Parks Advisory Board (Green Board)

THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNTIL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PARKS ADVISORY BOARD Spring Hill Parks Advisory Board Meeting Minutes February 17, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Doug D’Albini called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Doug D’Albini Tommy Holland Derek Buckridge Carol Thomas Board Members Absent: Mark Squire Staff in Attendance: Dillon Jones, Parks Superintendent Dora Davison, Administrative Assistant – Public Works PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. ROLL CALL The Secretary called the roll of the Parks Advisory Board. With a quorum present, the meeting commenced. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Tommy Holland, seconded by Carol Thomas, to approve the agenda. Motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None FORMAL BOARD ITEMS Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2019 Motion by Carol Thomas, seconded by Derek Buckridge, to approve the December 16, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion carried. DISCUSSION • Presentation of Parks Master Plan was given by Mr. Reynolds a representative with Vireo. Presentation attached. Spring Hill Parks Advisory Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2019 Page 1 of 2  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNTIL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PARKS ADVISORY BOARD • Renaming Melvin Murry Park. The Board discussed previous names from September of 2018, Willow Park, Blue Stem Park, Meadowlark Park and Park at Woodland Ridge. Members concluded that Willow Park would be the recommendation to City Council to rename Melvin Murry Park. A formal vote will be held at the March Meeting. • Veterans Park Memorial funding and design ideas were requested by staff. There was no additional input currently from Board Members. • Annual tree maintenance plan with specific information to guide residents regarding the Emerald Ash Borer identification and prevention. Carol Thomas volunteered to gather information for the March meeting. The board requested staff provide an example of an annual tree maintenance plan for their reference. • Kansas Open Meetings Act and Kansas Open Records Act training will be provided to board members February 27th at 6 pm. Members wishing to attend have been asked to notify the secretary. o Carol Thomas requested that any member not able to attend a meeting email the secretary of the board no later than noon on the day of the scheduled meeting. o Parks Advisory Board will reconsider the meeting time of 6 pm at the March meeting. STAFF REPORT • Spring Hill Aquatic Center Consultation – Parks staff received 3 possible design ideas to the River Slide. Lamp Rynearson as been asked to provide time and cost estimates for each. • Woodland Ridge Pond revitalization has been delayed by the weather; anticipated completion remains late Spring 2020. • Veterans Park construction team Mega has begun their winter break. Parks staff is beginning to erect the playground this week. ADJOURN Motion by Carol Thomas, seconded by Tommy Holland, to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Dora Davison______ Dora Davison, Secretary Spring Hill Parks Advisory Board Meeting Minutes November 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2  Agenda: 1. Recreation Assessment SPRING HILL 2. Operations Assessment Draft Plan: PARKS MASTER February 2020 3. Community Outreach PLAN 4. Park Assessments 5. Capital Needs 1 2 Recreation Assessment Process Demographics • A series of analyses completed to assess: • Demographics • Current Program Menu We use key demographic • Participation facts like these • Revenue to support the • A review of: programmatic • Sports and Leisure Market Potential assessment • Marketing • Results: Recommendations based on above findings 3 4 Age Segmentation of Current Programs Age Segmentation Compared to Demographic Data Population Age Category Programs Offered Age Categories: Early Childhood = ages 0-5 years 9% Early Childhood 8% Youth = ages 6-12 years 18% Youth 39% Teen = ages 13-18 years 7% Teen 6% 50% Adult 8% Adult = ages 18+ years 16% Active Agers 2% Active Ager = ages 50+ years All Ages 37% All Ages 5 6  Program Distribution Lifecycle Analysis Lifecycle Distribution of Programs LIFECYCLE OF PROGRAMS BY STAGE Adult Sports 3 0 1 0 Decline Classroom - General Interest 1 2 2 0 5% Mature 16% Introduction Events 3 10 5 3 36% Trips 5 0 Youth Sports 8 12 1 0 Growth 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 43% Introduction Growth Mature Decline 7 8 Outcomes Summary Outcomes Impact Execution Community Leverage Competition Average Participation Analysis Adult Sports 2.8 2.8 1.8 2.1 2.9 2.4 Classroom - General Interest 3.5 3.1 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.1 2018-2019 Participation Events 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8 1,200 Trips 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.4 Youth Sports 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.9 1,000 Average 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.7 800 600 400 200 0 Youth Sports Events Classroom - Trips Adult Sports General Interest 9 10 Outcomes Analysis Program Performance 2018-2019 Program Performance Net Revenue $7,000 $6,000 High $5,000 2 1 $4,000 Net Revenue Classes $3,000 Sports $2,000 Special Events $1,000 3 4 Low $0 Classes Special Events Sports -$1,000 -$2,000 Low High Enrollment -$3,000 2018 2019 11 12 13 14 Priority Investment Rating Equally weighs (1) Importance residents place on facilities (2) How many residents have unmet needs for the facility. High High Priority Areas (PIR of 100+). High level of unmet need and residents generally think it is important to fund improvements in these areas. Medium Priority Areas (PIR of 50-99). Medium to high level of unmet need or a significant percentage of Medium residents generally think it is important to fund improvements in these areas. Low Priority Areas (PIR <50). Low level of unmet need and residents do not think it is important to fund improvements in these areas. Improvements may be Low warranted if the needs of very specialized populations are being targeted. 15 16 17 18  Next 1-3 years Next 3-5 years Next 5-10 years Action Operations Assessment Plan • Description of the City of Spring Hill Parks Department • Description of the Spring Hill Recreation Commission Comparative information of both national and regional metrics • Staff meeting review • Current practices • Example of maintenance standards 19 20 Operations Assessment Results Comparative Information • Importance of good working relationships between the City of Spring Metric # of Agencies Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile Spring Hill Hill Parks Department and the Spring Hill Recreation Commission Operating expenditures per capita 45 $61 $107 $230 $212 • Process documentation for the Parks Department is needed. Revenue per capita 38 $11 $29 $67 $37 Operations worksheets detailing task hours are a good start. Total revenue to total operating expenditures 37 9.60% 25.60% 47.10% 17% • Work order system Park operating expenditures per acre of parkland 30 $1,521 $3,989 $6,095 $3,747 • Maintenance management system • Inspection processes FTE's per total population 39 8 12.3 30.7 12 • Job training Acres of parks per 1,000 residents 32 8.5 14 24.3 14 • Use of technology • Use of maintenance standards 21 22 Operating Budgets for Park Park Maintenance Staffing Maintenance 25% Quartile Median 75% Upper Quartile City Operating Budget Spring Hill (Pop. ‐ 6,618) $ 337,349 3.7 FTEs 5.7 FTEs 16.6 FTEs Paola (Pop. ‐ 5,580) $ 324,300 DeSoto (Pop. ‐ 6,107) $ 286,851 Eudora (Pop. ‐ 6,329) $ 545,204 The current staffing level of a park foreman and two maintenance employees is $ 67,700 Basehor (Pop. ‐ 6,428) slightly below the lowest 25% of reporting agencies as the City of Spring Hill has Fort Scott (Pop. ‐ 7,608) $ 237,355 three full-time maintenance employees and maintains 90 acres. Moving to the Bonner Springs (Pop. ‐ 7,784) $ 770,425 lowest quartile requires an additional .7 FTE and moving to the median requires an Park City (Pop. ‐ 7,734) $ 309,101 additional 2.7 FTEs. Median $ 316,701 23 24  Acres per 1,000 residents City Population Acres Acres per 1,000 Spring Hill 6618 90 14 Paola 5580 739.96 133 DeSoto 6107 138 23 Eudora 6329 unknown unknown Basehor 6428 20 3 Fort Scott 7608 578 76 Bonner Springs 7784 72 9 Park City 7734 67 9 Average 6428 105 16 25 26 How important is it for the City of Spring Hill to COMMUNITY OUTREACH provide high quality park facilities? Over 580 total Interactions 3% 7% ■ FOCUS GROUPS (40 participants) ■ EMPLOYEE MEETINGS (10 participants) ■ PUBLIC WORKSHOP (10 participants) 25% ■ ON-LINE QUESTIONAIRE (201 participants) 64% ■ STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY (331 participants) Very Important Somewhat Important Not Sure Not Important 27 28 Overall Satisfaction Top 3 Reasons Preventing Use Satisfaction with the value of Parks & Recreation Spring Hill National Parks Programs Very Satisfied 17% 24% Somewhat Satisfied 33% 35% 32% Amenities don’t match 22% Program not offered. Neutral 34% 22% interests Dissatisfied 16% 9% 19% Not Interested / Too Busy 26% Not Interested / Too Busy 18% Don’t Know What is Offered 24% Age Appropriate Amenities 29 30  Most Important Amenities Most Important Priorities Expand Trails & Improve Connectivity 50% In-Person Online Survey Promote Physical Activity & Wellness 27% • Paved Trails • Paved Trails • Hiking Trails Update Park Amenities 24% • Hiking Trails • Playgrounds • Paved Trails Recreation Programming 20% • Multi-Purpose • Hiking Trails • Natural Areas Courts Add Parks in Underserved Areas 18% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 31 32 TRAILS 1. Most Important Amenity to the Community 2. Trails & Greenway Master Plan is needed a) Outlines trail typologies b) Phasing & Implementation c) Costs 3. Financial Planning a) Reliable annual CIP Contributions 33 34 GAP Analysis COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE Neighborhood Parks NORTH - There are currently no City owned parks in the north/northeast area. CENTRAL - As development expands consideration should be given for a neighborhood park in this area. SOUTH - Southeastern portion of the community east of the Aquatic Center. Community Parks NORTHEAST - With development occurring rapidly in this area acquisition of sufficient park land space should be considered. Focus Area #3 - Dispersion of Key Amenities • PICNIC SHELTERS • PLAYGROUNDS • RESTROOMS • TRAILS 35 36 37 38 Recreation Complex Aquatic Center #4 most frequently used park #1 most frequently used park 60% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 65% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 39 40 Aquatic Center 63% say it is “Somewhat” to “Very” important to make improvements to Aquatic Center the Aquatic Center Main deficiencies: 1. Deteriorated Concrete Basin 2. Deck Cracks 3. Rusted Electrical Boxes 4. River Slides 41 42  Blackhawk Park Celia Dayton Park #8 most frequently used park #9 most frequently used park 38% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 28% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 43 44 City Park Friendship Park #2 most frequently used park #5 most frequently used park 61% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 51% are Satisfied to Very Satisfied 45 46 Veterans Park 47 48  Next 1-3 years Next 3-5 years Next 5-10 years Action Plan 49 50 Capital Improvements 51