary) M PRAB Study Session Discussion Notes from April 11 and August 27 Agenda Item VI-A page4 Attachment A Master Plan relationship to city plans and processes Un'ty Su$ta~1 G,o~ ey Compreh~ '~~Ii~y~~ det Va n., ke f Priority- Department Subcommunity Based Strategic/ L and Budgeting Master Plan Area Plans Operating Capital Improvements Development Budget Program Standards and Zoning Source: City Plans and Projects Handbook Departmental Master Planning & Strategic Planning Attachment H Sustainablity Framework and Performance Monitoring Fr What sustainability is for Boulder How we know if Boulder is becoming more sustainable Community Sustainability In Boulder means considering There are many examples of ongoing performance monitoring efforts in all areas the issues of environment, economy and social equity of the sustainability framework. These efforts to track progress toward meeting together. The Sustainability Framework is used to goals, objectives and targets are largely done by separate city departments or guide strategies in many areas in each Master Plan, entities. While measures vary in how often they are reported, we seek dynamic planning effort or reporting effort. information to Inform policy and program changes. immunity sustain The SusUb ability Indicators will provide one set of summary metrics with trends G~ Framewo ~to convey progress toward sustainability goals and targets. The benefit this set rk provides is to show progress and trends in marry areas of sustainabNity in one pfare. { Performance Monitoring & Reporting ".L ( Community • r Boulder Valley f' cht eter Comprehensive Plan Law Lim i1d Devslopmerd Data Energy AHada le Harsmp Mobility ^ CBmateActlon Plan Reports Transpwwwn Master C i l m ate Progress Report Report on Progress Gty or Boulder Commtndy Mode plans Gommftment Power Ed gnare l),ta pals, Qbjdctives, targets, lndlcators : cioocf - Govemance Ernir won ailonrrtant - ir***udcxe - - - - - ReplaCemeN _ . Vlraer ikNNy 4-0 Services and Asaewnent Rooo" C'.omnu ndy Six W ! Ronorung C Programs i'- r, IF Rvs%As o ' a' Capital and S Operating Budgets eoono rtlo vn.lity sa" Community 0aloefEcnnom~cCa~ •:,1 tiWll$.irrg ECocwwIldOai:wn C&WARepoT" Land Use BaYderEconomic Prerjr ' ublicMggmRerwnn Regulation 1~iL l.d l:1lI11Gll L. o~ Boot Parks and Recreation Master Plan Research Discussion Questions 4 dfi ~ T Charter, Mission and Vision Parks & Recreation The department's current mission, vision and goals were established in the 2006 Master Plan, and must be analyzed to ensure they reflect the department's role as a provider of public services in the Boulder community. Some of the key foundational values of a public parks and recreation department include contributing to and promoting improved public physical and mental health, social well-being and connectivity, youth development, and environmental stewardship. question for Discussion 1. What are the core and essential values and services the department should focus on in Boulder, given limited resources and funding? The six key goals of the 2006 Master Plan are, maintain and protect our parks and recreation facilities and programs, become economically sustainable, fill in the gaps in our parks and recreation system, engage a broader range of the community-especially the underserved populations, be a communitywide leader in environmental sustainability, and enhance our quality of life. Question for Discussion 2. Are the 6 key goals in the 2006 Master Plan still relevant? Recreation Programs and Services The department provides a large array of recreation programs and services, which presents a challenge given limited resources. It is important that programs are available, fair and viable to everyone in the community, regardless of their means, background or interest. Initial findings question the division's mix of programming and that It may not fully align with demand, public service role or the guiding principles as established in the 2010 RPFP. It is also noted that the department has a higher than average amount of advanced programming. Question for Discussion 3. If patrons can experience increased satisfaction and quality of service by another provider, when should the department explore alternative program delivery (e.g., contracting programs or connecting patrons to other providers)? Asset Management The department currently manages approximately $274 million in asset ranging from park land, athletic fields, athletic courts, shelters and various parks and recreation amenities. In addition, the department also manages $50 million in facilities and equipment in conjunction with other city departments to provide recreation programs and services. Currently, the department estimates a backlog of deferred maintenance of these assets of $37.6 million. With limited resources the department must finds an appropriate balance of new development of facilities while addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance. Question for Discussion 4. How do you recommend balancing or prioritizing funding for new development (including ongoing maintenance and operations funding) vs. maintenance and operations of existing infrastructure? 1 Financial Sustainability The department is funded from various revenue sources (sales, use, property taxes and user fees) that lack long-term stability. Recent economic downturn has resulted in declining revenues, budget reductions and resource limitations. This is not just a departmental problem, but a citywide challenge. The department has been working towards complete cost recovery in the recreation division and increasing cost recovery in parks where possible. Additionally, maintenance backlog and capital costs are increasing and funding should be identified to invest into taking care of infrastructure. Questions for Discussion 5. How should the department balance recreation services that promote community good and civic benefit with revenue production? 6. Where should financial support for programs that reflect foundational values of public parks and recreation come from? 7. Do you support the Cost Recovery Policy established in the 2010 Recreation Programs and Facility Plan (RPFP)? Table 1: Cost Recovery Policy from 2010 RPFP Social Core Y5i 0% EXPAND -inclusion 0% EXPAND --Specialized 75-100% Level 100 Learn-to programs 90-10096 and certification courses Business Core > 100% Desirable 100% Source: Clry of Boulder. Trends and Key Issues Among the key trends noted to date in the City of Boulder are: increased childhood obesity and inactivity rates, minority population growth, increased poverty rates and changing lifestyle patterns, increased importance on environmental sustainability and economic vitality. Question for Discussion 8. What is the impact these trends have on the department's service delivery and facility development? 2 Benchmarks Benchmarking studies provide an exploration of the parks and recreation facilities, programs and administrative services of multiple communities deemed comparable with the department. With the results of the benchmarking analysis, goals can be set, standards redefined and action plans established. The recent study included twelve comparators - five local communities (within the Denver metropolitan area) and seven national communities. Table 2 highlights some of the findings. Question for Discussion 9. Based on the findings, what are the areas that may need to be addressed by the department based on your current knowledge of community needs? Overview of the Planning Area 10. Based on your review of the research, do you have any feedback on omissions, inaccuracies or areas of emphasis? If so, please provide via e-mail to Alison Rhodes by Friday, 11-2-12. Related Planning Documents 11. Based on your review of the research, do you have any feedback on omissions, inaccuracies or areas of emphasis? If so, please provide via e-mail to Alison Rhodes by Friday, 11-2-12. 3 Table 2 AbOtlet blaanheeld Foolhills Fort Collins S Subulbon Wn51minsl.r Ann Arbot A.hbvigt Btrkeln M.-In Ion Np enllln Twm e Popuialicn of a!!Ip'.n`0 417A7 14114V) Iit FK4 Io41'.A 144 U0n 11.44 Ili ldill MV 40" 941H-0 lr1 r1, ma served (2010) Urban IIM. Ir f' il;l VIC IIU. 1410 n4y 06'1 23.N paklond w.. admfnWw.d by agency aaf.9 Reu.alan 3 1 2 11 4 7 14 12 4 1 0 1 Comas ffogroms 2.500 6.900 2.000 Np nip 4.741 nip nip nip 1.000 1.400 nip a6.red OWdow 2 1 4 1 5 1 3 3 inckK&V 1 3 2 1 3 swlrwrdng splash pad pook Indoor 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 0 3 D Agreement 2 swbn n wg with school Peek dahicl lasebdl gelds 14 37 1 - 35 100 26 34 20 8 contowd 9 32 Included in Idedicaled basebod/soll (combined bosebd/soil numbw for bosebot bad softbog/bole bag bombal a fields saahou gelds 10 22 25 [me for 5 Ion 30 IndOded In See above 8 combined 6 26 7 bolh (combined above sollba111base botebad sollbaiVbase bad and soflboN ball) Rectangular of 20 34 47 3 119, 2 15 7 9 4 66 mLgh use 2 mum-we gold% hd. 45 soccer Melds Gott courses 1 I -Own the 4 (2-18 1101e, 3 4 1 2 1 0 1 - 27 holes Iwo 18 hole 2 land and 1-Executive couses lease fhe 91100. 1 Pot manogeme a19 hale( nl Net golf 2 3 1 5D 1 19 2 3 0 1 1 51 6Dw..1 COtd.at1.nnis 40 16 22 nip 48 0 31 26 24 22 34 D c wurfs Indom tennis 0 0 0 7 6 5 D 0 0 0 0 22 coasts Outdoor 25 3 8 D Shoed 0 3 6 4 7 8 vogeybdl lecreah" court R)Gcl& Indow 6 Basxel Bag Minim 23 0 24 0 10 0 5 (eased 37.5 voNeybdl courb are space) courts used for v bdl Ouldper 12 15 13 5 29 2 35 25 24 19 26 5 boskolhedi eauds ksdow 4 3 3 59 0 54 0 4 see 6 based 53 baAntbdl a8ached court. City Parks Gttde MCNe tha0ers 34 34 47 39 71 42 16 14 36 15 - 31 42 flayprmmd/pl 41 45 41 59 d 75 25 28 fol play: 26 67 23 dy OwIt fes 35 school age; 1 adventure TOPICAL REPORT: OVERVIEW OF PLANNING AREA Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes ✓ Research methodology approved Preliminary research and analysis complete ✓ Data gaps identified and remaining research Some relevant data has not been obtained and/or assigned verified. Instances of this are noted. When applicable, these issues will be addressed in the Needs Assessment. ✓ All data obtained Preliminary community plan integration review L✓ Preliminary department leadership review f-1 Technical ITAG) review In progress Board PRAB review In progress Department leadership review Topical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community ^ plan integration ; Location With a population of approximately 97,000, Boulder is the 11 1h-most populous city in the state of Colorado. Located in north central Boulder County at an elevation of 5,430 feet, the city is 25 square miles and approximately 25 miles northwest of Denver. Boulder sits within the Boulder Valley, the meeting point of the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains. The Flatirons to the west of the city are widely recognizable features and a part of Boulder's wide variety of protected natural and recreation areas. Boulder lies in a wide basin beneath Flagstaff Mountain just a few miles east of the continental divide and about 30 miles (48 km} northwest of Denver. Arapahoe Glacier provides water for the city, along with Boulder Creek, which flows through the center of the city. The primary water flow through the city is Boulder Creek. The creek was named well ahead of the city's founding, for all of the large granite boulders that have cascaded into the creek over the ~~a~t Lua- ` Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan eons. It is from Boulder Creek that Boulder City and hence Boulder is believed to have taken its name. Boulder Creek has significant water flow, derived primarily from snow melt and minor springs west of the city. The creek is a tributary of the South Platte River. History Boulder Valley was originally home to the Southern Arapaho tribe of Native Americans while several other tribes routinely visited the area. In 1858, gold seekers established themselves in the area and in 1861 the Territory of Colorado was created by Congress to support the growing mining industry. To encourage economic stability, the town campaigned to bring railroad service and the University of Colorado to Boulder. In 1871 the town of Boulder was incorporated. Also developing in the late 1800's was the concept of the Chautauqua, a movement focusing on adult education and enlightenment. Chautauqua settlements attracted musicians, artists, entertainers, philosophers, and cultural exhibitions. Boulder hosted the opening of the Colorado Chautauqua on July 4, 1898, and it continues today, both as a place and a movement. Chautauqua Park contains one of the few such remaining institutions in the US and stands as a center for knowledge, arts, music, and recreation in Boulder and beyond. After World War 11, the Boulder population grew but not without an eye toward managed growth, preserving historic and natural treasures, and building a strong economy. In the 1950's Boulder residents focused on improving transportation and recruiting low impact industry to the area. With the opening of the Denver-Boulder turnpike, the National Bureau of Standards' Radio Propagation Lab, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder's strong economic climate allowed businesses, large and small, to thrive. Boulder Today Boulder has undertaken several initiatives to control urban sprawl and has adopted policies to manage growth. Boulder has instituted taxes specifically to preserve open space and prevent urban services like water and sewer from expanding outside of a defined boundary, including into higher elevations. Additionally, Boulder is home to many "green" initiatives ranging from transportation to building construction to water and energy conservation. Boulder is home to a variety of public, charter, and private schools and to the main campus of the University of Colorado, which enrolls approximately 30,000 students. Boulder is widely seen as a progressive community with a vibrant arts, recreation, and entertainment scene. It is regularly regarded as a city with a high qualify of life, physically active residents, many options for fine dining, and a top tourist destination. Sustainable initiatives and environmentalism are key components to the overarching environmental ethic of the city. Boulder has a mild, dry climate and moderate, comfortable seasons. Annual participation averages 19 inches and while snowfall can be heavy in winter, daily snow melt is common due to the high elevation and warming sun. An average of 300 days of sunshine per year give residents and visitors many opportunities to participate in a wide variety of outdoor recreation options available in the many protected natural areas and parks in and around Boulder. Dozens of trailheads begin within the city limits and many others are a short drive away. Rock climbing and skiing enthusiasts can find world class routes nearby and outdoor enthusiasts of M mwMI i f 2 _ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan PLANNING, ARE all disciplines and skill levels have access to urban and natural trails and open spaces in addition to annual athletic competitions and events. Overview of Planning Areas The City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability has identified three areas to assist with the planning of long-term growth and service delivery. They are described in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as Areas I, II, and III. • Area I: Land within the City of Boulder, provided with city urban services (US Census definition of "City of Boulder"). Area II: Unincorporated land in Boulder County, planned for annexation and provision of urban services within the 15 year planning period of the BVCP. • Area III: Unincorporated land in Boulder County outside the Service Area, not expected to annex within the 15 year planning period of the BVCP. Appendix A contains a map portraying each area. For the purposes of this and other master plans, Areas I and It are referred to as the City of Boulder's Service Area. The Department of Community Planning & Sustainability has also defined physical boundaries within Areas I and II that create subcommunities. Boulder has nine subcommunities: Central Boulder, Crossroads, CU; East Boulder, Gunbarrel, North Boulder, Palo Park, South Boulder, and Southeast Boulder. A map of these subcommunities is presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that the Crossroads subcommunity is distinct from the shopping center and includes the entire Boulder Valley Regional Center. The CU subcommunity is also distinct from the University and includes residential property north and east of the campus. Overview of the Parks and Recreation Department The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department manages over one thousand acres of maintained turf and natural land and runs hundreds of programs promoting mentally and physically active lifestyles for Boulder residents of all backgrounds, ages, and abilities. These programs are offered across three recreation centers, three athletic complexes, two outdoor pools, an outdoor skate park, a golf course, a reservoir, and over sixty urban parks. The planning process Will be used to identify, describe, and analyze all of the features of the department in additional detail, to be discussed in other Topical Reports and, ultimately, in the Master Plan itself. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area I, Area II, Area III Map i 1 ' I ,,Il J~ ILI t / fq ~ 1 rt `~r r •1 t j -f2~cr {'rte s. r J I Ana I Arm NI w.+.or ^ ( - o• c Area I- Boulder LilyLrreleQAreaIII•S"PlanningAna9oundery ! 1:26,000 Arm N - 0erviae Ana Arne III - Rural Pmservolion Area m Area N Ana Ili - Pinrmbrg Ream* Ana fil - Annexed Planning Subcommunities City of Boulder, Colorado Gunbarrel North Boulder Palo Park Iris Crossroads o w a v 'n 0 0 Cei7tral East Boulder Boulder p o Arapahoe 3 GV Southeast Baseline Boulder 5 Boulder Rd. SOUth'BOUlder G~3 s ~LLi~Ul11lILJIL L'. TOPICAL REPORT: RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes ✓ Research methodology approved ✓ Preliminary research and analysis complete ✓ Data gaps identified and remaining research assigned ✓ All data obtained Additional planning documents may be identified as the project continues, or certain 1 aspects of plans may grow in relevance over _ time. _ ✓ Preliminary community plan integration review Preliminary department leadership review Technical f TAG) review _ In progress n Board (PRAB) review In progress _ Department leadership review _ ❑ Ta ical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan integration ~ Introduction Communities like Boulder are Ever-evolving in ways that reflect ongoing changes to economic, political, social, environmental, and demographic processes. Residents, local organizations, and their governments collaborate to produce plans to inform and guide that evolution to pursue the best future possible. When starting any new planning project, it is important to survey the landscape of other plans that are relevant. In doing so, planning teams can identify critical issues that may affect their project, leverage previously-conducted research, learn from other stakeholder and civic engagement efforts, produce a plan that aligns with the community's estabNshed values, and most importantly, make a positive impact on the quality of life. .-C) ~i~ RELATED PLANS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan This update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will primarily build off of the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Not only will it will be important to examine the previous plans' goals, objectives, and related research of these particular plans, but it will also be necessary to determine how the wide array of other related plans should inform this planning process. Similarly, it will be critical to recognize how the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan will fit into the overall planning framework for the City of Boulder_ Figure 1 illustrates the planning framework adopted by the community in the BVCP. Processes to develop Priority-Based Budgets (PBB), departmental master plans, and subcommunity/area plans are directly informed by and flow from the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequently, these documents inform specific operating budgets, capital improvement programs (CIP), and standards for development and zoning. Figure 1: Comprehensive Planning Framework for the City of Boulder Sus Gay~~ey Camprehe a~~~e a Arai r ~s Priority- Department I Subcommunity Based Strategicl and Budgeting Master Plan Area Plans Development i Operating Capital Improvements Standards Budget Program and Zoning This topical report provides a review of related planning documents that are essential to consider while updating the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. As already mentioned, perhaps the two most critical plans to apply are the 2006 version of the Master Plan and the BVCP. As such, they are reviewed first; additional documents are listed in an order reflective of the Boulder planning framework. In other topical reports, efforts have already been made to incorporate effective planning and engagement techniques that have been used in several of the reports listed. Through these processes, the planning team will be able to identify gaps and necessary next steps for the City of Boulder. s 21 Al Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan RELATED PLANS Foundational Planning Documents Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006 As a major update to the previous plan, the 2006 Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan presents a vision for Boulder recreation spaces over the following 10 years. The plan identifies goals, demographic trends, and major challenges while presenting recommendations with plans at three different levels of funding. Strategies for financial success include leveraging resources, increasing efficiency, and evaluating alternative management of land and other assets. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2010 The 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan outlines core values and a framework to achieve sustainability, intergovernmental cooperation, organized urban development, expansion of utilities services, and other initiatives. The plan consists of multiple frameworks to achieve its stated core values, three of which are sustainability, intergovernmental cooperation, and growth management. The sustainability framework focuses on principles of environmental, economic, and social sustainability along with an emphasis on community engagement. Intergovernmental cooperation focuses on regional and state cooperation, policy assessment, collaboration in service delivery, and compliance with land-use regulations. Growth management focuses on the city's role in managing growth and development, including growth projections, growth requirements, and adapting to limits on physical expansion. This planning document outlines procedures for amendments and implementation as well as review processes. Budgeting Planning and Guidance Documents Blue Ribbon Commission, 2006 At the 2006 City Council Retreat, an initiative was put forward to appoint a blue ribbon commission (BRC) to study revenue policy issues confronting the city. This committee consisted of technical experts in governmental tax policy as well as distinguished community members who understood the history of Boulder sales tax initiatives and could evaluate the political receptiveness of future tax initiatives. Appointed by City Council, this Commission has been asked to establish a long-term, balanced, and stable revenue stream for the City of Boulder that accomplishes public priorities while allowing flexibility to meet the varied and dynamic needs of the municipal corporation in the next 20 years. A second phase of this initiative will call for "BRC II" to refine the revenue stabilization recommendations of BRC Phase I and to continue the implementation of the principles and policies initially proposed by the first BRC. The group will also be completing a review of city expenditures to ensure that public funds are being used effectively and efficiently. City Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing (Report to the City Manager), 2008 The 2006 Report to the City Manager from the Work Group on Recreation Financing made suggestions regarding the pricing and funding structure for recreation programs in Boulder. The suggestions are based on the findings of two studies completed by outside experts commissioned to assist the group. The group found the current practices concerning recreation revenues and expenses, cast-recovery model, and Recreation Activity Fund (RAF} to be sound but recognized a need for increased transparency and clear explanations of policies to the public. The group provided a revised cost-recovery model and eight suggestions for improved transparency within the recreation department. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan -RELATED PLANS 01her Department or Program Sirategic Plans Boulder Greenways Program Summary (Section 14 of 2005 Major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan), 2005 In 2005, major updates were made to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including the addition of information on the Greenways Program. The Greenways Program Summary (Section 14) provides an overview of the program as well as updates on the status of the initiative. Created in 1984, the goal of this program is to protect and enhance riparian corridors for animal habitat, recreation, and cultural resource protection while enhancing storm drainage and floodplain management. In 2001, a Master Plan update unveiled new guidelines for project review and approval and the establishment of a Greenways Advisory Committee consisting of one representative from six boards: 1) Water and Resource Advisory Board; 2) Transportation Advisory Board; 3) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; 4) Open Space Board of Trustees; 5) Environmental Advisory Board; and 6) Planning Board. Boulder Public Library Master Plan, 2007 The Boulder Public Library Master Plan is based on the recognition that given the explosive growth of the Internet, electronic information and increasingly easy-to-use search engines, the role of public libraries is changing rapidly and dramatically. These trends increase the relevance and need for public libraries. The BPL must keep up with a rapidly changing information environment and help all members of our community live their lives in a world of expanding information resources. The purpose of the BPL Master Plan is to articulate the policies, goals and strategies that the library will use to meet this challenge through 2017, within the context of its mission, its philosophical framework, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the city of Boulder's business plan. The focus of this master plan update is how to address these strategic issues within the context of the library's mission, its philosophical framework, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the city of Boulder business plan. Outreach and public input was a critical part of the planning process. Using the public input and the counsel provided by the Library Master Planning Committee, the staff, and the Library Commission, plan elements were developed that comprise the core of the master plan. These include the library's mission statement, the vision of what success looks like, principles that reflect priorities and guide decision-making, long-range goals, and implementation strategies for three different levels of funding. Boulder Sustainable Tourism Plan, 2011 The 2011 Boulder Sustainable Tourism plan set out to develop a framework to enhance the quality of life for Boulder residents while increasing revenue from tourism activities. Goals include economic efforts such as developing off-season tourism; quality of life improvements including integrating technology and developing events and welcome centers; infrastructure updates such as major facilities projects and parks and recreation improvements (e.g., renovate and upgrade Boulder Reservoir, new clubhouse facility at Flatirons Golf Course, renovate and upgrade community parks and municipal complex parks, etc.); transportation initiatives; and increased signage and streetscape improvements. Action items address methods to meet these goals. This plan also included a tourism analysis and return-on-investment analysis. ftly L .t ~ L .t4 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan o Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework, 2012 The Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework, which is still in draft form, was created by the City of Boulder and the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) to develop a plan for the long-term management of Chautauqua Park. The framework includes a management structure, a process for consideration of proposed changes, and a plan for responding to the ever-changing resources and needs of the park. Evaluations of Chautauqua parking, transportation, and overall use are also given. City of Boulder Cultural Master Plan, 2005 Developed by the Boulder Arts Commission (BAC) in cooperation with the 2005 Cultural Steering Committee, the Cultural Master Plan updates the 1992 plan of the same name. The focus of the document is on how the BAC can facilitate economic and social benefit through the arts community. The plan's recommendations include supporting the development of facilities for performance, exhibitions, and teaching; positioning Boulder as a community known for quality arts offerings; increasing public awareness of the value of arts and culture; coordinating the development of organizations for artists and cultural groups; and developing addifional resources among the public and private sectors to support the arts. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan, 2005 The 2005 Open-Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan was created to direct the development, policies, and management of Boulder's open space and mountain parks for the next 10 years. The four goals of the plan include enhancing the experience of visitors, improving access, protecting and ensuring visitor enjoyment of the resource, and developing partnerships with the community to strengthen stewardship and decision making. The plan outlines the current status of the resources in question, future plans, strategies for implementation and monitoring, and a financial plan. City of Boulder Social Sustainability Strategic Plan, 2007 The Social Sustainability Strategic Plan is the outcome of City Council's desire to address emerging social and community concerns in a proactive and integrated manner. The purpose of the plan is three-fold: To formalize goals and strategies which address identified social concerns; to provide policy guidance on priority goals addressing social concerns; and to lay the foundation for an integrated approach to planning and policy development for social, economic and environmental sustainability under the vision of community sustainability. In addition to goal areas which focus on specific populations, the plan emphasizes community engagement and social equity as foundations to social sustainability. Colorado Parks and Recreation Association Vision Plan (draft), 2012 In January 2012, the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association (CPRA) and the CPRA set out to redefine their organizations through the development of a Vision Plan. The planning process included members, allied partners and professionals in identifying trends and issues affecting CPRA, the Foundation and profession. This five-year strategic plan will respond to trends in parks and recreation and enable their organizations to create a preferred future through education, advocacy and financial support. The vision plan will enable CPRA and the F=oundation to effectively meet the needs of new professionals and future leaders and to advance new standards and benchmarks for the parks and recreation profession. The next draft of the Vision Plan will be unveiled for review at the Annual Conference in Keystone in October 2012. Based ,0,. ) 5 RELATED PLANS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan on the comments received on the draft plan, the Vision Plan will be finalized to guide the activities of CPRA and the Foundation. Colorado's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 2008 The 2008 Colorado SCORP is a collaborative product of the work of 33 steering committee members representing the private sector, state and federal agencies, local governments, and non-profit partners. It sets the framework and seeks to establish the overall direction and tone for statewide outdoor recreation planning through 2013. The plan recognizes that effective policies, programs, and sustainable partnerships must be pursued to further strengthen the relationships of key groups that oversee and manage outdoor recreation, tourism, public health, and environmental stewardship elements. Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Master Plan, 2005 The 2005 FAM Master Plan update set out to utilize the management experience gained and technological advances made in the eight years since the previous master plan to better manage the existing and recently acquired assets of Boulder. Updates in this plan include new goals for 2014 including promoting efficient use of existing space, promoting sustainability and energy-saving improvements, increased coordination with other departments, and better management of current assets. The plan also outlines funding strategies and an action plan for achieving a sustainable level of maintenance. Greenways Master Plan, 2011 The purpose of the Greenways Program is to extend the stewardship of the City of Boulder to the important riparian areas along the tributaries of Boulder Creek. The Greenways Program manages these areas so as to integrate six objectives; 1) to protect and restore riparian, floodplain, and wetland habitat; 2) to enhance water quality; 3) to facilitate storm drainage and mitigate floods; 4) to provide alternative transportation routes or trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; 5) to provide recreation opportunities; and 6) to protect cultural resources. The Greenways Master Plan provides a framework to implement the program through coordinating planning, construction, maintenance activities, and funding sources of multiple city departments and outside agencies. Human Services Master Plan, 2008-2013 The 2008-2013 Boulder County Human Services Strategic Plan (BCHSSP) represents the first step of a planning process. In 2006, a Steering Committee was created to establish a coordinated human services planning process in order to improve the community based organization funding process in a way that would maximize the countywide investments in social and human services. The steering committee represented a broad-based group of municipalities, funders, and nonprofits. The report provides a summary and synthesis of the most recent information about human services needs in Boulder County. The Boulder County Human Services Strategic Planning provides a structure in which to bring together all of those working in, or concerned about, a particular human services area, on a continuing basis in a structured forum to discuss issues and share practices that work best. Metro Vision 2035 Plan, 2011 In 2011, the Metro Vision 2035 plan, which outlines directions for policy and planning decisions in the Denver metro area, was released. The plan defines goals and identifies measurable outcomes for reducing urban sprawl, energy conservation, natural-area preservation, and Imo; i Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan RELATED P~AN transportation initiatives in the cities and counties making up the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). The Metro Vision 20110 plan is currently underway. Transportation Master Plan (TMP), City of Boulder, Colorado, 2008 The most recent Transportation Master Plan for the City of Boulder was drafted and approved in 2008. The plan defines transportation policies and puts forth recommendations and plans for strategic actions, funding, proposed projects, and an overall vision for the city's transportation system in addition to goals and objectives through the year 2025. This plan is currently being updated. Urban Wildlife Plan, 2006, 2011 Urban Wildlife Management Plan (UWMP) establishes a set of policies and procedures for managing wildlife, including species of special concern, within Boulder on both public and private lands. The purpose of the UWMP is to develop effective strategies to minimize human/wildlife conflicts and increase public awareness on how to better coexist with these animals. The UWMP includes the Black Bear and Mountain Lion Component, approved in 2011 as well as the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Component, approved in 2006. The city's goals and the plan support and recommend the protection of animal species, not individual animals and emphasize humane, non-lethal control of wildlife whenever possible. This plan was put together by the City Council, Environmental Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and members of the community and will continue to take a broader look at wildlife and urban land- use issues when making decisions about managing wildlife in specific areas. Subcommunity and Area Planning Documents Boulder Junction Area Plan (formerly called Transit Village Area Plan, 2010) The Transit Village Area Plan specifically addresses the development of the 160-acre area of centrally located transportation corridors and greenways in Boulder. The plan's goals and objectives include creating a successful pedestrian mixed-use area, supporting diversity through land use and travel options, enhancing the economic vitality of the area, connecting to the natural and built environment, maximizing the benefits of investing in transit, and building a plan that will adapt and serve Boulder for the long-term future. The plan also outlines how goals will be met for specific objectives within the following categories: land use, urban design, transportation connections, alternative modes, and sustainability. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, 2012 The 2012 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan was the first plan update since 1983. The plan establishes management objectives and suggestions to guide investment strategies to sustain and protect the recreation and wildlife associated with the reservoir. The plan defines specific management areas, access conditions and issues, water quality and habitat information, and stewardship opportunities. An implementation plan outlines opportunities for stewardship and plans for adaptive resource management. Civic Area Master Plan (in process), 2012 The purpose of the civic area planning project is to develop a comprehensive vision for the area and better define the area's role in the larger city. The final plan will need to balance the programmatic needs of the city, desired community uses, flood hazards, available land and financial feasibility with the broader goals of creating the heart of a sustainable community and t RELATED PLANS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan forging the future of municipal government. The planning process will explore potential civic, cultural, recreational and commercial uses and take into consideration the trade-offs inherent in different flood mitigation options. Other Planning Documents Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau Mission and Program of Work 2010 Year-End Report, 2010 This year-end report provides a general summary and various numeric totals for Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) initiatives throughout 2010. The CVB reports an increase in total estimated economic impact stemming from meetings and conferences in Boulder. Visitor services data is provided, including visitor center traffic, brochure distribution results, website analytics, and social media traffic reports. Local, national, and international marketing efforts are noted as well as involvement in community projects and events. As a year-end report, this document does not outline goals or strategic initiatives for the future. City of Boulder Budget Book, 2012 The city budget book provides an accounting of all city revenues and operating, maintenance and capital expenditures. Pursuant to the recommendations in the BRC 11 study, the city adopted a priority-based budgeting system (PBB). PBB incorporates community goals and values stated in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The budgeting process employs a scoring methodology that rates city programs and services against the stated community goals. PBB provides a tool for allocating funding, adding or eliminating city services to ensure the most efficient use of limited city financial resources. City of Boulder's Capital Improvements Program (CIP), 2012-2017 The City of Boulder's Capital Improvements Program (CiP) is a six-year plan for public physical improvements. The 2012-2017 Capital Improvements Program includes proposed funding of $171.4 million for 171 projects. Seventy-six projects are recommended for funding in 2012, totaling $23.8 million. The CIP provides a forecast of funds available for capital projects and identifies all planned capital improvement projects and their estimated costs over the six-year period. The CiP is an essential implementation tool for carrying out the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's policies of orderly and efficient provision of urban facilities and services. City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department ADA Transition Plans, 2015 The city of Boulder Parks & Recreation Department created three transition plans which detail efforts to comply with the 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These plans propose enhancements and modifications to certain parks and facilities to bring them into compliance with ADA requirements by 2015. The first transition plan addresses parks and playgrounds, the second addresses recreation facilities and the third plan addresses our internal and external operating procedures and guidelines. The process to complete the transition plans will be to gather feedback will be through focus group meetings held by department staff, an open house and through a Presentation for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). City of Boulder Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan, 2010 The Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan (RPFP) draws from responses to the 2004 Recreation Plan Survey, open houses, feedback, community values, and recommendations from the City DI k 8 AA T.W 1 .L..wn- Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing to put forth a plan to guide decisions concerning program offerings, facility management, and the use of financial resources. Key recommendations are listed in the report, including pursuing partnerships to reduce expenses and increase revenues, consistent program evaluation, development of a marketing and business plan, and a plan to update the RPFP every five years. Analysis In recent years, the City of Boulder and surrounding areas have produced many plans that pertain to recreation programming, financial stability, and numerous resource management strategies. In fact, several plans have been completed in the last three years. A holistic view of the plans shows that effective management, environmental sustainability, and financial responsibility have been three particularly prevalent overarching themes. Some plans directly reference and some indirectly allude to achieving better alignment with other city departments. Discussion The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan update will need to examine standing goals, approaches, and strategies in key programmatic and administrative area to determine the most appropriate direction for the City of Boulder. Given the number of plans produced in recent years that have relevance to parks and recreation, the needs assessment phase of the master planning process should include an analysis of key strategies from other plans that will need to align with the recommendations of this plan. At this point, we can identify a need to incorporate at least eight particular plans that address findings from departmental research and civic engagement outcomes: 1) Boulder 2006 Master Plan; 2) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; 3) City Managers Work Group on Recreation Financing; 4) Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan (RPFP); 5) Facility Asset Management; 6) Sustainable Tourism Plan; 7) Boulder Greenways Program summary and 8) Open Space & Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan. Financial stability and cost recovery have been growing concerns with the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD). The Blue Ribbon Commission (2006) and RPFP (2010) are seminal documents for addressing this growing concern. Extensive analysis of these plans and the current financial management approaches taken by BPRD will be the basis for determining appropriate future considerations. Facility Asset Management (FAM), Open Space and Mountain Parks, and the Sustainable Tourism Plan are important documents regarding the latest alignment goals/strategies and facility/resource management approaches. Updated management techniques and approaches will interweave with financial cost recovery and policy so that analyses will take into consideration a multi-faceted approach to overall facility, resource, and life-cycle management. Finally, the integration of all the various plans that are part of the City of Boulder's efforts to develop a shared future vision of the community is a demanding task that the City continues to struggle with. The development of a database and integration of planning goals are likely outcomes of such an eff ort that must also include stakeholders from the many plans and departments. While this Master Plan Update will be able to integrate major themes among the 1 RELATED PLANS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan various planning documents, a more thorough effort may be required to realize full integration. One potential approach that may have merit would be to further develop the City of Boulder's sustainability framework to be the integration process through creation of a unifying data base, integration review team, and annual action planning that precedes budget development. This approach could be developed and managed by the City Manager and represents a shift from strategic planning to effective strategy implementation and development. This approach emphasizes outcome and performance management, 2 year planning-budgeting cycles, shared resources among divisions/units/departments, and is generally used outside the U.S. ly~1 l~ ~s t3 l.LQl.llllil..ia~ TOPICAL REPORT: CHARTER, MISSION & VISION Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress f Development Phase Notes _ Research methodology approved Preliminary research and analysis complete Data gaps identified and remaining research Some relevant data has not been obtained and/or assigned verified. Instances of this are noted. When applicable, these issues will be addressed in the Needs Assessment. _ All data obtained ✓ Preliminary community plan integration review _ It Preliminary, department leadership review Technical (TAG) review _ In ro ress F-I Board (PRAB) review In progress Department leadership review Topical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan inte ration Summary The organizational purpose and intent of the City of Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) are captured in several separate but complementary statements from different guidance and governing documents. The most fundamental guidance is found in the Boulder City Charter. Stemming from this foundation are the department's mission, vision, and goal statements. Each is presented below. City Charter, Article A Section 155 Under the direction, supervision, and control of the city manager, the department of parks and recreation: (a) Shall supervise, administer, and maintain all park property and recreation facilities. )III Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan (b) Shall supervise, administer, and execute ail park and recreation programs, plans, functions, and activities of the city. (c) Shall prepare and submit to the parks and recreation advisory board written recommendations on those matters where this article requires a recommendation from said board prior to council or department action. (d) May, at the request of the parks and recreation advisory board, prepare and submit to the board information and recommendations on such park and recreation matters as are not provided for by (c) above. (e) May request advice on any park and recreation matter from the parks and recreation advisory board. (Added by Ord. No. 2392 (1961), § 1, adopted by electorate on January 31, 1961.) Mission statement The mission of the City of Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department is to provide safe, clean, and beautiful parks and facilities and high-quality leisure activities for the community, These services shall enhance residents' health and well-being and promote economic vitality for long- term community sustainability. We will accomplish this through creative leadership, environmentally sustainable practices, and the responsible use of available resources. Vision statement Strive for excellence in our parks and recreation system to reflect and serve the unique values and qualities of our community. Department goals from 2006 Master Plan (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) Engage a broader range of the community, especially underrepresented populations (5) Be a community-wide leader in environmental sustainability (6) Enhance our quality of life Analysis An overarching goal of the 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is to investigate the department's existing role as a provider of public services in the Boulder community and to make recommendations to allow for greater effectiveness. A critical step in preparing such an analysis is understanding what is expected, both formally and informally, from the department as well as understanding how these expectations align with similar or related pursuits of other entities. The City Charter articulates the most fundamental expectations of the department in general, which could be summarized in abstract as these two charges: manage parks and recreation facilities and programs, and engage the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) by providing recommendations or requesting advice (in the case of and per the appropriate process). To that end, in order for the Master Plan Update to be successful, it must identify ways to maintain or enhance the department's management capacity and utilization of the PRAB. 2 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan A first step in achieving this success involves reviewing the organizational mission and vision statements to ensure that they fit within the framework created by the charter. Mission statements, which are typically stable, long-term and enduring, describe the general purpose of an organization using the charter framework as is updated by the community's contemporary needs. Mission statements answer the question, "What does the organization do?" Vision statements, which are also long-term yet regularly reviewed, focus on the future and describe the desired accomplishment of the organization. Like mission statements, they align with charter mandates to achieve and maintain a desirable future which is shared by the community, policy makers, advisory boards and the professional staff of the BPRD. Vision statements answer the question, "Where do we want the organization to be?" A best practice utilized by many park and recreation departments is to review and update these statements to reflect current conditions and changes in community need approximately every 3 to 5 years. The Parks and Recreation Department's current mission and vision as found in the 2006 Master Plan are analyzed further below. The strength of each is found in their first sentence. See the table below (emphasis added). The mission is effective in stating that in order to fulfill its charter, the department will provide parks, facilities, and activities. The vision identifies the desired accomplishment as a reflection and service of Boulder's values and qualities. Mission Vision • • • we do?") ("Where do we • to be? "...provide safe, clean, and beautiful parks "...excellence in our parks and recreation and facilities and high-quality leisure activities system to reflect and serve the unique values for the community." and qualities of our community." Further analysis of the mission and vision statements suggests that some wording is not specific and difficult to operationalize (i.e., excellence) and that the content included in both statements appears to be goals, objectives, or methods to be used in attaining the mission. Generally, descriptions of how an organization will fulfill its mission and vision are not contained in the mission and vision statements but are expressed as goals, objectives, or actions. Operationally, statements of "how" (i.e., operationalize how something is to be done) tend to be nested and hierarchical. Goals are typically higher-order expressions, while objectives specify what is needed to achieve goals, and actions identify individual steps. The six goal statements from the 2006 Master Plan range in specificity, and by virtue of the passage of time since they were developed, arguably fall short in encompassing the array of areas of responsibility that befall the department. Discussion The Master Plan Update should include a fundamental review of the mission, vision, and goal statements of the Department. These should be revised to reflect the current needs of the community, available resources, and public expectations of the department. Specifically, revisions should focus on the mission and vision statements significantly, modifying them as Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan necessary to fit the framework from the charter, and create a shared desired future for parks and recreation in the community that includes the values and qualities of the community that the department can contribute to most. Revisions to the BPRD vision and mission should consider the full landscape of related service providers in the community. It would be ineffective and inefficient for the department to establish a purpose or to set goals that significantly overlap with services offered by another public provider, unless an explicit decision is made to do so. The following table presents mission statements of related agencies. The master planning process will help find ways in which BPRD can supplement, rather than supplant, these complementary public services. Agency Mission Open Space and Mountain Parks, City of ...[P]reserves and protects the natural Boulder environment and land resources that characterize Boulder. We foster appreciation and use that sustain the natural values of the land for current and future generations. Housing and Human Services, City of Boulder ...[C]reate a healthy, socially thriving and inclusive community by providing and supporting housing and human services to Boulder residents in need. Library and the Arts, City of Boulder ...[E]nhance the personal and professional growth of Boulder residents and contribute to the development and sustainability of an engaged community through free access to ideas, information, cultural experiences and educational opportunities. Transportation Division, Public Works, City of [F]acilitates the mobility of people and Boulder goods by developing and maintaining a safe, efficient, environmentally sound and balanced transportation system with emphasis on transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular transportation and street and bikeway maintenance. Local Environmental Action Division (LEAD), ...[E]ngage and assist the community to City of Boulder reduce waste and energy use through education, services and economic assistance. We develop city policy, offer educational programs, and partner with citizens, businesses and other organizations to protect Boulder's environment. Boulder County Public Health ...[Pirotect, promote, and enhance the health and well-being of all people and the environment in Boulder County. Boulder County Parks ...[Cionserve natural, cultural and agricultural resources and provide public uses that reflect sound resource management and community a »w? Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan CHARTER, values. These goal statements provide more detail on how the mission will be served. Similarly to the mission/vision statements, revisions to the goals should focus on the core values of the department which may include the following based on community values: promoting public health, social capital, urban ecosystem awareness, physical connectivity, and community connectivity, in addition to the citywide established goals of promoting environmental, social, and economic sustainability. A broader context for establishing the department's statements of purpose can be found among related agencies' planning documents. A separate topical report reviews several strategic and master plans that help shape the community and help inform the role that the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department should fill. Further analysis of the department's mission, and PRAB charter may also be appropriate in the context of comparing it to other 'benchmark' communities. This secondary level of research may be appropriate in preparation for City Council study sessions, community group meetings such as Pathfinders and summits, if a determination is made that the mission and charter contents need revision and updating. n.u~.aaiio~aa i. v TOPICAL REPORT: TRENDS Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: 'topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes ✓ Research methodology approved ✓ Preliminary research and analysis complete ✓ Data gaps identified and remaining research assigned ✓ All data obtained ✓ Preliminary community plan integration review ✓ Preliminary department leadership review Technical TAG review In progress Board PRAB review In progress Department leadership review Topical Report research and anal sis complete J ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan integration Introduction The most effective planning documents draw upon a combination of best practices in strategy development as well as highly contextual information about the planning area. Examining the key issues and evolving trends of a community provides a critical backdrop to other research findings and helps compose an accurate, comprehensive depiction of planning needs. This paper will explore the key issues and trends relevant to parks and recreation in Boulder, setting the stage to develop meaningful strategic recommendations. In general, the recent major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan points to three primary areas in which Boulder has experienced change in the last several years. First, demographic trends have begun to present challenges to city leaders as the population grows older, poverty rates increase, and households change structure. These trends result in an additional demand for social services and require new approaches to providing livable neighborhoods. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Second, the importance of environmental sustainability has been driven by continued increases in local energy demand and emerging awareness of climate change. The community has strengthened policies on energy efficiency and environmental protection in areas such as waste management, utilities, transportation, land use, and social services. Third, the economic vitality of the community has faced challenges recently. While the national economic downturn affected Boulder, a number of other factors did as well. Neighboring communities grew in terms of retail development and job creation in greater proportion to Boulder. In general, this has presented local leaders and business owners more complex and difficult questions about Boulder's financial and economic condition, including how to create financially sustainable policies and frameworks to drive the community's economy. To respond to these challenges, many of the recent and ongoing planning efforts in Boulder focus on sustainability, particularly social equity, environmental health, and economic vitality. There has also been a complementary emphasis on community design and urban form. Many of the specific issues and trends uncovered to date as a part of the parks and recreation planning process reflect these concepts, such as constituent demography, facility management processes, recreation program provision, connecting the population with outdoor and recreation resources, enhancing public health, and organizational capacity. These issues merit discussion, which this topical report aims to provide in order to offer additional context for the master planning process. Key Demographic Facts and Social Trends Boulder is the seat of Boulder County, Colorado, part of the Boulder-Longmont Metropolitan Statistical Area. The City has approximately 100,000 residents, or about one-third of the 296,000 total individuals living in Boulder County. This section of the topical report summarizes information from the U.S. Census Bureau and synthesizes it with findings from other documents provided by various agencies and organizations: • Boulder Economic Council, Demographic Profile, December 2011 • Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2010 BVCP Key Trends Report • City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning & Sustainability, Highlights from the 2010 U.S. Census, December 2011 • City of Boulder, Department of Community Planning & Sustainability, Existing and Projected Jobs, Housing, and Population, October 2012 • The Community Foundation, Boulder County Civic Forum, TRENDS, 2011 A preface to any analysis of the demographic nature of Boulder must recognize the significant influence of the University of Colorado (CU) on the city. According to the university, about 21,600 students live in Boulder, including those in residence halls, during the academic year. This equates to 71 % of the CU-Boulder student body, and because they are considered by the Census Bureau to be residents, students total about 22% of the total population of Boulder. As evidenced in the summaries below, the effect of CU is reflected in the city's demography, particularly in terms of age, income, education, and housing. Population 21{`x4.} s Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Reports of both the historical and projected population for the City of Boulder can vary depending upon the source of information used for analysis. On several occasions in past years, the City of Boulder has questioned the findings of the U.S. Census Bureau, claiming an undercount of both people and housing units. In 2000, the City formally challenged the results of that year's decennial Census. The Colorado State Demographer concurred with Boulder's challenge, estimating that Boulder actually had about 4,500 additional residents and 2,000 more households than reported by the Census Bureau. The City again challenged the results of the 2010 Census, claiming primarily that group quarter populations had been undercounted by several hundred individuals. As in 2000, this challenge was also supported by the State Demographer. In December 201 1 , the Boulder Economic Council (BEC) synthesized the best available information from both the U.S. Census Bureau and the City of Boulder and presented results that are depicted in Figure 1. Between 1970 and 2000, the city's population increased an average of 1.6% per year, from 66,870 to 98,747. Between 2000 and 2010, the population remained about the same, representing the lowest rate of growth in a generation. Figure 1: BEG Boulder Population Estimates, 1970-2010 120,000 r { i oo,000 80,000 ~ - - 60,000 - - - 40,000 20,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 ~ City of Boulder 66,870 76,685 83,312 98,747 97,948 Population forecasts for the community are limited by the fact that the U.S. Census Bureau does not make projections lower than the county level. Given these circumstances, the City of Boulder has developed its own population projection to inform planning initiatives. Their analysis finds that the population of the city is increasing, and will continue to increase, at a rate of about I% per year. Figure 2 illustrates past estimates and future projections of population by the City of Boulder (COB) and the U.S. Census (Census). Between 1970 and 2000, Boulder County grew at a rate of about 47* per year, but from 2000 to 2010, that rate slowed to less than i However, the county growth rate is expected to increase again between now and 2030 at a noticeably higher pace than that of the City of Boulder. As a result, the percentage of the County's population living in the City of Boulder will continue to decrease, with more growth likely to occur in neighboring Longmont. The Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan, which represents the second-most-populated community in Boulder 3 IRENDS ® Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan County, projects that Longmont will meet or surpass the population of Boulder between the years 2025 and 2035. figure 2: Boulder City and County Population, 1970-2030 400,000 60% 350,000 50% 300,000 = 250,000 40% 200,000 - - 30% 150,000 20% 100,000 50,000 10% 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 0% Boulder County (Census) 131,889 189,625 225,339 291,288 294,567 332,107 366,960 --0- City of Boulder (COB) 63,500 76,685 83,312 99,093 103.600 110,000 116,000 % County pop. 48.1% 40.4% 37.07o 34.0% 35.2% 33.1% 31.6% Race While deriving estimates and projections of the general population may be complex, doing so based upon race is no more straightforward. Of the multiple sources consulted for this topical report, some break down the population by ethnicity, others by race. According to the Colorado State Demography Office, Race and ethnicity are considered separate and distinct identities, with Hispanic or Latino origin asked as separate questions. Thus, in addition to their race or races, all respondents are categorized by membership in one of two ethnicities, which are "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino." Using 2010 American Community Survey data, the Boulder Economic Council presents the race and ethnicity of the city as displayed in Table 1. The BEC specifies "race" as race alone, or in combination with one or more other races. As such, each geography will total more than 100%. `y Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 2: Race Distribution, 2010 White Black or American Asian Other Hispanic or African Indian or Latino (of American Alaska any race) Native City of 90.4% 2.5% 1.8% 6.4% 3.2% 10.4% Boulder Boulder 89.9% 1.6% 1.3% 5.2% 5.3% 13.4% County Colorado 86.417o 4.9% 2.2% 3.8% 6.6% 20.8% United States 76.4% 13.6% 1.6% 5.67o 5.7% 16.47,1, Projections for changes to the composition of the population by race are not calculated for counties or municipalities; however, the Colorado State Demography Office developed a statewide forecast in October 2011. Figure 3 presents ethnic groups' share of the Colorado population through 2030. Populations of Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian remain relatively stable in proportion to all other races. The share of individuals of Hispanic origin grows noticeably, outpacing the growth of all other races, including White/non- Hispanic. The same trend may not unfold in the some way in Boulder, but the nationwide trend of a burgeoning Hispanic population is undeniable, and will very likely have an effect on the city. Age Distribution According to the data reported by the U.S. Census in the 2010 American Community Survey and the Boulder Economic Council, Boulder exhibits characteristics of a community with a major university. The city has a median age of 28.8 years compared to the national median of 37.2 years. Looking specifically at the adult population, one-third are between the ages of 18 and 24. Nationally, 13% of the population is within that age range (see Figure 3). Over time, age distribution is expected to shift to reflect a larger proportion of older adults. Generally, all segments of the population in terms of age will continue to grow, but not as quickly as those later i.n life. The Colorado State Demography Office offers age-based population projections for each county. Data for Boulder County is presented in Figure 4. Unfortunately, the State Demographer does not offer data specific to municipalities. Trends show that the segment of adults aged 50-69 and 70 and older will experience notable growth in the next decades. The population of individuals 70 and older especially will grow, predictably at an increasing rate. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 3: Race Distribution, 2000-2030 100% ~ f r 80% i _ 70% 60% - - i 50% - - 40% 30% j - - - - - 20% - - - 0% 2000 2005 I 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Am. Indian, non-hispanic 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% m Asian/PI, non-hispanic 37o 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% ■Black, non-hispanic 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%4 4% ti Hispanic Origin 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29% White, non-hiSpanic 75% 73% 71% 69% 66% 64% 61% Figure 4: Age Distribution of Adults, 2010 35% 30% ■ City of Boulder 20% 1 1 ■ Boulder County 155/6 I 1} a Colorado t III 10% ❑ United States 5% I 0% _ 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ I` A I A! Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 5: Population Estimates by Age, Boulder County, 2005-2030 100,000 90,000 1 I 80,000 70,000 ; - - 60,000 - I 50,000 - - - - dde. 40,000 I - - - 30,000 - - - - - 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 I 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 0 to 6 23,424 23,584 22,738 24,138 25,451 26,877 j^-+p-6 to 17 41,662 42,745 44,292 44,045 43,983 45,878 ONO*= 18 to 29 57,789 62,138 64,083 66,036 71,263 71,059 1-00=30 to 49 89,370 82,228 81,768 85,094 85,824 90,026 50 to 69 56,491 68,731 78,852 83,461 84,357 83,077 - -70 to 90* 17,409 19,674 24,214 32,784 43,223 53,844 i Income When the City of Boulder's household income is analyzed, the presence of CU is again seen in the relatively high proportion of earnings less than $25,000 per year. Figure 5 represents data collected by the 2010 American Community Survey and the Boulder Economic Council. Note how the city is reflected at the other extreme, with a relatively high proportion of households earning over $100,000. -TRENDS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 6: Household Income Distribution, 2010 35% 30% 25% ■ City of Boulder 20% ~ I- - I ■ Boulder County 15% ®Colorado I r 10% i j O United States 5% 0% <$25,000 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-74,999 $75,000-99,999 $100,000+ Household income accounts for the earnings of all residents of a household. Residents need not be related, and households may consist of only one individual. To provide an alternative perspective that adjusts for the presence of the university, the distribution of family income, rather than household income, should be analyzed (see Figure 6). Family income considers only those households that have two or more individuals related through blood, marriage, or adoption. Nearly half of all families in Boulder have a combined income of over $100,000, whereas about 25% of families nationwide earn that amount. Figure 7: Family Income Distribution, 2010 50% 45% 40% 35% 30°''0 ■ City of Boulder - - _ 25% - - ■ Boulder County 20% a Colorado 15% , o United States 10% ! 5% a 0% - <$25,000 $25,000-49,999 $50,000-74,999 $75,000-99,999 $100,000+ Figure 7 contains a summary of median income in 2010 for households, families, and individuals. The City of Boulder's median household income is less than the county's and the state's, but the median family income is noticeably higher than the county, state, and nation, 5 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ► Figure 8: Annual Income Comparison, 2010 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 - $70,000 - - $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Per Capita Median Household Median Family i ■ City of Boulder $33,981 $52,618 $92,540 ■ Boulder County, $35,988 $61,859 $86,145 61 Colorado $28,723 J- $54,046 i $67,800 a United States $26,059 $50,046 $60,609 Education According to the Boulder Economic Council, the Boulder-Longmont Metropolitan Statistical Area has the nation's highest percentage of residents (age 25 or older) with a bachelor's degree or higher according to 2010 data. In the City of Boulder specifically, the amount is 67%, which is over twice the national average (see Figure 8). Across the United States, approximately one in ten individuals has an advanced degree. In the City of Boulder, that number is approximately one in three. figure 9: Educational Attainment of Adults, 2010 40% 35% 30% 25% ■ City of Boulder 20% ■ Boulder County 15% ■ Colorado 10% F W o United States 0% Sorne HS or less HS graduate Some college Bachelor's Advanced degree degree 9 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Housing The 2010 American Community Survey reports that most homes in Boulder are occupied by renters as opposed to owners, a certain effect of CU. This differs with trends across Boulder County, the State of Colorado, and the United States (see Figure 10). Moreover, housing costs are generally higher in Boulder compared to elsewhere. The amount of median monthly gross rent was $1,082 versus $855 nationally. The median value of owner-occupied homes in Boulder was $529,300 compared to a national median value of $179,900. Figure 10: Housing Occupancy Type, 2010 100% 90% r 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% City of Boulder United Boulder County Colorado States ❑ Renter-occupied 53.1% 37.7% 34.1% 34.6% ■ Owner-occupied 46.9% 62.3% 65.9% 65.4% In their analysis of data from the 2010 Decennial Census, the City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability observed that the number of individuals per household in Boulder has decreased almost continuously since 1970. Since that time, Boulder has been below the national, state, and county averages for people per household. In 2000, the national average was 2.59 individuals per household; Boulder was 2.20. At the time of the 2010 Census, the national average was 2.58, and Boulder was 2.16. The neighborhoods of North Boulder, Williams Village, East Boulder, and Central Boulder added more new households than any other part of the city. Key Public Health Trends Other issues related to public health bear relevance to the provision of parks and recreation in Boulder, especially in terms of social and environmental sustainability. Residents of Colorado are more active than many other people in the country. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 53.9% of Coloradans get the recommended amount of physical activity, compared to only 48.1% of the national population. However, many Coloradans, particularly today's youth, are increasingly sedentary. As a result, childhood obesity rates (14.27 in 2009 - an increase of 4.3% from 2007) are a cause for attention among park and recreation professionals. Childhood obesity saw an increase of 4.3% from 2007 to 2009. Like 10 I,r A, ~x Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan much of the U.S., Colorado is experiencing declining youth participation in outdoor recreation activifies. Currently, there is an increasing prevalence of "nature deficit disorder" (a term coined by Richard Louv in his book Last Child in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature Deficit Disorder). Nature deficit disorder refers to the phenomenon of many of today's youth not experiencing the social, mental, and physical benefits of being outside and recreating. Young adults become significantly less active as they enter adulthood, from about the ages of 17 to 22. Interestingly, there is an opportunity to combat an increasing youth obesity rate and nature deficit disorder by facilitating opportunities for outdoor recreation activities. According to the 2012 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, produced by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA), individuals (ages 6+) are planning to spend 20.7% more money for outdoor recreation activities in 2012 than what was spent in 2011. Analysis The City of Boulder is experiencing increased childhood obesity and inactivity rates, minority population growth, and changing lifestyle patterns. In order to address these issues, the City of Boulder must continue to adapt to change and combat growing social concerns. Health and wellness have become a nationwide concern, and, as a result, some recreation activities are growing in popularity. For example, fitness classes and related activities are the most popular physical activities across the nation (SGMA, 2012). As populations continue to grow, recreation facilities that offer multiple uses and serve larger areas/populations are becoming more common out of necessity. With changing demographics and usage trends, there are several identified needs: • Greater community connections, including providing opportunities for multi- generational plans and connections. • Increased recognition and consideration of Boulder as a community that values specialized and physically elite recreation activities more than typical communities. • Changes in programs and facilities to accommodate aging populations and single- parent/dual-working-parent households. • Changes in programs and facilities to accommodate growing minority populations. • Greater collaboration with other agencies, organizations, and individuals (e.g., Colorado University, YMCA, BVSD, private health clubs, etc.). • Shared recreation opportunities that level the widening economic disparity between those living under and over the poverty line. • Addressing changing user populations and wants/desires (e.g., growing ethnic groups, age disparity, etc.). • Addressing social epidemics with growing recreation trends (e.g., inactive youth, obesity rates, nature deficit disorder, desire/willingness to pay for outdoor recreation, etc.). • Facility management with an increased emphasis on environmental stewardship. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Discussion According to the 2011 City of Boulder Community Survey, both sense of community and overall quality of life in Boulder have increased since 2001. Residents reported that urban traveling (i.e., bike and pedestrian facilities such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and paths) is a highly important feature of their community. Also, residents reported a high connectivity rate (i.e., internet-based functions) and desire for technology. There is a strong sense of community in Boulder that may seem incompatible with a need for connectivity, but these findings and research into social media communities suggest that the two overlap and create a different sense of community for younger and more social-media-savvy residents. The City of Boulder is in a challenging stage of community development. Residents desire community connectedness through technology, urban pathways, and engagement opportunities; at the same time, they call for sustainable resource management. Boulder must continue to address a changing and growing population that will increasingly desire different recreation opportunities. To that end, a comprehensive and intentional management strategy that proactively addresses social, economic, and environmental trends will provide a foundation on which the city can build. {1NI'f'! J I TOPICAL REPORT: BENCHMARK ANALYSIS Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes Research methodology approved Preliminary research and analysis complete Data gaps identified and remaining research assigned All data obtained ✓ Preliminary community plan integration review ` ✓ Preliminary department leadership review Some discrepancies in data between this report and the Asset Management report will be reconciled and/or updated during the technical review. Critical data will be verified before being used for key analyses ❑ Technical (TAG) review In ro ress Board (PRAB) review in pro ress T] Department leadership review i ❑ Topical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan integration Introduction and Methods Conducting benchmark analyses provides a degree of insight into how the City of Boulder, and specifically the Parks and Recreation Department, compares to others across the region, state, or nation. Benchmarking is the process of measuring an organization's internal processes and then identifying, understanding, and adapting desirable, outstanding practices from other organizations considered to be best-in-class with the aim of increasing some aspect of performance. Benchmarking studies provide an exploration of the parks and recreation facilities, programs, and administration of multiple communities deemed comparable with the organization under study, in this case, the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD). With the results of a benchmarking analysis, goals can be set, standards redefined, and action plans established. ammmmm Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan The BPRD Master Plan Technical Advisory Group collaborated with the consultant team to identify criteria for selecting benchmark agencies. When determining benchmark agencies, the group aimed to consider communities and agencies with similar demographics, services, and social characteristics. But, the selection process was not intended to find cities exactly like Boulder. Instead, the goal was to find similar agencies that allow for insightful comparisons for measurement and establishing standards. Through a consensus-based process, the group identified criteria to guide the selection of benchmark communities. It was desired that the benchmarks be similar to Boulder regarding as many of these characteristics as possible: • Population • Demographics • Geography • Presence of a major university or college • Presence of a well-developed alternative transportation infrastructure • Presence of a strong environmental ethic • Policies or goals related to cost recovery • Relatively similar program/service offerings • NRPA Gold Medal Award recipient • CAPRA accredited It was also decided that the analysis include 12 benchmarks - five local communities (i.e., within the Denver metropolitan area) and seven national communities. Table 2 lists the chosen benchmark agencies. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 2: Benchmark Community Profile Benchmark Scale Population NRPA Universities Gold Medal CAPRA* Served Class, Boulder, CO 97,385 Ill CU Broomfield, CO Local 55,889 111 - Foothills PRD Local 90,000 111 - 1991, 1986 - Fort Collins, CO Local 143,986 It CSU 1986 South Suburban PRD Local 150,000 it - 1980, 1988, 1996 - Westminster, CO Local 106,114 11 1999, 1991 Ann Arbor, MI National 113,934 11 U of M 1981 Asheville, NC National 83,393 III UNC - Asheville 2002 Since 1994 Bend, OR National 76,639 III - 2006, 1966 Berkeley, CA National 112,580 II UC - Berkeley 1967 Bloomington, IN National 80,405 III IU 2007 Since 2001 Naperville, IL National 143,000 Il Since 2011 Tempe, AZ National 161,719 11 ASU 2006, 1995, 1975 The data collection process for the benchmark analysis was divided into four phases: J. Secondary source-based information gathering using existing documents or other credible internet sources. II. Primary research by contacting agency staff via telephone. A worksheet was used to aid in data reporting (see Appendix A). III. Calculation of additional benchmark metrics using available data (e.g., acres per 1,000 population; department's percentage of city's budget). IV. Follow-up primary research, if needed, to clarify data or ask additional questions. NRPA population classification for Gold Medal Awards: • Class 1- 250,000+ • Class II - 100,000-250,000 • Class III - 50,000-100,000 • Class IV - 20,000-50,000 • Gass V - under 20,000 ~,7 ~ ~ 3 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Response Eleven of the 12 benchmark communities were able to comply with the research team's request for data. Bend, Oregon, indicated they were unable to participate in the analysis. A Caution Regarding Benchmarking In comparing data among different parks and recreation agencies and districts, one must recognize that there are practical limitations in the benchmarking process. Each agency and its service area have a different identity, operate using their own business model, are surrounded by unique political environments, and reflect different community values and priorities. Most importantly, the variables that are researched are almost always determined in different ways by each benchmark agency. The methods used in calculating, measuring, and reporting relevant data are determined by local government requirements and traditions; there is no uniform method of calculating and reporting much of the data used in the benchmark analysis. As a result, the responses from benchmark agencies require a degree of subjective interpretation. It is important to remember that regardless of the precision or validity implied by the findings, this benchmark analysis is intended to provide highly informed yet anecdotal information to support the development of goals, standards, and strategies. Historically, benchmarking was derived from private industry efforts to find competitors that a specific business wanted to emulate in order to improve services and profitability. In this business practice, a desirable competitor was identified, researched, and compared; benchmark business success factors are preliminarily identified for further analysis by the competing business. This detailed analysis is used for modification of product, management, or approach by the business conducting the benchmark research. In emulating the benchmarking model used by business, Boulder Parks and Recreation should use this comparative analysis to determine any general factors it wishes to emulate in other parks agencies, then complete further research to determine how to emulate the selected factor. The ultimate goal, of course, is to enhance Boulder park and recreation services. Benchmark Agency Narrative Profiles Broomfield ICO) Recreation Services Organization, Demographics, and Geography Broomfield Recreation Services serves 56,000 people in suburban Denver with a service area of 34 square miles in the City and County of Broomfield. Organizationally, parks and recreation are decentralized. Recreation Services operates under the Community Resources Department, as does a similar agency, Open Space and Trails. Furthermore, the Public Works Department has a Parks Maintenance division. In total, Broomfield manages approximately 1,000 acres of developed parkland plus 3,900 acres in natural areas and open space. The City and County have 16 acres of developed parks and playgrounds for every 1,000 citizens in their service area. General Facilities and Operations Broomfield manages 80 miles of hard-surface multi-use trails and 23 miles of soft-surface trails primarily for walking, hiking, and passive recreation. The Recreation Services Department operates a community center and a recreation center for a total 130,000 square feet of fA 4klG 4 4L~,: Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan BENCH-MARKS indoor space and offers 6,900 recreation programs among all of its parks and facilities. The agency has an agreement with two local school districts and maintains 12 acres at four different school sites to provide recreation programming. Broomfield's staffing levels include 81 FTFs in Recreation Services and 53 FTEs working in Park Maintenance. Non-permanent FTEs total 54 in recreation and 18 in parks. Finances The total budget for the City and County of Broomfield is $159 million. Broomfield Recreation's budget is $5.7 million, and the Parks Maintenance division budget is also $5.7 million. Recreation facilities maintenance spends $1.1 million, and $600,000 is allocated for athletic field maintenance. Recreation special events receive a budget totaling $194,000, and the marketing budget is $10,000. Broomfield Parks and Recreation's capital budget was $2.7 million in 2010. Revenue from fees and charges augment Broomfield's budget at $2.1 million, which is almost a 40% cost recovery in the Recreation budget. Specialized Facilities Broomfield possesses a variety of outdoor and indoor recreation facilities. Ali of Broomfield's 45 play areas are ADA accessible. The agency owns two 18-hole golf courses, one of which is leased to a golf management organization. Westminster fCOi Department of Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Organization, Demographics, and Geography The Westminster Department of Parks, Recreation, and Libraries is a municipal agency that serves a population of 106,114 residents in a service area that covers 34 square miles. Westminster manages 3,400 acres of developed parkland and 3,000 acres of designated open space. It also owns 2,800 acres of parkland administered by outside agencies. General Facilities and Operations Westminster has developed 63 miles of combined hard- and soft-surface trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. The seven recreation centers that Westminster operates offer the public 228,000 square feet of enclosed space for a variety of activities. A total of 4,500 programs and classes are scheduled in recreation centers and parks annually. Westminster has joint-use agreements with the local school district and nonprofit organizations to enhance its recreation programs. Finance The total budget for the City of Westminster is $93.6 million. The operating budget for the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Libraries is $15.7 million. The agency earns $4.3 million in program revenue. The capital improvement budget for the department is also $4.3 million. Specialized Facilities Westminster Parks and Recreation has 26 baseball fields, 30 designated softball fields, and two multi-use fields used primarily for soccer, football, and other field activites. Parks and Recreation manages one 18-hole golf course and 19 disc goff courses. Aquatics programs are offered at an outdoor swimming pool and indoor swimming pool. Boating, fishing, and camping are offered at Standley Lake Regional Park. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Fort Collins (CO) Parks and Recreation Organization, Demographics, and Geography Fort Collins Parks and Recreation serves a population of 141,000. The system includes 800 acres of urban parkland and 33,000 acres of natural areas and open space. General Facilities and Operations Fort Collins' trail system includes 28 miles of hard-surface trails and 33 miles of soft-surface trails. The agency operates 1 1 recreation centers with a total of 231,000 square feet of indoor recreation space. A joint-use agreement is used with the local school district for athletic and recreation programs. Fort Collins' staffing level is 85 FTEs with 36 on PFT status. There are 116 employees working in the recreation division and 49 in the parks division. Finance The total operating budget for the City of Fort Collins is $471.9 million. Parks and Recreation's total operating budget is $27.5 million, and the budget allocates $6.9 million to recreation programs, $7.0 million to park maintenance, and $1.2 million to urban forestry. The department spends $94,000 on marketing its parks, recreation programs, and special events. Specialized Facilities Fort Collins offers an array of outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, including 35 combined baseball and softball fields and three multi-purpose athletic fields. Parks and Recreation manages three 18-hole golf courses and 50 disc golf courses throughout the city. Fort Collins' 59 indoor basketball courts, seven indoor tennis courts, and an array of fitness facilities offer the community opportunities for recreation exercise. South Suburban (CO) Parks and Recreation District Organization, Demographics, and Geography The South Suburban Parks and Recreation District (PRD) is a quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. The District serves a population of 136,000 residents in the cities of Littleton, Bow Mar, Centennial, Columbine Valley, Lone Tree, and Sheridan - all in the greater Denver area. South Suburban manages 1,200 acres of developed parkland and 2,400 acres of natural areas and open space. General Facilities and Operations The District manages a 92-mile trail system, including 51 miles of hard-surface bicycle and pedestrian trails and 41 miles of soft-surface trails for walking and hiking. The district operates four recreation centers, which total 229,000 square feet of indoor recreation space. Joint-use agreements are used with the local school district and nonprofit organizations for both programming and maintenance. South Suburban PRD employs 485 FTEs, including 224 PFT employees and 261 non-PFT personnel. A total of 115 FTEs are in maintenance and 339 in recreation programs. Finances The total budget for South Suburban PRD is $48.4 million, including a $39.7 million operating budget and a capital budget of $8.7 million. Recreation programs operate with a budget of "!,vrry 6 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan $18.4 million. Total district revenue is $45.7 million, including $11.8 million generated by recreation programs and $8.7 million by the golf program. Specialized Facilities South Suburban PRD owns or manages 100 combined baseball and softball fields as well as 139 athletic fields that support a diversity of sports and recreation activities. All but one of the District's 59 playgrounds are ADA accessible. Foothills (CO) Park and Recreation District Organization, Demographics, and Geography Foothills Parks and Recreation District covers 22 square miles and serves a population of 92,000 residents in south Jefferson County. Foothills PRD manages 330 acres of developed parkland and 1,400 acres of natural areas and open space. General Facilities and Operations Foothills PRD maintains 15 miles of hard-surface trails and 3.5 miles of soft-surface trails. The agency operates two recreation centers and one community center, which total 304,000 square feet of indoor space. Throughout the year Foothills PRD offers more than 2,000 classes and programs. There are 379 FTEs at Foothills PRD, including 104 PFT and 275 non-PFT employees. Of the 379 FTEs in the department, 278 are associated with recreation programs and 101 are associated with the parks and facilities maintenance division, including part-time and seasonal staff. Finance The Foothills PRD has an operating budget of $21.7 million and a capital budget of $1.5 million. The recreation program's operating budget is $6.8 million, and the park's maintenance operating budget is $3.0 million. The agency's budget for administrative services is $2,4 million. Revenue earned in recreation programs totals $7.7 million. The golf program earned revenue totaling $4.6 million. Specialized Facilities Foothills PRD owns and operates a variety of outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, including one dedicated baseball field and 25 diamonds used for both baseball and softball. Of the 41 playgrounds in the Foothills PRD, two are ADA accessible. Ann Arbor (MI) Parks and Recreation Department Organization, Demographics, and Geography The Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Department serves a population of 344,000 in the City of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. Ann Arbor is the home of the university of Michigan, which is the major employer in the area. The Department manages 157 parks on its 2,100 acres of parkland, including 1,200 acres of natural areas. Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation administers another 2,200 acres of open space and greenways. The University of Michigan has 800 acres of land available for public recreation. General Facilities and Operations Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation manages 52 miles of hard- and soft-surface recreational trails for bicycling, hiking, and walking. The department operates 14 recreation centers and two community centers that provide 502,000 square feet of indoor space. Ann Arbor has joint use agreements with the local school district for recreational use and maintenance of facilities. The department also has a joint-use agreement with the nonprofit Leslie Science and Nature Center for youth programming. There are 59 FTEs, including 45 employees on PFT status. Non- permanent FTEs include 300 part-time and seasonal workers. A total of 27 FTEs work in the maintenance section and 12 FTEs are assigned to the recreation programs section. Finance The City of Ann Arbor's operating budget is $78.4 million, and Parks and Recreation's operating budget is $15.5 million. Recreation programs are budgeted at $3.6 million and the recreation facility maintenance budget is $2.6 million. A six-year voter-approved parks millage supports the operation and maintenance of the city parks. The park maintenance operating budget is allocated $2.1 million. Ann Arbor's urban forestry program received $1.3 million. The department generated $2.2 million in revenue, with recreation programs generating $2 million from fees and charges. Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation's capital budget is $1.2 million for parkland acquisition and facility development and rehabilitation. The City of Ann Arbor's total capital budget is $60 million. Specialized Facilities Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation's 157 park sites include 34 combined baseball and softball fields as well as 34 athletic fields for soccer, football, and rugby. The department has 75 playgrounds, and 65 are ADA accessible. Berkeley (CA) Parks and Recreation Organization, Demographics, and Geography Berkeley Parks and Recreation serves a population of 113,000 citizens in a compact 18-square- mile area. The University of California at Berkeley is the largest employer in the community. Berkeley has 230 acres of city-owned parkland, but other state and regional entities manage parks and trails accessible to Berkeley residents. General Facilities and Operations Berkeley provides 105 miles of hard- and soft-surface recreational trails in its service area. The Department operates four recreation centers, six community centers, and three designated senior centers encompassing 47,000 square feet of indoor space. The Department has joint- use and maintenance agreemepts with the local school district to support playground projects. Berkeley Parks and Recreation employs 165 FTEs, which include 100 PFT employees and an additional 64 non-PFT staff. A total of seven FTEs are in the maintenance section and 86 FTEs are in the recreation section. Finance The City of Berkeley's total operating budget is $371 million, and its capital budget is $17.8 million. Parks and Recreation's operating budget is $22 million, of which 23% is derived from the City's general fund. Parks and Recreation put $7.4 million in the recreation program's operating budget. The park maintenance operating budget, which includes athletic fields Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan BENCHMARKS. and recreation facilities, is $1.1 million. The capital budget is $1.7 million. Recreation programs generate $3 million in revenue. Specialized Facilities Parks and Recreation has eight combined baseball and softball diamonds as well as nine multi-purpose fields primarily used for soccer and football. The Department has 64 play areas, all of which are ADA accessible. The Department also manages nine community gardens. Bloomington (IN) Parks and Recreation Department Organization, Demographics, and Geography Bloomington Parks and Recreation serves a population of 80,400 citizens in south central Indiana. Indiana University is the largest employer in Bloomington and the region. The Department manages 2,300 acres of urban parkland throughout the city, and an additional 1,900 acres in natural areas and open space. General Facilities and Operations The Department has 11 miles of hard-surface trails for bicyclists and walkers, and 19 miles of soft-surface trails available to walkers and hikers. The Department operates one recreation center and two community centers, which include a total of 135,000 square feet of indoor space. More than 1,000 recreation, sports, arts, and outdoor / environmental education programs and classes are offered throughout the year. The Department has a cooperative agreement with the local school district, with each having priority of the use of facilities over other entities. Schools now share in the cost of maintaining the jointly used parks, golf course, ball fields, and ice arena. Bloomington Parks and Recreation employs 143 FTEs, of which 58 are PFT. There are 84 non-PFT FTEs, including part-time and seasonal workers. FTEs working in the maintenance section total 58, and FTEs in recreation programs total 25. Finance The City of Bloomington's operating budget is $55.6 million, and its capital budget is $2.7 million. The Parks and Recreation Department's operating budget is $8.2 million, of which $2.1 million is budgeted for recreation programs. The Department's capital budget is $260,000. The operating budget of $1.5 million incorporates recreation facilities and athletic field maintenance spending. The Department's urban forestry program is budgeted at $230,000. Parks and recreation generates revenue totaling $3.4 million, of which $2.4 million is generated in recreation programs. The golf program receives $800,000 in revenue. Specialized Facilities The agency operates and maintains outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, which include nine baseball fields, eight softball fields, and four multi-use fields for sports and recreation activities. A disc golf course is popular with the student population. Parks and Recreation operates 22 outdoor tennis courts and 19 outdoor basketball courts. One public 27-hole golf course is managed by the department, All 26 of the playgrounds in the park system have accessible features, but only one playground is fully accessible. 9 Emm~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Naperville (IL) Parks and Recreation District Organization, Demographics, and Geography Naperville Parks and Recreation District is an independent municipal agency serving a population of 142,000 citizens in the greater Chicago area. The district oversees 2,500 acres of urban parkland featuring 140 parks and facilities. It also manages 750 acres in natural areas and open space in this densely populated urban setting. Other entities provide oversight for 500 acres of parkland. General Facilities and Operations The Naperville Park District manages 60 miles of hard-surface trails for bicycling and walking. The district operates one community center with 36,000 acres of indoor space. More than 1,400 programs and classes are offered in Naperville's parks and its recreation center. The agency has a joint-use agreement with the local school district to offer recreation programs. There are 100 FTEs, of which all are PFT employees. Non-PFT staff includes 1,100 seasonal workers. Forty FTEs work in the maintenance section, and 22 FTEs work in the recreation programs section. Finance The City of Naperville's total operating budget is $41.1 million. The Naperville Park District operating budget is $9.8 million. The district earns $9.9 million in revenue between recreation programs and the golf program. The capital improvement budget for the agency is $14.7 million. Specialized Facilities Naperville manages 66 multi-use fields, including 45 soccer fields. The agency's 67 playgrounds are all ADA accessible. It also offers 525 community garden plots to residents. Tempe_ (AZ) Parks and Recreation Department Organization, Demographics, and Geography Tempe, a city of 162,000 people, serves an expansive land area of 40 square miles in the greater Phoenix area. Tempe is the home of Arizona State University, which has one of the nation's largest student populations. The Recreation Services Division, which oversees recreation programming and special events citywide, is under the City of Tempe's Community Services Department. Tempe's Parks Division is under the Public Works Department, which manages 1,900 acres of urban parkland. An additional 850 acres are managed by other entities. General Facilities and Operations Tempe has 60 miles of hard-surface bike trails and 15 miles of soft-surface trails for walking and hiking. The Recreation Services Division operates one recreation center and five community centers, of which two are multi-generational, comprising a total of 152,000 acres of indoor space. Joint-use agreements with the local school district leverage resources to maximize the delivery of recreational afterschool programs and services to the community. Tempe Recreation Services has a total of 215 FTEs, and an additional 77 FTEs involved in the Kid Zone Enrichment Program under the City's Social Service Department, of which 148 are PFT 4 ti Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan employees. There are 143 non-PFT employees, which include part-time and seasonal workers. The Parks Division, under the Public Works Department, employs 93 FTEs. Finance The City of Tempe's operating budget is $500.7 million and the capital budget for the City is $96.3 million. Recreation Services Division's operating budget is $21.8 million, which includes the Kids Zone Enrichment Program administered by the Social Services Department. Recreation and afterschool enrichment programs are allocated $11.9 million. Community and special event programs are allocated $484,000, which is included in the Recreation Services budget. Parks, athletic fields, and forestry maintenance are allocated $10.7 million. Recreation Services generates $5.0 million in revenue, and an additional $3.6 million in the Kid Zone Enrichment Program. Golf program revenue is $2.2 million and is included in the Recreation Services total earned revenue. The City of Tempe allocates $9.0 million for the acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of parks and recreation facilities. Specialized Facilities Tempe offers its citizens strategically located facilities that support a variety of recreation and sports programs. These include 30 combined baseball and softball fields, two large multi-use fields, two indoor and three outdoor swimming pools, two 18-hole golf courses, and 51 disc golf courses, as well as outdoor and indoor tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts. Tempe has 23 playgrounds, of which one is totally accessible. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Comparison Tables Organization, bemoarar)hics, and Geography foulder {rown4eld foolbft FodC40M S.Suburbm Wearninsler AmArbar Ash"e 8erkele lloomIn on N en11e Tonve Popukilon of 97-%S 56,000 91.947 141.000 136,000 ID6,114 344.ODD 83.393 112,500 60.405 141,859 161.719 are0 served 2010 Told lard area 25.0 34 21.5 not provided 41 33.7 710 46 is 24 41 40.1 of aeaserved (n/p( art. Urbm 1,810 1.015 320 000 1,160 3,418 2089 869 235 2342 2505 1.077 pvklard area adlnNdered by GO-cy aces Urban nip nip 0 n1p 0 2$15 1,700; 001 yes, various 0 575 837 packwdareo U. of M_-485 applicable rslale and admidslered (0101 reafanafl by agar *Remy acres Mafurd areas, 763 3951 1,376 33,000 2444 3000 1.200 NO Ohlone 1.901 752 Included in open space, Greenway number and above preenways aeo admin(riered by agency acres Naltud areas, 450000Oy Nalural 0 n/p 0 We 2,214 n/o yes. vawus 0 0 mCJwled in open spore, Open space Areas by (Woshlenow Islale and nurnher and and Man: 2.422 County Parks regionall above areenwoys Mounloln (IGA land) + & ores Parks Depl. 371(C. Recrealion) odro"fond Easements( by other + I I (prirale agency/enRiy openspacr) ayes = T.603 It 1 ~4 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan General Facilities and Operations Roulder MvortAdd FoeVrAb fort Cowl s. Suburban WasrrssWfer Am AAsor AHuville Refkde on N a Turd P* Had-mMoce 15 Nord-Suiloce 14.9 28 IS hOlbl 51 63 52 NA" 14 10.5 11 6D 13 rnwes / ka6(m} (malnlohed halt-BD (had and 170 roses of by P&R (muKuse soft surface bikewovs Dep1.I PaRuI + 110 loldl (&loof deloched sldewoltsl = 190mles SoR-suslace 94 (PBIt and 23 3 Al 33 41 not 52 miles 1 irx:hrded In 19 D 145 be&(m} OSMP) deslanofed (paid and Ojweabove soli surface Recredlon 3 1 2 11 4 7 14 12 4 1 0 1 Carders Comrrsuraly 2Ser" I I n/p 0 D 2 OW 6+3senfor 2 1 5 Collie". Centers recreallon Centers managed centers afro by Ihrrsan serve m SMViCes cornmi ily centeff Told ow of 138.OOD 130.000 304,000 231.243 278,062 225.225 501.56 58,000 47,001) 135,000 36ADD 152,00D Recrealfon/ Crsmmadty Centers s N Programs 2.500 6.900 2.000 n/p n/p 4,741 n/p n/p n/p 1,000 ]ADD nip olhnd JolnI.V50 Or- Yes. JUA Yes we have t4 A119960 Yes Yes Yes- Jold-use Yes, to Cooperative n/p Yes makdenonce wRh Boulder a lolnl-use receatkxs Recreallon agreements support agreement of factRlles with Valley agreement programs Advisory vllhboih playground wish local schools? school with Iwo with school Comsnlssion city and pro)ecls school Wild school d41r1ct county WARM districts, As school pat of that syslems and agreemonl tkiverftfy of we nmInIatn North 12 aces of Camino of park land at Ashevlle 4 school sles. JOW-use of - n/p No 3 Trolls wYh Yes Yes Yes - Non n/p Yes, various Numerws 0 Yes mdrdenence LcffffT i Nor& (Lode partnerships 01 facmiles with County Science 3 with other abor enfilln? "WO service Center, providers. Convnurwy Some call AcRon out HK AM Nelworkl dulks h exchange for lacry access. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Finance Boulder &oomtNd 11001"s fort Colim S. Suburban Weslmlmtw AnnArbor Arh4NR6 Go"o fterydne" Naperville Tempe Told Clry 1258.9v.ow 2110 321.661.551 1.171.807.603 $411350,677 $M607.OOD 37B.4D(k" 3136.095.766 3371 nsion $55.5118.675 nip 4MM73SMI Budget Col"OkAd (Opwolinal (FY2010. dl CIIV i [Ards) Canty Ovdp01- 3159.37ti.2v Told parks and $26.674,691 Reaeolion $21661.551 nip 339.651,4x? $15.690,73) $15,5m.DW }9,310,012 3l1,000,OlY1( 36,161.501 $41.144,443 N11325.748 rauedlon $6.607,031: M which 23% kwlude Kid operaling OS omd IF is de1)ved IOrle (bow, 1,10o1(FY }?37.170 for ham City and 2010; all 7012 general allsaschool applicabls (daQelbrmru pro9laro1 kNub) Y) kmxb) add 9,456.201 Row,volon $IO.012,175 ROae01100 36m99B3 36.805.073 $18497,86(1 S?:134.129 331600000 $2834.946 $7,400.000 $2,055.:17 $3,507.372 $8,472.251 p4000ams (.6.687.031 nuke k Kid op4rdirlg Tme jiretolo and budgel(FY 2010) nllc+schoci powam) add $3.4U,201 0e14offen Fociliy RRlt 6101.349 $101,966 nip $7.5.49,111;1 31,376,345 $2.6 mKon We do nol Irlv¢cd In tnrtudodn $331,552 nip fadIlly • 3725.007 badgel to packs abdvo mnldanmrce Iholdegm e. inoinlenanc operating All abucl, budget (FY Mckrlonbne below 9010) E. Cold ore wHKn the Reolel Poik htainlenanc a bud I Alhlallc Bolds $864.40.5 $6D4.412 $1.476.330 nip $311.449 Not hacked }200,0(10 Win do not Included in 1ncdJdadh included In hcludedin mawanoner sapaolety btrdgel to poksmoInl above reesrolov palkf malnt aperaling Irom rsraks Iholdogsoe. bUdgol fcKAIY mount budget budget QV moini AN Manl below budpul "I D) Cabs ale vAINn the qualef Pork Mahl ba 1 Park 31651.461 35.74(1,060 $?.467,901 37,000.000 $5.451.967 NO $210DADD 37949.470 $1.100,000 $1.481831 33.o45r748 310,667.748 mdnbrnancr op6ral4mg budget (FY 2010 Forestry $726.14S $247,266 D $1.200,000 $691,396 COmWnedin $1.300.ODD COA MCA 31JOD O $7.,749 D ncksdcdIn program pals does nol pats rrnnl budge) EFY budgal net hovea bvdgel 2010) daslpnokcd loiasiq a om I?' 9{ .i mJY Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan soul" MOOrsdeW foolhM Fat CelRns S. Swbulbon Nbdmbuler Am ASbor Athevse Oerkele YoonW1 on N wills Twn e Conmwx*/sp FhianBaopy. Recreation $46,D19 n1p $6,371 nip $300,000 In 2010, $100.000 $466.536 0 $484.913 ecld event Vokxrleers, Special PRCA did Included In budget(FY Conan. Event not dill reaeollan 1010) Events, budget down the progoms Wslolic S $194,430 renearnon budoel Cu llual budget to Mgml. this level of 720705 delall, Morketksg $401,596 Recreation $ 199,A12 494,079 $219,689 Not trucked $60.000 $1.000 $35.000 $324,318 $637,043 }62.635 p(ogrun $10.000 se"a" budget (FY from odmin 1010 es Told $1.528.004 Rauealion $2404,030 kecreallon- }4.403,037 $841.1116 $620,000 3425,843 $1,400,000 $656,568 $11775.007 I(nclxled In auirrinNhaMve Admin $476.888: pules and budget (FY budget Pinks - $7 moeolion 2010) $146,041 ffwWon operating i budget Total pocks and $10,703,465 Recreation $21.661.551 n/p $45,668,637 $4.339,050 $2700.000 $1572.507 $21,ODD,000 $3,405,360 $9,884,811 $4,918,092 reCfeaYon prom GF- Dfvrsion include Kid rewmse(FY $129.731; Revue laselbelme 1010) homiolkay $4.635,744 and funds and afierschool proceeds = program) $914,450: add horn 117= $3,579.125 $794,407, horn 118 $6,715,266: from 130 $9,06,042: from 230- 7,813 169 9ecreaflon $7,460,261 Roux llon $7.694.409 $1,400.000 $11.760,092 nip $2,000,000 $497,842 $9,DOD,000 $2,387,184 $4,268,338 $2556,204 proQan Program including include Kid ievenve (FY Revenue 42, grants tone (before 2010) 114,778 ofd oflerschooi p(ogrom) add $3 579,125 Golf proaan $1.1119,938 0 $4,645-549 n/p $8,728,311 Charges to $1,600,000 }727,877 do not have $803,176 $4.145,310 }2235,245 revenue 4FY services only a golf incWded in 20101 -$2.682,141 pungram pals and raoeation revenue total city $43,352.000 $13,126,434 $1,536,809 32.700,000 $8,699,385 36,302.000 $60000000 39,1117,868 $17.800.000 $2.682,4D5--l $14,725,075 $96,310,568 copfld budget (FY 1010;.0 kinds Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan lofc4parks and $9.226,712 $2,695,641 $1,536.809A0 n/p $8,699,365 $4.274,9110 $1,200.000 $550,0W $17ogA00 $242,123 $14725.033 $9,044,875 racreaRan capNai budget (FY 2010: aY appff-bfe fsRrds Bauldar lk.-eld FoofiAh Fort ColBm S. Subviban Wadminslar Ann Arbor Ashsvwa barksle lloomin on H erOw Tempe Olhnfyplcal Salesimc, nfp Ftopmty Tax. n/p pfop-ty H/A Mange rrlp Pats lox, Grants for Bond Gsanfsand fund sources interest. Ownersfup taxes, fear, Recnealion toile. W for proceeds Donations grants and Two Loilery, grants Fund, projects in donations, Grants Camps certain fees, Iollery Fund. Ivtm¢na areas. funds, Fund. City properly tmr, Ddcrelionary pwks Funds. deveiopmen Federal and I excise Slate Grants, lazes, excise local Bond fax 4-0 Measure acqukBiaa. pi oceecis other revenues. and OSMP Sales- Ken" and P Oder Onancfd Reaealion Recrealion Yes gants/ n/p Yes graph, n/p yes, Policy Yes. Fee Yes Yes asslslsnte for serOcas Services donations scholardrlp avaiabie on waivers for rec-ollon offersa offersa dormKons sequesf pooh. programs for scholarship scholarship Scholwshlps low-income program program to piogroms users? Through Parks Foundation aveiogkng $25,000 per ear. c ^nri Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recrealion Master Plan Specialized Facilities 6ouider &oosssYeld FODllills Fort Cons S. Subution WedrNtnfia Am Arbor _ AshevW* 6erkalr 61o!n j on N T e 6aseboir rblds 14 37 1 - 35 too 26 34 20 B conlbkwd 9 32 Ihduded iin Idedicaled basebalt/solf (combined baseball/snit number for basebog ball sollbal/base ball baseball Gelds Sadbas Odds 10 22 25 f use for 5 100 30 included k1 See above B combined 0 26 7 both (combksed above solfball/bose boseba! soflbad/base bak arc) sollbdl bai Rectangular or 20 34 47 3 119 2 15 7 9 4 66 ffvLm use 2 rtnsYiwse Bells Ind. 45 _ soccer Relds t,w c*%sees I 1 - Orm The 412dO hole. 3 4 1 2 1 0 1 - 27 holes two 10 hole 2 land and 1-lNewUve couses lease the 9 hole. 1 par rnonageme -3P9 hope) at Okc golf 2 3 1 5D 1 19 2 3 0 1 1 51 causes Ovldaorlenrds 40 16 22 n/P 46 0 31 26 24 22 34 0 catrh Indow VOWS 0 0 0 7 6 5 D 0 0 0 0 22 cools OlAdoor 25 3 e 0 Shored O 3 11 4 7 @ v"Oyboff lecreallon co:x!1 s aco Indoor 6 Baskelball 3(gym 23 0 24 0 10 0 5 leased 39,5 volleyball cow is are space) coeds used for vat ba Outdoor 12 15 13 5 29 2 35 25 24 19 26 5 6adcelbdl cools Indoor 4 3 3 59 0 54 0 4 see 6 leased 53 bwkalb.M atlochad count City Parks Guido Picric shallan 34 34 47 39 71 42 16 14 36 15 31 42 NaygroundW 40 45 41 - 59 ail 75 25 26 tot play; 26 67 23 oy strucfures 35 school age; 1 Od9eR1I 117 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Boulder kroomSeld Foothills Fad Coons S. Suburban Weslmirsslee Ann Arbor A"viVe Berkele lit In h N nWe Twn OlMow. 77 09 2 1 and 4 56 2 AS W e are sea A1126 have All 67 ineel 1 oeeesstble mao cuaenityin attached occesvbte AOA access. plavo-dlW scheduled the process Gty Pats reahees. Roquemanl ay.1mclures ofaudiling Guide Or4y am has s 0w (aciAles OR elensonh and Thal are playgrounds - Co mptelely IofADA accentlsle. accessibility, Thus. this informallon is not cumnliy a4ailabGr. community 4 0 0 nfp 0 2 5 1 9 4 5250orden 2 ilgo,dem; AmphlMeders 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 2 1 al Cenkd 0 Awdormonce Park leased oreas by NPI? tom Cit Swimming 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 yes. used fa 0 1 1 beacher koyak and wrnd s n I access asdaor 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 0 3 0 AOrowrlenls 2 rwdnvning With school pools dokicl Ovtdoor 2 1 4 1 5 1 3 3lnck"ng 1 3 2 1 3 cwknming spiwh part ols Skate orkr 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 1 3 S - nip Co orkr 5 1 D nl 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 soot 1 0 0 1 Pallory 0 2 0 1 1 paty 4 ponds L ramp./launch Sludfo:2 malbrallaun Iakol ca bAcrya lakes •61 moos Indaal lce Ch lamps It launches Camolm- 1 Rinks / Soling faros - II Spiorh Pads - _ A Olhtr pollerytob- Herre7haa 4(;ndool 01p 21ceorenov kn Cunhu 21r:u II.KS. wf;c"Olwe fore Goldanr ko ink Inaluro nip speelahsrduse I. hA* Pit&-12 sports arena. 2m4d0oll at NO scisnce Cen101.2 ssofau center; lice ertar7(e.g.- Rinks 3, kdne kxrmono. ccursegI floinonodo coule,. W101 "Nor rksks;2kina pallerytob,lce GymrsoSlks Ibcckuy lnnks poRmy BMX Rack lama's Canlos skate darks, sic.) Gym-1. -4 skscw, mortal PioBam gyrmas&sl Tannk Cmnls-2. D*e eo k. Peal $1. Moll (pedes h ksnj, Hasoshoo Plts-B, Balder Resewob .n eor7 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Other 400d o; broo milld Foo law Port coffins S. suburban WAdmInder Am Arbor Arhevlg. Berkete Yormkr on N rvlr Trm r Have PLAY &oamIk4d foundakon nfp n/p LegOCy Yes 2 yes, seveial. Yes Yes No lounddion Foundatlon Open Space Foundat--ron; Seewebsile and/or kinds founda6rn Friends of for Rditg greM(w)7 Ihu ibl Nunb.rof 44.821 Reueafion- 13.606 Web1mr, n/p 7.918 6.0DD 25475.00 2D.ODD hours 14.000 3,54D 50,613 vohffsl..rhourr 20,00D. Paks donol.d (FY - 2.405 2010 ON.ror&* Yes- Ecofumcl Rec U. 27% n/p WebTiocvio Yes-day Yes Ackv. RecTrac CLASS CLASS 7.1 proQam Ecomecl CLASS Kindersheet Rec Twc, camps, Network, Inc. r.gfsfrdlon? M CLASS program season so, vshd program regclralion passes. prow-? reg'shation isshucNDnbl Avvrog. 42% 11% 69% 75% nfp 2Ob 40% Yery low SIM 2276 49% 46% p.rc.fdoga of fwrtlclpatlc r*gbforksg ori+.7 P.remfog. of 41% Re-realbn 9096 flsgl*WS Yes n/p Yes 95% We ore 44% approsimalel Implemenlin nip focHH101 FncN*s- to 1991 ADA cueenlty it y 90% g new ADA =comma fo 60R the process accessib7ly ADA of QLKhI ng regs dondards? our FocWlies and playgrounds fof ADA occesslbity. Thus. This lnformaflan 4 not culrenify ovaPabb. HMO Yes yes yes 1 nfp nfp Yes No no, but Yes Yes yes kd.grofed Past ronow the Iconhocled Maleg.rnmi plinciples B service) program? IPM; City does not okow use of pesOcides ar heiblddes an City Property Hurnb.r 01 1 1-Heel 0 77 n/p 45 0 1 2 0wofty on 1 0 LEED c.dLR.d Shop TEED ced- for Iacl5fkrf? 1 bL"ng in 2013 Ntimbofof 57 Recreollon• 55 atl owned 120 none leased 2D 41 52 63 70 297 110017 voWkles in 6; Prnks - SS N.1? 7 19 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Bartdes k"mlleid F.."s Fat Collin" S. Sobabon Wos4nlnsler Am Arbor Ashev■e Eerk►i► Noomin an N erw9k lam p@ Nunsb►s of 100% owned AO owned 55 owned 2 ad awned none OR vewlm A0 ownorl 98% owned AN owned. 70 owned 171 owned / V*14d s owned 126feared owned vs. loas►d7 flumbef of 37 0 0 Yes 3 )E-95) City wide 0 2 1 5 6 n/p ►mrQy- emesud VOW 103 (e.g., hybtid, E-95. dud fuel Core Amlioliv- ! High level of Yes, n/P n/p n(p Yes Yes. LgmI-mefk Yes inclusion. cosnpefendes complele as serviceloom Commilmen Mofwgerne r-Afedge at hleGiidV. I MnU&d for sainted to rmidenh and k fo nl ssalf fnanclal, communion mr:naperrrens/t CAPRA maealional &ce/ence seceMe personnel lion. eadeohipi Accredfiofio user ongoing sadly Rdesslonak A QcM)hges memgemen m fWamr iS i pfacrM, Intopelsonal a5: eflecive msakir-ol/ai SIB. corm mkal "Itwa-km 9lingnns to Ion, comW research/fien Leaw% resokrlbn. dsanuip ; Teonwvosk, Miami Psi inifiafwe, serAce, spedug asslomes team and Writing Service. building. capabilifier DepesdobRi 1kne good yard monagerne /udgnent Refohffily, nl and abWy to SfalRng, supefvfwn wok in Delegaligy and seams/group Suppoll ompbyee sand Mom developmen laadefshlp Mortfloring 1 slits. Work, Developmen sand Menlding. Pseporfng and Evafualing Budgets. Molivapng and p o M ing and Conholling Resources. rslteWeneur 51,10• Nelwaking, Qoanbalbn of lfefons 20 ti..rwrc~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Comparative Analysis Levels of Service Urban Parkland Per 1,000 Residents Urban parkland is developed and includes neighborhood, community, and regional parks. Bloomington Parks and Recreation has 29 acres for every 1,000 citizens in the community. Westminster Parks and Recreation and South Suburban Parks and Recreation District each have 27 acres of urban parkland per 1,000 residents in their respective service areas. Berkeley Parks and Recreation has only two acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents in the city. Urban Parkland Acres Population of Service Per 1,000 Population Area sortBloomin ton 2,342 80,405 29 South Suburban 3,604 136,000 27 Westminster 2,814 106,114 2711 Boulder 1,810 97.385 19 Foothills 1,704 91,947 19 Broomfield 1,015 56,000 18 Naperville 2,505 141,853 18 Tempe 2.714 161.719 17 Asheville 869 83,393 11 Fort Collins 820 141,000 6 Ann Arbor 2.089 344.000 6 Berkeley 235 117,580 2 Total FTE Per 1,000 Residents Foothills PRD commits 4.119 FTEs to serve each 1,000 residents in its district, which was more than any of the other benchmark agencies followed by South Suburban PRD's 3.566 FTEs per 1,004 district residents. Total FTEs Population Per 1,000 Population (sort) Foothills 379 91,947 4.119 South Suburban 485 136,000 3.566 Broomfield 133.74 56,000 2.388 Tempe 291.3 161,719 1.798 Bloomington 143,092 80,405 1.779 Westminster 176.65 106,114 1.664 Asheville 137 83.393 1.642 Boulder 139.24 97,385 1.430 Be rke I ev 165 117,580 1.403 Naperville 100 141,853 0.704 Fort Collins 85 141,000 0.602 Ann Arbor 59 344,000 0.171 Foothills 379 91,947 4.119 Maintenance FTEs per 1,004 Population J 21 Cmzz~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks. and Recreation Master Plan Foothills PRD supports 1.1 FTEs in maintenance for every 1,000 residents in their district. South Suburban PRD assigns .85 maintenance FTEs for every 1,000 residents in their district. Total Maintenance FTEs Population Per 1,000 Population sortFoothills 101 91,947 1.1 Westminster 100.45 106,114 0.95 South Suburban 115 136,000 0.85 Bloomington 57.75 80,405 0.72 Asheville 57 83,393 0.68 Tempe 93.24 161,719 0.58 Fort Collins 80 141,000 0.57 Boulder 37 97,385 0.38 Naperville 40 141,853 0.28 Broomfield 9.49 56,000 0.17 Ann Arbor 27 344,000 0.08 Berkeley 7 117,580 0.06 Foothills 101 91,947 1.1 Indoor Recreation Space per 1,000 Population Space under roof includes recreation/fitness centers and community centers that offer an array of health, recreation, and social services for adult and senior populations as well as youth programs. Foothills Parks and Recreation District in Colorado operates 3,304 square feet of indoor space. Broomfield Parks and Recreation and Westminster Parks and Recreation, both in . Colorado, follow with 2,321 and 2,151 square feet of indoor space respectively. Indoor Recreation Population Per 1,000 Population Space (square feet sort Foothills PRD 304,000 91,947 3,304 Broomfield 130,000 56,000 2,321 Westminster 228,225 106,114 2,151 South Suburban 228,862 136,000 1,683 Bloomington 135,000 80,405 1,679 Fort Collins 231,243 141,000 1,640 Ann Arbor 501,560 344,000 1,458 Boulder 138,000 97,385 1,417 Tempe 152,000 161,719 938 Berkeley 47,000 117,580 400 Naperville 36,000 141,853 254 Foothills 304,000 91,947 3,304 Asheville n/a 83,393 n/a \N Rr,,,i Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ILIE= Finance Total Annual Parks and Recreation Budgets South Suburban PRD's budget of $39,651,442 is the highest of the benchmark agencies while Bloomington's $8,161,501 and Asheville's $9,318,812 budgets are at the low end of the ranking. Translating those some figures on a per capita basis, South Suburban spends $297 per district member and Bloomington and Asheville spend $97 and $112, respectively. Park districts enjoy a dedicated revenue source, which accounts for the higher level of per capita spending to operate and maintain their parks and recreation systems, Foothills PRD spends $235 on each member of their district, while Fort Collins spends $108 on each city resident. Total Annual Parks and Recreation Budgets Total Total Parks Recreation Recreation AtMetlc Park Marketing Total CRyll)"Ict and Programs Facilities fields Maintenance Program Administrative budget Recreation Operating Maintenance Maintenance Operating Budget budget operating Budget Budget Budget budget budget sort South Suburban .350.827 9.651.442 18.397,850 $1,549.143 11.449 .951,967 203.689 4,403,037 Boulder ,149,000 28,516,089 $9,550,204 $490.697 9,405 $3,245,076 270,719 $1,932,600 Naperville 1.149.943 22.913,420 ,507,372 NO n/a .045,748 637.043 11.775.037 Berkeley $371,000,000 $22,000.000 ;7,400,000 n/a n/a $1,1NNW $35,000 $1,400.000 le a Z5W.735.021 21,781.949 .472.251 n/a nJo 10.667.748 62.635 nln Foothills 21,661.551 21,661.551 $6,809.983 401,966 1.476,330 2.961.901 199.412 2.4047030 Westminster 93,609,000 $15,690,731 7.400.000 NO n 1a n1a n/a $841;816 Ann Arbor 78,400.000 15,500,000 ,60D.000 2,600,000 UDD 2.100.000 60,000 620,000 Fort Collins 471.887.683 15,179.102 6,885.023 n/a n/a 7,000.000 94,079 $7.476,883 Broomfield 159.378.217 111.659.261 687.031 $1,071,363 604.412 740.060 10.000 146.041 Asheville 136.095,766 9,318.812 2.834,946 n/a n1a 2,949,678 1.000 425.843 Bloomin ton 55.588.875 8,161.501 2.055,229 No 11/0 $1,461,831 324,316 656.568 Total Annual Parks and Recreation Budgets Per Capita Total Total Parks Recreation Recreation Athletic Parts Marketing Total city/District and Programs Facilities fields Maintenance Program Administrative Budget Recreation Operating Maintenance Maintenance Operating Budget Budget Operating Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget sort Boulder 94 292 181, 16 1 2 $45 South Suburban 55 291 135 11 2 44 I 2 Naperville 290 290 25 $21 4 $83 Foothills $236 $_236 $74 $4 $16 $32 $2 $26 Broomfield 2,846 208 101 19 11 $102 0.18 3 Berkeley .155 187 d3 9 $0.30 12 We5lminsier 882 14$ 70 8 Tempe $3,096 135 $52 $66 .39 AshevWle $1,632 112 4 $35 0.12 5 Fort Collins ,347 $11, 49 50 0.67 Bloomington $691 6102 26 $18 4 8 Ann Arbor 228 $45 $10 B .60 6 .18 1.80 Percentage of Revenue to Total Parks and Recreation Budget South Suburban Parks and Recreation District's revenue exceeds its operating budget, and Foothills Parks and Recreation District is 100'7o self-sustaining. Berkeley Parks and Recreation's percentage of revenue to total budget is 95%. Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation's 9% was the lowest of the benchmark agencies. r 23 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Total Parks and Non-Tax Revenue Percentage of Revenue Recreation Operating to Total Parks and Budget Recreation Budget sort South Suburban $39,651,442 45,668,637 1157o Foothills 21,661,551 21,661,551 100% Berkele 22,000,000 21,000,000 95% Boulder $28,516,089 $19,004,477 67% Na erville 22,913,420 9,884,841 43% Bloomington 8,161,501 3,405,360 42% Broomfield $11,659,261 4,635,744 40% Tempe 21,781,949 8,558,117 39% Westminster 15,690,731 4,974,275 327o Asheville 9,318,812 1,572,507 17% Ann Arbor 15,500,000 $2,200,000 14% Fort Collins 15,179,102 1,400,000 9% Percentage of Maintenance Operating Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget Broomfield Parks and Recreation and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation allocate 49% and 46% respectively to their park maintenance operations. Berkeley Parks and Recreation has a small park maintenance staff due to the limited number of acres in park land. Total Parks and Park Maintenance Percentage of Recreation Operating Operating Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget (Solt) Broomfield $11,659,261 5,740,060 49% Fort Collins 15,179,102 7,000,000 46% Tempe 21,781,949 10,667,748 39% Asheville 9,318,812 2,949,678 32% Bloomington 8,161,501 1,481,831 18% South Suburban $39,651,442 5,951,967 15% Foothills 21,661,551 2,961,901 14% Ann Arbor 15,500,000 2,100,000 147o Boulder 28,516,089 ,245,076 11% Naperville 41,149,943 3,045,748 7% Westminster 15,690,731 4,419,241 6% Berkeley $22,000,000 1,100,000 5% I Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Percentage of Recreation Programs Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget Broomfield Parks allocates 49% of its total operating budget to recreation programming, but is closely followed by other Colorado agencies including Westminster at 47%, South Suburban PRD at 46%, and Fort Collins at 45%. Typically, recreation programming will consume 25% to 50% of a parks and recreation agency's total budget. Total Parks and Recreation Programs Percentage of Recreation Operating Operating Budget Recreation Programs Budget Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget sort Broomfield 11,659,261 5,687,031 49% Westminster $15,690,731 7.400,000 47% South Suburban 39,651,442 18.397,850 46% Fort Collins 15,179,102 6,885,023 45% Tempe 21,781,949 ,472,251 39% Berkeley 22,000,000 7,400,000 34% Naperville 10,278,417 3,507,372 34% Boulder $28,516,089 $9,550,204 33% Foothills 21,661,551 6,809,983 31% Asheville 9,318,812 2,834,946 30% Bloomington ,161,501 2,055,229 25% Ann Arbor 15,500,000 ,600,000 23% Percentage of Administrative Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget Administrative expenses include the salaries of personnel in top management positions, e.g., directors, deputy and assistant directors, and superintendents. Some of the benchmark agencies include a broader category of personnel salaries and other administrative expenses including marketing. While almost half of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation's budget is considered administrative, it is well above the 6.5% average of the other benchmark agencies. Total Parks and Administrative Percentage of Recreation Operating Operating Budget Recreation Programs Budget Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget sort Fort Collins 15,179,102 7,476,883 49% Foothills PRD 21,661,551 2,404,030 11% South Suburban 39,651,442 4,403,037 11% Bloomington ,161,501 656,568 8% Berkeley 22,000,000 1,400,000 7% Boulder $28,516,089 $1,932,600 7% Westminster 15,690,731 1,816 6% Asheville 9,318,812 425,843 5% Ann Arbor 15,500,000 620,000 4% Broom field $11,659,261 146,041 1.25% Naperville n/a n/a nla Tempe 21,781,949 n /a n/a ) 125 ® Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Percentage of Marketing Budget to Total Parks and Recreation Budget Marketing budgets of benchmark agencies vary from about 0-4% of total park and recreation operating budgets. Most agencies' marketing funds promote recreation programs. Bloomington records the highest percentage of total parks and recreation budget dedicated to marketing activities at 3.97%. The agency with the next-highest proportion is Naperville with less than half of that, at 1.55%. It should be noted that parks and recreation agencies often incorporate marketing in their administrative budgets without identifying a specific dollar amount, which is the case with Broomfield. No data was available from Westminster. Total Parks and Total Marketing Percentage of Marketing Recreation Budget Budget to Total Parks and Operating Budget Recreation Budget sort Bloomington ,161,501 $324.318 3.97% Naperville 41,149,943 637,043 1.557o' Boulder $28,516,089 270,719 0.95% Foothills 21,661,551 199,412 0.92% Fort Collins 15,179,102 94,079 0.62% South Suburban 9,651,442 203,689 0.51% Ann Arbor $15,500,000 60,000 0.39% Tempe 21,781,949 $62,635 0.29% Berkeley 22,000,000 35,000 0.16% Broomf+eld $11,659,261 10,000 0.09% Asheville 9,318,812 1,000 0.01% Westminster 15,690,731 n/a n/a Closing Comment The benchmarking data, agency master plans, and budgets generally reflect the issues and trends facing parks and recreation agencies and districts across the country today. Health, the environment, the economy, and quality of life are embedded in the missions of parks and recreation agencies and districts. These agencies are called on to address obesity and other chronic diseases, preserve open space, conserve natural resources, engage children and families with nature and the outdoors, and find creative ways to meet the increasing demands of the populations they serve in a climate of tight budgets and limited resources. The proliferation of trails provides opportunities for people to bike, hike, and walk. There is an emphasis on protecting land and water resources, implementing energy-efficient conservation practices, and forming partnerships to stretch dollars and get economies of scale. ,n n,yr 4 11 17L ~ 1 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan BENCHMARKS' APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION WORKSHEET Item Format I Unit Demographics I Population of area served (2010) # Geography Total land area of area served sq mi & ac Urban parkland area administered by agency ac Urban parkland area administered by other agency/entity ac; identify entities Natural areas, open space, and greenways area administered by agency ac Natural areas, open space, and greenways administered by other agency/entity ac; identify entilies General Faclitties and Operations Hard-surface trails mi Soft-surface trails mi Recreation centers # Community centers # Total area of recreatton/community centers sq ft Recreation/community center amenities list Programs offered list Joint-use or -maintenance of facilities with schools? y/n Joint-use or -maintenance of facilities with other entities? yin; identify entities Staffing Total FTE (FY2010) # Permanent full-time FTE (FY2010) # Non-PFT (i.e., all others) FTE (FY2010) # Total maintenance FTE (FY2010) # Total recreation programs FTE (FY2010) # Finance Total city budget (FY2010; all funds) $ Total parks and recreation operating budget (FY2010; all applicable funds) $ Recreation programs operating budget (FY2010) $ Recreation facility maintenance operating budget (FY2010) $ Athletic fields maintenanoe operating budget (FY2010) $ Golf program operating budget (FY2010) $ Park maintenance operating budget (FY2010) $ Forestry program budget (FY2010) $ ,0 127 BENCHMARKS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Communitylspecial event budget (FY2010) $ Marketing program budget (FY2010) $ Total administrative budget (FY2010) $ Total parks and recreation revenue (FY2010) $ Recreation program revenue (FY2010) $ Golf program revenue (FY2010) $ Total city capital budget (FY2010; all funds) $ Total parks and recreation capital budget (FY2010; all applicable funds) $ Other typical fund sources list Offer financial assistance for recreation programs for low-income users? y/n; describe Other Have foundation and/or friends group(s)? y/n; identify them Number of volunteer hours donated (FY2010) hours Offer online program registration? If so, what program? yin; identify Average percentage of participants registering online? % Percentage of facilities accessible to ADA standards? % Have Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program? yin Number of LEED certified facilities? # Number of vehicles in fleet? # Number of vehicles owned vs leased? # Number of energy-efficient vehicles (e,g., hybrid, E-85, dual fuel) # Core competencles identified for management/leadership? y/n; identify them Specialized Facilities Baseball fields # Softball fields # Rectangular or multi-use fields # Golf courses # courses & holes Disc golf courses # courses & holes Outdoor Tennis courts # Indoor Tennis Courts # Outdoor volleyball courts # Indoor volleyball courts # Outdoor basketball courts # hoops indoor basketball courts # hoops Picnic shelters # Playgrounds/play structures # Of those, accessible playgrounds/play structures # Community gardens # Amphitheaters / performance areas # Swimming beaches # 28 ' Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Indoor swimming pools # pools & lanes Outdoor swimming pools # pools & lanes Skate parks # Dog parks # Boat ramps ! launch areas # Other specialized use areas? (e.g., pottery lab, ice rinks, etc.) list Attacnmenu i TOPICAL REPORT: RECREATION PROGRAMS & SERVICES Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 11: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes ✓ Research methodology approved _ I ✓ Preliminary research and analysis complete ✓ Data gaps identified and remaining research Some relevant data has not been obtained and/or assigned verified. Instances of this are noted. When applicable, these issues will be addressed in the _ Needs Assessment. ✓ All data obtained Preliminary community plan integration review ✓ __i~ ✓ Preliminary department leadership review Technical reviewers may be able to add or clarify details about information regarding: -Table 2 (to confirm comprehensiveness) -Table 14 (to confirm availability of some data) -Table 17 (to also show number of individuals) i Table 23 (to confirm availability of golf data) J `0_ Technical (TAG review In rp ogress v J] Board PRABLreview _ In progress Department leadership review I-i Topical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis far needs assessment and community plan integration _ _ M Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Introduction The City of Boulder, Colorado, is known by many because of the abundance of recreational opportunities available to those who reside or visit there. Recreation providers span the public, private, and nonprofit sectors and represent an ever-growing array of activities. Engaging in recreation is generally seen as engaging in something that you enjoy, be it active or passive, social or solitary, indoors or outdoors, or easy or challenging. Given all this, recreational activities of all kinds have been widely touted to promote physical and mental wellness, not to mention economic and environmental health. The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) is one recreation provider of many in the community. While the purpose of the Master Plan is to establish a strategic direction for the department specifically, it is critical that the planning process consider the broader system of recreation suppliers, consumers, facilities, philosophies, and opportunities present in Boulder. This includes examining the diversity (or similarity) of offerings, the extent of overlap (or gap) among- providers, and accessibility (or barriers) to participation. This Topical Report begins by describing the full system of recreation services in Boulder. Next, it examines the services provided by BPRD, observing where and how the department contributes to the broader system. The programmatic, social, and administrative implications of BPRD's recreational services are then discussed, particularly in reference to other key issues or needs regarding the planning process. In the Needs Assessment, a forthcoming report, findings from research on trends, benchmarking, facilities, finance, and other aspects of the Parks and Recreation Department will be synthesized, and comprehensive observations on the strategic direction of BPRD's services, structures, and people will unfold. It is important to understand that counting participants varies from organization to organization, and no national standards exist. For BPRD, a registration refers to the occurrence of an individual signing up for a class or program (registrations can be multiple enrollments from the same individual), Recreation Services in Boulder There are many organizations within the greater Boulder area that provide recreation programs and facilities. Providers come from all three sectors: nonprofit, public, and private businesses, Other than BPRD, service providers for the Boulder community include the YMCA of Boulder Valley, the University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley School District, Boulder Community Hospital, private health clubs and studios, houses of worship, and civic organizations. Other city departments and other neighboring municipalities also play a role in supplying services and facilities used by Boulder residents. Table 2 contains a list of types of recreation programs and services cross-listed by Boulder-area providers, This table also includes a summary of BPRD services for comparative purposes, but a more detailed . discussion of the department's programs will be presented in the next section. C f Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Table 2: Recreation Services in Boulder Boulder Boulder Civic or Nearby Other Comm. valley YMCA Univ. of Private religious city/ COB BPRD Hospital School Colo. sector org. town agency District Aquatics / Water Sports tndoor Lap Swimming ✓ ✓ ✓ r ✓ ✓ J Outdoor La Swimming ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Indoor Leisure Aqua lics Outdoor Leisure r ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Aquatics Swim Lessons ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SCUBA ✓ ✓ ✓ Lake/Reservoir Activities ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Arts Dance Youth ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Dance Adult ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Drawin /Paintin ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Music ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Photography Pottery ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Drama ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Health i Wellness Fitness Youth ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fitness Adult ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Yoga/Dilates C clin ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wei M Training ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ sports / Athletics Baseball ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Blklno ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Golf ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ G mnostics ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ire Skalin ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Racquetball ✓ r ✓ ✓ ✓ Rock Climbing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Soccer ✓ ✓ ✓ Softboll ✓ ✓ r Tennis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Special Interests / Other Birthday Parties ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Da elated ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Martial Arts ✓ ✓ ✓ Nature Pro rams ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Senior ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Therapeutic Recreatior, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Youth at Risk ✓ ✓ ✓ Youth D Cam ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 Other community entities and organizations offer many programs that BPRD does, and this creates a need to examine service levels and effectiveness. There is a considerable degree of • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan overlap in service levels between BPRD and civic, religious, and special interest organizations in the nonprofit sector. These organizations tend to focus on one or relatively few activities, while the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department provides a much wider array of programs. One notable exception to this is the YMCA, which operates on a nonprofit business model and provides many of the some services a typical municipal recreation center or department does. Another nonprofit provider of significant impact is the University of Colorado. Programs offered by CU are quite diverse and extend beyond the categories referenced in Table 2; however, access to those programs comes with additional barriers such as university enrollment, facility privileges, and transportation limitations (e.g., availability of nearby parking). CU has some recreation programs and services designed to be more accessible to the community than are university courses (e.g., community membership to recreation facilities), but relative to other providers in the city, access can still be a significant barrier to many citizens not otherwise affiliated with the institution. There are several cases in which BPRD does not directly provide a recreation program but is still integrally involved in its delivery. Many sports leagues manage programming responsibilities like membership enrollment, scheduling, coaching, and officiating, but a number of these leagues depend upon the use of BPRD athletic fields or other facilities. Some leagues also have agreements with the Boulder Valley School District to use their facilities. Because of this, a network of partnerships among both facility and service providers has developed in Boulder. Indeed, this is the case in many cities and is a demonstration of how the recreational context of a community is made up of an interwoven system of interests from multiple sectors. One of the purposes of the Master Plan is to optimize the application of that network for the greatest public benefit. The next section explores the services provided by the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department in additional detail. With a general understanding of the breadth of services offered by the community at large, the plan can more effectively derive specific and pointed recommendations for fulfilling optimization of the overall recreation system in Boulder. Recreation Services Provided by BPRD BPRD is a major - and, in some ways, the dominant - provider of recreation services in Boulder. It offers over 2,500 individual recreation programs each year to both Boulder residents and non-residents in areas such as (but not limited to) aquatics, art, dance, fitness, golf, gymnastics, mind and body, weight training, and sports. Most programs are held at one of the three recreation centers managed by BPRD, but they are also conducted at other department facilities like outdoor pools, athletic fields, the golf course, and other specialized facilities. Depending upon their nature and the type of demand they receive, programs are sometimes available only through registration in advance; others are purposively designated for "drop-in" participation. Decisions by the department about how to provide this mix represent one of the most prevalent challenges in managing recreation programming in the public sector: monitoring the public's interest in these programs across many variables-topic, location, access, time, and cost-to keep them viable and accessible to all members of the community, regardless of their means, background, or interest. At its core, this is the charge of this Master Plan. 1 II 1 t~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan • The descriptions that follow provide an inventory of the programs and services offered by the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, including the number of registrations' associated with each. There are multiple ways to categorize2 the department's array of services. For example, one could list all programs for youth versus programs for seniors versus programs for other adults. Alternatively, one could list programs and services in accordance with the facilities they use (e.g., all of the programs offered at North Boulder Recreation Center, then all offered at South Boulder Recreation Center, etc.). With the large number of programs provided by BPRD, the limitless questions one might investigate, and the variety of analyses undertaken in the Master Plan, there is no perfect categorization. Instead, we strive to organize programs in a way that lends itself to the most effective comparison of facts that already exist. Therefore, we have chosen to use the categorization reflected in BPRD's annual Program, Service, and Facility Viability Assessment. The viability assessment seeks to gain a better understanding of, and formalize the costs associated with, managing recreation services. Aquatics Programs and Services Programming includes private swim lessons, group lessons, and aquatic fitness classes for youth and adults. Aquatics programs take place at recreation centers' indoor pools and at the city's outdoor pools, Scott Carpenter Pool and Spruce Pool. Table 3: Aquafics Programs and Services Re istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Swim: Aquatic Specialty Courses 1,929 1,876 0 Swim: Aquatic Training Classes 252 102 50 Swim: Barracudas Pre-Team 570 510 540 Swim: Barracudas Swim Team 4,680 4,949 4,752 Swim: Swim Lessons 16+ Adult Group 263 302 204 Swim: Swim Lessons 3- to 5-Year-Old Group 5,593 5,525 5,76$ Swim: Swim Lessons 6- to12-Year-Old Group 4,395 4,459 4,233 Swim: Swim Lessons Under 3 Years Old 2,204 2,180 1,857 Swim: Water Fitness 3,799 3,737 4,205 Swim: Water Safety Instructor 0 0 60 1 BPRD tracks registrations as opposed to actual attendance. A registration refers to the occurrence of an individual signing up for a class or program (registrations can be multiple enrollments from the same individual. 2 When categorizing programs for participation/registration, BPRD sometimes combines totals for multiple different programs into one sum and records them under one program title. For example, "Reservoir: Waterski Camp Intermediate" may actually have had more than 0 registrations, but they may have been captured under "Reservoir: Waterski Camp Beginning," or some other similar program title. This issue is addressed further later in this topical report in the discussion of limitations of current program and service reporting practices. PROGRAMS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Boulder Reservoir Programs and Services Programming includes classes for youth and adults. Classes include summer day camp programs, sailing lessons, and water sports. Table 4: Boulder Reservoir Programs and Services Re istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Comprehensive Keelboat 0 0 0 Fridays at the Rez 0 5 0 Reservoir: Sailing Intensive 0 24 0 Reservoir: Additional Boating Programs 59 0 0 Reservoir: Basic Boating Safety 16 8 0 Reservoir: Basic Canoe 0 0 0 Reservoir: Basic Sailin : Keel Sailboats 1 14 16 2 Reservoir: Basic Sunfish 1 22 0 0 Reservoir: Jr. Sailing Cam 96 120 141 Reservoir: Jr. Water Sports Cam 505 396 560 Reservoir: Sailing Cam 165 195 210 Reservoir: Sailing Keel Sailboats 2 4 2 0 Reservoir: Sea Kayak 38 0 0 Reservoir. Sunset Cam 167 61 174 Reservoir: Wakeboard Cam Beginning 0 10 33 Reservoir: Wakeboard Cam Intermediate 4 14 0 Ke U,F,oar. b'd,jter SQOrf Ca_!np 495 360 404 Reservoir. Waterski Cam Beginning 14 12 0 Reservoir: Waterski Cam Intermediate 0 0 0 Reservoir: Windsurf Camp 102 126 124 Dance Programs and Services includes a variety of classes that explore dance, rhythm, and creative movements for early childhood through adults. Programs include introductory classes as well as performance programs for youth. Camps and competitive programs are also available. Programs take place at the recreation centers and also at the Iris Studio. Table 5: Dance Programs and Services Re istratlons Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Dance Concert: Ballet For EDC 2,674 1,990 0 Dance Concert: Ballet (Ages 3-13 1,727 1,308 1,503 Dance Concert: Concert Fee 218 109 299 Dance Concert: EDC Fees 45 4 0 Dance Concert: Expressions Additional Fees 299 0 0 Dance Concert: Expressions Company Class 5,642 7,552 486 Dance Concert: Expressions Competition 2009 110 4 0 Dance Concert: Hi Ho (Ages 5-17 699 541 796 Dance Concert: Jazz (Ages 4-17 2,898 2,605 2,898 . M ~M f 4 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan F • R istradions Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Dance Concert: Jazz Costume 15 0 0 Dance Concert: Tap A es 4-16 580 288 0 Dance: Modem Teen 48 0 0 Dance: African Caribbean Dance Sampler 91 72 0 Dance: Audition Preparation 63 0 0 Dance: Ballet Adult 2,798 2,157 2,525 Dance: Ballet and Creative Movement Classes (Ages 3-12 3,196. 2,423 2.270 Dance: Ballroom for Adult and Youth 45 279 696 Dance: Bell dance 480 194 0 Dance: Conditioning for Dancers 0 150 0 Dance: Dance Cam + Yoga for Ages 6-7 130 0 0 Dance: Dance Cam Ages 4-5 180 0 0 Dance: Dance Cam + Yoga Ages 8-11 75 0 0 Dance: Dance Cam for Expressions 315 0 0 Dance: Expressions Dance Company Additions and Concert Fees 0 61 1,449 Dance: Expressions Summer 264 0 0 Dance: Hi Ho and Break Dance Youth 1,176 597 352 Dance: Hi Ho Adult 638 144 521 Dance: Hula 249 366 301 Dance: Hula for Children 269 54 0 Dance: Irish Ste Adult 292 379 293 Dance: Irish Ste Youth 385 262 416 Dance: Jazz Adult 584 514 159 Dance: Jazz Youth 1,348 1,118 525 Dance: Modern Adult 40 0 0 Dance: Multicultural Dance 24 0 0 Dance: Parent Tot (Ages 18 mos-3 r 432 251 351 Dance: Pointe Adult/Teen (Ages 17+) 72 0 0 Dance: Salsa 729 1,258 607 Dance: Scottish Count Dance Adult 116 0 0 Dance: Tap and Combo Top & Ballet Youth 729 618 580 Dance: Top Adult 472 771 723 Camps: Dance Camp 0 603 595 Exciting-Programs and New Dimensions (EXPAND) Programs and Services EXPAND (Exciting Programs and New Dimensions) provides a variety of therapeutic recreation programs and service to youth and adults with disabilities. The department also provides all individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate inclusively in a recreation program of their choice. Inclusion is mandated federally under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Programs take place at the recreation centers, East Senior Center, Flatirons Golf Course, and on the Colorado University campus. Table 6: EXPAND Programs and Services Registrations Pro ram Service 2009 2010 2011 EXPAND: Swim Team Training 0 32 135 ® I 'f PROGRAMS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan R istrations Pr am/Service 2009 2010 2011 EXPAND: Water Aerobics 0 100 120 EXPAND: Adaptive Ka akin 14 0 1 EXPAND: Adaptive Mountain Bike Clinic 21 11 25 EXPAND: Adventure Outings 15 26 15 EXPAND: Basketball Practice 36 48 45 EXPAND: Bocce Ball 100 0 0 EXPAND: Boot Cam / Kickboxing 56 60 40 EXPAND: Bowling 515 126 77 EXPAND: Bowling Tournament 11 11 10 EXPAND: Cam out CO-OP 24 24 39 EXPAND: Cam out: Jim Creek 30 0 0 EXPAND: Chinook Programs 0 0 0 EXPAND: Dogs & Dod eball 15 0 0 EXPAND: Eldora Skiing Lessons 60 60 60 EXPAND: EXPAND Ski Team 48 42 30 EXPAND: Fall Friday Night Dances 59 73 69 EXPAND: Fall Out on the Towns 40 40 38 EXPAND: Fla Football 20 16 0 EXPAND: Floor Hockey 84 40 56 EXPAND: Frisbee Fun! 40 0 0 EXPAND: Gardening & Fun 0 36 0 EXPAND: Gardening Fun 0 0 0 EXPAND: Golfers 0 0 8 EXPAND: Groovin to the Beat 42 42 112 EXPAND: Gym Sports 8 36 84 EXPAND: Gymnastics Team Training 185 45 40 EXPAND: Hiking Days 7 0 0 EXPAND: Intem Programs 0 8 0 EXPAND: Journeys Programs 675 809 947 EXPAND: Kickball 12 0 0 EXPAND: Leisure Links 408 364 351 EXPAND: Mini Triathlon 6 0 0 EXPAND: More Than Notes and Noise 36 50 78 EXPAND: Mountain Adventure 22 48 41 EXPAND: Outdoor Adventure Da Cam 420 420 420 EXPAND: Paralympic Training 23 88 252 EXPAND: Performance Dance 0 72 72 EXPAND: Physical Adaptive Handc cle Clinic 39 0 0 EXPAND: Physical Quad Rub 42 72 0 EXPAND: Physical Adaptive Rock Climbing 1 0 0 EXPAND: Physical Quad Rugby Deveiopment 25 72 0 EXPAND: Physical - Warm Water Fitness 657 0 0 EXPAND: Physical - Aquatic Fitness 1,216 0 0 ,EXPAND: Sailing 9 0 0 EXPAND: Snowshoein _ 36 0 0 EXPAND: ecial Olympics Fees 0 11 21 EXPAND: Special Olympics Regional / State 55 8 27 EXPAND: Special Olympics Swim Training 147 0 0 tiNn-. ti Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ' ' • R istrations Pro am/Service 2009 2010 2011 EXPAND: Spinning 298 143 195 EXPAND: Sports 0 2,502 3,254 EXPAND: Sports Ban ue1 67 0 0 EXPAND: Sports San uei 11 0 0 24 EXPAND: Spring Friday Night Dance 0 21 16 EXPAND: Spring Out on the Towns 33 11 29 EXPAND: Summer Friday Night Dance 16 16 46 EXPAND: Summer Out on the Towns 74 25 29 EXPAND: Swim Lessons Youth 84 0 0 EXPAND: Swim Training 72 0 0 EXPAND: Tennis Da 0 0 4 EXPAND: Track-N-Fiefd 45 0 0 EXPAND: Tubing 26 0 0 EXPAND: Unified Basketball League 780 0 A15 EXPAND: Unified Soccer 70 0 EXPAND: Unified Softball 896 0 EXPAND: Unified Volleyball 128 112 EXP AND: Walk for Fun 40 0 0 EXPAND: Water Aerobics 270 0 0 EXPAND: Waterskiin 96 120 112 EXPAND: Weight Lifting 195 78 96 EXPAND: Wheelchair Racing 91 0 0 EXPAND: Winter Friday Night Dances 99 57 85 EXPAND: Winter Out on the Towns 0 32 18 EXPAND: Yoga 121 0 0 EXPAND: Yoga & Fitness 0 0 28 EXPAND: Your Very Own Talent Show 12 0 0 EXPAND: Youth Swim Lessons 0 30 40 Golf Course Programs and Services Includes daily play management. Includes customary golf operations aspects such as convenience retail; basic instruction programs; practice areas and league play; driving range; youth programming; and special events. Identifies occurrences when private groups prepay for use of the golf course that precludes public access (rentals). Programs take place at the Flatirons Golf Course. Table 7: Golf Course Programs and Services R Istrations Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Golf Lessons _ 741 518 550 Flatirons Facility Attendance 68,636 53,b30 62,836 -0.) 9 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Gymnastics Programs and Services Includes a variety of skill-level-based classes in gymnastics provided on a daily basis. Programs include basic tumbling for early childhood and elementary ages as well as more skill development for youth six and over. Competitive programs and summer camps are available for youth. Open gym is also available, and birthday parties are offered for all ages. All gymnastics programs take place at the North Boulder Recreation Center. Fable 8: Gymnastics Programs and Services Re istrallons Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Gymnastics: 2'/2-Year-Olds 3,643 3,580 3,311 Gymnastics: 3-Year-Olds 7,747 6,963 7.133 Gymnastics: 4-Year-Olds 8,472 8,153 8,081 G mnastics:5-Year-Olds 5,684 5,517 5,475 Gymnastics: 6-Year-Olds and over BOYS 4,759 3,568 3,990 Gymnastics: 6-Year-Olds and over GIRLS 11,399 10,785 11,496 Gymnastics: Private Group Lessons 287 339 200 Gymnastics: Teen Co-Ed 13- to 18-Year-Olds 1,004 947 1,075 Gymnastics Cam 0 0 490 Gymnastics Team: Boys 1- Pre-Team 918 1,111 1,013 Gymnastics Team: Boys 2- Beginning Team 412, 347 404 Gymnastics Team: Boys 3- Intermediate Team 593 406 366 Gymnastics Team: Boys 4- Advanced Team 1,716 1,309 1.096 Gymnastics Team: Boys Competition Fees 169 115 26 Gymnastics Team: Boys Flyers Pre-Season 1,320 912 972 Gymnastics Team: Girls 1- Pre-Team 2,763 3,731 5,145 Gymnastics Team: Girls 2- Beginning Team 861 419 728 Gymnastics Team: Girls 3- Intermediate Team 2,315 2,632 2,292 Gymnastics Team: Girls 4- Advanced Team 1,942 1,199 1,563 Gymnastics Team: Girls Advanced Team Choreography 0 0 25 Gymnastics Team: Girls Int. USAG Coma 914 1,132 335 Gymnastics Team: Girls Uniforms 163 649 '855 Gymnastics: Girl's Adv Comp Fees 137 141 30 Gymnastics: Overnight 201 0 Gymnastics: Rock Mountain League Comp i 104 89 64 Health & Wellness: Fitness Programs and Services Programs may include, but are not limited to, weight liffing, exercise, cardio activities, personal training, sport conditioning, Swiss Ball, bootcamp, kickboxing, and more. Classes may be pre- registration or drop-in (e.g., open fitness, weight rooms, etc.). Fitness programs are held at the recreation centers. s Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan PR Table 9: Fitness Programs and Services Re istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Fitness : Cross Fit 64 0 0 Fitness: 50-Plus Resistance 1,854 1,846 2,054 Fitness: Adult Kickbox 3,034 3,498 1.978 Fitness: All First Aid/CPR/AED 398 384 0 Fitness: Athletic Nia 0 0 0 Fitness: Bolder Boulder Circuit Training 122 0 0 Fitness: Bootcam 901 1,628 2,514 Fitness: CPR/1 st Aid/AED Review/Challenge 14 0 0 Fitness: tieartsmart CPR/AED/First Aid 0 0 248 Fitness: Instructor Training 48 0 0 Fitness: Nia Valentine's 18 0 0 Fitness: Nordic Walking 112 36 0 Fitness: Parent/Child Nia 2-5 127 82 40 Fitness: Run Clinic 29 15 5 Fitness: Skip-Its Cam 11 0 0 Fitness: Skip-Its Jump Roe 112 0 0 Fitness: Ten Weeks to Health 140 200 0 Fitness: Triathlon 56 152 42 Fitness: Wellness Workshops 0 0 0 Fitness: Triathlon Clinics 167 22 13 Swiss Ball: Intro to Swiss Ball 252 248 229 Swiss Ball: Swiss Ball - Beginner/Continuing Beginner 327 153 0 Swiss Ball: Swiss Ball - Continuing Beginner 223 0 0 Swiss Ball: Swiss Ball with Pros 0 348 483 Swiss Ball: Swiss Ball/Pilates Mat - Beginner/Continuing Beg, 238 224 0 Swiss Ball: Swiss Ball/Yo a - Beginner 0 86 0 Mind & Body: Pilates Programs and Services Programs may include, but are not limited to, Pilates, Nia, Zumba, and Ayre dance. Classes may be pre-registration or drop-in (e.g., open Nia, Zumba, Ayre dance, etc.). Pilates programs are held at Iris Studio, Solberg Center, South Boulder Recreation Center, and the East Senior Center. Nia, Zumba, and Ayre dance programs are held at the North Boulder Recreation Center and East Boulder Recreation Center. Table 10: Pilates Programs and Services R istrations Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Nia: New to Nia 387 609 519 Nia: Nia Journeys 537 558 295 Nia: Nia Workshop - 52 Moves 33 _ 22 _ 24 Hates: Chair - Intro _ 144 0 _ 0 Pilates: Chair - Level 1 - Beginner 75 _ 70 0 yPilates: Chair - Level 2 - Continuing Be inner 0 56 0 Hates, Mat -Advanced 195 24 0 PROGRAMS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan R istrations Pro am/Service 2009 2010 2011 Hates: Mat - Advanced Intermediate 30 0 0 Pilates: Mat - Beginner 2,158 1,389 986 Pilates: Mat - Continuing Beginner 444 226 275 Pilates: Mat - Earl Morning Easy Pilates Mat 0 49 0 Kates: Mat - Intermediate 937 1,203 696 Pilates: Mat - Pilates Mat/Yo a Combo - Continuing Be inner 322 0 428 Pilates: Mat - Pilates with Props - Beginner 152 0 0 Pilates: Mat - Pilates with Props - Continuing Beginner 56 0 0 Pilates: Mat - Pilates with Props - Intermediate 22 0 0 Hates: Mat - Postpartum Hates 42 0 0 Pilates: Mat - Postpartum Hates Mat/Yo a 94 0 0 Pilates: Mat - Power Pilates Mat with Props 113 0 0 Hates, Pilates/Yo a - Beginner 63 54 0 Pilates: Reformer -Gentle 111 0 0 Pilates: Reformer- Intro/Orientation 360 386 408 Hates: Reformer - Level 1 - Beginner 797 637 484 Hates: Reformer - Level 2 - Continuing Beginner 650 1,072 757 Notes: Reformer - Level 3 Intermediate 407 541 414 Pilates: Reformer for Men - Intro/Orientation 0 0 24 Hates: Reformer/Tower/Chair - Level 1 - Beginner 153 261 227 Pilates: Reformer/Tower/Chair - Level 2 -Continuin Beginner 88 48 526 Pilates: Reformer/Tower/Chair - Teens - Intro 0 0 35 Pilates: Tower- Intro 25 18 0 Hates: Tower- Level 1 -Beginner 20 0 0 Pilates: Tower - Level 2 - Continuing Beginner 0 30 0 Pilates; Tower - Tower/Mat Combo - Level 1 77 0 0 Drop-in: Zumba 721 1,125 1,305 Mind & BodyYog,a Programs and Services Includes mind and body classes for youth and adults. Programs may include, but are not limited to, Yoga, Alexander Technique, Feidenkrais, and Chi Kung. Classes may be pre- registration or drop-in (e.g., open Yoga and Chi Kung, etc.). Yoga programs are held at the three recreation centers, East Senior Center, and Iris Studio. Alexander Technique programs are held at the North Boulder Recreation Center. Feldenkrais programs are held at the East Senior Center and Iris Studio. Chi Kung classes are held at the North Boulder Recreation Center. Table 11: Yoga Programs and Services Re lstrations Pr am/Service 2009 2010 2011 Yoga: Alexander Technique 0 112 113 Ya : Alexander Technique - Continuing 0 24 0 Yoga: Ashton o Beginner 90 0 0 Yoga: Ashfan a Continuing 586 184 0 Yoga: Beinner 6,458 6,031 4,248 Yoga: Chi Kung 353 106 20 11 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ' ' • R istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Yoga: Chi Kun Workshop 11 0 0 Yoga: Children Yoga Ages 5-12 146 121 42 Yoga: Continuing 3,018 2,973 2,663 Yoga: Earl Bird Yoga 505 136 0 Yoga: Elementary School Yoga 0 0 118 Yoga: Feldenkrais 1,176 1,111 904 Yo o: Intermediate 1,655 1,248 629 Yoga: Iron Yoga 0 77 258 Yoga: 1 en ar Beginner 378 270 0 Yoga: l en ar Continuing 311 190 0 Yoga: Middle and High School Yoga 69 0 0 Yoga: Middle School Yoga 0 0 77 Yo a: Parent/Child 711 365 90 Yoga: Pre/Postnatal Yoga 694 603 284 Yoga: Prenatal Partner Yo a Workshop 8 0 0 Yoga: Restorative 609 572 472 Yoga: T'ai-Chi 386 100 121 Yoga: T'ai-Chi Ch'uan 534 828 540 Yoga: T'ai-chi Ch'uan - Continuing - 2-3 223 0 0 Yoga: Therapeutic Yoga 1,325 1,373 1,338 Yoga: Trinity Chi Kung 172 0 0 Yo a: Women's Yoga 263 394 398 Yoga: Workshops 69 45 35 Yoga: Yoga with Your Daughter 1 1 0 4 Pottery Programs and Services Includes a variety of pottery classes for youth, adults, and seniors. Five-week specialty classes are also available. Programs may include, but are not limited to, Drawing and Watercolor, Porcelain, Glaze Application, and Shino Exploration. All pottery programs and services are held at the City of Boulder Pottery Lab. Table 12: Pottery Programs and Services Re lstrations Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Potte : Adult Independent Stud 0 4 0 Potte : Sculpture Adult 0 153 0 Potte : Adult Beginner 788 820 796 Potte ; Adult Intermediate 650 656 573 Potte : All Levels 2,110 2,299 1,892 Potte : Altered Forms for All Levels 153 0 0 Potter : Beginning Wheel Throwing and Hand Building 834 743 675 Potte : Child/Parent Pottery 726 600 548 Potte : Children's Pottety Ages 4-5 473 360, 180 Potte : Children's Pottery Ages 6-7 558 544 415 Potte : Children's Pottery Ages 8-10 274 250 332 Potte : Clay/Art Cam (Ages 9-12 120 60 180 ,~_,)1 13 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Registration Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Pottery: Clay/Art Camp (Ages 6-8) 120 120 240 Potie : Focus Series: Glazing and Firing 12 42 42 Pqtte~y: Fun Fridays 176 184 283 Potie : Glazing for All Leveis 0 189 180 Potte : Independent Stud 9 0 0 Potte : Independent Stud 2012 0 0 8 Potte : Intermediate to Advanced Wheel Throwing 369 360 234 Potte : Pit Fining 28 0 0 Potte : Porcelain 180 180 0 Potte : Porcelain and Copper Reds 85 65 55 Potte : Pre-Teen Pottery (Ages 8-11 248 258 358 Potte : Roku 117 0 0 Potte : Senior Pottery 256 255 264 Potte : Teen Pottery 391 435 509 Potfe : Visiting Artist Series Don Cox 189 0 0 Summer Focus Series (Glazing and Firing) 16 0 0 Special Interests Programs and Services Includes specialty programming such as drawing, painting, drama camps, art programs, and cooking classes. Special interests classes are generally offered in the summer months and target a small and specific audience. Locations for special interests programs vary depending on the program topic. Table 13: Special Interests Programs and Services Re istrations . Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 Art Cam (Ages 9-12 85 0 44 Art Cam Drawing, Painting, Printmaking jAges 6-6) 175 175 140 Art: After-School Chefs 140 6 0 Art: Alien Adventures Workshop 6 0 0 Art: Beginning 35rnm Photo rah 8 4 0 Art: Beginning Digital Photo rah 76 20 0 Art: Beginning Guitar 196 0 0 Art: Beginning Italian 40 0 0 Art: Cooking Mini-Camps (Spring Break 19 0 0 Art: Creative Digital Photography 70 16 0 Art: Drama Cam 1,200 0 0 Art: Drawing and Watercolor Basic 1 166 102 72 Art: Drawing and Watercolor Intermediate 1 36 48 0 Art: Famil Gin erbread Workshp 19 0 0 Art: Gingerbread Workshops 6 0 0 Art: Photography Studio 8 0 0 Art. Photosho Beginning 28 6 0 Art: Photosho Intermediate 10 8 0 Art: Rockin' Rockets Lift Off Workshop 30 5 0 Art: Theatre-Hikes Colorado 162 0 0 .111 Ml!'J S ~:1 1 f Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan PROGRAMQ R istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 201{1 NBRC: Valentine Dance - Father/Daughter 154 204 226 SBRC: Halloween Carnival 116 146 153 SBRC: Spring Fest 106 0 0 Camps: COMBO / SBRC 320 0 0 Camps: Han in w/ BPR 173 275 359 Camps: Kidz Kam 1,968 2,308 3,055 Camps: M I st Cam 0 0 310 Camps: Swing n Sail Camps 0 0 0 Camps: 'I hanks ivin Break Cam 105 114 148 Camps: Winter Holiday Cam 0 0 201 Sports Programs and Services includes the daily program offering of sports, serving youth, adults, and seniors. Programs inciude soritacul, soccer, te„ .is, vti!;eyhY!!, baskethrill, flag football, sports camp, kickball, dodge ball, and more. Facilitates the private rentals of soccer, baseball, softball, and multi- purpose fields, as well as other sports-related facilities. There are approximately eight large national tournaments held at the different sport complexes each year.3 Sports programs are held at East Mapleton Ball Fields, the three recreation centers, Pleasant View Park, Martin Park, Stozio Softball Fields, and Valmont Bike Park. Table 14: Sports Programs and Services Re Istrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Athletics: Basketball 523 373 0 Athletics: Basketball Women's 910 820 560 Athletics: Climbing Adult Beginners 120 0 0 Athletics: Climbing Adult Intermediate 86 0 0 Athletics: Climbing - Women on the Wall 24 0 0 Athletics: Climbing - Kids on the Wall 64 0 0 Athletics: Disc Golf Tournament 53 32 45 Athletics: Dod eball League 144 72 0 Athletics: Football 185 0 0 Athletics: G m Jam 176 220 116 Athletics: Home School PE 396 657 699 Athletics: Kickball League 624 160 0 Athletics: Mini - Sports 2,714 2,308 972 Athletics: Music with Dinah 298 158 0 Athletics., NFL Fla Football 490 0 0 Athletics: School of Hoops 0 0 552 Athletics: Sin Your Heart Out 0 0 0 Athletics: Singing FUNdamentals 0 0 0 Athletics: Sk awks Cheerleadin Academy 210, 150 0 Athletics: Skyhowks - LaCrosse Acaderrr 65 65 0 Athletics: Sk hawks Mini-Hawk 1,325 1,048 0 3 Parks and Rec Post-Peer Review 2013 Program Scorecard - • - Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Re llstrafions Pr am/Service 2004 2010 2011 Athletics: Sk hawks - Tin Hawks Cam 145 95 0 Athletics: Soccer Leagues 1,318 496 0 Athletics: Softball Coed 2,854 576 0 Athletics: Softball Men's 3,878 776 0 Athletics: Softball Women's 110 0 0 Athletics: Sports Sampler 0 114 248 Athletics: Story Time With 56 4 0 Athletics: Volleyball Adult 1,774 1,219 38 Athletics: Volleyball Youth 1,922 1,754 1,513 Athletics: Winter Holiday Break Cam 0 220 0 -Sports: Adult Volleyball unavail. unavail. unavail. $Dorts: Basketball High School Boys unavail. unavail. unavail. -Sports: Basketball Men's unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Dod ebali Coed Leagues unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Fla Football unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Kickball - Fall unavail. unavail, unavail. Sports: Kickball Leagues - S rin unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Kickball - Summer unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Soccer Leagues S rin & Fall unavail. unavail. unavail. -Sports: Soccer - Summer Session unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Coed - Fail League unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Coed - S rin Leagues unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Coed - Summer League unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Men's Dbl Header - Summer unavail, unavail, unavail. Sports: Softball Men's - Fall League unavail. unavail, unavail. Sports: Softball Men's Fast itch - Fall unavail, unavail, unavail. Sports: Softball Men's Fast itch - Summer unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Men's - Spring Leagues unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Softball Men's - Summer League unavail. unavail, unavail. Sports: Softball Women's - Fall unavail. unavail. unavail. Sports: Soff ball Women's - Summer unavail. unavail, unavail. Sports: Softball Men's Dbl. Header - Fall unavail. unavail, unavail. Tennis: Gonzo Tennis - Adults 1,857 1,688 1,420 Tennis: Gonzo Tennis - Juniors 2,342 1,810 1,200 Tennis: Gonzo Tennis - Mini/Tiny/Mighty & Boulder SMASH Team 5,269 4,838 4,916 Tennis: Gonzo Tennis - Special Activities 2,650 2,655 3,537 Drop-in: Adult Basketball unavail. unavail. unavail. Dra -in: All Ages Basketball unavail. unavail. unavail. Drop-in: Coed Volleyball unavail. unavail, unavail. Drop-in: Men's Volleyball unavail. unavail, unavail. Drop-in: Senior Basketball unavail. unavail. unavail. Drop-in: Senior Volleyball unavail. unavail. unavail. Drop-in: Women's Volleyball unavail. unavail. unavall. EBCC: Green Fair Fun Run 5 0 0 NBRC/SBRC: Racquetball Ladder 0 1,514 0 Camps. NBRC Tennis Cams 1,743 1,341 1,480 Camps: SBRC Tennis Cams 1,290 1,476 534 .N ~Ny A, 16 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Valmont Bike Park Programs and Services The Valmont Bike Park opened in the spring of 2011. Programming includes private and semi- private clinics and after-school biking programs for youth. A Summer Skills Camp will be offered in 2013. All programs are held at the Valmont Bike Park. No participation or registration data is available at this time for 2011. Table 15: Valmont Bike Park Programs and Services Re lstrations Pro ram/Service 2009 2010 2011 Mountain Bike Mastery with Lee McCormack n/a n/o unavail. Private & Semi-Private Clinic with Lee McCormack n/a n/a unavail. After-School Biking Programs n/a n/a unavail. Birthday Parties and Scout Programs n/a n/a unavail. Private or Group Lessons - Youth & Teens n/a n/a unavail. Lee Likes Bikes n/a n/a unavail. Avid 4 Adventure n/a n/a unavail. Weight Training Programs and Services Includes programs for youth and adults. Programs include, but are not limited to, personal training sessions, circuit training, and classes geared specifically for women and youth. Classes can be pre-registration or drop-in (e.g., open weight training). All weight training programs are held at the recreation centers. Table 16: Weight Training Programs and Services Re Istrations Program Service 2009 2010 2011 Weight Trainin : Assorted Specialized Courses 1,073 378 0 Weight Trainin : Bootcam Work Out 152 0 0 Weight Trainin : Circuit Training 2.0 860 0 0 Weight Training: Circuit Training 2.0-Women 928 0 0 Weight Training: Complete Conditioning 3,153 5,769 5,515 Weight Trainin : Custom Group Training 12-sessions 48 0 0 Weight Trainin : Custom Group Training 3-sessions 34 0 0 Weight Trainin : Custom Group Training 6-sessions 102 0 0 Weight Trainin : Group Training Packages 0 213 274 Wei ht Trainin : Osteoporosis Exercise 100 0 0 Weight Trainin : Weight Management 1,419 2,499 2,028 Weight Training: Weiht Training for Wei ht Loss 120 0 0 Weight Trainin : Wellness Wednesday Lecture Series _ 19 12 0 Weight Trainin : Women's Intermediate Weight Training 428 0 0 Weight Trainin : Women's Weight Training 588 0 0 Weight Trainin : Workouts for Women 5,722 6,894 5,835 Weight Trainin : Youth Training and Safety 64 0 0 ~~~I17 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Youth Services Initiative Programs and Services The YSI (Youth Services Initiative) Program provides an everyday after-school and a summer program to youth ages 6-18 years of age living in seven different low-income-housing sites in the City of Boulder. YSI also offers special events and trips for youth to experience a variety of activities that they may not otherwise afford. YSI programs are held on-site at housing centers or at a BPRD facility if an on-site facility is unavailable. Please note that Table 17 presents the number of instances of participation, not the number of unique individuals served. Table 17: YSI Programs and Services Participaftio n Program/Service 2009 2010 2011 YSI: Youth Recreation Program 22,042 15,508 13.629 Since the last Master flan in 2006, BPRD has expanded recreational programming to include programs such as: • Private and semi-private clinics at Valmont Bike Park • After-school biking program • Gymnastics open gym on Saturdays • Aqua Zumba and other drop-in aquatic fitness programs • Dog Dayz at Scott Carpenter Pool • New fitness programs such as Commit to Get Fit • More camps at the Boulder Reservoir (e.g., stand-up paddle boarding) • Expanded contracted programs and services The Impact of BPRD Recreation Programs and Services Participation and Use Analysis From 2009 to 2011, BPRD experienced a decline in program registrations (see Table 18). Two areas in particular - dance and yoga programs - experienced the greatest decline in registrations; however, data collected through the 3rd quarter illustrates that 2012 registrations are on pace to meet or exceed 201 1's numbers. Fitness, yoga, special interest, and weight training are approximately 58%, 63%, 5%, and 60% respectively of the three-year average registration numbers. These areas are in jeopardy of not meeting or exceeding last year's numbers by the end of 2012. Although registrations may have declined, it should be noted that BPRD has increased the number of drop-in and contracted programs. User registrations may have decreased, but revenue saw an opposite trend over the some timeframer Interestingly, fitness activities have leveled or slightly dropped for the US population since 2009.4 Registration declines in sport activities are not alarming considering current trends - both individual and team sport participation rates have decreased since 2009 across the nation; however, sport registrations have stabilized since 2010. a Sporting Goods Management Association 12012): 2012 Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Participation Report 18 S ...4Y Rw r.rw Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1111' • M Table 18: Overall Program Registrations 2009 2010 2011 2012s of 3 Yr. Program Area Ayg.6 Aquatics 2,686 2,791 2,728 2,326 85.0% Dance 2,889 2,278 1,782 1,945 84.0% EXPAND 1,506 1,112 1,376 1,199 90.1% Fitness 1,228 868 894 575 57.7% Golf Programs 741 518 550 unavail. unavail. Gymnastics 5.862 5,505 5,526 5,203 92.4% Mind & Body (Yoga) 2,310 1,968 1,392 1,183 62.6% Pilates 1,006 706 659 599 75.8% Potfe 1,088 1,056 927 757 73.9% Reservoir 450 421 478 799 177,7% Special Interest 964 50 12 17 5.0% Sports 5,617 4,781 4,758 4,495 89.0% Weight Trainin1,048 1,012 895 591 60.0% YSI 667 661 753 794 114.5% Total 27,868 23,452 22,344 19,807 80.77o There is not an equal distribution for registrations among program areas. BPRD's gymnastics and sports programs comprise approximately 45% of the total number of registrations from 2009 to 2012 (see Figure 1). As one of the main gymnastics providers in the area, BPRD provides gymnastics programs and services to a wide range of individuals. Sports and gymnastics programs can be categorized as business core activities which should produce more revenue than expenditures (see Financial Overview for more detail). Programs with smaller registrations such as YSI and EXPAND are considered social good services; even though they may not receive as many registrations as other programs, the services they provide are foundational to the City of Boulder. 5 Reported for Q 1-Q3 6 Percent shown is a calculation of the 2012 year-to-date number divided by the average from 2009- 20T1 ~ ~:1 ~ 19 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 1: Percentage of Total Registrations by Area, 2004 - 2012 (01-03) 3.79%~ 1.44% ■ Aquatics Dance EXPAND ■ Fitness ■ Flatirons Golf Course 21.02T0 9.52% Gymnastics ■ Mind & Body (Yoga) 5.56% Pilates Pottery 2.30% s Reservoir 4.10% 1.94% ■ Special Interest Sports 3.18 23.64% Weight Training YSI in addition to providing regular programming, BPRD offers users alternative ways to use facilities. Users or user groups can rent facilities or drop in for certain programming. It is increasingly difficult for some individuals to participate in regularly-scheduled recreation activities. Drop-in programs provide users the opportunity to come when it works for them. Facility rentals7 occur every month of the year (see Table 19). Compared to 2009, rentals since 2010 have far exceeded the 2009 total. Since 2010, however, rentals have experienced a decrease. Rentals plateaued in 2010, and 2012's rentals are 53.99% of the 2009-2011 total average. With three months left to report, and October, November, and December typically being the lowest three months for rentals, it appears that rentals are on a steady decline since plateauing in 2010. It should be noted that rental data is skewed high. There are two functions to rentals in the CLASS for Windows software (used by BPRD): a rental and a booking. A rental acts as an umbrella overlying the booking. The data skew comes to fruition by the way staff records the rental. For example, if Boulder Swimming books the South Boulder Recreation Center lap pool for four months, that booking is broken down into a rental (Boulder Swimming books the pool) and a booking (the number of times or days Boulder Swimming uses the pool and for the length of time). The problem arises when staff enters the expected or actual attendance under the rental and not the booking. If Boulder Swimming booked the lap pool for 50 people one time, then inserting "50" under rental is accurate; however, if Boulder Swimming books the 7 includes: Arapahoe Ridge; Aurora Seven School, Boulder Reservoir; Columbine; East Boulder Community Center; Flatirons Elementary School; Foothills Community Park; Manhattan Middle School; Mapleton; Martin Park, North Boulder Recreation Center, Pleasant View Fields: Pottery Lab; Salberg Shelter, Scott Carpenter Pool; South Boulder Recreation Center; Spruce Pool; Stazio Softball Fields; Summit Middle/Majestic Heights; Tom Watson Park; Valmont Bike Park; Valmont Park .i eN NMry+fe 20 a Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan P-ROdRAM pool for four months for meetings occurring once a week, and "50" was inserted under "booking," then this would add "50" for each booking, thus reporting the attendance to be "800" (50 x 16) instead of "50." This issue was identified in 2012; therefore, while the numbers reflected in the table below may be skewed high, they are all skewed consistently, thus providing an accurate trend regardless. Table 19: Facility Rentals Month 2009 2010 2011 20128 Totals Total Month %9 Jan 1,300 3,364 4,140 28,099 36,903 2.71% Feb 425 6,374 2,532 23,514 32,845 2.41% Mar 1,145 27,038 23,352 28,552 80,087 5.88% Apr 3.113 49,275 11,533 28,971 92,892 6.82% May 28,517 79,573 76,466 17,788 202,344 14.85% Jun 12,400 29,899 136,815 20,609 199,723 14.66% Jul 16,109 51,029 87,302 16,687 171,127 12.56% Au 59,536 224,136 89,728 42,055 415,455 30.49% Se 25,486 9,242 26,417 1,555 62,700 4.60% Oct 3,165 22,241 14,728 40,134 2.95% Nov 20,077 4,250 2,023 26,350 1.93% Dec 567 1,148 430 2,145 0.16% Total 171,840 507,569 475,466 207,830 1,362,705 10070 Boulder residents can attend drop-in classes at their discretion. All drop-in classes are free with daily center entry (using a pass or $7 daily fee). Drop-in activities can be drop4ns for childcare, one-time class visits (for pre-registered classes), rain checks, promotions, lap swimming, yoga, volleyball, weightlifting, and more. An interesting note is that drop-in activities are attributed to the facility in which the drop-in occurs. For example, if an individual enters the North Boulder Recreation Center to participate in drop-in weight training, the revenue the visitor generates will be recorded for the North Boulder Recreation Center; moreover, his or her attendance will be recorded for this facility, not the weight training program area. The weight training program area incurs the programming costs, but the revenue and participation contact is not recorded for the program. Since 2009, drop-ins'O have fluctuated slightly from year to year (see Table 20). The summer months boast the highest drop-in rates for the year. This is largely because outdoor pools are operated and open to the public during summer months. Currently, 2012 drop-ins are at 79.02% of the three-year average (2009-2011). According to the percentage, 2012 drop-ins should reflect closer to 201 1's overall total drop-in number, if not slightly lower. e Reported for Q 1-Q3 9 Monthly percentage of total rentals for the full year 10 Includes: Boulder Reservoir; East Boulder Community Center; Iris; North Recreation Center; Scott Carpenter Pool; South Boulder Recreation Center; Spruce Pool 121 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 20: Drop-in Participation Month 2009 2010 2011 201211 Totals Total Month %12 Jan 7,832 8,352 7,580 6,937 30,701 5.37% Feb 7,469 8,061 8,313 7,585 31,428 5.50% Mar 7,175 8,632 6,886 6.374 29,067 5.09% Apr 7,534 6.164 6,022 5,475 25,195 4.41% May 8,726 8,470 6,905 8,248 32,349 5.66% Jun 25,549 26,972 24,707 28,528 105,756 18.51% Jul 33,776 34,485 34,411 29,550 132,222 23.14% Aug 25,817 22,705 23,498 19,210 91,230 15.97% Sep 11,338 6,966 6,545 7,215 32,064 5.61% Oct 6,860 4,805 4,708 16,373 2.87% Nov 7,025 6,882 6,199 20,106 3.52% Dec 8,666 7,609 8,601 24,876 4.35% Total 157,767 150,103 144,375 119,122 571,367 100.00 Memberships encompass a variety of visitor contacts, such as annual pass scans, monthly pass scans, twilight pass scares, and punch card scans. Punch cards are broken up into 10, 20, and 40 punches. There are class visitor punch cards that include visitors who drop in for pre- registered classes. There are only a few classes that offer drop-ins for nonregistered participants, and so these scans are counted as membership scans. Also, memberships include personal training card scans for areas such as the weight room, swim lessons, tennis lessons, and related training activities. Ideally, memberships 13 should be consistent throughout the calendar year. After all, memberships include a large number of annual passes that should translate into regular use. Membership scans are relatively stable over the calendar year, with the summer months being slightly elevated (operation of the outdoor pools). According to recent trends (see Table 21), memberships have fluctuated from year to year since 2009. Through the 3rd quarter of 2012, membership scans are on pace to exceed the highest total in recent years by approximately 12,000 scans. It has been noted that additional marketing efforts have been employed this calendar year and may have an influence on the total number of membership scans. Table 21: Member Participation Month 2009 2010 2011 201214 Totals Total Month %1s Jan 37,440 38,743 35,738 39,614 151,535 9.52% Feb 32,947 35,650 32,366 36,851 137,814 8.66% Mar 31,847 34,340 29,506 32,805 128,498 8.07% Apr 32,450 30,826 29,883 32,900 126,059 7.92% May 28,598, 28,850 31,833 33,142 122,423 7.699 11 Reported for Q 1-Q3 12 Monthly percentage of total rentals for the full year 13 Includes: Boulder Reservoir; East Boulder Community Center; Iris; North Boulder Recreation Center; Scott Carpenter Pool; South Boulder Recreation Center; Spruce Pool 14 Reported for Q 1-Q3 15 Monthly percentage of total rentals for the full year M ahy 22 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan PROGRAMS Jun 40,712 45,108 41,293 46,505 173,618 10.90% Jul 44,566 46,637 47,016 47,250 185,469 11.65% Au 36,907 43,247 39,549 44,179 163,882 10.29% Sep 27,655 26,722 28,033 33,593 116,003 7.29% Oct 31,608 31,274 30,500 93.382 5.86% Nov 32,579 32,024 31,765 96,368 6.05% Dec 34,221 30,836 32,190 97,247 6.11% Totals 4i 1,530 424,257 409,672 346,839 1,592,298 100.00% According to a full facility comparison16 (see Table 22), 2010 and beyond has seen an overall increase in rentals, drop-ins, and memberships. To date, 2012 has seen an above-average rate for dropAns and memberships; however, rental rates are below average for the 2012 calendar year thus for. Rental rates are slightly skewed and have fluctuated the most from year to year according to the table below. A difference in reporting for rentals may have led to the below- average percent for 2012 (53.99%). Table 22: Overall Recreation Use Comparison Categay 2009 2010 2011 201217 7. of 3 Yr. Avg. Is Rentals 171,840 507,569 475,466 207,830 53.995F. Memberships 411,530 424,257 409,672 346,839 83.54% Drop-ins 157,767 150,103 144.375 119,122 79.02% Total 741,137 1,081,929 1,029,513 673,791 70.86% Social Imbacts The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department provides programs for the social good. That is, some programs are offered regardless of cost recovery and participation rates. The City of Boulder offers at least two such programs - Youth Service Inifiative (YSI) and Exciting Programs & New Dimensions (EXPAND). These programs exist to serve people in low-income housing and people with disabilities, respectively. Some Boulder residents of eligible low-income families have been awarded financial scholarships to participate in these programs. Funding for scholarships is provided by a blend of city appropriations, fundraising, and grants. BPRD also offers reduced participation fees for Boulder residents. The program is income-based; eligible residents receive rates reduced by 50% to recreation centers, the Boulder Reservoir, and outdoor pools. Eligible adults can take a 16 Includes: Arapahoe Ridge; Aurora Seven School, Boulder Reservoir; Columbine; East Boulder Community Center; Flatirons Elementary School; Foothills Community Park; Manhattan Middle School; Mapleton: Martin Park, North Boulder Recreation Center; Pleasant View Fields; Pottery Lab; Solberg Shelter; Scott Carpenter Pool; South Boulder Recreation Center; Spruce Pool; Stazio Softball Fields; Summit Middle/Majestic Heights; Tom Watson Park: Valmont Bike Park; Valmont Park 17 Reported for Q1-Q3 1a Monthly percentage of total rentals for the full year , 23 • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan maximum of one class in each of four program sessions, also at one-half the published resident fee. Eligible youth may take a maximum of two classes each session at one-half the published resident fee. Financial Impacts Many recreation programs provide a private (rather than public) benefit to members of the community and, as such, carry fees. Decisions about the extent to which certain programs and services should be subsidized with tax dollars in order to reduce fees can be complicated. How much does a program or service relate directly to the individual participant versus the community? Is it acceptable to use revenues from one program to support another? Does subsidy interfere with the private marketplace? How can the city meet its mission of serving all citizens equitably by implementing fees that may exclude residents experiencing financial hardship? Again, these are questions to be addressed through master planning. Table 23 provides an overview of revenue generated by each program area described in the previous section and reported in the Program, Service, and Facility Viability Assessment. The table following it (Table 24) presents the some revenue/expenditure ratio in terms of cost- recovery percentage. Table 23: Revenues and Costs by Programs and Service Area 2009 2010 2011 3 Yr. Avp. Pro am Area Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Aquatics 221,344 (267,181) 190,983 (188,657) 163,238 (184,383) 191,855 (213.407) Dance 317,154 (430,749) 290,800 (390,007) 289,010 (345,074) 298,988 (388,610) EXPAND 80,026 (720,039) 85,429 (678,385) 94,536 (697.506) 86,664 (698,643) Fitness 82,528 (124,303) 85,235 (105,392) 77,959 (85,004) 61,907 (104,900) Golf Programs 46,152 unavail. 41,277 unavail. 37,585 unavail. 41,671 unavail. Gymnastics 625,201 (726,065) 619,649 (721,132) 711,285 (763,117) 652,045 (736,771) Mind & Body (Yoga) 168,599 (214,390) 141,945 (196,296) 129,455 (163,227) 146,666 (191,304) Pilates 94,102 (176,357) 73,047 (141,472) 67,454 (108.594( 78,201 (142,141) Pottery 182,804 (326,660) 177,435 (298,731) 175,510 (283,881) 178,583 (303,091) Reservoir 85.761 (48,580) 79,725 (38,020) 88,076 {38,937) 84,521 (41,846) Special Interest 83,123 (57,765) 39,197 (12,589) 27,051 (13,377) 49,790 (27,910) Sports 1,174,085 (867,872) 1,165,676 (727,566) 1.162.246 (656,212) 1,167,336 (750,550) Weight Training 154.767 (191,093) 147,447 (243,713) 190,861 (184,871) 164,358 (206,559) YSI 0 (298,816) 2,653 (273,068) 2,143 (288,259) 1,599 (285721) Total 3,315,647 (4,449,870 3,140,498 (4,015,049 3,216,409 (3,812,442 3,224,185 {41092,454 Table 24: Cost Recovery Percentage by Program and Service Area PmWom Area 2009 2010 2011 3 Yr. Avg. Aquatics 8284% 101.23% 88.53% 90.87% Dance 73.63% 74.56% 83.75% 77.31 % EXPAND 11.11 % 12.591 30.07% 17.92% Fitness 66.39% 80.87% 91.71% 79.66% 0 Wig,. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Gymnastics 86.11% 85.93% 93.21% 88.42% Mind & Body (Yoga} 78.647. 7231% 79.31% 76.75% Pilales 53.36% 51.63% 62.12% 55.70% Pottery 55.96% 59.40% 61.83% 59.06% Reservoir - Programs 176.54% 209.69% 226.20% 204.14% Special Interest 143.90% 311.36% 202.22% 219.16% Sporis 135.28% 160.22% 177,11% 157.54% Weight Training 80.99% 60.50% 103.24% 81.58% Youth Services Initiative 0.00% 0.97% 9.38% 3.45% Total 75.7176 77.19% 87.05% 79.98% Table 24 represents the cost-recovery rate for programs from 2009 to 2011, although it is important to note that it is often difficult to capture the total cost of service delivery considering all aspects of operations, management, and administration. According to the 2010 Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan, social core activities such as Youth Services Initiative and EXPAND are not expected to recover much of the total cost. The trend from 2009 shows that cost recovery is on the rise for almost every program area across the board. In 2009 and 2011, respectively, cost recovery was 75.71 % and 87.05%. Additionally, Pilates and Pottery programs have yet to achieve the cost-recovery goal set by the 2006 Master Plan (70%); however, these programs have experienced an upward trend in cost-recovery rates since 2009. As mentioned earlier in this report, BPRD conducts a Program, Service, and Facility Viability Assessment every year to identify whether revenues earned from user fees deposited into the department's Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) - are able to fully cover the cost for offering services. As the totals in Table 23 demonstrate, the RAF did not fully fund the total cost of providing recreation programs in 2009-2011 (nor has it ever). Because BPRD receives an unrestricted appropriation of General Funds each year, a portion of that GF appropriation makes up the difference not covered by the RAF. The total subsidy provided by the GF to the RAF was $1,866,796, $1,573,524, and $1,490,594 in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. Partnership Impacts BPRD has expanded its service delivery in recent years to include acting as more of a program facilitator in certain areas. For example, since 2009 contracted activities such as Gonzo Tennis, cooking, SNAG golf, youth rugby, and BOLD running cardio expanded service delivery and increased cost-recovery rates. In addition, there have been alterations to current programming offerings. In 2012, BPRD decided to shorten the length of gymnastic classes but to increase the number of camps. This contributed to an increasing trend of participation hours and revenue while seemingly contributing to a decreasing trend of registrants because registrants are not captured in contracted programs and services. By contracting certain programs and services, BPRD is positioning itself to stay current with trending programming. However, BPRD has experienced a reporting problem with attendance because of expanding contracted services. Contracted programs record and report information differently, and t) f 1 L:) • Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan there is a need for a unified reporting methodology for all contracted programs and services. For example, contracted programs such as Ultimate Frisbee, Nuggets, Boulder Dinner Theater, Legos, and Biking have participants register with the contractor instead of with BPRD. BPRD uses CLASS for Windows as its preferred tracking software. The department has been using this system since 1995 and updates it approximately every 1 '/2-2 years. This particular software system is capable of storing copious amounts of information. However, the amount of information it stores makes reporting desired information cumbersome. It is a time-intensive process to peruse software-generated reports in order to tailor them to extract specific information. Some numbers in the system are potentially misleading. For example, program instructors are responsible for uploading attendance numbers for their program areas. Unfortunately, many instructors do not upload their numbers and prefer to track attendance using pen and paper. CLASS will automatically calculate attendance from registrant numbers unless the attendance is uploaded. Therefore, the validity of attendance numbers housed within CLASS cannot be verified completely and can be interpreted as "projected attendance" rather than actual attendance. Some available software systems can be tailored for an agency or organization. Some departments use tracking software such as RecTrac, which can be modified for its user. However, a software switch is time intensive and will require many resources. Currently, Flatirons Golf Course uses Fore! as its revenue and reservation system. This system enables managers to produce year-end reports broken down by attendance, reservations, private lessons, tournaments, etc., with relatively little effort. Having a standardized tracking system can be time and resource efficient. Mission Impacts The City of Boulder has devised a categorization system for "core" programs that reflect the department's highest priority. Category assignments are determined by the department's mission, community need, and community priority interest. These categories include "social core" or public goods programs including YSI programming, EXPAND, programming for low- income residents, and life/safety community health programs. Along with the social core program areas, the City of Boulder offers programs that act as "business core" programs. These programs help fund the core social programs. Typically, business core programs meet the needs of the market, are offered at market rate, and generate enough revenue to offset their costs. BPRD uses a Program Delivery Model to help determine whether or not the department should provide a program or service. The 2010 Recreation Program and Facilities Plan outlined guiding principles as the basis for decision making on recreation programming. These principles were derived from the synthesis of community input, values identified in the previous department Master Plan, and recommendations from the City Manager's Workgroup on Recreation Financing. The six guiding principles (in no particular order) are: 1, Champion diversity 2. Contribute to personal health and wellness 3. Ensure that youth are a priority 4. Maintain and protect our facilities and programs Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ' ' O S, Prioritize subsidy to introductory-level class and programs 6. Pursue a sustainable financial model for recreation programs and facilities Boulder is a dynamic community that is experiencing a demographic change. In order to meet public demand, BPRD will need to continue to solicit community needs for new programming and place an emphasis on operating current programs and services efficiently while planning for an economically sustainable future. Fundamental decisions about the appropriate mix of programming in the "social" and "business" core areas should be driven by the values represented in the organizational charter, mission, and vision. Questions that have surfaced but remain unresolved regard how to manage recreation activities that may span both the social and business cores. As recreationists engage in an activity and become more proficient and specialized, they often seek programs with a narrower focus and often exhibit a higher willingness to pay to participate. It may very well make sense for the city to offer (and subsidize) opportunities for the general public to learn a new recreation activity if it is in the broader public interest and aligns with the mission of the department. Do programs that cater to individuals who are more advanced in their skill or specialization in an activity provide the same degree of social good and merit the some degree of subsidy? When is it appropriate to allow (or force) residents to redeem their willingness to pay in the private or nonprofit sectors? Or simply, what recreation services should and shouldn't the city provide? Answers to these questions flow from the mission and from the community, primarily through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council. Engagement with these stakeholders on key issues such as this is a critical part of the needs assessment and strategic recommendation phases of the Master Plan. Monitoring and Evaluation Deciding exactly what programming to offer users can be challenging for any decision maker. Considering the idea of "lifecycle management," the onus to plan for program conception, inception, implementation, and commencement falls to the program managers. If funding, space, and demand are available, a programmer can facilitate countless programs and activities; however, the forethought into program management should be more than a consideration of funding, space, demand. Program management should first explore the social setting in which the program will operate and the goals that will be sought after to cater to societal needs. Currently, new programs are developed largely through internal staff initiation. That is, frontline staff approach management with programming ideas based on anecdotal information and current trends they see/hear from participants. Decision makers assess the program idea, and, if it is deemed valid, they locate lower-achieving programs to see if they can be cut and then look for an in-house solution to provide the new programming idea. This response is normal for any recreation provider because there is a need to stay current with recreation trends. However, processes such as this forgo long-term vision for lifecycle management. It is relatively easy to create a new program, but establishing a management plan throughout the program's lifecycle is more of a challenge. One method of lifecycle management is to establish a systematic formative evaluation process. PROGRAMS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Program evaluations help policymakers, programmers, planners, organizations, decision makers, etc., decide what programs should be implemented and what programs need to be changed or dissolved. Programs are generally created to address some sort of social need and have desirable results in mind. However, without a systematic evaluation method to explore whether or not the desired goals and social need(s) are being met, programmers are left with little empirical evidence justifying programmatic decisions. Decision makers must be able to answer the following questions 19: • What are the nature and scope of the problem? Where is it located, whom does it affect, how many are affected, and how does the problem affect them? • What is it about the problem or its effects that justifies new, expanded, or modified social programs? • What feasible adjustments are likely to significantly ameliorate the problem? • What are the appropriate target populations for a program? • Is a particular program reaching its target population? • Is the program being implemented well? Are the intended services being provided? • Is the program effective in attaining the desired goals or benefits? • Is the program cost reasonable in relation to its effectiveness and benefits? The answers to these questions can be found through two different evaluation methods: summative and formative evaluations. BPRD categorizes almost all of its programs into four sessions per year (one for each season). Consequently, there is a struggle to evaluate programs after the fact because programmers are occupied with preparing the classes for the following session. The recreation guide must be submitted at least two months prior to its publication to ensure successful completion. Current evaluations largely consist of summative evaluation techniques such as: • Written or online surveys/questionnaires o Rating location, instructor, time, value, and experience o Format to include suggestions for changes and/or additions to programs • Comment cards at all recreation centers • Sit-down meetings between Program Administrator and program area o includes year-end reports of revenues, expenses, cost recovery, trends, other offerings in the community, examination of program registrations, budget analysis • Attachments on general surveys and evaluations that are disseminated to the public A formative evaluation, or process evaluation, assesses activities undertaken to furnish information to decision makers that will guide program improvement while the program is running. A summative evaluation assesses how the program was conducted to meet its stated goals after the program has culminated. A systematic formative evaluation can help BPRD determine how efficiently programs are being operated and allow the programmers and decision makers to apply systematic methodology to alter programs while they are running instead of a time-sensitive post-facto summative evaluation that leaves little to no time for efficient program alteration before the next session is to be planned. 19 Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. to -fh', 28 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan F' • With the current lifecycle management methodology employed, there is a chance that new programming ideas from staff are canceling "low-achieving" programs that were not examined using a systematic formative evaluation framework. Low-achieving programs may not have the high participation rates of other programs, but the social need and the social context in which the program resides must be explored. By establishing benchmarks, goals, and objectives at the beginning of a new program (or any program in general, no matter what lifecycle phase the program is in) and instituting a continual assessment and alteration process during the program's operation, a full lifecycle management approach can be used for recreational programming. Conclusion BPRD has diversified its programs and services portfolio over the last several years and has made accomplishments in increasing cost recovery for recreation programs and facilities; however, there are other considerations that could enhance different facets of BPRD recreational programming. In this concluding section, we review key questions and approaches to explore further with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, City Council, and the general public during the needs assessment phase. 1. Currently, outcome measurement related to program goals and objectives is limited to rudimentary evaluation (revenues dedicated, customer satisfaction, staff perception). o How can community values such as contributions to sustainability, youth development, successful integration of cultures, etc., be measured? o How can the performance measures that are most important to Boulder residents and community sustainability goals be included in program evaluation? n Should performance measures, other than the current emphasis on recreation participation and revenue production, be considered in order to gauge the overall success of mission attainment by the department? 2. How can the department balance recreation services that promote community good and civic benefit with the need for revenue production? o Should the department continue expansion of drop-in and contracted programs? 3. BPRD needs to continue soliciting community preferences and desires and the community's willingness to support them, o How can the department create and implement continual feedback evaluation methods from current users and other community members? 4. Utilizing partners for overlapping program and services may allow reallocation of funds. o Should the department continue to explore the possibility of contracting services if they are offered elsewhere in the community? o Should the department explore the possibility of contracting services regardless of if they are offered elsewhere in the community? o Should the department train recreation staff to be facilitative recreation programmers with partnering agencies? That is, should the focus of staff be to provide an enabling environment, rather than a recreation program or activity directly? 5. Adherence to the attendance policy is critical for programs in order to increase efficiency and cut unnecessary costs. PROGRAMS Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan o How should the department implement or continue vigilant monitoring of attendance numbers for all programming areas? o Should BPRD create stricter policies for instructors reporting/updating program attendance in CLASS? 6. Facilities and programs do not track attendance with the same methods. o It is hard to differentiate between registration and actual attendance numbers. o There is difficulty determining contracted user contacts. o Valmont Bike Park is not staffed like a facility, and user contacts cannot be efficiently calculated. 7. How strong is the community desire for a dedicated scholarship fund for low-income Boulder residents? o When is it appropriate for program revenue to be (un)evenly allocated to support social good programs? 8. Given the time constraints between program sessions (seasons), is a formative evaluation warranted in lieu of a summative evaluation? o Would a systematic framework for evaluating the process alleviate a time- sensitive turnaround for subsequent sessions? o Current summative techniques used can be minimized and used as supplement to formative evaluation framework. 9. Is the fee structure for some programs in need of updating? o Explore the effectiveness of the alternative funding mechanisms and consider adjusting/removing some options. There are several key takeaways from this programs and services topical report. First, after experiencing a decline in registrations since 2009, BPRD seems to be on the rise from 2011 into 2012. Reasons for this trend may include the expansion of contracted services and drop-in programs. in addition, cost-recovery rates have dramatically increased every year since 2009. Second, the manner in which BPRD tracks attendance, monitors visitor usage (i.e., what visitor is doing what), and captures individual user contacts is subpar and in need of a standardized tracking and reporting methodology. Third, current evaluations for programs are somewhat disjointed, and a comprehensive evaluation strategy, such as a formative evaluation technique, could alleviate time-sensitivity and provide focused programmatic feedback that could aid in overall lifecycle management. Developing an overarching programmatic and financial sustainability framework for the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department will be a result of a multi-faceted approach. Other topical reports such as asset management, cost recovery, benchmarking, and trends will be synthesized to develop an overall financial sustainability framework. The discussion in this topical report addresses cost recovery in relation to programs and services while also addressing current trends and programmatic considerations. Please consider other related topical reports as individual research summaries while keeping in mind that each report will eventually become a unified, cogent, and intuitive roadmap that will help guide the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department for the next several years. f l~y Attachment J TOPICAL REPORT: FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase Notes _ Research methodology approved _ Preliminary research and analysis com fete Data gaps identified and remaining research Some relevant data has not been obtained and/or assigned veritied. Instances of this are noted. When applicable, these issues will be addressed in the _ Needs Assessment. All data obtained Prelim ina community plan integration review _ V' Preliminary department leadership review Technical reviewers may be able to add or clarify details about information regarding: -Figure 5 (to confirm included/excluded costs) Occasional inconsistencies occur between use of 2011 and 2012 data. This will be reconciled I _ during the technical review. _ Technical TAG review In progress Board (PRA_BI review In_ ro~ress Department leadership review f7l Topical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan integration Introduction This topical report, prepared in collaboration with BBC Research and Consulting, is part of the, city of Boulder's 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan update process. It contains a review of recent department budget trends; provides information on current sources and uses of department funds; and includes a review of department cost recovery practices in the context of broader citywide fiscal policy discussions. This topical report also contains a review of all recent plans and analyses that cover department cost recovery philosophy and practices. ,0)11 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Budget Current Department Operating Budget. The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department operates on a $24.2 million budget in 2012. There are five city funds that account for department revenue and support department operations and maintenance expenditure. These five funds and their contribution to the city's parks and recreation budget are presented in the following figure. A description of revenue sources and uses within each fund follows. Figure 1. Permanent Parks Parks and Recreation and Re reation) Fund {1196) Budget, City of Boulder, GeneraFund (18%) 2012 Source: Lottery Fund (2%) City of Boulder 2012 Budget Recreation Activ 00',25 ent Fund (RAF) {4096 Tax (28%) Recr ation Activity Fund (RAF) The RAF was established to account for recreation user fees and to provide a source of funding to support recreation programs that do not cover all of their direct costs. Over 80 percent of RAF revenue is generated from recreation program and facility revenues, which includes user fees. The remaining portion of RAF revenue comes from general fund transfers (about $1.6 million per year, 2010-2012) and external grants. The RAF provides funding for recreation operations, programs and facilities. The RAF currently accounts for 30 percent of the department's total revenues, and nearly all expenditure associated with recreation programs and facilities. About $9.7 million in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. 0.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund This special revenue fund, set to expire in December 2015 unless Boulder citizens vote for a 20 year extension in the 2012 election, accounts for a 0.25 cent sales tax dedicated to the department to fund debt service on bonds issued to acquire park lands. Revenue from this fund is also used for parks, natural lands and ball field maintenance; park and recreation facility development, renovation and refurbishment; and department administration and planning. About $6.9 million in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. General Fund The general fund supports most of the city's basic governmental public services. Boulder's general fund is supported mainly through sales tax, property tax, fees and charges, intergovernmental revenue and other revenue sources. In 2012, the parks and recreation department was allocated about $4.4 million in direct funding through the city general fund. w a. 1. 4~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan FINANCE. General fund revenue supports department-wide administration, urban forestry and general park management and maintenance. A separate annual general fund transfer (about $300,000 in 2011) is used for maintenance and development of specific athletic facilities. There is another general fund allocation in addition to the above for recreation programs and facilities that is transferred from the general fund to the recreation activity fund. This general fund transfer is displayed in the recreation activity fund in the figure above. Permanent parks and recreation fund (PPRF) The PPRF is a capital improvement fund established to support the acquisition and development city parks and recreation facilities. A 0.9-mill property tax is the main source of revenue in this fund. Development excise taxes also accrue in this fund as a secondary revenue source. The PPRF pays capital improvements, land acquisition and park and recreation facility improvement. About $2.6 million in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. Lottery Fund The city lottery fund is a special revenue fund that accounts for state conservation trust fund monies allocated to local governments based on population. State conservation trust fund monies are dedicated to parks, recreation and open space site maintenance and capital improvements. The city receives about $800,000 on an annual basis from the state and allocates about $575,000 to the parks and recreation department. Other Department Funds There are three other department funds not shown in Figure 1: the capital development fund, the 2011 capital improvement fund and the Boulder Junction improvement fund. All of these funds are capital improvement funds dedicated to funding specific capital improvements to parks and recreation facilities and land acquisitions in city growth areas. The 2011 capital improvement fund accounts for the department's portion of a citywide bond issuance to fund infrastructure improvements. About $8.3 million in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. The Boulder Junction improvement fund was established in 2012 to account for development excise tax and construction use tax revenue allocated to fund park land and recreation facility acquisition and development in the Boulder Junction area. About $280,000 in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. The capital development fund accounts for citywide development impact fee collections allocated to growth-related parks and recreation facility development. About $10,000 in revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012. Recent Revenue Trends BBC compiled three years of department revenue data in five major funds to analyze budget trends. Data from the general fund, 0.25 percent sales tax fund, RAF and PPRF were included. Department revenues have declined by about 2 percent in the last three years-a modest decline. Figure 3 shows department revenue trends. ) j Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 2. Parks and Recreation Department Funding, City of Boulder, 2020-2012 2010 (424,714,284) 2011 ($24,566,401) 2012 ($24,158,900) $16,000,000 N $$14,000,000 h v r: o $12,000,000 0 0 ,ev` h ti n $]0,000,000 ~ w a; ' o $6,000,000 - o ro Q m t~ 6 Q Yi N N +n H $6,000.000 4 N N N .j ry p S4,000,000 - c g n M + b 8 0 " ~ 52,000,000 n R n h N Y so g General Lottery 0. 5 cent Recreation Permanent Fund Fund Sales Tax ACUVity Parks and Fund Recreation Fund Note: RAP funding Includes an annual general fund transfer, funding from the 0.15 cent sales tax fund (now expired) included in the general fund figures. Source: CitynfBoulder. RAF funding decreased by about $800,000, or 8 percent, in the last three years. This decline is a result of the transfer of maintenance expenses for some park facilities. Most RAF user fee revenue categories, including golf, aquatics, recreation programs, sports, and the reservoir have decreased between 2010 and 2012. Recreation center revenue increased between 2010 and 2012, but by only about $34,000. The general fund transfer to the RAF (about $1.6 million) remained relatively constant over the last three years. PPRF revenue decreased by about $350,000, or 1 1 percent, between 2010 and 2012. However, there was a one-time sale of property that increased revenue in those years. The Department lacks long-term, stable revenue sources. The 0.25 sales tax expires in 2015. The Department acknowledges that General Fund support is uncertain. The city has recently experienced lower PPRF contributions due to a decline in city assessed values. The PPRF is funded through a 0.9 mill property tax, a development excise tax and donations--all of these revenue sources are sensitive to economic conditions. Declining revenues are not just a departmental problem, but a citywide challenge. The following sections describe department and city efforts to mitigate the recent decline in revenue from traditional property and sales tax sources. Relevant Recent Plans and Analyses in response to concern regarding declining citywide and departmental sales and property tax revenue, the Boulder parks and recreation department has recently completed a number of studies regarding cost recovery and long-term revenue stability. The following sections compile and summarize recent cost recovery analyses, document current department efforts to meet its stated cost recovery goals and provide recommendations to increase cost recovery. As part of this analysis, BBC reviewed the following city documents: ■ Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2006); Ill 14q.,~e 4 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan FINANCE: s Blue Ribbon Commission Report on Revenue Stabilization - Phase 1 (2008) and Phase II (2010); ■ City Manager's Work Group on Recreation Financing (2008); ■ Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan (RPFP) (2010); ■ Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2010); and ■ City of Boulder Budget Book (2012). The documents above cover a broad range of topics and include city guiding documents for general land use, parks and recreation policy, citywide fiscal policy, recreation program cost recovery policy and general city budget documents. The following provides a brief summary of each document. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2006) The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is the primary guiding document for the department. It was last updated in 2006. The master plan provides the overarching mission, vision and goals statements for the department as well as recommendations on department funding practices, cost recovery and operating efficiency. The 2006 master plan document presented a core services business model for the department that classified Boulder parks, facilities and recreation programs into five categories and defined cost recovery goals for each category. The department cost recovery philosophy has since been subject to further study and refinement by a targeted working group convened by the city manager and the subsequent RPFP. Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue Stabilization Phase 1 (2008) and Phase II (2010) In 2006, the Boulder city council appointed a blue ribbon commission (BRC 1) to study citywide revenue policy issues in response to several years of revenue decline. The BRC I goal was to establish a more stable revenue generation system for the city that will fund public priorities for the next twenty years. The subsequent phase II study (BRC II) refines revenue stabilization recommendations of the BRC I study and provides a review of city expenditures to evaluate city expenditure efficiency. The priority-based budgeting system the city currently operates under is a response to recommendations included in the BRC I and 11 studies. A more detailed discussion of citywide structural revenue and expenditure issues and its effect on the Parks and Recreation department is included in a subsequent section of this topical report. City Mana4er's Work Group on Recreation Financing (20081 The city manager appointed a citizen working group to make recommendations to him regarding department pricing and funding structure for recreation programs and facilities. In general, the work group focused its recommendations on program costing, cost recovery policy and department fund accounting. The work group provided suggestions to improve program pricing and costing transparency to ensure financial stability of recreation programs. The study provided further evaluation and confirmation of the five-category cost recovery framework outlined in the department core services business model included in the 2006 Master Plan document. ,J 0 a I k' V-11 k' Lai Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan j2010I The RPFP provides guidance related to recreation program offerings and recreation facility management, construction and reinvestment. Additionally, the RPFP provides a funding analysis and recommendations to ensure future recreation division financial stability. The RPFP also provides a revised three-category cost recovery framework for recreation programs and facilities that the department currently operates under. The cost recovery discussion in this white paper is based on the framework and goals stated in RPFP. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2010) The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides a statement of community goals and aspirations relating to future community development. This joint effort between the city of Boulder and Boulder County provides public policy guidance for transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing. The plan sets forth the community core values that are embodied in the priority-based budgeting process employed by the city and parks and recreation department. City of Boulder Budget Book 12012) The city budget book provides an accounting of all city revenues and operating, maintenance and capital expenditures. Pursuant to the recommendations in the BRC II study, the city adopted a priority-based budgeting system (PBB). PBB incorporates community goals and values stated in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The budgeting process employs a scoring methodology that rates city programs and services against the stated community goals. PBB provides a tool for allocating funding, adding or eliminating city services to ensure the most efficient use of limited city financial resources. The documents above provide current guidance for parks and recreation department funding and budgeting; recreation program and facility cost recovery philosophy; and current department program and facility pricing. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Citywide Structural Funding Gap The following provides a discussion of general city financial issues to frame the current parks and recreation cost recovery policy. The Problem In 2006, the BRC I was convened to examine solutions for stabilizing the city's revenues and narrowing the gap between projected revenues and expenditures. The primary finding of the BRC I was that "growth in city revenues will not keep pace with anticipated inflationary costs for city services." i In fact, the BRC I report estimated that the City would face a $135 million annual funding gap by 2030 if voters failed to renew expiring sales and use taxes. The BRC I primary recommendations included diversifying and extending revenue streams, evaluating new sources of revenues and ensuring the efficient and effective use of public funds. BRC II examined city-wide expenditures and identified opportunities for improved departmental and programmatic efficiencies. BRC II recommended that city service priorities be based on community goals and values, and that these priorities should drive the city's budgeting process. BRC If also recommended that the City and individual departments establish and monitor performance measures. A Response in response to the BRC II recommendation, the City implemented Priority Based Budgeting {PBB) as part of the 2011 budget process. The city defines PBB as "the iterative process of prioritizing city programs in terms of their influence on achieving defined 'results' which are the high level, overarching objectives that represent the priorities of City Council and the community."2 In sum, PBB implements recommendations from the BRC, while ensuring that the city recognizes and adheres to the values outlined in its Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. PBB ensures that the city's values are retained if spending cuts are required. Implementation of PBB is two-fold: follow best-practices for allocating resources to ensure fiscal health and identifying a prioritization scheme. In essence, the city evaluates its fiscal resources and if cuts are made, they are done in accordance within the city's prioritization scheme. Fiscal health. The City, in its PBB user guide, has identified five guiding principles to ensuring fiscal health: ■ Spend within the City's means; ■ Establish and maintain reserves; ■ Understand variances; ■ Be transparent about the true cost of doing business; and ■ Incorporate economic analysis and long-term planning into decision making. The directive to be transparent with business costs is important to individual departments. The directive recommends a more thorough and analytical allocation of overhead and t Biue Ribbon Commission or+ Revenue 5iabilizatiion-Phase It. 2 City of Boulder "2013 Annual Budget Priority Based Budgellng User's Guide." Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan administrative costs to programs to determine the real cost of program and service administration. Prioritization City offerings are ranked and prioritized based on two sets of criteria: their ability to help the community achieve desired results and by basic program attributes. These criteria are presented in the figure below. Figure 3. Community Results Goals Basic Program Criteria PBB Prioritization Criteria, City of . Accessible and Connected Community o Mandate to Provide Service Boulder, 2012 . Economically Vital Community . Change in Demand for Service Source: CO of Boulder, PBB User • Environmentally Sustainable Community a Reliance on City to Provide Service Guide. • Healthy and Socially Thriving Community . Seff Sufficlency/Cost Recovery . Safe Community • Cost Avoidance/Increasing Efficiencies . Good Governance Programs are then given a score based on their relevancy to these prioritization criteria. Each department evaluates their programs based on these criteria. In the event of revenue shortages or planned budget cuts, lower ranking programs and services are generally cut before higher ranking programs. The PBB process has become an important tool not just for citywide budget decisions, but also for direct departmental programmatic decision making efforts. The department employs an adapted version of PBB when budgeting each year, In response to the city's current financial situation; the aforementioned plans and analyses; and PBB directives, the Department has become increasingly conscious of revenue generation and cost recovery through user fees. The following section describes the current state of department cost recovery and departmental progress toward its stated cost recovery goals. Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Given the uncertainty of the Department's primary revenue sources, BPRD established a five- part strategy for achieving self-sustainability in the RPFP. The strategy included the following components: ■ Use a standard pricing method to calculate and analyze the total cost of service consistently for all recreation programs, services and facilities. ■ Apply an appropriate amount of indirect costs to user fees. ■ Reinvest in recreation infrastructure, following industry standards, by establishing a facility investment fee in the pricing structure. ■ Understand citywide cost allocations and capital expenses that would need to be included in the total cost of recreation, beyond operating costs. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan KNANCE ■ Pursue program and facility partnerships for the purpose of reducing expenses, increasing revenues or providing additional recreation services at no cost to the city of the Department. The self-sustainability strategy described above forms the future direction of the department cost recovery policy. Policy obiectives In 2009, the Parks and Recreation Department established a cost recovery philosophy, which incorporates principles from the city-wide PBB process, as it requires the department to prioritize its programs and identify acceptable levels of general tax support for each priority. The department's priority scheme includes three program types: social core, business core and desirable programs. Social core programs, or public good programs, include "traditional youth programs, programs that target community members with disabilities or low incomes, and activities that enhance the health, safety and livability of the community."3 Some of the more common social core programs offered by the department include learn-to-swim classes, introductory sports classes, Youth Sports Initiative (YSI) and the Exciting Programs Adventure and New Dimensions (EXPAND) program. The YSI supports children from low income households with recreational and educational services. YSI collaborates with the local housing authority and the Family Resource Schools to identify program participants. EXPAND is an award winning program that serves persons with disabilities with therapeutic recreational opportunities. All YSI and introductory/inclusion EXPAND social core programs are funded primarily with general tax support via the general fund. Business core, or business sustainability, programs are comparable to private market offerings and are offered at market rates. These programs are expected to produce net revenue for the department. According to the RPFP, business core programs include golf programs, adult sports leagues, camps and other various class offerings. Business core programs often produce revenue in excess of expenditure and effectively subsidize social core programs. Desirable programs meet community interests and desires. Desirable programs must generate enough revenue to offset its direct and indirect program costs; space must be available to house the program; the program must be in high demand (e.g., classes fill, potential waitlists); and the program must serve a large population or an identified community need. The city looks more favorably on desirable programs if they provide an opportunity to partner with other organizations, if they use space that would otherwise be empty and if they serve a variety of groups in the city. 3 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department's Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 4 summarizes the department's cost recovery expectations for its three program categories. Figure 4. Cost Recovery Policy Cost Policy Category Recovery Goal Social Core YS1 0% EXPAND -inclusion 096 EXPAND -Specialized 75-200% Level 100 Learn-to programs 90-100% and certification courses Business core > 100% Desirable 100% Source: City of Soufder. The department supports its social core programs with city general fund revenue and the net revenue from business core programs. The department supports full subsidies for YSI and EXPAND-Inclusion and smaller subsidies for other social core programs, such as EXPAND- specialized and Learn-to programs. Business Core and Desirable programs are expected to operate on program revenues. Once the cost recovery rate for Desirable programs exceeds 100 percent, they are then considered Business Core programs. The RPFP states that the future department goal is to increase cost recovery of desirable programs so that they will eventually be considered business core programs.4 The department intends to achieve this goal by raising fees, reducing program costs or seeking outside funding partnerships. Policy gerformance The department calculates cost recovery for programs and facilities separately. For programs, the department calculates the ratio of program user fees and non-operating revenue to direct program costs and recreation indirect costs to calculate cost recovery. For facilities, the department defines cost recovery as the ratio of facility admission fees and retail sales to direct facility costs. The following figure presents recreation division revenue and cost inputs used by the department in cost recovery analysis. 4 RPFP. p. 4$. J+ wHy Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan FINANCE Figure S. Cost Recovery Inputs, City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, 2012 1 Total Revenues Total Program Costs Total Facility Costs 1 • Program Fees Programstaff salaries, • keereationt_enterstaff: • FacllkyAdmissionFees equipment, materials > Administration 1 Ifstaffmembers responsible > Registration • Retail/Rentals foradministerrngmultiple > Supervision 1 programs. salariessharedIn 1 proportionwithprogram suppllesandmaterlals 1 I budget • uttlltles 1 _ I . Janitorial services • Grants 1 • Donations I 1 overhead staff costs (e.g., ■ Genera{Fundsubsidy j adrtdalstratimIT,marketing) 1 1 Costs distrIbutedin j proportion each program t represerrtsoftheRAF 1 1 Program Facility Costs (Irk, Solberg, Pottery Lab) ~1------------------------------------- . •I ~ - `,fir:-::; - • Facilities Grounds Maintenance ■ Department Indirect Costs (Director, • Recreation lTandCommunications Costs Finance,MarketingandAdminlstratlon) • Sports Turf Manager, Recreation • City Indirect Costs (City Manager, City Operations Assistant, Registration Attorney, Human Resources, RiskMgtnt, Positions Finance, IT) • Portion of Pleasant Viewandstarlo • Brochure Printing and Distribution Sports Complexes operations and • capital improvements Maintenance Source: Qty of Boulder Perks and Recreation Department: IIIIIJOY-IUM Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Cost Recovery Inputs - Programs Programmatic revenues include direct fees users pay for program participation, as well as non-operating, such as grants and donations. The department began including non-operating revenue in its cost recovery analysis in 2011. This recently improved cost recovery performance for some programs, such as EXPAND and YSI. Program costs include direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include costs associated with program administration including staff salaries and any equipment or materials needed for the program. Some staff members may contribute time to multiple programs. Their costs are distributed among programs in proportion to the overall program budget. In other words, more costly programs would receive a higher proportion of staff costs than lower cost programs. Indirect costs include administrative staff costs necessary for recreation division operations. These costs include division administration, marketing and IT. Indirect costs are distributed among all programs based on the proportion they represent in the RAF. For example, in 2011, the Aquatics program represented about 2 percent the RAF budget; as such, 2 percent of indirect costs were charged to the Aquatics program. Cost Recovery Inputs - Facilities Facility revenues include the admission fees users pay for admission to city recreation facilities, i.e., recreation centers, pools, golf course and other facilities. Revenue from retail sales, room rentals and locker rentals at recreation facilities are also included in the facility cost recovery equation. Any grants or donations received by the department specifically for facilities would also be included if available. Facility costs include facility administration, registration and supervision staff; facility supplies and materials; utilities; and janitorial services. Department Cost Recovery Analysis The city conducts cost recovery analysis by broad program area and by facility. The following figure presents a five-year average of cost recovery performance. This analysis was completed by the department. L,, L, t~; 2 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 6. Cost Recovery Performance, City of Boulder Recreation Division, Five-year Average, 2007-2011 Programs 5-Year Average Facilities 5-YearPverage Aquatics - Programs and lessons 98.6% Aquatics - Outdoor Pools 106.2% Dance 77.5% East Boulder Recreation Center 6S.4% EXPAND 15.7% Flatirons Golf Course 101.7% Fitness 66.2% North Boulder Recreation Center 78.5% Gymnastics 91.9% Reservoir - Facility 107.5% Mind & Body (Yoga) 80.2% South Boulder Recreation Center 63.1% Pllates 59.S% Sportfields 51.4% Pottery 60.9% Reservoir - Programs 164.6% Special Interest 179.3% Sports 152.7% Weight Training 80.7% Youth Services Initiative 2.1% Source: City of Boulder Park$and Recreation 0epar"ent. Ideally, program cost recovery analysis should be completed by policy category (e.g., social core, business core, desirable programs). However, the city does not categorize its programs as social core, business core and desirable in its cost recovery data. Tracking progress toward cost recovery goals is difficult in the current system because there are different cost recovery goals within each program area (i.e., there are both social core and business core aquatics programs). Currently there is no precise way to measure the cost recovery performance of these programs by policy category. The youth services initiative is the only program in the figure above that falls entirely within a policy category with a single cost recovery goal (0 percent). BBC's review of city cost recovery policy documents did not reveal a stated cost recovery goal specifically for department facilities. In practice, facility cost recovery is tied to the programs housed in each facility. Facility costs are mainly recovered through admission fees to facilities, Program fees include a portion of facility costs, according to the RPFP. Interviews with department staff indicated that this is not the current program pricing practice. It is unclear whether users of recreation programs housed in the recreation centers, such as yoga and other fitness classes, support facility cost recovery. Staff interviews indicated that certain facilities, such as the Iris Studio, Solberg Studio and Pottery Lab, have few costs recovered in program user fees, These facilities house specific recreation programs and do not produce any separate admissions or rental revenue. Current Cost Recovery Figure 7 presents the cost recovery ratio for all programs and facilities. The methodology used for calculating the cost recovery ratio is normalized across all five years to ensure the year to year comparison is accurate. The general fund subsidy to the RAF is excluded from the cost recovery calculations in the figure to more accurately weigh program and facility revenues to costs. Revenues include both program/facility revenues and non-operating revenue (grants). Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan E 3 Y-1 U444 911112 Costs include recreation division direct and indirect operating costs only. No departmental or citywide overhead costs are included. Figure 7. 100% gq.;o{, g,,,~ Current Cost Recovery 85.S% Rate, 80%- 16.B9s 77'~nP cost A-OVV'y VAth-t AD City of Boulder ]W&Kt coats Recreation Division, 60% 2007-2021 Cost Ke very Source: 40% with AN Indirect Costs City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department. 20% 0%- T 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 The cost recovery ratio for programs has averaged about 82 percent over the last five years. According to the RPFP, recreation programs in aggregate should eventually achieve 100 percent cost recovery, assuming business core programs subsidize social core programs and desirable programs are cost neutral. Raising fees, reducing direct staffing costs, reducing overhead costs and seeking outside funding through grants, donations and partnerships are ways to push cost recovery rates higher. As a longer term goal, the RPFP states that the department should move towards including other currently unallocated overhead costs in its cost recovery formulae if the RAF is to become self-sufficient. The cost categories displayed in the top portion of Figure 5 and included in the calculations in Figures 6 and 7 include direct and indirect program and recreation division costs only, The current standard departmental cost recovery metrics do not include an allocation of departmental or citywide overhead, recurring capital costs and other costs displayed in the bottom portion of Figure 5. The department calculated a cost recovery figure including these currently unallocated costs for 2011. In 2011, cost recovery would be about 60 percent if these unallocated costs were included, as shown in Figure 7. In strict terms, RAF self-sufficiency would require additional overhead allocation from the parks and recreation department and other city departments (i.e., city attorney, finance, city manager, etc.). While recreation cost recovery has been the subject of most Department analysis and revenue raising efforts, the Department is also exploring ways to expand cost recovery principles to parks. Parks, Fundina and Cost Recovery City of Boulder parks operations and maintenance are funded through the general fund and 0.25 percent sales tax fund. Parks and natural lands operations and maintenance have a $5.2 million budget in 2012. In general, city parks do not provide much opportunity for cost recovery. The department has historicaffy charged fees for public and private special events at parks, picnic shelters and the bandsheil. Revenue from parks rental fees accrue to the city general fund. 14 ' Y+4 M b...;w Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan FINA Boulder city parks have become increasingly popular with organized commercial fitness and recreation classes, such as yoga, tai chi and fitness boot camp. These commercial groups would charge patrons for the classes, but the city would not receive any funds for use of the park. In 2011, the department began imposing a tiered commercial use fee to recover the additional park maintenance costs associated with commercial use and to end the practice of subsidizing private for-profit activities in the parks. The fee is charged quarterly and is tiered according to park usage frequency. Besides fee and revenue analysis to improve Department cost recovery, the Department also periodically evaluates program delivery efficiencies, described in the following section. Program Management The department requires current and new recreation programs meet specific criteria. These criteria are described earlier in this report in the definition of social core and desirable programs. The criteria include community, social, and financial goals for each program. The department has stated that it will implement a regular and systematic program evaluation process to ensure current programs continue to meet department and city goals in the RPFP. Program financial considerations are an important piece of the evaluation process. Program cost recovery is generally related to participation rates, pricing, local competition and operating efficiency. Over time, the department could develop program benchmarks to use in an evaluation system. Prograrn cost recovery will change over the life cycle of any recreation program. The prevalence, pricing and relative quality of competitive local recreation program offerings have a significant effect on city program pricing and participation rates. BBC compiled information on competitive recreation programs and facilities as part of the master plan process. This information is included as an appendix to this report. There is ample private competition for virtually all recreation programs and facilities in the Boulder market. As shown in the appendix, the department is generally at or near the least expensive provider in most recreation programs and for general admission to recreation facilities. It is difficult to accurately assess city pricing relative to competitors because program or facility membership packages and associated pricing vary by provider. Findings and Recommendations in general, the department has received long term direction to push towards complete cost recovery in the recreation division and to increase cost recovery in parks where possible. In the recreation division, achieving this goal will require the department to operate recreation as an enterprise and the RAF to function more like an enterprise fund. The department must continue in its efforts to increase user fee revenue and bolster operating efficiency in recreation programs and facilities in order to reduce reliance on general city tax support. In essence, the department must pass on more of the full cost of providing recreation programs, services and facilities to users, while maintaining the most efficient operation possible to stay competitive in the crowded Boulder recreation market. In the parks division, the department should continue to explore implementing fees for park use where appropriate. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan The following are findings and recommendations related to department budget and cost recovery: ■ The department is largely funded with a mix of general tax support, a soon-to-expire dedicated sales tax, a dedicated property tax and user fees and charges. Many of these revenue sources are susceptible to overall city fiscal and economic conditions. Continue to evaluate more stable revenue sources that tie program and facility costs to users. The department currently does not track recreation cost recovery performance by the three identified policy categories: Social Core, Business Core and Desirable. Financial data and cost recovery calculations are available for broad program categories, but the department does not link these categories to the three policy groups- Cost recovery analysis would be more effective if the policy terms and analysis methodology had a more transparent connection. ■ Cost recovery calculations have only recently included indirect revenue sources, such as grant contributions. This has improved cost recovery performance of some social core programs, such as YSI. In the future, a standard cost recovery calculation methodology should be adopted to aid in program evaluation. ■ Establish a consistent allocation of facility costs to recreation program fees, regardless of program location. ■ Enforce recreation class minimum enrollment levels. This will ensure a more efficient operation and will translate to staff wage savings. ■ Monitor program life cycle and enrollment closely; establish policy for streamlining or ending business core and desirable programs before city subsidies are required. ■ Along with maintaining minimum enrollment levels, continue to monitor private recreation programs in the community and consider eliminating programs with poor enrollment and ample competing private options. ■ Continue to periodically evaluate recreation programs to ensure that they meet stated community, social and financial goals. This evaluation process should be systematic, and would involve regularly verifying whether pricing, participation and staffing efficiency is meeting or exceeding department requirements. s Continue to identify and pursue grants, donations and partnerships with outside organizations to enhance department revenue generation. ■ Recognize that fee discounting to any group must be supported by another revenue source, whether that is general user fees or general tax support. ■ Continue to evaluate innovative methods to improve cost recovery in city parks. The recent establishment of a commercial use fee is a good example of parks cost recovery. Revenue trends were mixed across all funds. Direct general fund support increased by about 10 percent between 2010 and 2012. This increase in general fund support is largely the result of 16 } Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan the expiration of a dedicated sales tax and reallocation of that revenue through the general fund. The lottery fund allocation to the department has remained stable. These funds are allocated by formula from the state and generally do not dramatically change from year to year. The 0.25 percent sales tax fund revenue increased by 7 percent between 2010 and 2012. Sales -fax revenue varies with local consumer spending and this may be an indication of a recovering retail sector in Boulder. APPENDIX A: LOCAL RECREATION COMPETI'T'ION The following pages contain a comparison of city and private recreation programs, facilities and pricing in Bolder. Fvll-Servke Racre otbn Cenlevs Yea Posy Cost per month' Drap-in" Norlh Boulder We...albn Cunfvi x',53-SankaS,$552-Adults-}260-Youth }33-Surion,.W Adults. $26. Youlh },125 5erAois,$7.AduW-$45-0-YWIh South BDvIder Recrcalion Cenloi $M-Senfon.$552-Adults. $260-Y"h $33-Seniors, $50-Adufb.$26-Youth $5.25 - So niots, 47-AdWh-$4.50-You th Fast Rookie) Recmallon Cantor $353 - Se mm,$552-Adolf %$260-Y-1h $M-Sesriws-¢50•Adolf,.$26-Youth }5-25-Seniors,$7-AduW,$4-50-Youth 24 Hoch Fitness *M9 annual pons $40.$90 None, ll.eie is a free 3-day pass rlotYwss AIMCIic Club $960onoualfWpermonth) tncodesoldossec $ED(includes of classes) None Radly.ppt $1140 1$95 per nsonlh) fndudes 41 classes 495 (includes o6 crosses) None. there is a free 3 day pass C.ofofWo Atldelk Ob n/a Wa n/a •MonNdy charges -.-Sled on an annval basis -Drop In lee Includes access 1. dtiac lfrac not lnciWding the drop-ln churge for dosses Aquollcs Daily Role Season Pau Rec)eolon Center Poah and 2 ouldoer pooh $175 (youth) - $6,25 (odrdl) SeB-x132 24-Hour f ilness Bucfuded in membership lees F1.14om Allelic Club lsduded in membenhip lees Rullyspoul Fnduded In mensbeahlp lees Colorado Athletic Club fncruded in membership lees Boulder Barrocudm - summer youlh swim Icam Smol sumrnm program Boulder Swim Team-Club swim program CompeliF'rve winter ondsumrner program Yoga Cost persession AB Boullvr Roe Confers $1515 per .loss $651" Rve Crasser OM Tme 417 drop in $ Mo month pass Yoga Pod $17 drop in $160 mcnlh pass Stadia Be $15 drop in $160 mardh pass F&I m's Yoga College of India $20 drop in $165 manlh pass vida 5ludio $12 drop in $130 monf h pass Yo Mama Yoga varies ((or mothers and expeclisg mothers) CN.Power Yogo $19 drop in $124 month pass Yang- Yoga center $17 drop fn $149 month pass Yoga Wwkslsop $10-$15,hop in $155 - $220 month pan The IiNre Yoga Studio $10 drop in M monthpass Five Kasha Yoga Ihmopy - Joyful Yoga Comr At Co-Op - Dance Boulder Pala and Roe Dance Class es $14 per clow, $701or 5pa,.4 Esgeubns Donce[ompany $1A001o$7 OOD lofal 7,r" rh billing Alchemy of Movemenl $14 percluss, $115 per month We Dance Academy x504133 manlhy passes. 112M to 210 hour claues(week Studio D Academy of Dance $04$1201month Rock Cllmbing Ir door Cl T*%g Wall Of Earl Boukler Roc Cenlm Included to paz or daVy fee of $7 for adult Boulder Rock Club $8416 day posses, $55-$75 monl hty posses The Spo I Bouldering Gym $11416 day pones, $45-$75 ..nl* pass Gymnoslls Gymrrasics of Nath Boulder Rec Cenler Open Gym $8 Cols - Colorado ABrfelic Traking School Open Gym; $5 Ulfle Gym of Boulder - Apex Movement Open Gym: $10 Platen Gymsmilcs a) the dovidm Rae Confers $1575 per bask: alms The Notes Confer .$11-$25 pm basic class The Core $27 per basic doss "dm Pilaf es $20 per basic doss Pat Guylon Pdoles $20 per basic doss Peak Poles Core Wlsdom $fe per basic class Body Dynamics $1450 filn- and $17-50 pYafes Summer Day Comps O.Oder Pak. and Rec Cannps $125-$925 pm week Colorado AiNe@e Club Summof Comps $2.50-$190 Movemenl Summer Comps $265 Colorado Athletic Training School (gymnastics and c5mbing) $275-$375 AduH Spars leaguers BeuNNF Pads MW Bee sdlbd jSi 5. go per learn.. B game semon W.ni 6aelelboD 13m por learn volrnbol {405 por Won) <aa~i - FSrateV per kam(mensl s7ckhaq 4425 rler leom 7emt ref p(fvokr In=r,, 141O47701orMaP~ LxrkleDaE }425 per remm Isnemn m kickball suw tNr $pud and Seelol Club :ol Ic,ae $5DO per leans Btnkerbol J,3 ,24 pm Feam :,,~,rpas 4436 per berm Pidoar) sruc n ;43o pel loom rci.no4 }42D per leom UrxWeFx~r }435 per foam G.1 I Gds Case $33 weekend 1"oles Boulder Gounky Club Prhale membership Praaoms air' oBerad by taulder Parts adfc 67 ae1D hood perks I,- bud renrat pnlllaboblc elal i - PAID Aopromra peopb rdh dsoliHier nculh Semite kllorrve fpsogro Ia yaulh Mrg In pvWc haingl WI dap pant ISaoil Capeden and SpR=b NOW Al sal. Fields Hografc rol ollered by BoUdM Por!r bnd Pc bul are pMa" Wkred Spnpie W Prisrde 00adog. ~ornh 2mseledNapus Bolder maglC Ifor HS studerds nos an rho schooHaam) ad r. Bur eWe leap- Boulder sills league (nor h and sw1hl raulh rOdbo4 Boulder Beal {Reafgh School Foolboi kngsse) PKb-tC!b Boulder Ifrrlb'y Oub sktteY BouWar Valley Hockey Aa Wr m 1-1i w Boulder Vaby loaosse raulh SOnbae eak"" ValeyYMM Sellbd o~~x vaerrbol CI„bs FWNore VaieybcAClub TOPICAL REPORT: ASSET MANAGEMENT Purpose of This Report This Topical Report represents subject-specific research findings that will ultimately inform the content of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The information contained in this report does not necessarily constitute the final narrative that will be presented in the plan. After the findings of this report are reviewed and deemed to be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive, they will be fully synthesized with research from other topical areas as part of the Needs Assessment process. The final content of the Master Plan may reflect significant portions of this report, but will not consist entirely of it. Table 1 depicts the progress of research and planning for this topical area. Table 1: Topical Area Research Progress Development Phase _ Notes Research methodology approved Preliminary and analysis complete _ _ Data gaps identified and remaining research assigned ✓ All data obtained f Preftinar community plan integration review Preliminary department leadership review -Some discrepancies in data between this report, the Benchmark report, and CIP information may exist and will be reconciled during the technical review. -O&M analysis in Table 21 still under development. ❑ Technical (TAG) review In progress ❑ Board (PRAB) review _ progress ❑ Department leadersh!p review To ical Report research and analysis complete ❑ Synthesis for needs assessment and community plan integration Introduction The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department manages approximately $274 million in park assets (facilities) distributed over 1,800 acres in approximately 100 parks city-wide. This includes 288 acres of managed turf and irrigated park lands, 22 premier athletic fields and 21 rental- quality fields, 40 playgrounds, 36 park shelters, 31 acres of paved parking lots, 40 tennis courts, another 47 mixed hard courts (basketball, handball, skate park). In addition, the department manages Pearl Street Mall exterior urban features, Flatirons Goif Course, Boulder Reservoir, Valmont Bike Park, and numerous other public facilities. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan In addition, the department maintains 15 miles of greenway trails, 38,500 urban trees, and 940 acres of natural landscapes as well as numerous park amenities including urban plazas, benches, amphitheater, lighting, signage, and trash receptacles. Over 50% of the urban parks in Boulder are natural or undeveloped and the median park size is 4.05 acres. The department also operates another $50 million in major indoor facilities ($37+ million buildings) and equipment ($13 million), along with the Facilities and Asset Management workgroup (FAM). This includes three recreation centers with three indoor pools, two outdoor pools, historic buildings, the Flatirons Event Center, major shelters and restrooms, and numerous maintenance buildings. Within a short drive of Boulder is access to vast areas of natural open space unrivaled by most urban centers in the United States. The Open Space and Mountain Parks has over 45,000 acres of parkland, and the County Parks and Open Space provides 35,000 acres of open space and 146 miles of trails. The Rocky Mountain National Park lies within a one-hour drive of Boulder, as do vast areas of publically accessible wilderness associated with the USFS. A number of agencies, volunteer organizations, and commercial ventures provide recreation facilities and services to the local population. Standards for Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Facilities Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department adopted standards, policies, and guidelines for parks and recreation facilities in the 2006 Master Plan based on the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines (see Table 2). Standards provide a range of size and space standards for various types of parks and recreational facilities. Standards are used as benchmarks to ensure that park and recreation facilities are distributed equitably among the various neighborhoods and regions of Boulder. The guidelines are to be used to evaluate whether park services in existing neighborhoods are sufficient in quantity and quality, to determine the need for new parks to serve new or redeveloping residential or commercial areas, and to monitor progress in meeting department goals. These guidelines are flexible enough to allow the city to respond to opportunities and constraints and will be updated as part of the Needs Assessment Study that will follow'. The values of the standards included: • Provide a systematic means to approach park acquisition and development; • Help promote equal distribution of parkland and recreational facilities from one community to another; • Help maintain a balanced system of parks, natural open space, and a wide range of recreational opportunities while avoiding overuse of parklands and facilities in those cases where opportunities might be limited; • Provide an opportunity to view system components within an overall context with measures for success; • Focus all activities on providing services that benefit the public; • Allocate limited resources to highest and best uses; • Allow for incremental and orderly improvements to the park and recreation system; and Standards will be revised as part of the benchmark analysis and will be updated during the needs assessment process. %A 1MI,,~ r' 2 ?1~} _'`Fr Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Build community trust, support, and cooperation. Table 2: 2006 Master Plan Park Guidelines Park Type Size (Acres) Walking Acres per Boulder Park Need to meet Distance 1,000 Acres standard Miles population Pocket Park/Urban Plaza <3 .25 miles 1.5 39.13 150 Neighborhood Park >52 .5 miles 1.5 286.78 150 Community Park >50 3.5 miles" 1.5 168.66 15CJ City Park 100-300 n/a 100-300 173.13 100 The Trust for Public Land ParkScore The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is one of the nation's leaders in city parks. They have created more parks in cities than has any other national conservation organization. TPL has created a comprehensive rating system to measure how well the 40 largest US cities are meeting the needs for parks. Cities can earn a maximum score of 100 and the rating system provides in- depth data to guide local park improvement efforts via Geological Information Systems (GIS). TPL has identified three areas that comprise the ParkScore along with key indicators for each area: • Acreage o Median park size o Park acreage as a percentage of city area • Services and Investment o Playgrounds per resident o Spending per resident • Access o Percentage of the population living within a 10-minute walk of a public park (approximately 1/2 a mile) The methodology employed by the TPL to calculate a city's ParkScore is innovative and creates a universal benchmark that cities can measure against. ParkScore does directly refer to the nation's 40 biggest cities; however, the five key indicators used to calculate the score can be used by cities of any size to examine how well they are meeting the need for parks. BPRD Parks Inventory To better understand the network of parks, open space, and recreation facilities and services that are available to Boulder residents, the following overview of assets has been compiled. This includes parks and recreation facilities found within the system as well as information on the facilities found within each of the park areas. 2 Smaller neighborhood parks will be considered if guidelines can be met (see above). 3 Residents living within .5 mile of a community park are considered to have their neighborhood park needs met. ~3 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 3: Total Park Acres by Classification Classification Acres Pocket Park 39.13 Neighborhood Park 286.78 -Community Park 168.66 -City Park 173.13 Recreation Regional Park 305.67 Communit Areas 63.75 -Office/Operations 10.34 Natural Areas 762.57 Total Park Acreage 1810.04 Median Size of Park 4.05 Pocket Parks and Urban Plazas Boulder's park system includes a number of pocket parks that serve residents living within a .25- mile walking distance. Research has shown that parks that are close to homes (within '/4 mile or a five-minute walk) promote health and wellness in the populations who have access to parks, trails, and public spaces. Urban plazas are often smaller hardscaped and landscaped spaces that provide open space for surrounding residences, offices, and commercial buildings. Pocket parks and urban plazas will be acquired when larger land parcels are not available or when unique opportunities present themselves. Pocket Parks are small park parcels, usually less than three acres in size. They are generally set aside to serve a segment of the population such as young children or senior citizens. A good example is a children's play area built within a townhouse or condominium project. The types of improvements typically developed include children's play equipment, seating, limited grass areas, picnic tables, informal play areas, and other amenities. Characteristics of Pocket Parks4 1. Smaller than three acres 2. Easily accessed by surrounding neighborhood 3. Often include seating and/or children's play area 4. Generally used for passive (not active) recreation 5. Compared to parks of other sizes, expensive to maintain due to size, materials, and features Characteristics of Urban Plazass 1. Small urban space, often with a higher amenity level (examples: hardscaped areas, street furnishings, plantings) 2. Often surrounded by buildings and uses that generate activity 3. Considered outdoor "rooms" for passive recreation and civic uses 4. Attractive and usable to a wide range of people a Pocket parks are those that have playgrounds listed with the park, s Urban plazas and landscape areas are those that do not have playgrounds. 4 s Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ASSETS 5. Includes flexible space that can be used for outdoor festivals, markets, and other public events 6. Compared to parks of other sizes, expensive to build and maintain due to high amenity level and size Table 4: Pocket Parks and Urban Plazas Park Name Acres Playgrounds Alpine Park 0.18 Arrowwood Park 2.02 1 Barker Park 0.49 1 Beach Park 1.77 1 Canyon Park 2.41 1 Canyon Pointe Park 0.55 Campbell Robertson Catalpa 1.32 Fitzpatrick Park 0.27 Fortune Park 0.32 Greenleaf Park 1.49 1 Haertlin Sculpture Garden 0.99 HiHlram Fullen Park 0.22 Lover's Hill Park 0.20 Meadow Glen Park 2.53 1 Melody Park 1.25 1 Mesa Memorial Parkb 1.73 Palo Central-South 2.81 Palo North 3.04 Pineview Park 1.60 1 Solberg Park 2.95 1 Sinton Park 0.52 Smith Park 1.10 1 Whittier ROW 0.31 Holiday Park 1.07 1 Olmsted Park 5.26 1 Bluff Park 0.24 Total 39.13 12 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks often are considered the most fundamental park type in a city's park system because they provide 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 parks are five acres or larger, With limited availability of larger parcels, future sites between three and five acres will be considered only when larger sites cannot be acquired. The department develops specific features for individual parks on the basis of a design process that includes extensive neighborhood participation. 6 Mesa Memorial Park is currently under development and will be constructed with a playground in spring of 2013. <C)) I' Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Neighborhood parks provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities within residential areas (see Appendix A for a BPRD park system map). These parks range in size between five and 20 acres and are usually located within walking distances of neighborhood residences (114 mile to 1 /2 mile radius). They typically include space and facilities for the active recreational pursuits of children, teenagers, and young adults as well as quiet landscaped areas for older residents to relax with their families and as buffers to residential settings. Elementary schools often provide some of the typical neighborhood park components such as ball field space and playground apparatus when neighborhood parks are not available. The most common types of spaces and facilities that are designed within neighborhood parks may include some of the following: play equipment for preschool and older children, paved multi-purpose courts such as tennis, basketball, volleyball, and related games, and free play areas with grass lawns. Neighborhood parks also generally include an open playing field for informal baseball, soccer, and other field games; landscape as a buffer to surrounding roads and land use; passive recreational areas for senior citizens and others including walks, benches, gardens, picnic tables, quiet areas, and outdoor picnic areas; and a small parking lot. Not all of the above facilities will be found at all neighborhood parks. Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhood Parks 1. Typically five acres or larger 2. Typically serve residents living within easy walking and biking distance (.5 mile/ lU- minute walk) 3. Offer non-programmed outdoor space including paths, seating areas, places to picnic and play catch, children's play areas, and landscaping that enhances and preserves the site's natural character Characteristics of Smaller Neighborhood Parks 1. Minimum of three acres 2. Flat, grassy, flexible-use space of at least one acre that is not programmed for active recreation or for stormwater detention use 3. Area for children's playground equipment 4. Areas for sitting and picnicking 5. Easily accessible to neighbors by sidewalks and/or paths Of the neighborhood park sites, 173.36 acres are developed and 107 acres are natural areas with 13.8 acres pending development at West Highland and Violet Parks. Table 5: Neighborhood Parks Park Name Acres Playgrounds Arapahoe Ridge Park 4.76 i Aurora 7 Park 7.84 Bear Creek Park 6.62 Violet Park 7.28 Burke Park 6.1 I Central Park 3.59 r 6 N Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan -Chautauqua Park 12.39 1 Christensen Park 4.51 1 Columbine Park 4.42 1 Crestview Park 7.77 1 Dakota Ridge Park 2.98 1 Eaton Park? 26.17 Eben G. Fine Park 6.89 1 Elk's Parka 7.92 Elmer's Two Mile Park 4.08 1 Heatherwood Park 5.58 Howard Heuston Park 7.61 1 Keewa din Meadows Park 4.53 1 Martin Park 9.32 1 Maxwell Lake 8.60 North Boulder Park 12.71 1 Palo East 4.05 1 Park East 11.17 1 Park Side ark 5.58 1 Scott Carpenter Park 16.89 1 Shanahan Ridge Park 4.33 1 Tantro Park 20.87 1 Tom Watson Park 31.04 1 Wonderland Lake Park9 31.15 1 Total 286.78 20 Community Parks Community parks are larger than 50 acres and include a mix of active and passive park areas and active recreation facilities, such as courts and formal sports fields. They include playgrounds and picnic facilities. Boulder's community park guidelines are met by East Boulder Community Park, Foothills Community Park, and Harlow Platts Community Park. The department plans additional development at East Boulder and Foothills Community parks and improvements for Harlow Platts Community Park. Of the 168.66 acres of Community Parks, approximately 123 acres are developed with another 19 acres reserved for future development at Foothills. A total of 35.7 acres are natural including the lakes at East and Harlow Platts. Community parks provide space for those recreational activities that serve a wider population than the surrounding neighborhood and are intended to serve several neighborhoods within a larger geographic area of the city. These parks range between 20 to 100 acres in size and provide a balance of natural environments and developed facilities. Physical features commonly found in community parks include multiple sports fields for baseball, softball, soccer, football, and other related sports that are scheduled for leagues and tournaments. They can also provide tennis courts and multi-purpose courts for basketball, volleyball, and handball. Other areas include playgrounds, picnic shelters, tables, paths, and off-street parking lots. 7 This area is mostly natural with 25.9 acres and'/4 acre developed at this time. 8 Currently under redevelopment with playground improvements planned for 2013. 9 Acres are mostly in lake area with 28 acres natural and five acres developed as park area. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 6: Community Parks Park Name Acres Playgrounds East Boulder Community Park 53.37 1 Foothills C. Park _65.23 3 Harlow Platts C. Park 50.06 1 Total 168.66 5 City Parks City parks serve the entire community. They provide space for high-intensity recreational activities, as well as natural areas and features typical of neighborhood and community parks. Valmont City Park and the Area III site meet the city's guideline for city parks. Part of Valmont City Park has been developed, and the Area III site will be held in reserve to meet long-term recreational needs. Area III has 187 acres of undeveloped land reserved to meet future park needs. These parks are usually larger in size and can range between 100 to 300 acres. They generally provide a mix of natural beauty and developed facilities- Extensive wooded areas are often part of large urban parks, lending a sense of the natural landscape to the urban setting. The types of facilities often found in large urban parks include golf courses, athletic field complexes, nature centers, day camps, boating/swimming areas, picnic areas, and shelters, Other facilities include a mixture of trails and off-street parking facilities. Valmont City Park, with 173 acres, is the only example of a large urban park in Boulder. To date, only 45 acres on the north side and approximately 40 acres on the south side have been developed. The park will undergo a site planning process in 2013 to determine the next phase of development for the south side of the park. This will include disc golf, athletic fields, fully accessible playgrounds, picnic areas, shelters, and trails. Table 7: City Parks Park Name Acres Playgrounds Valmont City Park South 127.16 Valmont City Park North 45.97 1 Total 173.13 1 Recreation Facilities and Regional Parks These parks are major sports complexes or large tracts of land set aside for their scenic qualities and outdoor recreational opportunities. These areas vary in size depending on the type of facilities and are generally located within a short drive of urban areas. Recreation facilities typically include athletic complexes dedicated to single-use activities such as Stazio Softball Fields and Pleasantview fields, outdoor aquatics facilities (Scott Carpenter Pool or Spruce Pool), or golf courses (Flatirons Goff Course). A regional park typically provides facilities that enhance the minimum enjoyment of the natural setting such as trails, swimming, boating, fishing, and camping facilities (such as the Boulder Reservoir). Common features that might be 16 ~ 4~ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ASSETS found in regional parks include campgrounds, picnic areas, botanical gardens, boating facilities, swimming facilities, and parking areas. Table B: Recreation Facilities Park Name Acres PIa rounds Boulder Reservoir Regional Park* 67.36 East Boulder Comm unit Center 2.97 East Mapleton Ballfields 7.79 1 Flatirons Golf Course 127.06 Gerald Stazio Ballfields 42.26 1 Scott Carpenter Pool** 0.62 North Boulder Recreation Center 1.46 Pleasantview Fields 52.58 South Boulder Recreation Center 0.60 -Spruce Pool 0.76 Centennial Tennis Courts 2.21 Total 305.67 2 *Only includes those acres that are developable with the larger park. **This is a recreation facility set within the larger Scott Carpenter Park, Natural and Undeveloped Areas BPRD also manages natural areas within urban parks, along stream corridors, and on open parcels that are still undeveloped and reserved for future park sites, These areas range from restored natural wetlands that attract wildlife and birds (such as Coot Lake and Boulder Reservoir's north shore) to the reserved Area Ill }ands north of Boulder, in addition to these natural areas, many of the existing developed parks have approximately 180 acres of parkland that have been left natural or are adjacent to natural areas including Valmont City Park and Harlow Platts Community Park. These areas attract wildlife and invasive plant and aquatic species that require management similar to that required on open-space property. Table 9: Natural and Undeveloped Areas* Park Name Acres Area IIl - Future Development 187.52 Boulder Reservoir Natural Area 379.75 Coot Lake _ 65.07 Natural area at 51s' 11873 Evert Pierson Memorial Fishing Ponds 4.95 West Highland Park 6.56 Total 762.57 *Other parks that have major natural or undeveloped areas include: Valmont City Park, Harlow Platts Community Park, Foothills Community Park, East Boulder Community Park, Boulder Creek Bike Path, Eaton Park, Wonderland Lake Park, Maxwell Lake Park, Stazio Recreation Facility, Pleasantview Multi-Use fields !9 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Community-Use Areas The department also manages parkland for uses not typical of parks like the Columbia Cemetery and the historic Harbeck House. The primary non-park areas include the Pearl Street Mall and the Civic Area around the Municipal Complex including the library grounds and city hall. This also includes the Boulder Creek Bike Path and a number of community garden sites. The Municipal Campus site and Pearl Street Mall also contain playgrounds that serve visitors to the downtown area. Table 10: Community Areas Managed by BPRD Site Name Acres Columbia Cemetery 10.90 Hawthorne Community Gardens 4.04 -Hickory Community Gardens 0.82 Harbeck House 0.44 Pearl St. Mali 2.88 Pizza Parcels 2.30 Pottery Lab 0.12 Swoboda Memorial 1.60 Watts Hard 0.88 Dairy Center for Arts 1.94 Boulder Creek Bike path 20.00 Foothills C. Garden 0.86 Andrews Arboretum 0.73 -Municipal Campus 16.25 Total 63.75 Operations and Offices The department also manages sites dedicated to park maintenance and its own overall operations. This includes 10.3 acres in the fallowing facilities: • Iris Building Main Administrative Offices • Park Operations Building • Tantra Park Maintenance Building • Foothills Park Maintenance Building • Stazio Maintenance Building • Valmont City Park Maintenance Building • Flatirons Maintenance Building Current Gaps in BPRD's Park System Undeveloped Parkland There are approximately 165 acres of undeveloped parkland in the system. This includes 30 acres of neighborhood and pocket parks, 20 acres of community parks, and approximately 115 acres of city park at Valmont. There are also 187 acres of city parkland in Area Ill in reserve for future consideration. Due to funding constraints, park development has not kept pace with . 0 M. 10 _ Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan residential development in certain parts of the city. Underserved areas are located primarily in the northernmost part of the city. 10 Completion of Boulder's undeveloped parks will meet the department's service guidelines in most of these underserved areas and will provide additional parks in well-served areas. Exceptions include several areas in the Gunbarrel area and areas near New Vista High School where land is scarce and joint-use agreements with the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) mitigate needs. The 2005 Parks and Recreation Survey confirmed that residents place a high priority on completing undeveloped park sites. Developing neighborhood parks was the highest priority, followed by developing pocket parks and finishing development of East Boulder Community Park. Developing Areas Due to the high price and lack of available land to develop in Boulder, some growth will take place in infill sites that are not currently zoned for housing, including commercial and industrial areas. Rezoning and redevelopment of inf"ill sites may require the city to acquire and develop new parklands for urban open space and recreation. Infill developments may have an even greater need than other neighborhoods for parks and urban green space because of higher density (more people per square mile) with more multi-story housing and housing in mixed-use development. 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 and more young singles, 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, so smaller neighborhood parks, pocket parks, or urban plazas will be considered. The department will explore creative ways to acquire, develop, and maintain these park sites. The areas where significant change is anticipated are the Gunbarrel area and the Transit Village (Boulder Junction). The need for an additional park site was identified through the Gunbarrel Area Plan, and the next step will be to identify where and how it will occur. Park needs for the Transit Village will be considered through the Transit Village Area Plan. Current Trends Current population projections estimate a population in Boulder of about 116,400 (Area I and II) by the year 2030. The current park acreage (developed and undeveloped) exceeds the department's guidelines established for park acreage per 1,000 residents. It also meets the guidelines for this projected population. However, the geographic distribution of the city's parkland will need adjustment to meet future community needs. Through the city's area planning and subcommunity planning processes, future park needs in new and redeveloping neighborhoods will continue to be addressed. Subcommunity and area plans address planning issues at a detailed level and explore new tand-use ideas, including specific park needs, for an entire subcommunity, specific areas, and/or neighborhoods. 10 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Park Service Area Map, pp. 26-27 I Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan A trend in recreational services is the increased reliance on private, for-profit businesses to meet growing recreation demand in certain specialized areas. The growth of athletic clubs is one example of the private sector stepping in to provide a demand at market rates. These facilities provide anywhere from the basic exercise equipment and classes to a wider range of facilities and services ordinarily provided at a traditional community center including gymnasiums and swimming pools. Another emerging trend is with specialized growth sports such as indoor soccer and golf. These activities require major investments of funds to build and maintain. Once considered a critical public sector component, with shrinking budgets these activities are becoming more and more market rate commodities. One concern is that as these facilities become privatized and fair market rates are charged, access is limited to those who can afford to pay the prevailing rates. Finally, there is an emerging trend for outdoor recreation outfitters and guides to provide close-to-home nature and interpretive recreational activities to a growing demand. These private enterprises provided specialized services such as horseback riding, boating, skiing, and other activities on publically owned lands. Traditionally, concessionaire fees are charged for access to public lands in exchange for providing desired services that otherwise would not be available to the general public. Issues related to these types of operations include amount of revenues provided to offset other recreation programs balanced with the public desire for these types of activities. Recreation Facility Inventory Introduction BPRD operates and maintains various types of facilities that range in use and purpose. This section is divided with facilities grouped into broad, general categories of similar uses for the purpose of discussion only. Many of the facilities listed in one category are used for activities found in other general categories (noted by recreation facilities' multi-use characte(stics). The broad categories of facilities include sports-oriented facilities, family-oriented facilities, outdoor-oriented facilities, trail-oriented facilities, and indoor recreation facilities. Sports-Orlented Facilffies - Outdoors Team sports play an important role in our communities and are an integral part of our parks and recreation services. They provide people of all ages with an opportunity to develop skills, create friendships, exercise, and learn how to work together as a team. Boulder has traditionally provided facilities to meet the demand of the more popular athletic facilities of our population. The various organizations and clubs that represent their sport generally manage team sports, with the exception of adult softball, which is run by BPRD. The facilities traditionally have national standards for dimensions, length of play, and official rules and regulations that govern their operations. Many have national tournaments and defined seasons with prescribed schedules that they are required to meet. yi AnR,~ 4 1 2 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Mill Baseball Fields Baseball includes both youth and adult participation. This section is divided into two parts based on the field dimension requirements and includes Little League (with 60-foot base paths) and Major League or Adult (with 90-foot base paths). See Appendix A for BPRD's multi- purpose facilities map. LifNe League Fields There are presently 14 formal Little League fields (base path of 60 feet) in Boulder. Eleven of the fields are managed by BPRD and three are managed by Boulder County Parks. The trend for fields for this program is to have multiple fields located at one area to include three fields with standard Little League dimensions and one Major League field with 90-foot base paths, Major League Fields There are presently two premier and three general major league fields (base path of 90 feet) in Boulder. Scoff Carpenter Baseball Field is owned by BPRD but managed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD). One field is at the Iris Complex and managed by the county, while three fields are at BVSD sites. Table 11: Baseball Field Inventory Boulder Park & Recreation Fields Premier General Total Fields Primary Use Aurora 7 1 1 LLBB Aurora 7 1 1 LLBB Aurora 7 1 1 LLBB Eisenhower/Ara ahoe Ride i 1 LLBB Martin Park 1 1 LLBB North Boulder Park 1 1 LLBB North Boulder Park 1 1 LLBB Tom Watson Park I i LLBB Tom Watson Park 1 1 LLBB Tom Watson Park 1 1 LLBB Tom Watson Park 1 1 LLBB Scott Carpenter Park 1 I MLBB Total 1 11 12 BVSD Fields Centennial i I MLBB Fairview High School 1 1 MLBB Southern Hills Middle School 1 1 MLBB Total 1 2 3 Boulder County Parks Iris Baseball Fields 3 3 LLBB ,0113 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Iris Baseball Fields 1 1 MLBB Total 0 4 4 Total Baseball Fields 2 17 19 Softball League Fields There are presently 15 softball fields in Boulder with 10 fields managed by BPRD and five fields managed by BVSD. Table 12: Softball Field Inventory Boulder Park L Recreation Fields Premier General Total Fields Prima Use Mapleton 1 1 SB Mapleton 1 1 SB Mapleton 1 1 SB Stazio Fields 1 1 SB Stazio Fields 1 1 SB Stazio Fields 1 1 SB Stazio Fields 1 1 SB Stazio Fields I 1 SB Stazio Fields 1 1 SB Stazio fields 1 1 SB Total BPRD 10 0 10 Boulder High School 1 1 Softball Centennial 1 1 Softball Centennial 1 1 Softball Fairview High School 1 1 Softball Horizons K-8 1 1 Softball Total BVSD 2 3 5 Total Softball Fields 12 3 15 Mufti-Use Fields There are presently 38 multi-use fields available for public use within Boulder. This includes 11 premier fields that are either sand-based engineered soils or artificial turf playing surfaces and 10 general-use fields managed by the department in Boulder. There are another 17 fields managed by BVSD, including six artificial turf fields and 1 1 general fields. Many general, rectangular fields can be used for soccer, football, rugby, ultimate Frisbee, lacrosse, and other field sports. 4na+,f f Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 13: Multi-Use Field Inventory Boulder Park & Recreation Fields Premier General Total Fields Primer Use Aurora 7 1 1 Soccer Columbine 1 I Soccer Columbine 0 Soccer Flatirons Elementary School 1 I Soccer Foothills Community Park 1 1 Soccer Foothills Community Park I Soccer North Boulder Park 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View I 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 I Soccer Pleasant View 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View 1 I Soccer South Boulder Rec Center I 1 Soccer Summit Middle School/Tantra Park 1 I Soccer Tom Watson Park 0 Soccer East Boulder Community Park Turf I 1 Soccer East Boulder Communit Park Turf I 1 Soccer East Boulder Community Park 1 1 Soccer Pleasant View I 1 Soccer/Rugby Valmont City Park 1 1 Soccer/Rugby Total BPRD Multi-Use Fields 11 10 21 Boulder High School 1 1 Football Centennial I 1 Football Fairview High School I 1 Football New Vista High School 1 I Footbaii Platt Middle School 1 I Football Case i I Football/Soccer Boulder High School 1 1 Soccer Fairview High School 1 I Soccer Manhattan Middle School 1 1 Soccer Manhattan Middle School 1 1 Soccer Manhattan Middle School 1 I Soccer Manhattan Middle School I I Soccer New Vista High School 1 1 Soccer New Vista High School 1 1 Soccer Platt Middle School I 1 Soccer Platt Middle School 1 l Soccer Southern Hills Middle School 1 1 Soccer Total RVSD Muffl-Use Fields 6 11 17, total Mutts-Use Fields 17 21 36 J 15 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Tennis Courts Table 14: Parks with Tennis Courts Park Name Quantity Chautauqua Park 1 Arapahoe Ridge Park . 2 Columbine Park 2 Martin Park 2 Palo North 2 Knollwood Park 2 Harlow Platts Community Park 4 Keewa din Meadows Park 4 Tom Watson Park 4 Olmsted Park 4 East Boulder Community Park 5 Centennial Tennis Courts 8 Total Tennis Courts 40 Table 15: Other Outdoor Courts ROLLER PLATFORM SAND VB BASKETBALL HANDBALL SPORT TENNIS Park Name RINK COURT Tom Watson Park 2 1 1 Foothills Community Park 1 2 North Boulder P6rk I Park East i Salber Park 1 Howard Heuston Park 1 -Canyon Park 1 Greenleaf Park 1 East Boulder Community Park 4 2 4 Meadow Glen Park 1 Harlow Platts Community Park 3 1 Boulder Reservoir Regional Park 13 Parkside Park 1 Olmsted Park 2 2 Total 24 12 5 3 2 Family-Oriented Facilities - Outdoors These are the more traditional recreation facilities found in our parks and open spaces that are open to the general public for general recreation activities. Traditionally, these facilities are available on a first-come, first-served basis and are offered at no cost to the users. Some facilities can be reserved for a nominal fee on a one-time basis for special events or activities. These form the basic elements of our neighborhood and community parks and provide the 16 I Ip Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan ASSETS opportunities for families and communities to come together to play, socialize, and build community spirit and pride. Table 16: Picnic Shelters and Restrooms PARK NAME PICNIC SHELTER RESTROOMS Arapahoe Ridge Park 1 Martin Park 1 1 Keewa din Meadows Park 1 Tom Watson Park 1 1 Burke Park 1 Christensen Park 1 Eaton Park 1 Elks Neighborhood Park 1 Elmer's Two Mile Park 1 North Boulder Park 1 1 Park East 1 Park Side Park 1 Scott Carpenter Park 1 1 + 2 ortalets Tantra Park 1 Wonderland Lake Park 1 -Catalpa I Salbera Park 1 1 Boulder Reservoir Regional Park 1 1 Gerald Stazio Ballfields 1 2 -Chautauqua Park 2 1 Muni 1 ortalet Harlow Platts C. Park 2 i ortalet Valmont Park 2 1 + 2 ortalets Palo East 1 Melody I Beach 1 East Boulder Community Park 2 Dakota Ridge Park 2 Eben G. Fine Park i 1 + 1 ortalet Foothills C. Park 7 2 Total Shelters Restrooms 36 12 "3 picnic and 4 public shelters Table 17: Parks with Playgrounds PARK NAME ACRES PG Arrowwood Park 2.02 1 Barker Park 0.49 1 Beach Park 1.77 1 Canyon Park 2.41 1 Greenleaf Park 1.49 1 7~~17 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Meadow Glen Park 2.53 1 Melody Park 1.25 1 Pineview Park 1.60 1 Solberg Park 2.95 1 Smith Park 1.10 1 Holiday Park 1.07 1 Olmsted Park 5.26 1 -Arapahoe Ridge Park 4.76 1 Chautauqua Park 12.39 1 Christensen Park 4.51 1 Columbine Park 4.42 1 Crestview Park 7.77 1 Dakota Ridge Park 2.98 1 Eben G. Fine Park 6.89 1 Elks Park' 7.93 1 Elmers Two Mile Park 4.08 1 Howard Heuston Park 7.61 1 Keewa din Meadows Park 4.53 1 Martin Park 9.32 1 North Boulder Park 12.71 1 Palo East 4.05 1 Park East 11.17 1 Park Side Park 5-58 1 Scott Carpenter Park 16.89 1 Shanahan Ridge Park 4.33 1 Tantra Park 20.87 1 Tom Watson Park 31.04 1 Wonderland Lake Park 31.15 1 East Boulder Community Park 53.37 1 Foothills C. Park 65.23 3 Harlow Platts C. Park 50,06 1 East Mapleton Ballfields 7.79 1 Valmont City Park 1 -Municipal Campus Lumber Park 16.25 1 Total Parks 431.62 40, "To be completed in 2013 Open play fields are available for informal games and activities. These kinds of fields are usually smaller than standard soccer and baseball fields and are used for practice, informal play, and a variety of other activities. Dog Parks Dog parks or off-leash dog areas provide a community setting in which people can gather and socialize and where they can observe the interaction of groups of dogs at play. Dog parks not only allow guardians and their dogs to spend time together but also offer dogs a space for play and companionship with other dogs. Because leashes can cause dogs to become territorial, spending time off leash in a park may be beneficial for a dog. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Table 18: Dog Parks FENCED DOG PARKS ACRES DP East Boulder Community Park 1.7 2 Foothills Community Park 5.6 3 Valmont City Park 3.25 2 Howard Hueston 1.25 1 Total Parks 11.8 8 Valmont Bike Park Valmont Bike Park (VBP) is a 42-acre free public bike park that is a purpose-built, innovative facility for multiple types of off-road bicycling including competition-grade cyclocross racing trails, dual slalom tracks, pump tracks, dirt jumps, and slope-sfyle trails for beginner through advanced riders. The park's many features were created for use by the entire community. The department hosts several events at the park during the year, provides programs through contracted services agreement for beginners through advanced riders, and rents out shelters for picnics and parties. Disc Golf The department manages one nine-hole disc golf course and is installing a new 18-hole golf course in 201212013 at Valmont City Park. Disc golf is an inexpensive game and the department allows for free play at both of the courses. The department puts on one annual major disc golf tournament each year. Condition Assessment and Backlog Analysis Facilities Snapshot Over the past five years, the department has assessed its facilities and determined the Current Replacement Value (CRV) of individual assets as well as the backlog of needed renovations and repairs. This value was obtained by using several sources, including actual construction costs., bid documents, engineer's estimates, past work orders, maintenance reports, and on- site assessments of current conditions by senior park staff. The total CRV for all assets is estimated at $274 million. Table 19: Asset Facility Condition Index Urban Park Assets CRV Backlog FC1 Parkin Lots and Entry Facilities 12,307,743 _ 2,953,858 0.24 Playgrounds 9,250,000 1,850,000 0.20 Park Shelters 770,000 77,000 0.10 Restrooms/Su art Buildings 375,000 18,750 LE~&(0)5 Landscape Turf (passive areas 31,248,000 7,812,000 I 19 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Paved Plazas 1,985,088 158.807 0.08 Athletic Facilities (competitive) 30,250,000 1,512,500 0.05 Athletic Facilities ractice 18,750,000 3,375,000 0.18 Tennis Courts 3,400,000 272,000 0.08 Hard Surface Court Areas 3,055,000 305,500 0.10 Pathways 5,829.360 699,523 0.12 Pearl Street Mall surface amenities and ovin 7,076,550 2.830,620 0.40 Valmont City Park 5,500,000 220,000 0.04 Golf Courses 6,890,000 551,200 0.08 Boulder Reservoir Site Amenities 8,500,000 4,675,000 0.55 Landscape Urban Forest 77,000,000 3,080,000 0.04 Natural Resource Lands native landscape) 2,286,000 731,520 0.32 Total Urban Park Assets 224,472,741 1,123,279 0.14 Building & Equipment Assets Shelters b FAM 1,831.150 $183,115 0.10 Restrooms b FAM 1,306,727 196,009 0.15 Miscellaneous Public Park Facilities 513,700 $77,055 0.15 Maintenance Buildings 3,534,192 282,735 0.08 Athletic Facilities Structures 2,841,573 40,989 0.12 Cultural (Chautauqua, Harbeck, Pottery Lab 4,611,138 1,613,898 0.35 Flatirons Buildings FAM 2,019,173 ,767 0.04 Flatirons Event Center FAM 2,144,294 750,503 0.35 indoor Recreation Facilities FAM 23,438,195 1,171,910 0.05 Outdoor Pools FAM 5,634,766 563,477 0.10 Boulder Reservoir Buildings 1,708.517 $1,281,388 0.75 Total Building & Equipment Assets 49,583,425 $6,541,845 0.13 Total Combined Assets 274,056,166 37,665,124 0.14 The assessment of the overall backlog or deferred maintenance on these facilities is estimated at $37.6 million, resulting in a Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 0.14. The FCI is an industry standard used in calculating the backlog of work required to bring assets to their Current Replacement Values (CRV). A well-maintained outdoor park facility should have an average FCI of no more than 0.11 with a range of 0.12 to 0.20. A range of 0.21 to 0.50 indicates moderate to extensive repairs required to bring facilities back to operational condition. The completed FCI identified for the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation assets is 0.14 or slightly better than average for the industry standard. This is slightly higher than the 0.11 minimum standard for buildings that Facility and Asset Management (FAM) uses due to the fact that the majority of park assets are located outdoors, receive a significant amount of wear, and have a lifecycle of less than half of buildings. The majority of assets managed by the department (60%) are in the excellent or good range with an FCI of 0. 11 or less. Another 307o' are in the fair range with an FCI of 0.12 to 0.30, requiring some level of repairs. Estimates for the CRV and the backlog for assets were established using a variety of methods. The deferred maintenance cost estimates shown in this document are based upon "per unit" td Ma1 C~ Q 201 LL ► ~ s Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan costs as reported in the R.S. Means Site Work and Landscape Cost Data guide (2012; 31st edition). R.S. Means is a widely accepted construction cost estimating publication that offers a wide variety of specific cost reference texts. Additional cost estimates were developed using current bid results as well as engineering estimates that have been completed on existing park and recreation facilities. Over the past three years, the department has inventoried approximately 90% of all of the existing park assets. This included site visits to all parks to measure and record each asset and to evaluate the condition of the asset. This inventory was used to calculate the CRV for all park assets. In addition, FAM is responsible for maintenance of existing buildings and structures. They maintain a complete inventory of the value of each asset for insurance and maintenance purposes. This data was used to calculate the CRV for all buildings and structures as well as for equipment and furnishings within the building necessary to run programs and services. The CRV of the park assets was calculated using construction bid tabs and engineering estimates for specific park elements such as turf, irrigation, playgrounds, etc. These estimates for unit pricing were used based on a typical park asset found in the Boulder Park System. While this type of estimate only provides a general value, it does meet industry standards for Class C cost estimation. The backlog estimates were calculated using three methods. The first was based on existing staff conducting on-site assessments of each major asset and assigning a numerical score of 5 to 1, with a 5 being in excellent condition requiring minimal repairs and a 1 in serious condition requiring major restoration or complete renovation. These numbers were then converted to an FCI score to conform to industry standards using the R.S. Means and bid result data. The second method utilized cost estimates prepared by FAM for building upgrades as well as specific engineering estimates and staff reports on building conditions. The final method provided cost estimates that were developed by professional engineers or from actual bid documents from licensed contractors for specific park areas. These form the most accurate of the three methods, and, as resources and time permit, major assets will be assessed through this later method, Approximately 10% of parks and recreation assets are in the poor to serious deficiency range (above 0.31 FCI), requiring extensive repairs or replacement. This category represents over 32% of the total backlog funding needs with approximately $11.9 million in estimated repairs. If these assets were removed from the overall inventory, the department would have an FCI of 0.10 for all assets, The six major aging assets are listed in the table below: Table 20: FCI and Backlog by Assef Type Asset FCI Backlog Boulder Reservoir Buildings 0.75 1,281,388 Boulder Reservoir Site Amenities 0.55 4,675,000 Pearl Street Mall 0.40 _$2,830,620 Flatirons Event Center 0.35 750,503 Cultural Facilities 0.35 1,613,898 Natural lands (762 acres) for weed and wildlife management 0.32 $731,520 objectives 21 i Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Total $11,882,929 To address this backlog of deferred maintenance, the department has designated approximately $1.25 million of its total $3 million 2012 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), along with an additional $8.7 million in funding from the CIS Round 1 Bond funds and $300,000 from the 2012 FAM CIP. This leaves approximately $27.3 million in deferred maintenance for the department's existing asset inventory. The department has an additional $7.7 million in the proposed 2013-2018 CIP that is intended to address a portion of the remaining backlog, if the funds are allocated in the future. In addition, FAM anticipates contributing approximately $1.9 million from the General Fund in its proposed 2013-2018 CIP. This would leave an unfunded backlog of approximately $17.7 million by 2018 if annual operation and maintenance funding is provided to adequately perform annual preventative maintenance to extend the lifecycle of assets. When put into perspective, the Boulder Parks and Recreation assets are well above the national average of our nation's state and federal parks. The American Society of Civil Engineers )ASCE) conducted an inventory of public facilities, including public parks and recreation facilities, in 2009. This report gave our aging national park systems a grade of C- and identified over $48 billion in deferred maintenance over the next five years. The link to this document is: http://www.introstructuierer)oricaid.orglsites/default/files/RC2009 Qarks.udf BPRD Background of Asset Management Asset Management Definition: The systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory, and it provides tools to facilitate a more organized and logical approach to decision making. The need to track, inventory, and manage assets is a common theme in many areas of public and private organizations. The public sector at various governmental levels has the responsibility, and is held accountable, to manage their particular assets as fiduciaries to those who support their programs and operations with public funds. The arena of parks and recreation is specifically known for the types of assets that have provided both passive and active services to the general public (playgrounds, courts, ball fields, picnic shelters, etc.). Within the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, capital investments in maintaining and repairing aging park assets have declined due to a variety of economic and social conditions. In 2004, the department began its first organized effort to inventory natural resource and park amenity type assets using GIS. Current Standards for Asset Management The National Park Service (NPS) is a recognized leader in creating and utilizing sustainable and green design for park and recreation facilities. NPS facility management techniques and tools are used throughout this document as a benchmark against which comparisons can be 22 s ~ ,f Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan made. The NPS follows four mission stewardship goals as part of their mandate for resource preservation": • Preserve park resources • Provide for the public enjoyment and visitor experience of parks • Strengthen and preserve natural and cultural resources and enhance recreation opportunities • Ensure organizational effectiveness The NPS defines stewardship as "The recognition and acceptance that the ownership of facilities requires the vision, resolve, experience, and expertise to ensure that resources are allocated effectively to sustain the investment." These are all components of the NPS focus on creating sustainable facilities that are cost effective to own, maintain, and operate, and provide the best possible experience to the visitor. This report uses the NPS Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a snapshot of the relative I I I condition of an asset. The FC1 uses a Asset in I Asset In I Asset in I Ass©t in numeric rating system stem to rank assets, Good Fair Poor Serious 9 Y Condition I Condition 1 Condition I Cpndillon using the current replacement value I I (CRV) of an asset and its projected I i cost of repairs or deferred maintenance. The FCI is I I I determined by dividing the collective value of all 0 .11 •15 •50 deferred maintenance by the CRV of Facility Condition Index each asset. Once the FCI has been determined for an asset, it may be compared against the following industry rating scale. Facility Condition Index Rating Scale (NPS) • FCI .11 - Good condition rating - minimal work required • FCI.1 1-.14 -Fair condition rating -some work needed • FCI.15-.50 - Poor condition rating -extensive work required • FCI.50 -Serious condition rating -demolish or rehabilitate Department Goal for Asset Manacement The department's Asset Management Plan (AMP) is intended to enable managers to measure the condition of facilities as well as monitor and prioritize ongoing maintenance needs, thus better utilizing scarce resources. An integral part of this proposed program will be the use of prioritizing systems to help efficiently manage asset data with the use of effective measuring tools such as the Asset Priority Index (API) and the FCI. I'Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, National Park Service Asset Management Process Manual (AMP), 2002, pp, 189. 1 23 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan By using the API and FCI in tandem, the department can 100 ensure that resources are applied to assets :r that are most important to the park's mission and the community values while establishing accurate baselines for measuring PdOflkY 60........... progress in improving or maintaining asset conditions over time. The diagram to the right illustrates the use of the API and FCI to track and chart assets 12 by their priority and condition. 0 .11 15 Through the AMP, the Fac" CmWkWn Wax department can achieve significant results, including the ability to achieve the following: • Clearly prioritize, reduce, and manage deferred maintenance • Improve the overall condition of the assets • Better predict and justify future budget requests and determine the allocation of scarce resources to either existing facilities or new facilities • Anticipate maintenance needs (and plan accordingly) and fix problems before they become expensive emergencies • Help park managers better respond to potential funding decline by providing critical information to elected decision makers to make informed decisions Settin s Identifying individual settings within public parks is one way of creating standards that can be used to compare all park assets. Settings refer to the basic building blocks of public parks, such as buildings, playgrounds, active recreation areas, or pathways. Settings are the major asset components the public might expect to find in the various public areas that they visit. Not all parks are made up of the some settings. These settings vary depending on the intended use and function of the park. A setting can be made up of several different elements and features. Each setting should be clearly recognizable by the general public. The following list of settings provides a broad classification with which to evaluate public parks. The department manages over $274 million in assets with an estimated backlog of $37.6 million. These values are identified for each setting below based on the CRV and backlog estimates, which results in a preliminary FCI of 0.14. (It is important to note that the methodology used to determine FCI is likely to vary from federal to local agencies. Boulder's FAM unit does have a method in place to determine backlog levels. Development of a standard performance indicator like FCI should be tailored to local government standards.) The following settings provide a broad classification by which to evaluate public parks: 'd of".' 24 ~S Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1. Outer Park (Edge) - This includes all portions of the entrances and edges of parks. The first major features encountered by park visitors are the landscape buffers, public parking lots, signage, and entryways that welcome visitors and set the tone for their experience. 2. Buildings & Structures - This includes major buildings managed by FAM or P&R as well as park structures such as picnic shelters, pavilions, maintenance buildings, and storage facilities that support park and recreation activities. 3. Active Recreation Areas - This includes major athletic fields such as soccer, baseball, and softball fields (both natural and artificial turf), as well as hard surface courts such as tennis, basketball, skate parks, and other play areas intended for physical and active use by individuals or large groups in formal activities or events. 4. Passive Recreation Areas -This includes public gathering areas, single-seating areas, plazas, Pearl Street Mail, informal picnic grounds, outdoor classrooms, community gardens, and other areas for individual or groups to engage in unstructured civic and community events. 5. Playgrounds - This includes all children's play areas, from tot lots to elementary-school- age playgrounds, swings, and other play equipment. Furthermore, playgrounds include surface areas, edging, and immediate supervision areas as well as parent seating, shade trees, and gathering areas. 6. Pathways - This includes all pedestrian connections: paved bike trails, sidewalks, nature trails, and soft-surface pathways. It also includes bridges and tunnels that are part of a larger trail system. 7. Urban Forests - This includes the 40,000 urban trees that are managed for their aesthetic value and environmental contributions. Formal landscapes may include ornamental trees, shrubs, and flowerbeds that are not native to the area and have been planted as part of an overall park design. 8. Natural Areas - This includes the natural areas that form over 60 percent of urban parks within the City of Boulder and connect with the larger open spaces and greenbelts. These areas include stream corridors, wetlands, ponds, and remnant native landscapes that offer opportunities for nature play and wildlife observation in the urban setting. Current De artment Operations and Management Report Annual operational costs for parks and recreation facilities vary depending on the level of service provided, the current condition of the asset and the construction methods used to build the facility. Priority for funding operations is based on a variety of criteria including health and safety issues; the importance to the social and community good; the benefits to the local economy; the amount of use or demand for each facility; and the level of revenue generated. 25 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan The department classifies maintenance into four general-use guidelines based on these factors using guidelines defined in the FAM Master Plan. FAM defines three components of asset management, and BPRD utilizes a fourth category for regular repetitive maintenance described below: 1. Regular Repetitive Maintenance - The daily, weekly, or monthly tasks that are repeated on a set schedule, such as mowing and irrigation for turf, emptying trash, power washing surface areas, etc. The department expends $6.9 million on park maintenance and operations, which represents approximately 37. of the CRV of the assets. 2. Facility Operations & Maintenance (O&M projects < $3,000) - Includes facility repair and maintenance costs with a total cost of $3,000 or less per work order for facilities assigned to FAM. Includes items such as HVAC filter replacements, plumbing repairs, event set-up, key cards, nameplates, lighting issues, floor mat rentals, etc. FAM's master plan recommends investing 2.5% of the CRV on these tasks. 3. Facility Major Maintenance (MM projects > $3,000) - Includes facility repair and maintenance costs with a total cost of $3,000 or more per work order for facilities assigned to FAM. For MM projects >$50,000, an annual transfer is made from this program to R&R (see program #266). FAM recommends invesfing 1.01yo of the CRV on these tasks. (Note that P&R references these as R&R projects in this category under $50,000). 4. Facility Renovation & Replacement (R&R) - Includes facility renovation (refurbishment) and building component replacement construction costs for projects with a total cost of $50,000 or more for facilities assigned to FAM and projects assigned to FAM and funded by other departments. Also includes energy efficiency projects and environmental remediation projects. Projects are listed in the CIP. FAM recommends investing 1.0% of the CRV on these tasks. To reduce the $17.7 backlog, facilities would require full renovations or decommissioning. Funding options for these improvements could come from alternative sources such as partnerships, non-profit, and foundations if structured correctly. (Note: this includes 20-year leases, plus leveraging such as 50% city and 50% private investment.) In addition, annual O&M and R&R for existing facilities will need to be maintained and in some instances increased to maintain the lifecycle of the assets to avoid a continued increase in backlog of deferred maintenance items. The department is in the process of analyzing O&M cost guidelines, presented in Table 21. Table 21: General O&M Costs (Preliminary Estimates) Facility Annual Cost Percent of CRV Estimated Cost Per Acre General Neighborhood Park 2-3% 5,500 Urban Park 3-4% 10,000 Financial Overview BPRD's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been used to address the increasing backlog the department is experiencing. Since the 2006 Master Plan, CIP funding has nearly doubled in size (see figure below). With the increase in funds, existing facility enhancements and upgrades have seen rapid growth; however, new construction has seen bigger growth. x~ 26 s e4A 1w Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan CIP Projects Since Last Master Plan (2006) $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Study or Analysis I $3,000,000~'" ■On-Going Projects c a $2,500,000 - $2,000,000 - ■ New Construction (Non Growth Related) E $1,50,000 New Construction (Growth a $1,000.000 Related) $500,000 RehablRepair $0 ■ Enhancements/U rades 2007 ZOOS 2009 2010 2011 2012 p9 Year According to the figure below, new construction related to growth encompassed almost 50% of CIP expenditures in 2010 and 2011. Commensurate with community population growth over the last five years, BPRD has had to react to the need for more. However, expenditures for existing facility rehab and repair projects have seen a rapid decline (by percentage) since 2009. As more new facilities are constructed, there is less money available to maintain and/or improve existing facilities. Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan 200 CL2012 CIP Oren os Ism- l Study or Analysis c - ® On-Going Projects ■ New Construction (Non Growth Related) . . rr ,.:A New Construction (Growth a [:rr Related) Rehab/Repair 171-T. ■ Enhancements/Upgrades t tr Year 7 A comparison of CIP expenditures for new facilities and existing facilities is shown below. The first three years after the 2006 Master Plan saw a dramatic spike in current facility investments. Since 2006, there has been a steady growth of new construction expenditures; however, over the same timeframe new construction investments have experienced steady growth. In 2010, CIP investments in new facilities exceeded investments in existing facilities, If that trend continues, BPRD's backlog of $37.6 million will rise steadily for the foreseeable future. The argument could also be made that BPRD's.overall asset FCI score of .14 could increase as well due to the creation of new facilities and less money supporting existing ones. With the.25 sales tax set to expire in 2015, BPRD is in a critical state for its financial future. There is no guarantee the tax will be renewed, and, if it isn't, there is a need for identifying additional funding to compensate. For that matter, additional funding is warranted regardless of whether the current trend of investing in new facilities continues to surpass the investment in existing facilities. r+ w+r,,o 28 ~ i+ i Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan .200❑12OC72 CIP S❑enAn❑ ❑e❑ Constr❑ction (t❑❑distin❑ ❑iaciiities i I I n I I nrl 1, 11411(rl.li 1 i y~ I I I C I l l I' I 'I U ~ i .I.1 L. I J ,I1' I I I - o New Construction f I VJ T ILTI - ErIsting [Acildies I11.LILLI - - - - - IT I I-I L EFEL 1-I CT- U7I FEE CEL Year i Conclusion This is a scoping-level document, and the purpose of this work is to provide the initial step of a more detailed process investigation into the condition of all park and recreation assets. BPRD is a unique community with many recreation opportunities. BPRD manages many facilities including parks, recreation centers, athletics complexes, outdoor pools, and unique facilities such as the Boulder Reservoir and Valmont Bike Park. In order to continue meeting the needs of Boulder residents, sustainable growth has to be addressed in the immediate future. As the population grows and diversifies, BPRD will be forced to react to the ever-changing community trends. Since the 2006 Master Plan, BPRD has constructed new state-of-the-art facilities that will go a long way to providing unique recreation experiences for Boulder residents. In order to keep up with the pace, a comprehensive examination of the current financial landscape is warranted to develop a sustainable financial framework moving forward. This topical report provides an overview of the department's asset inventory, approach, and current state. Most of this information is static but, to a degree, will be iterative as new projects and developments occur within BPRD's asset inventory. In this concluding section, we review key questions and issues to explore further with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, City Council, and the general public during the needs assessment phase. i _ Identifying and measuring key indicators to compare to both local and national standards is central to developing a sustainable asset management approach. o What should the key indicators be? o Who should be included in choosing them? o How often should they be revised? J 29 Topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2. Backlog costs are increasing. o To what degree should funding priorities shift to address this backlog? o How will work that addresses the backlog be prioritized? 3. Recent years shows a trend of spending more CIP funding on new facilities than on existing facilities. o Does the community prefer that the city build new facilities or maintain the ones currently in existence? o How can the city ensure that an appropriate amount of money is allocated annually for the operation and maintenance of existing facilities? 4. The .25 cent sales tax is set to expire in 2015. o If it is not renewed, BPRD will be forced to acquire alternative funding or to cut services. What is the most desired option, and who would be the most effective advocate for it? 5. BPRD assets have a preliminary overall FCI of.14; as repair/rehab spending decreases, a foreseeable increase in overall asset FCI is likely. o How should the department prioritize the maintenance of facilities to keep the right facilities at the right FCI? 6. CIP breakdown costs are hard to report given the current tracking methods. o Given the importance placed on data-driven decision making, but also given all other priorities, how important is it to address deficiencies in information systems? topical Report: Boulder Parks and Recreation Mosier Plan APPENDICES Appendix A: Mop of Multi-Purpose Facilities Appendix B: Map of Parks and Natural Lands Appendix C: Map of Parks with Boulder's Transportation System Appendix D: Map of Parks and Elementary Schools with Playgrounds Multi-Purpose Facilities I g~ Monich Rd Lwaach Rd h1 _ l kyry;. .JJ Tan W✓- Pr.r .~j 1 ,~R ~'ltify!'+s r-' (6 '.r - I LopkovlR _ a to r l w a, i Yrarmo& Av + FooWLGIrrM--. ( - ' LI Rd Carr~lfdde srirod ' ,-q lJn~nN~1r !I I. ` 1'' Ind~pnMena~Rd - • R 1 _ ~I 60lWrYdP'Rd6lgp! _ tFio Av A ,.-CaM~oin.PrrA m NaYr 9ouJSW Ark y _ FG Rd NadrBeWdrr_ 4L6l wMYPxASaath w E.ed f.`.rW W"I Sck"I P 1 G~rrYdsuda fr'!'Mdr "tm P - v . - l - - - AT,P&ha, Av . B~duMjN .rr~u-- SroN d.p1ntrrlKk f r rArt - - Av t tl ~ ~ I of 'AUranl T,PrrA ' ~ i' LRd Nl 1JMds SNp01 Rd Rq J °z• Harhonr If / rr.enan.l/4Ar SfAVM J' ~ • ~ [are Fiirdn Clrt ,MCWiP.A BouWa r Rd Saem RaYdMRd_ --Ifs p M"." P" Timm a~rlt'rn hYrti/,L ZH1rY SdulHn K}.YdI1 SNud Sir c o-', -1 - ~ f.41Ma•Nlpb ~ /r' ~ ca n.. v... . m.. tY~ ba .+sYe`. M. nl ~ 2~ t $1 IAesYlicti Rd lleAlftl'1 Rd _ xI . e RMerrN ar.. _ ~ ~ LoOm 11 rr ~ f, 1J $y t+ id« M~. n+ffanvvx.:. II g ; `-j VA". Wdp. PON i•. _ ff 401 V- y 1 Yetsnau7T Ar wfwn c. n«I~ ~ ~ 1 - t- tld avY(I :~w:ano.. -fit'.: - 1 --.df.r. ft r. r•.et eyllb Pak, Polo{wf t ;ti-; AldN~Ed ;e :an6 ule ns.r R1+. nnur R✓A.. ` fir. .o..w f kd.e.ndarm Rd P.r /.rk 'I pYr~xrlllYa. Y- hY AN" 14 1 I ~ ~~lmn 1s~oMaPed` Nf..d .k rkJAwN f3jA1e1kl Re xM u.~1 s~{>__i-{iw.meen..l ..tl.eer.J.ti.. smlf kmhvr C. ~ Wseol hPwR tawr 1,177 rr ~ f `'r'- - ' \ i Ned - wrr~Itl3rNo ldl/dG on p~AB~ -5~ I ' ~4.oe e~~~C.ke PWl NnOtI~e AY _ _ ~ .97foefi0e AV rt } ~ 1 f _ - ~ [Len 0.>7~~ !e SCOff f%.rf Pelf y - .1Y GNf(def A I l Jwi ~ I~. 'e Fl cs"Re r_. t 11 N r, J K I / N,..f . e.:d p."" tie ~r wr fN'pn!c~d ors kY 1~4' - - .L gpvrder Rd 5eu1f190 ,.uNlef Rd_ e61e~a - ~:s _ - n U M 2r ti\ lAgond TArbe MW *Ad P40'ftA /--'~w~ w r.W~N IAr or - Ezktey 8N6 lysarn f 4~ IYfxl~afs7 C'A~t ~ur u. Prn p.l~~ ~ _ LeeWka Y~i U+fry `1 ~ - = f 1_~ ~ ~ [ryYr/ W ieYr i.suV - pe Mr.W Ls 4WD Nf~.' k MYI.CWItfi.Y • - ~71 ` finds Mrrall~w b ~ RIO.iifif.f~. Ms ' ~ 4t~A'N~ Nuasel N fvax S Mint o 3.500 feel fr 09- /q... d U rr Parks with Transportation System gi - Manoth Rd Lt.-.hRd ° z - r.' f sy 7 F'" / r ©y7'...~f • J ~ f Ili i` ~ ~ ` ~ Ook •tY Lw \ i FoofhFlbC.Pirk c .v - P*yRd tlndrn / U*". Rd r Rd Mi/rnon I Clty Park North FDuf ~a L"Pf i -Tel valmom cl Park sou P _ t• t vM1~ 1' _ - _ re: rs;iiJ.s~~P*01Av 1 ~i - -Rd 118 m e y~ E1lf9ouI CPaM ~7 0 ~ -..-ti, gl ` Sa U.-Wer Rd _ SOURS tl►r Rd c ` Ha~faw P4k4 C: Per ~ nr.burwv.r rnww urw[~v _ JJJ i1.. ya..v Parks and Elementary Schools with Pla rounds all fyI - - Morertn Rd Morlawh Rd wr F 8vu'r1Vv Ree. ReprantfPi~k , / l/ .~A, • • l:l RI - ` ti''' wry pl J Rd f Gfeaf Vkw E7emrnf+ry - -Eel, t op (itla9e ;T G I -i Ir-7 6 P 1 ~d - ~ vb.sanrrtanr F7tud. ' . lrriMe Av ~ ~i' 1 ~ ndrnw RO, - 'Owl HanA BeWderREV. COMW CWOmeNa demenfary JM1 Q f 1 y, T, hW Rd . • IF usp elan BrllHefda ~4 f1 _ r -t tlRnld S4tslo HWNaIdo I ~ ~ 'MTtfrEer1eiemen+ary°`~ _,.l~ +k ~.f~ _ tl Pfnallw'ood ParA `t - /Upp!•ng~ v _ r - _ - - _ Arapahoe AV rs _ '3T- Flt tlfone ovikouras FPa flroni ENmft •enYly •St E1t111,mliic mrr Ele ~arf.ry~ ' 'f,~ d 'I, SMi Efwnsnctry r' i p - - - UN4iralry HEl Hamturur}r NIpA PaaAt~G`"SIS rb - ? . , , r Rd t•'~ E811 BouddwCC r~ % "Swo i w:,on FarR ` 1, - r . oucn 4 swNl aouae(Rn t - ~ I.aOefTd f coMmunxyvenaa.aur I ti- wt ik &ui ls MSfy B B&s and lead halls F f I us war P w r. 3eWA Boudhl Rev. CtnOer }°K ar". --wn Woo.El meattry C^- 1ianAra/Yt~ n.bfa..rt H Pse► i Inch s 3 5130 feel OrN.p~wfiFwrMnPeM14 BOULDER PARKS & RECREATION 2012 MASTER PLAN Preliminary Public Engagement Findings I ri I I I I Job I P I I I [Illl11 Background I the City of .I ioulderl Colorado( has engaged a team of (consultants and subject matter el=perts led by Studiol_lerra and consisting orthe Eppley institute for Par! s and Public I ands at Indiana Unit lrrsity (EPII=I)[ ~ ;anica Powell AssociategJand 1_11-IC Research and Consulting to prepare an update to the community Parl_s and Recreation I_I aster Plan for (I 111 ~l 11.1 I. no initiate the planning process[rthe consulting team met with par❑stacu] and other [ ey indi[aduals in ❑oulder to gather inFormation about the pars and recreation systemi7nunicipal policyLtommunity ailairsiand other relarence in!rmationl7 Method Ueetings with City stamland community representatiLlas toouplace at DPRD Administratia? Oakes during the wee❑oLEanuary LFFJ= Appointments were scheduled by []PR❑ sta0and typically lasted one hour and were attended by Stem ❑ olter and [bEff❑ranslord o❑EP❑D❑ SpecikallyEthe [allowing diUsionsEdepartmentsCland organi[btions participated in inter[Jews[I • Moulder Par[l and Recreation Department Stam o Director and 11eadership ❑eam members o Recreation ❑anagement stallil o Asset ❑ anagement stain o ParDOperations staam • ❑arDating and Communications sta® o Planning staml • Other City o❑Doulder sta[T o Deputy City ❑ anager o E[Dcuti[3? Director oEPublic ❑ or3 o Director oEPublic ❑ orCl; [dr ❑ransportation o ECacutiClq Director [sir Community Planning and Sustainability • Par[g and Recreation AdJsory Doard (PRA--J) members • PAD ❑oulder stand board members • .oulder Con,'--ention and Disitors Jureau • P-AN-boulder County • boulder [',alley School Jstrict • Colorado Chautauoua Association • -loulder Outloo- i_-Jotel • boulder County Public -ealth BOULDER PARKS & RECREATION 2012 MASTER PLAN Each discussion focused on matters of Most relel ance to the participating starlll member(s) or star eholder(s)f I here was not a consistent agenda oldiscussion topics among all participants) hove[ erl ]similar o[erarching in[ Wries were used for all inter) iewsl I ]hese includedl I 1 • 1 hat is wore Ing well in [ loulder regarding parl.s and recreation[ I • 1 I hat could be impro[ ed[1 • 1 1 hat are some of the challenges [.acing [ IPRI.11 I • Are there opportunities that you thin [_1r_iPR[1 should pursue[] • 11 hat would male for a successful par[-; and recreation master plant .-I Preliminary Findings Ater synthesising notes room all interilewsr..eeFeral themes emergedCrhey are presented below in no particular order[ tategoriL"ed by topic[] Management and Administration f=1Ca Hill [JeLiart[jental tIDnctions are siLWEIcandoconstraine0 GLIscarce 1nancial reso❑rces❑ • StaAhg shortages have led to either reduced ieCels ollser[Ice and/or additional worFloads Cdr sta® • []here is a widespread awareness oCthe organi[13tional priority to generate relenue and recover as many costs as possible[] L111 ❑Llere is a lac[] o❑clarit[7 on ❑o❑ to I-Aan an❑ ❑rioritiC13 ❑ orm • Some Corm ocprioritirlition scheme would assist staLTAn defending decisions or justifying reoUests❑ • Current methods used-to prioritiEL- anding or wor[::plans do not ally relloct higher-le«1 organisational strategies or principlesilor are not translatable to all situations[] • 0here are no clearly articulated core L`aiues or guiding principles lbr the department❑Some worigroups haCa established informal ones[ howeler❑ C[, Foe Cit❑oo❑o❑lloer Has ❑ ore ❑lannino Doc❑0 ents town a t=jcal coo ❑ ClnitluanH t[ OUare not [jell inte❑rateoll • Se[l3ral staleholders indicated the importance of acCnoWledging and incorporating Ihdings and initiatiCas Erom other planning eEbrts, j • Specik documents/themes to incorporate mentioned by sta[Aeholders inciude0 o ategrated Pest anagement a Sustainability o ulti-modal transportation o Priority-based budgeting 2 BOULDER PARKS & RECREATION 2012 MASTER PLAN Operations and Service Provision 1111 I Isset ant I (Acilit[ lo[ legations onli I I 1 arl inalli Irellect a lilac) Isle I I anal IefJ ent al 11 IroacI 11 • l ►here is no lormal process [or prioritil Ing assets to aid in management decisions) 1 • Currentlyi-Wor[ ]prioritil 13tion is dri[ Ian primarily by the need to respond to short-term needs[ I 1111 1 II Jere is I lei 1 ant I in ti ie coi 1 i i I initi I for al II litional facilities of (certain tltlesfI • Al-uatic [acilities are in demand ilom indilldual users and organir--Od clubs[) • Some stareholders belie18, the City should pro►7de additional baseball/so[tball [Ids Cdr Eittle [league and other organised clubs❑ [11-1 Col-I Hare❑ to otuer col] P ❑nitiesfA❑e recreation [irorxa❑ s nrodrie❑ to [ Jo[ trier resiuents are 1:1 ore a❑oance❑ an❑ s❑ecialiLe❑❑ • [.here are more adranced programs than basic oneso • any o[lhe programs o0wed are geared towards adultsChot towards youth or lamilies❑ • where is an associated concern that ad[anced programs are subsidirj?d more in ❑oulder than in typical communities❑ Politics and Governance ❑ C] [=f❑e P[]❑❑ co❑I❑ ❑e ❑ ore ellabcti❑a in aurlsln❑ on ❑e[Jart❑ ental Coiic[L • Compared to other communitiesllhe PRA❑ girds a disproportionate lenal o[7attention on operational orfersight as opposed to policy guidance and direction❑ ❑❑9 Citoo❑❑o❑I❑er ❑as a tra❑ition o❑rl❑oro❑s reCie❑ o❑[lannin❑ [loc[.717 ents❑ • Compared to other communitiesilhe amount oclime and attention giCen to the -biting and approLAl o0planning and brie[hg documents by City management is intensi[e❑ • Che time rerbired to [fit documents is longer in ❑oulder than in other communities❑ Social Issues 1l] It Q ill ❑e i❑ ❑ortant to Oral] connections Loor- eon 11aras anima recreation an❑ C "❑lic r~ealtC~7~~~t Clare is no ec, er-Dent conceit oG7o[. to arti'cc late toat connection 3 BOULDER PARKS & RECREATION 2012 MASTER PLAN • Se► eral star eholders mentioned that drawing this connection should be a priority gil en ► loulder residents) Wiihity for maintaining health('] • ► here is a potential opportunity to collaborate[ br at least be informed byl the strategic planning eiIbrts being undertat.en by the Joulder County Public I_lealth [ lepartment► especially giLen their focus on including metrics and indicators of healthy lit ngi 1 III It is if I I leratil a to intel rate ti is Citi-lof lE lol It lerla ttlreeLUJart sl Istainal flitl 1 I I of (el into tl Ie I J aster I Ilant J • I the three parts ol.the model include eni lronmentail.Jeconomict.and social sustainabilityl I • I the Llepartment otlCommunity Planning and Sustainability will issue guiding principles to help other City departments incorporate sustainability into their planning documentso • LJhere seems to be a willingness among both staul3nd staLbholders to continue to subsidit:a some programming and facility operations that contribute to fostering community goodo I ]n It is in neratit7e to oil rjoasit-k accessi[iilitoano connect! Elto into toe I J aster Llano • Lhis includes the aspect of-:physical connectiCity (with trailsCJ greenways0and other corridors) in order to promote multi-modal transportation optionsfJ • ❑his also includes maLing social connections to additional residents and maCing programs and serlIces aEWlable to all that wish to participateLJ • A d1hal aspect includes promoting integration o[programs and serc1ces among diClsions and departments in the [arm oEresource sharing or management collaborationo Partnerships Lo Inno[Aflon Is neeoeo to Ebster anu o anaoe oartnereADSO • o ultiple partnership opportunities were identilbd by sta33holders and stamland it appears that the primary reason many haL- not yet been deLeloped is due to the lacooLability to in-bst time or EundingG Additional Research Che Findings summariCed aboie are preliminary and re[uire fNidation through a comprehensiLL- public engagement processLNeit steps include the de`elopment and appro[Al of a Public Engagement Plan which will outline the intended methods to conduct additional interllews'leCl~lop and administer a public surc-OyLland utilize the internet in collecting and disseminating information about the planning processc 4 Attachment M Study Session Discussion Notes Boulder Parks & Recreation Advisory Board 4:00pm - 6:00pm Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Lower Iris Conference Room PRAB attendees: Bob Yates, Michelle Estrella, Mike Guzek, Myriah Conroy Staff attendees: Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Jennifer Bray Consultant attendees: Carol Adams, Danica Powell, Steve Wolter, Jeff Bransford The study session was conducted as an informal discussion around the Parks and Recreation Department's mission, vision, and values. The consulting team for the Master Plan (StudioTerra, Danica Powell, and the Eppley Institute) facilitated conversation among PRAB members and senior leadership of the department. Because of the non-linear format of the meeting, the following notes document the discussion by theme. Planning Integration and Continuity • Recognize past planning and decision-making efforts and execute on already established priorities o Continually review priorities and progress towards them o Hold ourselves and each other accountable • Revisit policies and philosophies set forth in previous plans to determine if they should be continued, adjusted, or discontinued altogether. • Review previous and current benchmarking studies, especially in terms of key issue areas like finance, asset management, programming, and partnerships Financial Sustainability and Economics • In general, re-examine how we view cost recovery philosophies and goals. o There's a recognition that some activities need to receive subsidy because it's appropriate for the department to provide them as a community service and social good. Likewise, there are some activities where it's appropriate to have users support it themselves, to `pay as you go.' o Review the department's current portfolio of services and adjust both its composition and the cost recovery policies behind it. o Ensure the policies behind cost recovery and subsidy reflect fairness but also encourage more participation from populations that are disadvantaged or that traditionally do no participate. • Review commercial uses in parks to ensure they are appropriate and financially sustainable for the department. • Establish a process so that programs and other "products" are continually evaluated financially and general effectiveness. • Review the fee schedule for residents versus non-residents, including the definitions of each. The financial impact of changing those definitions or fees should be articulated. • Develop a multi-faceted finding model that is sustainable through economic cycles, social trends, and changing administrations. Leverage taxes, grants, user group contributions, foundation support, etc. Environmental Sustainability • Address carrying capacity of facilities, infrastructure, and programs. o Ensure there are effective and appropriate policies in place to protect high use areas from being "loved to death" and to make sure we are meeting environmental sustainability goals. o Recognize that carrying capacity also can affect economic sustainability, including the cost to maintain or develop infrastructure o Recognize that carrying capacity can also influence social sustainability and fairness issues related to excessive use by small segments of the population. • Parks and recreation can promote the integration of nature into our urban fabric • A big impact can be made by looking at transportation and alternatives to driving. o The department has opportunities to be a leader and role model (e.g., do expanding parking lots send the right message) o Enhancing alternative transportation methods and corridors will require partnership with other City departments and other organizations o Idea: connect transit to recreation centers and offer free bus rides with rec. pass Social Sustainability, Equity, and Diversity • Promote fairness and equity... o ...across socio-economic status (perhaps through reviewing low income and scholarship programs) o ...across geography (roughly equal access across town) o ...across ages (appropriate number of programs/facilities for youth, young families, adults, seniors, etc) o ...across ethnicity/language (offer more Spanish materials, programs, etc) o ...across the economy (is the City giving the private sector a fair chance to do business?) • In 5-10 years, Boulder should be known for using its resources, expertise, and wealth for the broader community, especially the community whose voices are not usually heard. Innovation and Leadership • Continue to be leaders in innovation o Balance progressive ideas with traditional services o Pursue innovative programs services, "shoot for the stars," and be willing to take risks to be a leader • Continually evaluate to make sure that innovation is doing good • City should lead by example in promoting good behaviors and habits (managing parking, encouraging use of transit, providing incentives, etc) • Explore what the department does the best to build upon it; let others do what they do best Sense of Place and Community • Leverage parks and recreation to help build and maintain community o Events like Concerts in the Park are a great demonstration of the role parks and recreation can play in building community o It can help define community at a neighborhood level, or community within segments of the population o Parks and recreation creates `places' that reflect community o It offers connections, both physical and social, between communities • We can do abetter job of leveraging the fact that parks and recreation touches virtually everyone and provides diverse, universal benefits o There are passive or indirect benefits that everyone enjoys, like proximity of parks and property values, alternative transportation corridors to reduce street traffic, incentives for businesses to locate in Boulder, etc o Parks and recreation can be a leader in promoting mental and physical health - in our own ways and through partnerships Civic Engagement and Partnerships • Explore building/enhancing relationships with: o CU - especially in terms of facility use, programming, and environmental sustainability programs o BVSD - in terms of joint use of facilities and "parkland" and programming o Private health facilities - recognizing where to compete and where to coordinate o Health providers o PLAY Boulder foundation - to grow and be more effective • Youth can play an important role in planning and promoting parks and recreation o Engage youth in planning processes to get a unique perspective o Youth will also feel ownership and help foster support o Parks and recreation is a good way to connect youth to nature and fitness issues facing this and other communities • Technology can play an important role in reaching more people more effectively o Improve use of Facebook, Twitter, etc. o Lnprove usability of the department website, recognizing that it must fit the City template, and that the template is soon changing • Recognize and attempt to accommodate competing interests in the community o Vocal minorities can dominate discussion, so seek ways to hear from less assertive groups and balance the discussion 3 o The problem will be ongoing and will never be completely solved so we should recognize there are no permanent solutions, however we can be more effective • Outreach to groups (both vocal and non-vocal) needs to be more effective o Outreach should not be a "check the box" exercise, nor should we exert only the minimum acceptable effort o Outreach activities need to be non-traditional, innovative, and extremely proactive o Outreach is especially important in Boulder given the fact that public reaction or buy-in is frequently unbalanced • Identify and act upon the additional efforts needed to engage non-traditional or disadvantaged populations o Increase the number of publications that are in Spanish or other languages a Develop strategies to go into communities and improve outreach activities • Avoid giving the public more than they can digest at one time. Group issues and discussions into modules or segments to facilitate the process in a piecemeal way. • We can be more effective and better use resources if we shift away from constantly arbitrating/mediating/reacting to issues and are more proactive in outreach and communication. o This involves being able to explain rationale in decision making, including articulating cause and effect, in a clear easy-to-understand way o This may involve a sea change in the way the department and DRAB interact with the public, interest groups, Council, and other departments/boards • Conduct research and understand best practices in civic engagement and partnerships • In 5-10 years, the department should have an active and robust foundation and/or "portfolio" of partners to help the community realize all of the benefits of parks and recreation. o The department cannot do it all (nor should they). o Move into a facilitation and coordination role; serve as the champion for wellness and sustainability in the community. Asset Management • Use informed management practices to maintain top-notch facilities o Develop strong capital and asset management strategy o Strategically reduce deferred maintenance Organizational Development • Preliminary research for the master plan shows the department has dated program delivery and practices and these areas are in need of development and enhancement. • The department needs a meaningfid and comprehensive organizational analysis o There are inunediate pressing issues, particularly related to public relations and public engagement process, that require sophisticated competencies o The master plan can be a very effective tool in facilitating the change, but the department must have the capacity to implement change. Now is a good time to start positioning the organization additional needed change. o Starting an organizational assessment immediately will allow adjustments to be made to ensure the success of the master plan. • Align the organization's competencies with the mission, vision, and values, especially in the areas of finance, public engagement, effective board/staff relationships, innovation, and sustainability. * The organizational assessment process will need to begin now, and although the recommendations from the org. and operational assessment will help position the department to contribute to and implement the master plan, the organizational development process should be completed first and line up the master planning process for success. Study Session Discussion Notes Boulder Parks & Recreation Advisory Board 4:00pm - 6:00pm Monday, August 27, 2012 Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway PRAB attendees: Mike Conroy, Myriah Conroy, Michael Guzek, Richard Thayer, Kelly Wyatt, Bob Yates Consultant attendees: Carol Adams, Steve Wolter, Jeff Bransford The study session was conducted to provide an update on critical strategy questions being examined by the Master Plan Update consulting team (StudioTerra and the Eppley Institute) based upon research findings to date. Discussion was built upon ideas exchanged at the April 11, 2012 PRAB meeting regarding the Department's mission, vision, and values. The meeting was facilitated by Steve Wolter of the Eppley Institute. There was no fixed discussion agenda, so meeting notes are categorized by topic. Introduction to Meeting Structure and Findings • The Study Session will: o Review discoveries, and discuss among PRAB, staff, and the consultant team, key areas, and begin to outline policy approaches. o Determine in what ways the Master Plan might address specific issues and opportunities, funding, development, and organizational structure as they relate to future actions. o Review the plan timeline and activities, approaches to be implemented, schedule dates, and receive feedback. • Will be presenting primarily philosophical questions • Most questions stem from complex issues found in research process so far • Input from PRAB is very important, as PRAB represents the community • Issues and discussion may lack strict structure and be messy; no intentions to solve issues tonight, but rather to set the stage for ongoing discussions and additional research What is the role/purpose of PRAB? • Represent the needs of the community to the department • Reflect the values of residents • Protect past investments • Opinions that Department staff are not really members of the cotrununity, so there is a strong need for PRAB to tell them what the job of the Department should be What is the purpose/emphasis of the Department? How does Boulder's mission, vision, and values compare to benchmark agencies and other standards? • Recognition that the Department cannot be all things to all people • City has limited resources, so Department should focus resources on priorities • Provide and maintain park and recreation facilities; add new ones when appropriate, but be a steward for what we already have • Reflect social, environmental, and economic sustainability ideas • Need to embrace new but continue providing popular/effective existing programs • Benchmarking is flawed due to different recording systems, metrics, etc. • Planning team is deriving 5-10 key indicators to compare and monitor. Should BRPD emphasize active living? • There is an emerging need to promote public health (but some discussion about appropriateness of the Parks and Recreation Department to do so) • To what extent should the Department work with schools or youth organizations regarding public health or other issues? • Probably need to work with children and teens more, perhaps even CU • Maybe active living is more of a specific goal under the overall mission statement Is BPRD's fee structure for programs and services in alignment with cost recovery efforts and affordability for community members? • The department's programs are potentially in conflict with economic sustainability goals • Yet there is a public good and contribution to social sustainability • Ideally there would be a philosophy of "take what you need, pay what you can" • How small is too small for a program? At some point, the cost to provide a program or facility greatly outweighs the revenue and the number of people receiving a social benefit. How will BPRD account for differing cultural recreation preferences when planning future programs and services? • Department needs to scan community to respond to needs • May include making decisions about retiring programs • Some PRAB members have opinion that it is not the Department's responsibility to predict social/cultural needs; that should happen at the City level Is BPRD's role to provide or facilitate programs, especially those that are more advanced? Should there be a different structure of center-based providers.? • The department should explore alternative delivery methods (partnering with other organizations, doing distance programming like yoga at home) • Recognition that it can be hard to do business with the City, however. Little flexibility in some partnership arrangements. • Regarding center-based provision/decision-making, too much segmentation may evolve. • Would need to ensure there are core services offered at all centers. Should BPRD develop and use more systematic program evaluation methods (e.g., ROl)? Should there be a different structure of cost centers and revenue centers? • The Department could do a better job of avoiding opportunistic partnerships and initiatives. • Sometimes the ventures into providing advanced programming seems opportunistic. • Evaluation methods should relate back to the organizational mission • There seems to be a lack of understanding or confusion about cost recovery. How important is it? How much time and cost is spent trying to maximize it? Is the overall cost-benefit worth it? Reduced revenues would impact service delivery; what is acceptable? • Should efforts to increase revenue from foundations, fundraising, and grants be increased? • There is a lot more potential for PLAY Boulder to serve a role. • The Department should avoid running like a business • It provides a social good that cannot garner revenue To what extent should BPRD implement asset management systems that integrate with other management and decision-making tools? • There should be an emphasis on the total cost of facility ownership, • Integration with FAM is essential • How can BPRD prioritize maintenance and management of facilities within City standards? • Some say this ties into a broader city problem and city-level leadership is needed; it is not the responsibility of the Department to prompt action. Does alignment of community need with policy direction from Council and PRAB need to be enhanced? • PRAB's primary function is to represent the values of citizens • Policy direction on major issues should come from Council • Seems lice the city in general has chard time saying `no' when the public asks for things • Need crisp understanding of when saying `no' is the right thing to do • Need support from other corners of the city when saying no ("We support that decision even though it made some people upset") 3 Since innovation involves risk, and allows for occasional failure, how does the city encourage innovation, and minimize risk? • Right now the culture is too risk adverse. • Decision-making has a lot of work and reports involved, but it is not very process-based. • Culture change is needed to allow for innovation, creativity -things that make Boulder unique. Additional PRAB comments: Most of the staff do not live in Boulder, are not part of the Boulder community; I think this needs to be acknowledged so it can be looked at and evaluated. We (the Board) need to push the envelope. What is the department's job? Protect investments, plan for future change, assure access to basic services, support active community and healthy living. Goal of Dept. mission: youth focused; active living; lifetime practice; school partnerships; senior centers. Work with BVSD to offer robust after-school programming including transportation to facilities (like YMCA) is one key thing the Department and City should be doing. And generally, City needs to continue to improve relationships with other community stakeholders (CU, County, local business community, non-profits, etc.).