Document farmingtonnm_gov_doc_5282fdadb3

Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan Update DRAFT June 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements City Council Dan Darnell, District One Mary Fischer, District Two Gayla McCulloch, District Three Nate Duckett, District Four City of Farmington Administration Tommy Roberts, Mayor Robert “Rob” Mayes, City Manager City of Farmington, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Commission Edward Horvat, Chairman Larry Hilliard, Vice Chairman Patricia Baca Jane Banes Deb Cutler Sherry Galloway Peter Holzem Kent Mobley Dorothy Nobis Tyson Snyder Leslie Thompson City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Advisory Staff Cory Styron, Director Shaña Reeves, Superintendent of Recreation Jody Carman, Public Relations and Marketing Rick Willard, Assistant Parks Superintendent Consultant Team GreenPlay, LLC Design Concepts RRC Associates For more information about this document, contact GreenPlay, LLC At: 1021 E. South Boulder Road, Suite N, Louisville, Colorado 80027, Telephone: [PHONE REDACTED] Toll Free: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] www.greenplayllc.com ---PAGE BREAK--- This DRAFT Report will not be formatted until all edits are implemented into the Final Report. Please review for content, typos, etc. and not formatting issues. Final formatting will include: Spacing Page breaks Table numbers added and linked Figure numbers added and linked Photographs inserted Page numbers Footers Etc. i ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents I. Executive Summary Purpose Of This Plan 1 Planning Process Summary 1 Key Issues Summary (Bulleted) 1 Inventory Assessment Summary 1 Recommendations With Capital Cost Estimates 1 II. Past, Present, And Future – The Planning Context A. Purpose Of This Plan 3 B. History Of Farmington Parks And Recreation Department 3 C. Farmington Parks And Recreation Department Mission Statement 3 D. Parks And Recreation Department Overview 3 E. Related Planning Efforts And Integration 4 F. Methodology Of This Planning Process 4 G. Timeline For Completing The Master Plan 6 III. What We Want – Our Community And Identified Needs A. Farmington Population And Demographic Trends 7 B. Demographic Analysis 9 C. Park And Recreation Influencing Trends 15 D. Community And Stakeholder Input Summary 23 E. Key Issues 26 F. Community Survey Summary 28 G. Operational And Marketing Analysis 40 IV. What We Have Now – An Analysis Of Spaces And Services 63 A. Inventory Assessment And Level Of Service Analysis 63 B. GRASP® Methodology 63 C. Findings 68 VII. Great Things To Come – Recommendations & Action Plans 87 A. Recommendations 87 B. Recommendations With Actionable Planning, Cost Estimates And Prioritization 109 Appendix A – Community Input Summary 117 Appendix B – GRASP® Maps 135 Appendix C – GRASP® Composite Values Method For Level Of Service Analysis 145 Appendix D – Asset Scoring For The City Of Farmington 151 Appendix E – LOS Inventory Tables 157 Appendix F – Sample Sponsorship Policy 189 Appendix G – Sample Partnership Policy 207 Appendix H – Pyramid Methodology 227 ii The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables Table 1: Population projections for Farmington, New Mexico* 9 Table 2: Demographic Overview by Quadrant 10 Table 3: City of Farmington Housing Units 12 Table 4: Top 10 Worldwide Fitness Trends for 2007 and 2013 18 Table 5: Water Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands) 21 Table 6: Summary of Findings - Key Issues Matrix 25 Table 7: Program Area Financial Analysis and Participant Unit Information 43 Table 8: Farmington Population Statistics 68 Table 9: Statistics for Map B 70 Table 10: Statistics for Map C 73 Table 11: Statistics for Map D 77 Table 12: Statistics for non-served areas in Map D-1 80 Table 13: Capacities LOS for Community Components 83 Table 14: GRASP® Community Component Index 85 Table 15: GRASP® Comparative Data 86 List of Figures Figure 1: Farmington Map showing sub-area “Quadrants” 8 Figure 2: Population Trends for the Farmington Quadrants 10 Figure 3: 2012 City of Farmington and Quadrants Population Breakdown by Age 11 Figure 4: Ethnicity by Quadrant 12 Figure 5: Annual Household Income Distribution 13 Figure 6: 2013 Employment by Occupation 14 Figure 7: Educational Attainment Comparison: Farmington- New Mexico – Unites States (ages 25+) 14 Figure 8: Degree to Which Needs are Being Met by Location of Residence 30 Figure 9: Programs, Activities, and Special Events – In-Need vs. Needs Met Matrix 36 Figure 10: Statistics for Map B 70 Figure 11: Walkable Access to All Recreation 74 Figure 12: Percentage of Population with Walkable Access to Service 74 Figure 13: Percentage of 2-12 Year Olds with Access to Playgrounds 78 Figure 14: Current Informal River Access Guide 104 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan iii ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Executive Summary This section of the report will not be completed until all edits have been made to the draft report. The edited information for the suggested section titles below and will be summarized and implemented into the Executive Summary of the final report. Purpose of this Plan Planning Process Summary Key Issues Summary (bulleted) Inventory Assessment Summary Recommendations with Capital Cost Estimates Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Past, Present, and Future – The Planning Context A. Purpose of this Plan The Farmington Parks and Recreation Master Plan is intended to help meet the needs of current and future residents by positioning Farmington to build on the community’s unique parks and recreation assets and identify new opportunities. The citizen-driven plan establishes a clear direction to guide city staff, advisory committees, and elected officials in their efforts to enhance the community’s parks and recreation services and facilities. B. History of Farmington Parks and Recreation Department The City of Farmington was founded in 1901. Little more than 50 years ago, a Parks and Recreation Department was created by the City with less than ten staff members. The oldest parks in Farmington are Jaycee, Brookside, and Orchard Parks. Rickets Baseball Park was built in the mid-1960s. Later, in order to include a Museum and Civic Center, the Parks and Recreation Department was re-entitled the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department. From that point on, as the department grew; the Recreation Center was built in 1987; Sandstone Amphitheater was built in 1988; Piñon Hills Golf Course was built in 1989; the Soccer Complex was created in 1990; the Aquatic Center was built in 1994; and the Farmington Gateway Museum and Gateway Park, Riverside Nature Center, Agricultural Barn, and a new building for E3 Children’s Museum were opened in 1999. The Sports Complex was built in 2001, Ricketts got a remodel in 2001, and Sycamore Park Community Center opened in 2008. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs was defined to include (but not be limited to) playgrounds; playfields; indoor recreation; museums; civic and cultural affairs centers; and other parks, recreation, and cultural areas and facilities when owned or controlled by the City. A PRCA Fund and Commission, composed of eleven members, was established in the mid-1980s. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department has seen five Directors to date. C. Farmington Parks and Recreation Department Mission Statement The mission of the City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department is to provide the opportunity for people to play, laugh, grow, learn, and make a place where everyone matters. Goal Our goal is to provide the highest quality facilities and services possible to our community. D. Parks and Recreation Department Overview Farmington is located in an area of scenic beauty and historical significance. The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department is a source of community pride and is responsible for the many parks, recreation facilities, and programs that are important factors in the quality of life in the community. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- The 79 parks, schools and trail easements, undeveloped land, 19 community facilities, and 2 golf courses (which range from .22 acres at the Orchards Plaza downtown to over 500 acres at Farmington Lake) comprise an outstanding park system. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department co-hosts and/or participates in a number of special events including the Connie Mack World Series, Riverfest, the Invitational Balloon Festival, Freedom Days, the outdoor summer theater, the Totah Festival, Roundball Ruckus Basketball Tournament, Road Apple Rally, and Riverglo. For a city with an estimated 46,815 residents, a park system of this magnitude is a massive accomplishment as well as a tremendous responsibility. It should also be recognized that Farmington’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs system provides facilities and activities far beyond the city boundaries. E. Related Planning Efforts and Integration The City of Farmington has undertaken several planning efforts in recent years that have helped inform the planning process for this Plan. These documents include: • City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan, 2002 • Farmington’s Riverine Plan, 1990 • City of Farmington Bike Plan • Gateway Museum Upgrade Plan • Navajo Lake State Park Draft River Management Plan, 2013 F. Methodology of this Planning Process This project has been guided by a PRCA project team made up of city staff, with the input from the PRCA Commission, and the City Council. This team provided input to the GreenPlay consulting team throughout the planning process. This collaborative effort creates a plan that fully utilizes the consultant’s expertise and incorporates the local knowledge and institutional history that only community members can provide. The project consisted of the following tasks: Community Engagement Facility Inventory GRASP® Level of Service Analysis Needs Assessment Operational and Marketing Analysis Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan 4 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Community Engagement • Review of previous planning efforts, city historical information. • Extensive community involvement effort including focus groups, meetings with key stakeholders, and community-wide public meetings. • Statistically-valid community interest and opinion survey. Facility Inventory • Inventory of parks and facilities using existing mapping, staff interviews, and on-site visits to verify amenities and assess the condition of the facilities and surrounding areas. GRASP® Level of Service Analysis • Interviews with staff to provide information about parks and recreation facilities and services, along with insight regarding the current practices and experiences of the City in serving its residents and visitors. • Identification of alternative providers of recreation services to provide insight regarding the market opportunities in the area for potential new facilities and services. • Analysis addressing recreation, parks, cultural affairs, and related services. Assessment and Analysis • Review and assessment of relevant plans. • Measurement of the current delivery of service for park and recreation facilities using the GRASP® Level of Service Analysis and allowing for a target level of service to be determined that is both feasible and aligned with the desires of citizens as expressed through the citizen survey. This analysis is also represented graphically in GRASP® Perspectives. • Exploration of finance and funding mechanisms to support development and sustainability within the system. Needs Assessment • Consideration of the profile of the community and demographics, including population growth. • Research of trends related to American lifestyles to help guide the efforts of PRCA over the next several years. Priorities Recreation Facilities Needs Needs Assessment and Public Input Recreation Facilities Demand Analysis Inventory Citizens Survey Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Operational and Marketing Analysis • Analyze the PRCA programming and service delivery. • Conduct an organizational SWOT analysis. • Broad assessment of the overall PRCA operations. Recommendations: Goals, Objectives, and Action Plan • Identification and categorization of recommendations into themes with goals, objectives, and an action plan for implementation. • Development of an action plan for capital improvements including cost, funding source potentials, and timeframe to support the implementation of the plan. • Conceptual designs for the four major parks. G. Timeline for Completing the Master Plan Start-up October 2013 Community Engagement October 2013 – April 2014 Inventory and Assessment of Existing Facilities October – December 2013 GRASP® Level of Service Analysis October – December 2013 Needs Assessment December 2013 Operational and Marketing Analysis January – April 2014 Findings Compilation Report April 2014 Recommendations and Action Plans April – June 2014 Draft Plan, Presentation June 2014 Final Plan, Presentation, and Deliverables July 2014 6 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- III. What We Want – Our Community and Identified Needs Identification of current park and recreation resources, as well as recreation trends, community demographics, and needs, help us better understand future recreational opportunities and identify the unique niche of the City of Farmington. The historic values and standards that the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department brings to the community, along with park and recreation trends, work together to create a unique opportunity for Farmington to plan and implement for future park and recreation facilities. Following is an overview of the Farmington community and a needs assessment of park and recreation facilities and services. This section first describes the key demographic information as well as national trends in parks and recreation services. Community input from stakeholder interviews, focus groups and a community meeting is described and identifies satisfaction and public needs of Farmington’s park and recreation facilities and services. Results from a statistically-valid community survey are summarized and highlighted in a separate staff resource document with references and summary statements within this document. All of this information provides a framework to understand Farmington’s context, park and recreational needs, and direction for the future. A. Farmington Population and Demographic Trends Farmington New Mexico is a city in San Juan County located at the junction of the San Juan River, the Animas River, and the La Plata River, and is located on the Colorado Plateau. Farmington is the largest City of San Juan County, which, geographically, is one of the largest counties in the United States covering 5,538 square miles. Farmington serves as the commercial hub for most of northwestern New Mexico and the Four Corners region of four states. Farmington lies at or near the junction of three important highways – U.S. Highway 550, U.S. Highway 64, and New Mexico Highway 371. The primary industries of San Juan County are in the mining of petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Due to high level of diversity in the City of Farmington, this plan includes important demographic analysis in four quadrants. The map in Figure 1 identifies each quadrant: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Larger maps are provided in Appendix B. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 1: Farmington Map showing sub-area “Quadrants” ESRI Business Information Solutions, based on the U.S. Census, is the source of much of the demographic data provided in this section, with the U.S. Census American Community Survey providing additional information. A summary of demographic highlights is followed by more detailed demographic analysis. Summary Key demographic trends for park and recreation planning efforts in the City of Farmington, New Mexico, are summarized below. • According to ESRI Business Information Solutions (based on the 2010 U.S. Census), estimated median household income for Farmington residents was $48,933 in 2012. • The median age for the city in 2010 was 32.8, lower than the median age (37.1) for the United States. • Gender distribution for Farmington is 49.3 percent male and 50.7 percent female. • In 2010, the Northeast Quadrant ranked higher in population than the other three quadrants of the city. The Northwest Quadrant had the next highest population. The Southeast and Southwest quadrants had significantly lower population levels. Demographics by Quadrant • Forty-one percent (41%) of the Farmington population lives within the Northeast Quadrant, with a median income of $54,021. The median age for this quadrant is 33.4, with the greatest number of its residents in the 25-64 age range. The Northeast Quadrant has the largest average household size of the city, at 2.96 per household. 8 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • The next most populous area is the Northwest Quadrant, with 34 percent of the population and a median income of $50,290. This quadrant is also one of the least ethnically diverse. The median age for the quadrant is 33.5 and, as with the urban core, many of its residents are in the 25-64 age range. • The Southeast Quadrant houses 19 percent of the Farmington population with a median income of $40,594. The Southeast is one of the more diverse quadrants with the largest Hispanic population (31.1 percent) and one of the largest American Indian populations (26.1 percent). The Southeast also has the youngest population, with a median age of 30.7 and the greatest populations in the 15-19, 20-24, and 35- 44 age ranges. • The least populous are is the Southwest Quadrant with six percent of the city’s population and a median income of $28.938. It is the most diverse quadrant with a 38.2 percent American Indian population and a 29.6 percent Hispanic population. It also has the greatest diversity in age with the largest populations in the 0-4, 25-34, 75-84, and 85+ age ranges, with a median age of 32.9. B. Demographic Analysis Population Projections Table 1 illustrates the population trend for the City of Farmington. The city’s population is predicted to grow by about 3.3% percent from 2010 to 2018, reaching 47,413. The biggest growth areas are predicted to be the Southwest Quadrant and the Southeast Quadrant The Northeast Quadrant is predicted to have peaked in population around 2012, and is projected to have a population reduction by 2018. Table 1: Population projections for Farmington, New Mexico* US Census (2000 and 2010) and ESRI Projections 2000 Population 38,404 2010 Population 45,877 2013 Estimated 46,815 2018 Projected 47,413 2023 Projected 50,296 Source: 2010 Census and ESRI Business Information Solutions. *GreenPlay, LLC, calculated projected populations based on ESRI growth multiplier of .71% for Farmington, New Mexico. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Farmington Population Trends The population distribution represented in Figure 2 reflects the trends explained above: Figure 2: Population Trends for the Farmington Quadrants Source: 2010 Census and ESRI Business Information Solutions. . Population, Age Ranges, and Family Information The information in Table 2 was collected for each quadrant using the 2010 US Census data for: Age Distribution, Median Age, Average Household Size, and Median Income. Table 2: Demographic Overview by Quadrant Median Age (2010) Average Household Size (2010) Median Income (2012 forecast) % of City Population (2010) Northeast Quadrant 33.4 2.96 $54,021 41% Northwest Quadrant 33.5 2.82 $50,290 34% Southeast Quadrant 30.7 2.88 $40,594 19% Southwest Quadrant 32.9 2.72 $28,938 6% City of Farmington 32.8 2.7 $48,933 Source: 2010 U.S. Census, ESRI Business Information Solutions forecasts for 2012 Median Income. • The median age in the four planning areas ranges from 33.5 in the Northeast area to 30.7 years old in the Southeast Quadrant. • The median income varies widely between the quadrants with the Southwest Quadrant at just above $28,938, while the Northeast Quadrant has the highest median income at $54,021. • The largest variation among the quadrants is the population differences with 41 percent of the population living in the Northeast Quadrant and six percent of the population living in the Southwest quadrant. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Northeast Quadrant Northwest Quadrant Southeast Quadrant Southwest Quadrant 2010 2012 2017 10 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographic Shift • Baby Boomers are driving the aging of America with Boomers and seniors over 65 composing about 39 percent of the nation’s population. In the leisure profession, this generation’s devotion to exercise and fitness is an example of its influence on society. The City of Farmington’s demographic profile indicates that 24.3 percent of the current population falls within the Baby Boomer age range (those approximately 45-64 years of age). Boomers will look to park and recreation professionals to give them opportunities to enjoy many life-long hobbies and sports. • The Youth population proportion is smaller than in the past, but still essential to our future. As of the 2010 Census, the age group under age 18 forms about a quarter of the U.S. population, and this percentage is at an all-time low. Nearly half of this population group is ethnically diverse, and 25 percent is Hispanic. Age Distribution and Housing Unit Distribution The median age in 2010 for the City of Farmington was 32.8. A comparison of the planning areas is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: 2012 City of Farmington and Quadrants Population Breakdown by Age Source: 2010 U.S. Census; 2012 estimates provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2012. • The Northeast and Northwest Quadrants most closely mirror the age distribution pattern for the city as a whole, with the quadrant population in this 35-64 age range at approximately 36 percent in each of the two quadrant as well as in the city as a whole. • The Southeast Quadrant reflects the greatest number of young residents, those in the 15-19 and 20-24 age cohorts, at 7.8 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. • The Southwest Quadrant has the greatest age diversity with the largest populations among the four quadrants in the 0-4 age range the 25-34 age range and in the 75-85+ age range 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+ AGE GROUPS NE Quadrant NW Quadrant SE Quadrant SW Quadrant City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- As reflected in Table 3, The City of Farmington has 17,870 housing units with a 61.2 percent owner- occupied housing rate. The Southeast Quadrant has the highest percentage of owner occupied to renter occupied property at 64.3 percent to 28.8 percent, but it also has the highest vacancy rate The Southwest Quadrant has the highest rental rate at 50.5 percent, with a vacancy rate of 6.8 percent. Table 3: City of Farmington Housing Units NE Quadrant NW Quadrant SE Quadrant SW Quadrant City of Farmington Total housing units 7,608 6,256 2,975 1,032 17,870 Occupation Percentages: Owner occupied 62.9% 60.5% 64.3% 42.7% 61.2% Renter occupied 30.9% 32.9% 28.8% 50.5% 32.4% Vacant 6.2% 6.6% 6.9% 6.8% 6.5% Source: 2010 Census and ESRI Business Information Solutions 2012Market Profile. Race/Ethnicity The current ethnic breakdown for the City of Farmington shows that the greatest percentage (61.57%) of Farmington residents are Caucasian, but that the city also has significant Hispanic and American Indian populations at 23.6 percent and 21.9 percent, respectively. In the four Farmington quadrants, as shown in Figure 4, ethnic diversity is greatest in the Southwest Quadrant (with a 38.6 percent American Indian population and a 29.6 percent Hispanic population). • The greatest American Indian populations are in the Southeast (26.1%) and Southwest (38.6 Quadrants. • The greatest Hispanic populations are also in the Southeast (31.1%) and Southwest (29.6 Quadrants. • The least amount of diversity is found in the Northeast Quadrant (69.5% Caucasian). Figure 4: Ethnicity by Quadrant Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2012 estimate from 2010 U.S. Census. 69.5% 60.7% 53.1% 40.9% 61.5% 1.4% 1.8% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 15.3% 24.2% 26.1% 38.6% 21.9% 9.3% 8.4% 15.2% 15.2% 10.5% 4.5% 4.8% 4.4% 4.3% 4.6% 21.7% 20.6% 31.1% 29.6% 23.6% NE QUA DRA NT NW QUA DRA NT S E QUA DRA NT S W QUA DRA NT C I T Y OF F A RMI NGT ON White Alone Black Alone American Indian Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 12 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Household Income The estimated 2012 median household Income for Farmington residents was $48,933. City-wide, the highest income levels are under $15,000 and the $35,000-$49,000 and $50,000-$74,999 levels (16.8% each). Figure 5 demonstrates the full income distribution for the city. • The Northeast Quadrant had the highest median household income in the city in 2012, estimated at $54,021, with over 18 percent of the population having income in the $50,000-$74,999 range. • The median household income for the Northwest Quadrant was estimated at $50,290 with the most broadly distributed income range in the city. • The Southeast Quadrant had median income of $40,694, with 19.1 percent at the $50,000- $74,999 range, and 18.4 percent earning under $15,000. • Data for the Southwest area reflected the lowest median income at $28,938, with over 26 percent earning under $15,000. Figure 5: Annual Household Income Distribution Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2012 Employment The unemployment rate in Farmington was at a low of 2.1 percent in December 2007, and reached a high of 7.1 percent in July 2010. The rate had come down again to 4.2 percent in April 2013, but by July 2013 was up again to 5.8 percent. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics). According to the 2010 Census, the industries in the City of Farmington providing the greatest employment percentages are the Service Industry (42.6 Agriculture and Mining and Retail Trade Figure 6 reflects the ESRI estimate of employment by occupation in Farmington in 2013. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Household Income Base 2012 Households by Income NE Quadrant NW Quadrant SE Quadrant SW Quadrant City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 6: 2013 Employment by Occupation Source: ESRI Business Information Solutions, 2013 estimate from 2010 U.S. Census. Education According to a new U.S. Census Bureau study, education levels had more effect on earnings over a 40- year span in the workforce than any other demographic factor, such as gender, race, and ethnic origin. As Shown in Figure 7, ESRI’s forecasts from the U.S. Census estimate that the highest ranking cohorts in Farmington are “high school graduate” (31.9%) and “some college education, no degree” Those residents that earned a Bachelor’s Degree and those that earned an Associate Degree follow with 12.1 percent and 11.8 percent, respectively. • Farmington has a lower percentile of residents holding Bachelor’s Degrees or Graduate/Professional Degrees than the State of New Mexico or the Unites States as a whole. Figure 7: Educational Attainment Comparison: Farmington- New Mexico – Unites States (ages 25+) Source: U.S. Census 2012 American Community Survey. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Less than 9th Grade 9th to 12th Grade, No… High School Graduate Some College, No Degree Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate/Professional… United States New Mexico Farmington 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% White Collar Management/Business/ Financial Professional Sales Administrative Support Services Blue Collar Farming/Forestry/Fishing Construction/Extraction Installation/Maintenance/ Repair Production Transportation/Material Moving 14 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- C. Park and Recreation Influencing Trends The following information highlights relevant regional, and national outdoor recreation trends from various sources that influence the recommendations for the Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department for the next several years. Demographic Trends in Recreation Adult – The Baby Boomers: Planning for the Demographic Shift Baby Boomers are defined as individuals born between 1946 and 1964, as stated in Leisure Programming for Baby Boomers.1 In 2011, this influential population began their transition out of the workforce. As baby Boomers enter retirement, they will be looking for opportunities in fitness, sports, outdoors, arts and cultural events, and other activities that suit their lifestyles. With their varied life experiences, values, and expectations, Baby Boomers are predicted to redefine the meaning of recreation and leisure programming for mature adults. In the leisure profession, this generation’s devotion to exercise and fitness is an example of its influence on society. As Boomers matured and moved into the workplace, they took their desire for exercise and fitness with them. Now as the oldest Boomers are nearing 65, park and recreation professionals are faced with new approaches to provide both passive and active programming for older adults. 1 Linda Cochran, Anne and Jodi Rudick, Leisure Programming For Baby Boomers, Human Kinetics, 2009. Health Rankings The United Health Foundation has ranked New Mexico 32nd in its 2012 State Health Rankings, unchanged from its ranking in 2011. The State’s biggest include: • High per capita public health funding • Low levels of air pollution • Low rate of cardiovascular and cancer deaths Some of the challenges the State faces include: • High percentage of children in poverty • High rate of uninsured population • Low high school graduation rate The highest ranking age cohort in Farmington is 25-34 (15% of the population) followed closely by the 35-44 45-54 and 55-64 (11.4 Additionally, the 64-75 cohort is expected to grow from 5.5% in 2010 to 7.8% in 2018. Planning for the next ten years suggests a growing demand for programs and services for young adults, Baby Boomers, and seniors. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Boomer Basics Boomers are known to work hard, play hard, and spend hard. They have always been fixated with all things youthful. Boomers typically respond that they feel 10 years younger than their chronological age. Their nostalgic mindset keeps Boomers returning to the sights and sounds of their 1960s youth culture. Swimming pools have become less of a social setting and much more of an extension of Boomers’ health and wellness program. Because Boomers in general have a high education level, they will likely continue to pursue education as adults and into retirement. Boomers will look to park and recreation professionals to give them opportunities to enjoy many life- long hobbies and sports. When programming for this age group, a customized experience to cater to the need for self-fulfillment, healthy pleasure, nostalgic youthfulness, and individual escapes will be important. Recreation trends will shift from games and activities that boomers associate with senior citizens such as bingo, bridge, and shuffleboard will likely be avoided because boomers relate these activities to being old. Multiculturalism Our country is becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse. In the United States, the Hispanic population increased by 43 percent over the last decade, compared to five percent for the non-Hispanic portion, and accounted for more than half of all the population growth. Twenty-four percent (24%) of Farmington’s population was Hispanic in 2012, and 22 percent of the population was American Indian. The growing racial and ethnic diversity is particularly important to recreation and leisure service providers since family and individual recreation patterns and preferences are strongly shaped by cultural influences.2 As the recreation field continues to function within a more diverse society, race and ethnicity will become increasingly important in every aspect of the profession. More than ever, recreation professionals will be expected to work with, and have significant knowledge and understanding of, individuals from many cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. Multiculturalism and Marketing Today the marketplace for consumers has dramatically evolved in the United States from a largely Anglo demographic, to a large minority consumer base known as “new majority.” The San Jose Group, a consortium of marketing communications companies specializing in reaching Hispanic and non-Hispanic markets of the United States, suggests that today’s multicultural population of the United States, or the “new majority,” is 107.6 million, which translates to about 35.1 percent of the country’s total population. The United States’ multicultural population alone could essentially be the 12th largest country in the world.3 Parks and recreation trends in marketing leisure services continue to emerge and should be taken into consideration in all planning efforts, as different cultures respond differently to marketing techniques. 2 Emilyn Sheffield, “Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today,” Parks and Recreation, July 2012 p. 16-17. 3 “SJG Multicultural Facts & Trends”, San Jose Group, http://blog.thesanjosegroup.com/?p=275, posted October 25, 2010 Farmington’s demographic profile indicates that 24.3% of the current population falls within the Baby Boomer age range (those approximately 45 – 64 years of age). 16 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Diversity in Outdoor Recreation • Outdoor Participation varies by Ethnicity: Participation in outdoor activities is higher among Caucasians than any other ethnicity and lowest among African Americans in nearly all age groups. • Minority Youth, More Focused on School: Minority youth participants cite school work as the top reason they do not get out more often – a barrier they cite more prominently than Caucasian youth. • Hispanics, Looking for Nearby Outdoor Recreation: Hispanic participants and nonparticipants alike cite a lack of access to nearby places to participate in outdoor activities as a barrier to participation more often than other ethnicities. Caucasian Trends According to the 2012 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report,4 the most popular outdoor activities among Caucasians are: running and jogging fishing (freshwater, saltwater, and fly) camping (car, backyard, and RV) road and mountain biking and BMX and hiking American Indian Trends The percentage of Native Americans participating in the following activities were noticeably greater than the Caucasian population: driving motor vehicles off-road, visiting a farm or agricultural setting, hunting, backpacking, horseback riding, and rock climbing. Native Americans also tend to prefer activities that emphasize family and celebrate their culture. Implementing these cultural programming trends can have a positive affect the local relationships with the local tribes. Hispanic Trends The Hispanic population in the United States is much younger than the country’s population as a whole with a median age of 27.7 in 2008, compared to 36.8 for the total U.S. population. The 2012 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report found that participation in outdoor sports among Hispanics is at six percent nationwide. Those who do get outdoors, however, participate more frequently than other outdoor participants, with an average of 60 outings per year. Hispanic youth (ages 6 – 17) are the most likely age group within the Hispanic demographic to participate in outdoor recreation. The most popular outdoor activities among Hispanics are: running and jogging road and mountain biking and BMX camping (car, backyard, and RV) and hiking According to the New Mexico SCORP, research shows that Hispanics tend to make recreational choices that are included in larger family units rather than the organized activities characterizing much of municipal recreational programing. “Spending the day at the park” with activities ranging from cookouts, to softball or soccer games, to riding bikes or simply relaxing outside, tend to be popular among the Hispanic population. 4 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2012”, Outdoor Foundation, 2012. Farmington’s demographic profile indicates that 61.5% of the current population is Caucasian, 21.9 % is American Indian, and 23.6 % is of Hispanic origin (any race). Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Facilities According to Recreation Management magazine’s “2013 State of the Industry Report,”5 national trends continue to show an increased user-base of recreation facilities (private and public). The average amount planned by public parks and recreation respondents for construction for parks in the 2013 budgets saw an increase of 15.5 percent from an average of $3,440,000 in last year’s survey to an average of $3,973,000 for 2013. The five most commonly planned facility additions include: dog parks, splash play areas, trails, park structures (shelters/restrooms), and playgrounds. Aquatics According to the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA), swimming ranked third nation-wide in terms of participation in 2012.6 Outdoor swimming pools are not typically heated and open year round. Nationally, there is an increasing trend towards indoor leisure and therapeutic pools. Additional indoor and outdoor amenities like “spray pads” are becoming increasingly popular as well. Fitness Programming There have been many changes in fitness programs in the last ten years. The American College of Sports Medicine’s (ACSM’s) Health and Fitness Journal7 has conducted an annual survey since 2007 to determine trends that would help create a standard for health and fitness programming. Table 4 shows survey results that focus on trends in the commercial, corporate, clinical, and community health and fitness industry. Strength training remains at a solid 2nd for the second year in a row, and body weight training appears for the first time in the top 20 trend survey. Zumba and outdoor activities appeared in the top 10 for the first time in 2012 and remains at 12, one of the biggest trends in fitness over the past three years. Table 4: Top 10 Worldwide Fitness Trends for 2007 and 2013 2007 2013 1. Children and obesity 1. Educated and experienced fitness professionals 2. Special fitness programs for older adults 2. Strength training 3. Educated and experienced fitness professionals 3. Body weight training 4. Functional fitness 4. Children and obesity 5. Core training 5 Exercise and weight loss 6. Strength training 6. Fitness programs for older adults 7. Personal training 7. Personal training 8. Mind/Body Exercise 8. Functional fitness 9. Exercise and weight loss 9 Core training 10. Outcome measurements 10. Group personal training Source: American College of Sport Medicine 5 Emily Tipping, “2012 State of the Industry Report, State of the Managed Recreation Industry”, Recreation Management, June 2012. 6 National Sporting Goods Association, “2012 Sport/Recreation Activity Participation – Ranked by Total Participation”, 2013. 7 “Walter R. Thompson, “Worldwide Survey of Fitness Trends for 2012”, Health & Fitness Journal, American College of Sports Medicine, 2011. Water access recreational activities are a growing trend and appear to be popular in the Farmington area. Water access such as small boat ramps, docks, and fishing piers, are in high demand and can be used recreationally year round to kayak, canoe, standup paddle, fish, intertube, swim, etc. 18 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Festivals and Events Economic Impact of Festivals In the context of urban development, from the early 1980s, there has been a process that can be characterized as “festivalization,” which has been linked to the economic restructuring of towns and cities, and the drive to develop communities as large-scale platforms for the creation and consumption of “cultural experience.” The success rate for festivals should not be evaluated simplistically solely on the basis of profit (sales), prestige (media profile), size (numbers of events). There is evidence of local and city government supporting and even instigating and managing particular festivals themselves to achieve local or regional economic objectives. There are also a growing number of smaller more local community-based festivals and events in communities, most often supported by local councils that have been spawned partly as a reaction to larger festivals that have become prime economic-drivers. These community-based festivals often will re-claim cultural ground based on their social, educational, and participative value. Healthy Lifestyle There is a significant increase in healthy lifestyle awareness with more and more families of all cultural and diverse backgrounds moving toward the healthy lifestyles that are available in their community and affordable to their household. Trails and Health The fact that a connected system of trails increases the level of physical activity in a community has been scientifically demonstrated through the Trails for Health initiative of the (CDC).8 Trails can provide a wide variety of opportunities for being physically active, such as walking/running/hiking, rollerblading, wheelchair recreation, bicycling, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, and horseback riding. Recognizing that active use of trails for positive health outcomes is an excellent way to encourage people to adopt healthy lifestyle changes, American Trails has launched a “Health and Trails” resource section in its website: www/americantrails.org/resources/benefits/. Health and Obesity The United Health Foundation ranked New Mexico 32nd in 2012, unchanged from 2011, but lower than in 2010, when it was ranked 34th. According to the UHF 2012 report, New Mexico’s and weaknesses are as follows: • High per capita public health funding • Low levels of air pollution • Low rate of cardiovascular and cancer deaths Challenges: • High percentage of children in poverty • High rate of uninsured population • Low high school graduation rate 8 “Guide to Community Preventive Services” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Active Transportation Several quality of life and health concerns emerge from active transportation issues. Many Farmington citizens view walking and bicycling within their communities as unsafe because of traffic and the lack of sidewalks or multi-modal paths, crosswalks, and bicycle dedicated lanes. A lack of efficient alternatives to automobile travel disproportionately affects vulnerable populations such as the poor, the elderly, people who have disabilities, and children by limiting access to jobs, health care, social interaction, and healthy food choices. As a result of these implications, communities around the country are creating programs to address and support alternative methods of transportation. Policy is being created, funding options are available, and partnerships are emerging. Initiatives like Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Play, and designing for “Complete Streets” are emerging to create safe, walkable communities. National Bicycle/Pedestrian Trails Trends • Infrastructure to support biking communities is becoming more commonly funded in communities. • Cycling participation by age almost doubled in the 25-64 age group from 23 percent in 1995 to 42 percent in 2009. • Cycling participation by ethnicity shows non-Hispanic whites have the highest bike mode sharing among ethnic groups, and cycling rates are rising faster among African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. New Mexico ranks 25th among states for bicycling safety and 43rd for safe places to walk, according to the 2012 Bicycling and Walking Report.9 In 2013, the League of American Bicyclists ranks New Mexico #48 in Bike Friendly States. Off-Highway Vehicles A 2008 report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service10 notes that Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is recognized as one of the faster growing outdoor activities. Participation in the West (28%) is the highest of all regions of the U.S. While 78 percent of OHV users are Caucasian, American Indians have the highest participation rate, and Hispanics participated at more than twice the rate (26%) in 2007 as they did in 1999. The report noted that, “Gaining a deeper understanding of OHV participants’ recreational values and preferences,” will be a necessity for the sustainability of public lands such as national forests. Outdoor Recreation The Outdoor Foundation releases an annual “Participation in Outdoor Recreation” report. According to the 2013 report,11 while there continues to be fallout from the recent economic downturn, the number of outdoor recreation outings reached an all-time high in participation in 2012. The foundation reports that the top outdoor activities in 2012 were running, fishing, bicycling, camping, and hiking. Bird watching is also among the favorite outdoor activities by frequency of participation. 9“Bicycling and Walking in the United States, 2012 Benchmarking Report”, Alliance for Biking and Walking, Washington, D.C. 2012, http://www.PeoplePoweredMovement.org. 10H. Ken Cordell, et. al., “Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: An Update National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)”, U.S. Forest Service IRIS Series, http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/IrisRec1rpt.pdf, February, 2008. 11 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2013”, Outdoor Foundation, 2013. 20 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Outdoor recreation trends are also a recurring topic of study by the United States Forest Service through the Internet Research Information Series (IRIS). An IRIS report dated January 201212 provides the following recent nature-based outdoor recreation trends: participation in walking for pleasure and family gatherings outdoors were the two most popular activities for the U.S. population as a whole. These outdoor activities were followed closely in popularity by viewing/photographing wildlife, boating, fishing, snow/ice activities, and swimming. There has been a growing momentum in participation in sightseeing, birding, and wildlife watching in recent years. Water Sports The 2013 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report provided nation-wide trends for various outdoor activities, including the following water recreation activities: boardsailing/windsurfing, canoeing, fishing, kayaking, sailing, and stand-up paddling. In 2012, stand up paddling was the most popular outdoor sporting activity among first-time participants, followed by boardsailing/windsurfing.13 Table 5: Water Recreation Participation by Activity (in thousands) (6 years of age or older) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,118 1,307 1,128 1,617 1,151 1,593 Canoeing 9,797 9,935 10,058 10,553 9,787 9,898 Fishing (Fly) 5,756 5,941 5,568 5,478 5,360 6,012 Fishing (Freshwater/ Other) 43,859 40,331 40,961 38,860 39,071 39,135 Kayaking (Recreational) 5,070 6,240 6,212 6,465 8,229 8,144 Kayaking (White Water) 1,207 1,242 1,369 1,842 1,546 1,878 Sailing 4,056 4,226 4,342 3,869 3,725 3,958 Stand Up Paddling no data no data no data 1,050 1,242 1,542 Source: Outdoor Foundation 2013. Outdoor Recreation Tourism As a major gateway to the Four Corners region of the American Southwest, there is much opportunity for the growth of responsible ecotourism in this community. Numerous cultural and recreational ecotourism opportunities are provided by Farmington’s close proximity to the Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Land Management’s Glad Run Recreation Area. Outdoor recreation tourism opportunities include mountain and road biking, world class fly fishing, and off-highway vehicle use. 12 “Recent Outdoor Recreation Trends”, USDA Forest Service Internet Research Information Series (IRIS) Research Brief, January 2012, http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec23rpt.pdf, accessed August, 2012. 13 “Outdoor Recreation Participation Report 2013”, Outdoor Foundation, 2013. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Role and Response of Local Government Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - Compliance On September 14, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an amended regulation implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA 2010 Standards).14 On March 15, 2011 the amended Act became effective and, for the first time in history, includes recreation environment design requirements. Covered entities were to be compliant with design and construction requirements and the development of three-year transition plan by March 15, 2012. Implementation of the three-year transition plan must be complete by March 15, 2015. Funding According to Recreation Management magazine’s “2013 State of the Industry Report,” survey respondents from parks and recreation departments/districts reporting about their revenues from 2009 through 2014 reveals the impact of the recession as well as the beginning of a recovery. More than 25 percent of respondents saw their revenues decrease from 2009 to 2010 and 21.8 percent of respondents reported a further decrease in 2011. Forty-four percent (44%) of park and recreation respondents reported increases from 2011 to 2012. Marketing by Parks and Recreation Providers Niche marketing trends have experienced change more frequently than ever before as technology affects the way the public receives information. Web 2.0 tools and now Web 3.0 tools are a trend for agencies to use as a means of marketing programs and services. Popular social media marketing tools include: • Facebook • Instagram • Twitter • You Tube • Pinterest • LinkedIn Mobile marketing is a current trend. Young adults engage in mobile data applications at much higher rates than adults in age brackets 30 and older. Usage rates of mobile applications demonstrate that chronologically across four major age cohorts, Millennials tend to get information more frequently using mobile devices such as smart phones. For example, 95 percent of 18-to-29-year-old cell phone owners send and receive text messages, compared to 82 percent of 30-to-49-year-olds, 57 percent of 50-to-64- year-olds, and 19 percent of 65 and older. 14 U.S. Department of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA Home Page, http://www.ada.gov/, accessed on November 15, 2012. 22 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- It is also a fact that minority Americans lead the way when it comes to mobile internet access. Nearly two-thirds of African-Americans (64%) and Latinos (63%) are wireless internet users, and minority Americans are significantly more likely to own a cell phone than are their white counterparts (87 percent of Blacks and Hispanics own a cell phone, compared with 80 percent of whites).15 By 2015, mobile internet penetration is forecast to grow to 71.1% for Hispanics compared to 58.8% for whites.16 D. Community and Stakeholder Input Summary Public Process for the Farmington New Mexico Parks and Recreation Master plan was held the week of October 21 – 24, 2013 and consisted of 182 participants in 11 focus groups, 5 public forums, and 4 city official individual interviews. This section summarizes the key issues and input that was mentioned in several of the meetings. A full summary of all of the input can be found in Appendix A. The findings are summarized on the Key Issues Matrix (Table 6) and capture all the key issues that surfaced during the Master Plan process and prioritize them on one matrix. The key issues were placed into four categories on the matrix: a) Priority b) Opportunity to Improve c) Minor or Future Issue  Left blank means the issue did not come up or wasn’t addressed in that venue The qualitative data planning tools used to determine the priority of the key issues include: 1. Existing planning documents 2. Consultant team’s expertise 3. PRCA staff input 4. Public forum input 5. Stakeholder focus group input 6. PRCA leadership team The quantitative data planning tools used to determine the priority of the key issues include: 1. Community survey 2. PRCA data 3. Facility Assessment and Level of Service Analysis The key issues were organized into four areas including: 1. Organizational issues 2. Finance issues 3. Programs and Service Delivery issues 4. Facility and Amenities issues 5. Safety and Security issues 15Aaron Smith, “Mobile Access 2010”, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center, July 7, 2010, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010/Summary-of-Findings.aspx, Accessed on November 15, 2012. 16 Erik Sass, “Minority Groups Heaviest Users of Mobile Net”, Media Daily News, Nov. 18, 2011, Accessed on November 15, 2012. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary recommendations are listed for each key issue and presented to the PRCA project team to gather input on the prioritization of the final recommendations and action plans. The Key Issues Matrix summarizes the areas that need immediate attention and determine the direction of the implementation of recommendations in the Master Plan. 24 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6: Summary of Findings - Key Issues Matrix ---PAGE BREAK--- The community input summary is categorized below with brief details of the input from the many focus group meetings. As the Key Issues Matrix demonstrates, these are the key issues that were common throughout the community input process, regardless of the method of communication. E. Key Issues Organizational Issues The marketing and communication of PRCA activities was consistently brought up as a weakness that needs to be addressed, with many citing that they do not know what programs are being offered when and at what location. Most of the community input supported the attraction of tourism and outdoor recreational opportunities as a regional marketing effort. The local terrain, climate, and amenities can be a major regional draw to the area and can provide some welcome economic impact to the community. There was a lot of discussion from the public and staff that the current website is not very user friendly, not is it updated regularly with up to date information on programs, facilities, and events. The current level of technology within the PRCA was discussed as a barrier to being able to serve the public well and work within the organization as efficiently and effectively as possible. Many staff members are operating with obsolete software and very old computer systems which makes it very difficult and much more time consuming to complete tasks. Many of the residents thought it was very difficult to find local PRCA amenities based on the need for better signage (both wayfinding and within parks). There was also a consensus for a need for trail maps with distances and local leisure amenities. There were many opinions that PRCA should improve partner agency relationships within Farmington, the state of New Mexico, and the region to create some positive outcomes of establishing partnerships. Finance There seems to be a consensus to implement and utilize equitable user fees and assessment fees for PRCA activities based on a value received by the participant for the services with a personal benefit. Most of the focus group participants liked the idea of increasing the economic impact by becoming a regional attraction and destination community in the Four Corners area and beyond. There was a local focus on revitalizing the downtown area of Farmington by connecting the river trail as well as adding more community-wide special events and festivals to downtown Farmington. The input was mostly positive from the focus groups when asked if they would be willing to increase tax increment levels to pay for the improvements that come out of the PRCA Master Plan over the next several years. Most focus group attendees agreed that it would be wise to pursue any and all grant opportunities at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. 26 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Programs and Service Delivery When asked about what PRCA programming needed to be expanded the overwhelming response was to provide additional programs for families, youth, and teenagers in all sectors of the city. Other additional programs mentioned to expand included wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, and water craft programs such as kayaking, canoeing, standup paddle boarding, etc. The other program area the public would like to see increased is the number of special events and festivals. Facilities and Amenities When the focus group attendees were asked what facilities and amenities need to be improved or potential new facilities that could be built, the overwhelming response was to make sure PRCA maintains and improve existing facilities if at all possible prior to building new facilities. Existing facilities mentioned most often included playgrounds, the Farmington Aquatic Center, the Recreation Center, The E3 Children’s Museum and Science Center, the Senior Center, the Civic Center, both skateparks, and the Brookside Pool. The number one amenity the public would like to see improved (and new additions built) is the expansion of the trails to provide as much connectivity to other amenities within the city. The vast majority of the input supported the implementation of the Riverine Plan and to connect the river trail to downtown as a method of revitalizing the downtown area. There was consensus to increase the ADA accessibility at all PRCA facilities, especially since there is a federal mandate to do so. The public agreed that PRCA needs to upgrade all outdated amenities that do not function well. Many of these amenities are showing their age and do not function as they were once intended. The types, styles, and structures have come so far since many of these amenities were installed, that they are not being utilized to capacity. One of the most mentioned amenities to improve was the water access to the river, ponds, and particularly Lake Farmington. Most of the public input respondents wanted to utilize the river for activities and water craft access, and to utilize Lake Farmington for boating, fishing, camping, RV camping, swimming, and other outdoor recreational activities. Other additional facilities the public would like to see in Farmington included a miniature golf course. Many focus group participants wanted PRCA to develop a deferred maintenance plan that would keep up with the replacement of any capital items and equipment as their life cycle deteriorates. The outcome would be an ongoing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Plan that is reviewed each year to determine the amenities and equipment that are a priority to replace. All capital assets would be on this long range CIP Plan. Some of the residents thought there was a need to improve the restroom availability and maintenance throughout the park system. Particularly mentioned was the need to keep the restrooms open for longer hours and keep them cleaner and vandal free. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- Safety and Security There was concern about the perception that many places within the park system and trails were unsafe. The most mentioned were the Riverwalk trail behind the hotels on Scott Avenue and Brookside Park. The consensus was that there were certain areas within the park system that attracted undesirable clientele and loitering behaviors that gave the perception that these locations were not safe. The public input received also indicated a need for some control of the safety and vandalism aspect through patrolling, as well as adding some positive recreational activities in these areas that would make it difficult for these negative activities to occur. Some of the focus group participants mentioned that the lack of security lighting at many park amenities added to the negative types of activities such as vandalism and the unsafe perception. F. Community Survey Summary Survey Methodology The purpose of this study was to gather public feedback on City of Farmington parks, recreation, and cultural facilities. This survey research effort and subsequent analysis was designed to assist the City of Farmington in the creation of a Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Master Plan for existing and possible future enhancements, facilities, and services. The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1) a mail-back survey, 2) an online, invitation-only web survey to further encourage response from those residents already within the defined random sample, and 3) an open-link online survey for members of the public who were not part of the random sample. The analysis herein focuses on the combined results of these methods. A close analysis revealed that demographics and response patterns among random sample and open link respondents were similar enough to permit the merging of these sources. Aggregating these data sources also contributes to a larger sample size, allowing for more meaningful segmentation of the data by variables of interest. The primary list source used for the mailing was a third party list purchased from Melissa Data Corp., a leading provider of data with emphasis on U.S., Canadian, and international address and phone verification and postal software. Use of the Melissa Data list also includes renters in the sample who are frequently missed in other list sources such as utility billing lists. A total of 4,000 surveys were mailed to a random sample of City of Farmington residents in January 2014. The final sample size for this statistically-valid survey was 424 (268 from the random sample and 156 from open-link responses), resulting in a margin of error of approximately 4.8 percentage points calculated for questions at 50 percent response. The underlying data for the random sample responses were weighted by age to ensure appropriate representation of City of Farmington residents across different demographic cohorts in the sample. This community survey section is a summary of the survey results. Many survey result charts and statements are utilized throughout this document. The complete survey results including the open ended comments were provided as a separate staff resource document due to the large number of pages. 28 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- As noted, the survey was sent to a randomly selected sample of 4,000 residents throughout the City of Farmington. Due to variable response rates by some segments of the population, the underlying results, while weighted to best match the overall demographics of city residents, may not be completely representative of some sub-groups of the population, including younger residents and those in the Latino community. Survey Respondent Profile Household Characteristics • Couples with children living at home comprised the largest share of respondents followed by couples with children no longer at home A majority of respondents reported being in a couple, either with or without children while 24 percent of respondents were single, either with or without children. • The majority of households (59%) earn an annual income between $50,000 and $150,000. Roughly a quarter of respondents earn less than $50,000, and 12 percent earn more than $150,000. • A notable portion of respondents own a dog. Over half of all respondents have at least one dog (57%)—26 percent of respondents have one dog at home, 18 percent have two, and 13 percent have three or more. • Thirteen percent (13%) of respondents live in households with needs for ADA-accessible facilities, services, or programs. • Overall, respondents have been long-time residents of Farmington, having lived in the area for 21.6 years on average. Fifteen percent (15%) are relatively new residents, having been in Farmington for less than five years. • Respondents indicated an average of 3.0 persons living in the household. On average, the following age groups are most represented within respondent households: residents between the ages of 30 and 39, between the ages 10 and 19, and age 9 and younger. • Most respondents own their home while 17 percent rent at their current residence. For nearly all respondents, Farmington is the location of their primary residence. Respondent Characteristics • Most respondents are female while just under a third of respondents are male • The average age of respondents is 47.9 (with a median of 46.0). Current PRCA Programs and Facilities Importance of Recreational Amenities/Activities and Degree to Which Needs are Being Met Respondents were asked to indicate how important the availability of recreational amenities and activities provided through Farmington PRCA is to them, their household, and out-of-town visitors. For a majority of respondents, the availability of such amenities and activities is very important, with 91 percent of respondents giving a rating of or “5=Very important” (average of 4.6). Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which recreational amenities and activities provided through the PRCA are currently meeting their needs. While most respondents reported that their needs were being met (71% gave a rating of or just a quarter of all respondents said their needs were completely being met. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- These questions were followed by an open-ended prompt for respondents to comment on their responses. The full set of comments (included in the separate staff resource document) provides rich insight into the diverse interests and needs among community members. However, some common themes that appeared for those who gave a rating of between and (needs not met) include: more options geared toward residents without children, more arts and cultural events, better advertising, and expanded bike paths. An additional analysis was performed in order to identify to what extent needs being met differed by location of residence within Farmington. The figure below maps responses to the question about whether the amenities and activities provided through the PRCA are meeting the needs of resident households. The green-blue color-coding indicates higher levels of needs being met, with dark blue coloring indicating the most satisfied respondents. Meanwhile, the red-yellow color coding reveals lower levels of needs being met, with red indicating the least satisfied respondents. As shown, respondents in the northwest quadrant seem to have higher levels of needs being met, as a notable share of respondents who live in that quadrant gave an average rating of at least 4.1. Meanwhile, the northeast and southwest quadrants show more clusters of red, orange, and yellow, signifying the presence of residents who feel that their needs are not being met as fully. In the southeast quadrant, all respondents gave an average rating of at least 3.1, suggesting that residents of this area of the city have generally high levels of needs being met. Exploring needs met by area of residence is helpful in providing insight into where future amenities and facilities could be placed in order to best meet the needs of community members. Figure 8: Degree to Which Needs are Being Met by Location of Residence 30 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Satisfaction with Amenities and Services Respondents indicated their satisfaction with current PRCA recreational amenities and services using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=Not at all Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, and 5=Completely Satisfied. Residents are generally quite satisfied with amenities and services in the area. The following had the highest averages and most frequently reported or ratings: • Quality and maintenance of the grounds, trails, and natural areas (with an average rating of 4.3, 85% of respondents provided a rating of 4 or 5) • Quality and maintenance of recreational amenities (4.1 average; 82% rated 4 or 5) • Customer service of PRCA staff (4.1 average; 75% rated 4 or 5) • Proximity of amenities to my home (4.1 average; 76% rated 4 or 5) • Recreation providing a positive economic benefit to the community (4.0 average; 74% rated 4 or 5) • Safety while visiting PRCA facilities (4.0 average; 72% rated 4 or 5) • Safety of the grounds, trails, and natural areas (4.0 average; 74% rated 4 or 5) Second tier of amenities and services includes: • Number of trails and natural areas (3.8 average; 70% rated 4 or 5) • Hours of operation and activities (3.8 average; 68% rated 4 or 5) • Recreational activities offered (3.7 average; 62% rated 4 or 5) • Respondents seem to be relatively dissatisfied with restroom availability (3.3 average; 25% rated 1 or 2) and promotions and publicity of programs (3.3 average; 26% rated 1 or Outdoor Amenities and Activities Usage Frequency Farmington residents use PRCA owned and/or operated amenities and activities with varying degrees of frequency. Although some amenities and activities are engaged in by resident households just a few times per year on average, they may still be used by a large majority of households in the area. Therefore, this section of the survey explores both average times used and the percentage of households that use a given amenity or activity: The following facilities were used at least once in the past year by the majority of households: • Paved trails (used 24.6 times on average, with 80% of households using paved trails at least once in the past 12 months) • Unpaved trails (30.1 times on average; 78% of households) • Riverfront area (21.2 times on average; 76% of households) • Open space (21.4 times on average; 71% of households) • Picnic areas (5.4 times on average; 69% of households) Second tier of households: • Amphitheater (2.1 times on average; 53% of households) • Fountains and splash pads (4.8 times on average; 48% of households) • Access to river (fishing, canoeing, kayaking, etc.) (7.9 times on average; 40% of households) • Lake recreation (fishing, boating, swimming, etc.) (5.4 times on average; 38% of households) • Field sports (8.4 times on average; 35% of households) • Golf courses (5.4 times on average; 33% of households) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Degree to Which Outdoor Amenities and Activities are Meeting Household Needs Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which these outdoor amenities were meeting the needs of their household on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=Not at All, 3=Somewhat, and 5=Completely. The following outdoor amenities and activities received the highest averages and had the highest percentages of respondents providing a rating of or • Amphitheater (with an average rating of 4.0, 77% of respondents rated the amphitheater a 4 or 5) • Picnic areas (4.0 average; 74% rated 4 or 5) • Paved paths (4.0 average; 77% rated 4 or 5) • Unpaved trails (4.0 average; 75% rated 4 or 5) • Open space (4.0 average; 75% rated 4 or 5) Second tier of outdoor amenities and activities which are meeting household needs include: • Riverfront area (3.9 average; 70% rated 4 or 5) • Fountains and splash pads (3.8 average; 66% rated 4 or 5) • Golf courses (3.8 average; 70% rated 4 or 5) • Field sports (3.7 average; 61% rated 4 or 5) • Mountain bike trails (3.5 average; 57% rated 4 or 5) • Outdoor pools (3.4 average; 53% rated 4 or 5) • Tennis (3.4 average; 51% rated 4 or 5) • Access to river (fishing, canoeing, kayaking, etc.) (3.4 average; 49% rated 4 or 5) Some areas amenities and activities received more polarized responses. The following had the highest percentages of respondents giving a rating of or • RV Camping (32% rated 4 or 5, and 42% rated 1 or 2) • Camping (41% rated 4 or 5, and 37% rated 1 or 2) • Dog parks (51% rated 4 or 5, and 30% rated 1 or 2) Indoor Amenities and Activities Usage Frequency Respondents also indicated to what extent they use various indoor amenities and activities, and to what degree their household’s needs are being met. The following indoor activities and amenities were used most frequently by respondents: • Library (used 16.1 times on average, with 86% of households using the library at least once in the past 12 months) • Civic Center/performing arts space (14.8 times on average; 82% of households) • Museums (4.7 times on average; 78% of households) • Indoor pools and aquatic center (4.5 times on average; 60% of households) Second tier of households: • Community Center (5.6 times on average; 24% of households) • Senior Center (4.3 times on average; 19% of households) • Gym (basketball, volleyball, etc.) (3.3 times on average; 18% of households) • Courts (racquetball, wallyball, etc.) (1.6 times on average; 16% of households) • Farmington Indian Center (0.5 times on average; 11% of households) 32 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Degree to Which Indoor Amenities and Activities are Meeting Household Needs Respondents were then asked to indicate the extent to which these indoor amenities were meeting the needs of their household on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=Not at All, 3=Somewhat, and 5=Completely. Indoor amenities and activities with the highest degree of needs being met include: • Library (with an average rating of 4.4, 88% of respondents rated the amphitheater a 4 or 5) • Civic Center/performing arts space (4.1 average; 80% rated 4 or 5) • Museums (4.0 average; 72% rated 4 or 5) • Indoor pools and aquatic center (4.0 average; 75% rated 4 or 5) Second tier of indoor amenities and activities which are meeting household needs include: • Community Center (3.7 average; 63% rated 4 or 5) • Senior Center (3.6 average; 58% rated 4 or 5) • Gym (basketball, volleyball, etc.) (3.4 average; 55% rated 4 or 5) • Courts (racquetball, wallyball, etc.) (3.3 average; 50% rated 4 or 5) • Farmington Indian Center (3.2 average; 42% rated 4 or 5) Top 3 Priorities for Amenities/Activities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved From the list of rated outdoor and indoor amenities and activities, respondents were prompted to indicate the top three priorities for their household to be added, expanded, or improved. By combining the top three ranked outdoor and indoor amenities and activities to be added, expanded, or improved, the following were most cited by respondents as important: • Unpaved trails (25% of respondents reported this outdoor amenity as one of the top three most important amenities or activities to be added, expanded, or improved) • Paved paths (21% of households) • Library (20% of households; additionally, had the highest share of respondents indicating this to be the most important priority—9%) • Civic Center/performing arts space (19% of households) • Riverfront area (18% of households) • Indoor pools and aquatic center (18% of households) Second tier of most important outdoor and indoor amenities and activities to be added, expanded, or improved include: • Museums (15% of households) • Open space (15% of households) • Lake recreation (fishing, boating, swimming, etc.) (13% of households) • Picnic areas (12% of households) • Access to river (fishing, canoeing, kayaking, etc.) (11% of households) • Dog parks (11% of households) The following amenities and activities seem to be of relatively less importance to respondents, with less than five percent of all respondents indicating these to be one of the top three most important priorities: gym (basketball, volleyball, etc.), jeep trails, courts (racquetball, wallyball, etc.), tennis, RV camping, Farmington Indian Center, and skate parks. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reasons for Not Using Programs and Amenities Respondents were asked why they do not use PRCA recreational programs or amenities. They were able to select as many options that applied to them as reasons for not using PRCA offerings. The main reasons for not using Farmington program or amenities include: • Not aware of programs or facilities (52% of households) • No time/other personal issues (33% of households) Second tier of reasons for not using programs or amenities: • Don’t have the programs I want (19%) • Safety concerns (18%) • Hours of operation (17%) • Lack of facilities and amenities (16%) • Programs not offered at the times I want (16%) • Price/users fees prohibitive (14%) • Condition/maintenance or safety of facilities (14%) Other Recreational Providers Used by Farmington Households When asked about use of other service providers, Farmington households indicated state parks and natural areas as the most frequently used other provider/facility (63% of households). College/university facilities churches private or public schools private health and fitness clubs and recreation facilities and center in neighboring towns (33%) followed. A slim four percent of Farmington households reported not using any other facility/provider. Programs, Activities, and Special Events Degree to Which Programs, Activities, and Special Events are Meeting Household Needs To assess the need for certain programs and how well certain programs meet the needs of Farmington households, respondents were asked directly if they have a need for several specific programs. If they did have a need, they were asked how well their needs are being met by the City. The majority of households indicated they had a need for the following programs, activities, and special events: • Special events concerts, festivals) (86% of households indicate they have a need; these households indicate this need as being 50% met on average) • Health and wellness programs (66% have a need; 46% met) • Walking/running programs (65% have a need; 49% met) • Fitness programs (64% have a need; 46% met) • Programming and activities along river (63% have a need; 53% met) • Swimming programs (62% have a need; 57% met) Second tier programs include: • Naturalist and outdoor education programs (56% have a need; 52% met) • River programs (kayaking, canoeing, etc.) (52% have a need; 33% met) • Summer programs – youth (51% have a need; 56% met) • Volunteer programs (50% have a need; 50% met) • Athletic leagues – youth (46% have a need; 65% met) 34 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Programs, activities, and special events with the highest levels of needs being met (respondents indicating their needs were either “75% MET” or “100% MET”) include: • Athletic leagues – youth (61% of respondents reporting their needs were 75 or 100% met) • Senior programs (49% met) • Swimming programs (44% met) • Summer programs – youth (44% met) Areas in which a high share of respondents indicated their needs were not being met (respondents reporting their needs were either MET” or “25% MET”) include: • River programs (kayaking, canoeing, etc.) (54% of respondents reporting their needs were 0 or 25% met) • “Other,” to which a small subset of respondents wrote in a program or activity option, the most common of which was bicycling (53% not met) • Teen programs (49% not met) • Programs for persons with disabilities/special needs (44% not met) In-Need vs. Needs-Met Matrix –Programs, Activities, and Special Events It is informative to plot and compare the programs, activities, and special event scores for households in need and needs being met using an “In-Need vs. Needs-Met” matrix. In Figure 9 on the following page, scores are displayed in this matrix using the mid-points for both questions to divide into four quadrants the In-Need scale midpoint was 51 percent (households that indicated having a need for a program); the Needs-Met midpoint was 50 percent (households indicating a need rated this need as being 50 percent met). A positioning of each location in comparison to each other is detailed. The upper right quadrant shows the programs, activities, and special events that had more households in need of a program and that program need was being well met. The following are programs that have a high percentage of households in need and are meeting those needs well: • Swimming programs • Summer program – youth • Programming and activities along river • Naturalist and outdoor education programs Programs located in the upper left quadrant are programs with relatively high importance that could be improved. Improving these programs would have a strong impact on the degree to which needs are being met overall. Referring back to Figure 8, although these programs were not listed as the absolute most important to households, the degree to which needs are currently being met have the most potential for improvement. These programs include: • Special events concerts, festivals) • Walking/running programs • Health and wellness programs • Fitness programs • River programs (kayaking, canoeing, etc.) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Programs found in the lower left quadrant, further below the in-need midpoint, are programs not meeting needs well; however, they are important to fewer members of the community. These “niche programs” have a small but passionate following; therefore, there is merit to measuring participation and planning for potential future enhancements accordingly. • Athletic leagues – adult • Volunteer programs • After-school programs – youth • Teen programs • Programs for persons with disabilities/special needs The lower right quadrant shows programs that are not important to many households, yet are meeting their needs very well. It would be beneficial to evaluate if the resources supporting these programs outweigh the benefits. If resources used to support these programs are exuberant, reallocating these resources to the programs in the upper left quadrant would be a more efficient use of resources. • Athletic leagues – youth • Senior programs Figure 9: Programs, Activities, and Special Events – In-Need vs. Needs Met Matrix Top 3 Priorities for Programs, Activities, and Special Events to be Added, Expanded, or Improved From the list of programs, activities, and special events, respondents were prompted to indicate the top three priorities for their household to be added, expanded, or improved. 36 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- By combining the top three ranked programs, activities, and special events to be added, expanded, or improved, the following were most cited by respondents as important: • Special events concerts, festivals) (41% of respondents reported this as one of the top three most important programs, activities, or special events to be added, expanded, or improved; also had the highest share of respondents indicating this to be the most important priority—16%) • Health and wellness programs (25% of households) • Programming and activities along river (24% of households) • Walking/running programs (21% of households) • Fitness programs (21% of households) • River programs (kayaking, canoeing, etc.) (20% of households) Second tier of most important programs, activities, and special events to be added, expanded, or improved include: • Naturalist and outdoor education programs (18% of households) • Summer programs – youth (17% of households) • Swimming programs (17% of households) • Senior programs (16% of households) • Athletic leagues – youth (15% of households) • Teen programs (14% of households) • After-school programs – youth (14% of households) Future Facilities, Amenities, and Services Facilities/Amenities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved over Next 5 to 10 Years Respondents were informed of the following statement: “Farmington PRCA funds recreational facilities, operations and maintenance with your tax dollars and use fees. As you answer the following questions, please keep in mind that additional funds would be required to build, operate, and maintain new recreational facilities and amenities.” Based on this information, respondents first indicated if they would participate in or use various facilities and amenities. They subsequently rated the importance of these listed facilities/amenities to be added, repurposed, expanded, or improved over the next 5 or 10 years using a 5 point scale where 1=Not at All Important, 3=Neutral, and 5=Very Important. The facilities that had the highest rates of potential participation among residents include: • River trails expanded (62% of respondents “would participate”) • Riverfront Park and amenities update (52%) • Miniature golf course (51%) • Connector paths and trails (50%) • Civic Center Theater upgrade (47%) • New water park (44%) • Renovate existing recreation center (41%) • Lions Wilderness Park (41%) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- The facilities that had the highest average rating of importance and the highest percentage of households indicating a or include: • River trails expanded (with an average rating of 4.1, 76% of respondents rated this a 4 or 5) • Connector paths and trails (4.0 average; 71% rated 4 or 5) • Riverfront Park and amenities upgrade (4.0 average; 72% rated 4 or 5) • River access (3.8 average; 64% rated 4 or 5) • Farmington Lake (3.8 average; 64% rated 4 or 5) • Playgrounds (3.7 average; 62% rated 4 or 5) • Renovated E3 Children’s Museum (3.7 average; 65% rated 4 or 5) • Lions Wilderness Park (3.7 average; 58% rated 4 or 5) • Civic Center Theater upgrade (3.7 average; 58% rated 4 or 5) Facilities with the smallest differentials between potential use and deemed importance include: • Renovate existing recreation center (41% would use; 48% rated 4 or 5) • New recreation center (36% would use; 41% rated 4 or 5) • Miniature golf course (51% would use; 60% rated 4 or 5) • River trails expanded (61% would use; 76% rated 4 or 5) • Civic Center Theater upgrade (47% would use; 47% rated 4 or 5) Top 3 Priorities for the PRCA over the Next 5 to 10 Years Farmington residents indicated the top three general priorities they feel that PRCA should pursue over the next 5 to 10 years. By combining the top three future priorities for PRCA, the following were most cited by respondents as important: • Maintain and improve existing facilities (59% of respondents reported this as one of the top three priorities) • Improve quality of life and attract tourism (40% of households) • Trails and connectivity (38% of households; also had the highest share of respondents indicating this to be the most important priority—22%) • Improve access to rivers and/or lakefront (37% of households) • Increase programming for family, youth and teens (36% of households) Overall, respondents seem to be relatively less interested in the following areas of focus: • Improve communication and marketing (12% of households) • Additional funding (12% of households) • Improve cultural relationships of households) Financial Choices Opinions Regarding Fees and Support for Tax Increment Levels Respondents were asked their opinion regarding the current program and facility fees charged directly to them by the PRCA. Relative to user fees, most respondents indicated that the fees are acceptable for the value received Similar shares of respondents see the fees as either too high (11%) or underpriced for the value received. Nearly one-third of respondents did not know or were not sure. 38 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Opinions regarding assessment fees received a generally similar distribution of responses, except for receiving a proportionately higher share of respondents indicating that they did not know or were not sure Among the just over half of respondents who did have an opinion, four percent reported that the fees are underpriced, 38 percent said they are acceptable, and nine percent indicated that they are too high for the value received. After providing their opinions on the user and assessment fees, respondents were then prompted with the following statement: “Farmington PRCA funds recreational facilities, operations and maintenance with your tax dollars. Additional funds would be required to build, renovate, operate and maintain new recreational facilities and amenities.” Based on this information, respondents were asked to indicate to what level they would support a small additional tax increment dedicated to operating, renovating, building, and maintaining the specific facilities and activities they would like to see in Farmington over the next 10 years. Eighty-four percent (84%) of all respondents indicated they would be willing to pay at least some amount per month to fund such activity, with responses skewing toward the lower tax increments. Most respondents support a $1 to $5 per month additional tax increment followed by a quarter of respondents who support the $6 to $10 level, nine percent who support the $11 to $20 level, three percent who support the $21 to $25 level, and four percent of respondents who are supportive of being taxed at least $26 per month for such efforts. Communication Satisfaction with Current Communication Efforts Respondents were asked to indicate how good a job PRCA does in providing them with information about recreational facilities, natural areas, trails, and/or activities. They were also asked to indicate how good a job PRCA and the City do in providing visitors and tourists with this information. Respondents used a 5 point scale where 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Very Good, and 5=Excellent. • Thirty-eight percent (38%) of respondents feel that PRCA is doing a “very good” or “excellent” job in providing them with information, while 30 percent of respondents indicate they are doing a “poor” or “fair” job. Respondents gave an average rating of 3.1. • Relative to information provided to visitors or tourists, respondents were less satisfied with PRCA and the City in their communication efforts. Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents gave a rating of 4 or 5 and an additional 35 percent of respondents gave a rating of 1 or 2. Respondents gave an overall average rating of 3.0. Current vs. Best Method of Receiving Information Respondents indicated how they usually receive information on PRCA recreational facilities, services, and programs (by checking all that applied to them). From this same list, they also indicated their number one preferred method of receiving information, keeping in mind that “there is a cost to communicating with you.” • Households most often receive information through word of mouth closely followed by just over half of respondents who receive information through local newspapers/magazines. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Communication outlets that have relatively high shares of respondents receiving information through these methods currently, but relatively low shares of respondents stating this as a preferred outlet for information include: word of mouth (57% current vs. 1% best), on location (29% current vs. 3% best), and program brochures (17% current vs. 3% best). • The most identified “best” outlets include: Internet/website local newspapers/magazines PRCA update emails and social networking sites Current vs. Best Method of Receiving Information Respondents indicated how they usually receive information on PRCA recreational facilities, services, and programs (by checking all that applied to them). From this same list, they also indicated their number one preferred method of receiving information, keeping in mind that “there is a cost to communicating with you.” • Households most often receive information through word of mouth closely followed by just over half of respondents receive information through local newspapers/magazines. • Communication outlets that have relatively high shares of respondents receiving information through these methods currently, but relatively low shares of respondents stating this as a preferred outlet for information include: word of mouth (57% current vs. 1% best), on location (29% current vs. 3% best), and program brochures (17% current vs. 3% best). • The most identified “best” outlets include: Internet/website local newspapers/magazines PRCA update emails and social networking sites Methods for Reaching Out-of-Town Visitors and Tourists Respondents were additionally asked to provide input regarding the best method for reaching visitors and tourists, in order to draw them to Farmington’s natural resource amenities and special events. Most cited was information at hotels followed by advertisements in Durango and surrounding areas additional information at visitor centers and billboards and signs along highways and bypass Just a slim two percent of respondents indicated that they do not want to draw visitors to town. Just over a quarter of respondents suggested “other” methods of best communicating with visitors and tourists. Some suggestions included via a special visitor website, airline magazines, City website, Facebook, New Mexico Magazine, and TV advertisements, among others. G. Operational and Marketing Analysis User Profile and Public Perception GreenPlay’s analysis of the public’s perceptions of facilities, programs, services, and maintenance is a critical component of this master planning effort. The documented results of the community input mechanisms feed directly into the formulas for our level of service analysis. Along with the demographic profile of the current and projected population, and our trends research, the results will allow us to characterize existing and prospective park users, so the City can determine appropriate marketing channels to reach them. The public perception of PRCA is that residents are generally quite satisfied with amenities and services in the area. The survey indicated that a high percentage of the respondents rated between very good and excellent on a scale of 1-5 (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, and 5=excellent). 40 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- The following had the highest averages and most frequently reported or ratings: • Quality and maintenance of the grounds, trails, and natural areas (with an average rating of 4.3, 85% of respondents provided a rating of 4 or 5) • Quality and maintenance of recreational amenities (4.1 average; 82% rated 4 or 5) • Customer service of PRCA staff (4.1 average; 75% rated 4 or 5) • Proximity of amenities to my home (4.1 average; 76% rated 4 or 5) • Recreation providing a positive economic benefit to the community (4.0 average; 74% rated 4 or 5) • Safety while visiting PRCA facilities (4.0 average; 72% rated 4 or 5) • Safety of the grounds, trails, and natural areas (4.0 average; 74% rated 4 or 5) Second tier of amenities and services includes: • Number of trails and natural areas (3.8 average; 70% rated 4 or 5) • Hours of operation and activities (3.8 average; 68% rated 4 or 5) • Recreational activities offered (3.7 average; 62% rated 4 or 5) Some key household characteristics that may influence PRCA planning and marketing efforts in the City of Farmington are summarized below. • Couples with children living at home comprised the largest percent, followed by couples with children no longer at home. • A much lower percent of respondents were single, either with or without children. • The majority of households earn an annual income between $50,000 and $150,000. • A notable portion of respondents own a dog. • Respondents indicated an average of 3.0 persons living in the household. On average, the following age groups are most represented within respondent households: residents between the ages of 30 and 39, between the ages 10 and 19, and age 9 and younger. • Most residents own their home as a primary residence while a few rent at their current residence. Some key demographic trends that may influence PRCA planning and marketing efforts in the City of Farmington are summarized below. • Estimated median household income for Farmington residents was $48,933 in 2012. • The median age for the city in 2010 was 32.8, lower than the median age (37.1) for the United States. • Gender distribution for Farmington is 49.3 percent male and 50.7 percent female. • In 2010, the Northeast Quadrant ranked higher in population than the other three quadrants of the city. The Northwest Quadrant had the next highest population. The Southeast and Southwest quadrants had significantly lower population levels. • Forty-one percent (41%) of the Farmington population lives within the Northeast Quadrant, with a median income of $54,021. The median age for this quadrant is 33.4 with the greatest number of its residents in the 25-64 age range. The Northeast Quadrant has the largest average household size of the city, at 2.96 per household. • The next most populous area is the Northwest Quadrant, with 34 percent of the population and a median income of $50,290. This quadrant is also one of the least ethnically diverse. The median age for the quadrant is 33.5 and, as with the urban core, many of its residents are in the 25-64 age range. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- • The Southeast Quadrant houses 19 percent of the Farmington population with a median income of $40,594. The Southeast is one of the more diverse quadrants with the largest Hispanic population (31.1%) and one of the largest American Indian populations The Southeast also has the youngest population, with a median age of 30.7 and the greatest populations in the 15-19, 20-24, and 35- 44 age ranges. • The least populous are is the Southwest Quadrant with 6 percent of the city’s population and a median income of $28.938. It is the most diverse quadrant with a 38.2 percent American Indian population and a 29.6 percent Hispanic population. It also has the greatest diversity in age with the largest populations in the 0-4, 25-34, 75-84, and 85+ age ranges, with a median age of 32.9. Culturally and Community-Sensitive Development In Farmington, there is a variety of cultures and much diversity; however, most of the development of the City and its parks and other resources has been developed from an Anglo viewpoint related to cultural significance. At times, this has led to rejection of the development by nearby neighbors in the community. For example, Vista De La Plata Park was developed on the west side of the City by parks staff without community input from the neighborhood. There has been repeated vandalism of the park, leading parks staff to wonder at times why they bothered to make the investment. One possibility is that the neighborhood was not engaged, and therefore, does not buy-in and/or take ownership of the park. Various environmental sociology studies have shown that more effective management of project development can occur if developers consider the potential sociological and cultural framework of meanings of the affected landscapes.17 There could be small changes in design and portrayed culture in the parks that would create that feeling of ownership if neighborhood residents were more involved in the development process. This is often known in the field of parks and recreation management as “Adopt-A-Park” type practices, but they can go a long way to an agency being perceived as more culturally aware and open to community engagement. The end result is typically higher community self- protection and pride for their new assets. Program and Service Delivery Analysis The City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department has an array of recreation programs that seek to meet the needs of its diverse community. Programming consists of Animal Services, Aquatics, Environmental Education, Golf Services, Museums/Cultural, Leisure Programming, Seniors, Social Services, Sports, and Therapeutics. Table 7 provides financial data provided by the Department for each of the program areas discussed above. 17 Greider, Thomas and Lorraine Garkovich, 1994, “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment”, Rural Sociology 59: 1 – 24. 42 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 7: Program Area Financial Analysis and Participant Unit Information Program Financial Analysis and Participation Units Program Area Summary of Annual Program Data Submitted by Client Expenses Revenues Subsidies Participant Units Reported Animal Services $335,000 $100,000 $0 30 – 35 people up to 50 animals Aquatics $180,812 $210,670 $10,722 103,769 Environmental $33,000 $0 $7,500 5,357 Golf Services $1,150 $136,248 $0 1,828 Museums / Cultural $226,598 $88,227 $125,000 35,168 of those reported Leisure Programming $76,004 $38,942 $41,989 30,740 Seniors $24,455 $19,061 $18,790 + Staff Services 22,152 Social Services $115,060 $130,573 $4,148 1,875 of those reported Sports $83,926 $83,946 $13,228 3,144 of those Therapeutics $13,000 $0 $13,000 27 Total $1,089,005 $807,667 $234,377 204,145 of those reported Animal Services The mission of Farmington Animal Services is to improve the quality of life in the City of Farmington by providing a comprehensive and compassionate service to the animals of the region through temporary care, safe shelter, and placement opportunities while maintaining the well-being of animals in the shelter. The Department recovers about 30 percent of its cost of providing the services offered through Animal Services through GRTs (from the general fund). Aquatics The Farmington Aquatics Division operates year around and seasonal aquatic facilities with a commitment to providing affordable and accessible aquatic recreation, fitness, competition, water safety, and aquatic trainings for people of all ages and abilities, locally and the surrounding area. The Department recovers 117 percent of the costs of providing programs through fees and charges. Outside service providers include the neighboring town of Bloomfield, which offers swimming lessons and public swim as well as the Defined Fitness in Bloomfield, who offers water exercise and general lap swimming. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- Golf Services The Department offers a Junior Golf Program, Tuesday Night Twilight, Friday Night Couples, and Get Golf Ready programs, 30 + Corporate Gold tournaments annually, 2 annual High School Events, and 10 Piñon Hills Sponsored Events annually. The Department covers its modest expenses of $1,150 and generates a significant revenue stream of $136,248 through fees and charges. Outside Service providers include Riverview Golf Course located in Kirtland New Mexico, Hidden Valley Golf Club, located in Aztec, New Mexico, and San Juan Country Club Located in Farmington. Museums/Cultural A large number of Museum/Cultural Events and programs are held at various locations including local parks, San Juan College, Farmington Museum & Visitors Center, E3 Children’s Museum, Riverside Nature Center, and the Farmington Civic Center. The Department Recovers 39 percent of its costs through fees and charges. San Juan College offers a History Tikes program for all ages as the lone Outside Service Provider. Farmington Museum & Visitors Center at Gateway Park – Experience a wide variety of exhibits relating to the diverse history of the area’s cultures, traveling exhibits, and art shows. Lecture series, performances, workshops, and special demonstrations are offered year-round. The Museum store, “Currents,” features exhibit-related merchandise, books on local, and regional interest, toys, and educational materials. The museum holds tours, exhibits, special events and weekly programming including art and music. Riverside Nature Center – Observe birds and animals from large windows overlooking a wetland where food and water attract wildlife. Exhibits feature the plants and animals of the riverside with emphasis on historic uses and ecosystems. Outside herb and xeriscape demonstration gardens are located adjacent to the facility. The Center offers weekly programming including educational programs, bird watching, and picnics in the park. E3 Children’s Museum – The Museum offers hands-on, science related interactivities in the main gallery with special programs scheduled throughout the year. The newly updated Tots Turf is a developmentally appropriate environment for children 5 and younger. The Museum offers weekly programming including fun activities for motor skill development, reading, art, and science. Leisure Programming The Department offers 30 Leisure Programs including, but not limited to, after school programs, Zumba and Jazzercise, youth sports, a selection of community events including Skating, Bowling and summer kickoff parties, day camps, 10K and 5K events and 2-mile walks, the Road Apple Mountain Bike Race and holiday events. The Department recovers 50 percent of the cost of providing programs through fees and charges. The Boys and Girls Club offers the Latch Key Afterschool Program as the lone outside service provider. Fitness and Wellness As part of the inventory and research for the Master Plan, it is necessary to evaluate whether there are adequate fitness opportunities available to residents. The private fitness providers are identified and included in the assessment. 44 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Parks and Recreation’s Fit in Public Health Increasingly, governmental agencies and professionals in the public health realm are realizing that parks and recreation agencies can be key public health providers, as in most communities, these agencies own and manage the majority of the public built and natural environment, and provide most of the recreation programs and facilities. There are several types of assessment tools that are available for future detailed assessment. Obesity and Public Health According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), obesity continues to be a serious issue in America, growing at an epidemic rate—almost tripling since 1990. Overall, more than one-third (35.7%) of adults and 17 percent of children in the United States are obese.18 These statistics illustrate the importance of intercepting the epidemic in youth. In an effort to educate Americans and encourage them to take steps toward a healthier future, the United Health Foundation annually presents America’s Health Rankings®: A Call to Action for Individuals & Their Communities. America's Health Rankings has tracked the health of the nation for the past 22 years, providing a unique, comprehensive perspective on how the nation (and each state) measures up. The 2011 edition of the Rankings suggests that our nation is extremely adept at treating illness and disease. However, Americans are struggling to change unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and obesity, which cause many of these diseases. 18 “Obesity and Overweight - Facts”, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/facts.html, accessed on October 3, 2012. Obesity among Children and Adolescents “Obesity now affects 17% of all children and adolescents in the United States. The percentage of adolescents and children who are obese tripled from 1980 to 2008. In 2008 alone, more than one third of U.S. children and adolescents were overweight or obese. Obese children are more likely to become obese adults. Statistics show that children and adolescents who are obese have a 70% to 80% chance of becoming overweight or obese adults.” Centers for Disease Control Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Obesity continues to be one of the fastest growing health issues in our nation, and America is spending billions in direct health care costs associated with poor diet and physical inactivity. As obesity in the United States continues to be a topic of interest for legislators and our government, there continues to be research suggesting that activity levels are stagnant among all age groups. The following are statistics that support this concern. • Only 25 percent of adults and 27 percent of youth (grades 9-12) engage in recommended levels of physical activity. • Fifty-nine percent (59%) of American adults are sedentary. • Children born now have a lower life expectancy than their parents. • Children nationally spend 4.5 – 8 hours daily (30-56 hours per week) in front of a screen (television and/or computer). Community-Wide Health Assessment Tools for Parks and Recreation There are several types of health assessment tools available for community health assessment, specifically as it relates to management of parks and recreation. One is the use of the Healthy Communities Surveillance and Management Toolkit™ (www.gpred.org/hcrg). 46 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Another assessment process which is similar and can be incorporated into Multi- Modal Transportation Planning is a parks and recreation aligned analysis called Safe Routes to Play (www.saferoutestoplay.org). Additional methodologies that can be applied to specific sites or geographic areas are often called a “Health Impact Assessment” or a “Healthy Site Assessment.” These processes are not yet nationally standardized, but there are many communities and groups working toward that end. Provision of Health and Fitness in Farmington The Farmington Recreation Center offers recreational opportunities in a safe and pleasant environment that nurtures and enriches the lives of citizens of all ages in the community. The center offers ongoing services and programs, including racquetball, wallyball, and exercise classes in addition to seasonal adult sports, youth programs, and special events throughout the year. The Senior Center also features a small and very well-loved cardio-vascular and weight training room with additional fitness classes for seniors in the multi- purpose rooms. Stakeholders report that the facilities are well-used and tend to be crowded and a bit small, but they offer a variety of opportunities. In addition to programs and classes offered by the City, in Farmington there are four primary private fitness providers and programs offered by the City, along with programs offered by the College: 1) Defined Fitness, 1700 E. 20th St., Farmington, NM. [PHONE REDACTED], www.defined.com Located in the center-east side of town, this large facility provides members with state-of-the-art strength training and cardiovascular equipment, cutting edge athletic programming, and group exercise classes for all fitness levels. Personal trainers are nationally certified and help members to achieve fitness and wellness goals. and annual memberships are available and reasonably priced. Visitors to Farmington can have full use of the facility and programs with a $10 day pass (often provided on a complimentary basis by area hotels). Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2) The Royal Spa Fitness Center, 2101 Bloomfield Hwy., Farmington, NM, [PHONE REDACTED], www.royalspal.mbi – On the south side of the City, the Royal Spa Fitness Center features a cardiovascular center with treadmills, stair climbers, upright bikes, recumbent bikes, elliptical runners, and recently introduced the Wave. All of the cardio equipment is newer. The center also offers a large weight room, nautilus machines, sauna, whirl pool, steam room, racquetball/handball courts, group exercise classes, cycling classes, full basketball court, great child care, personal training, massage therapy, a 20 meter heated indoor pool with 2 lap lanes, swim lessons, and a pro shop. Yearly, weekly, and daily memberships are available. 3) Anytime Fitness, 4917 E Main St, Farmington, NM 87402 – Located on the East side of the City, Anytime is a smaller space, but offers a full complement of newer cardio equipment and a unique classroom with video fitness classes on demand. Members receive a key and can access the facility “anytime,” even when it is not staffed. 4) Elements Pilates & Yoga, 4250 E Main St # F, Farmington, NM 87402 – This small studio offers yoga and Pilates classes several days per week. Attendance appears to be low for some classes, but as there are not many studios for this growing type of fitness opportunity, this business appears to be filling a niche. There may be other yoga studios in Farmington, but they did not appear in a web search or become known through the stakeholder interviews. 5) The San Juan College Human Performance Center, 4601 College Blvd., Farmington, NM, (505) 566- 3410 – The San Juan College Human Performance Center is open to the public, on the north side of the City, and features a three-court gymnasium with an 1/8-mile running track on the second level, weight room, dance and aerobics rooms, cardiovascular equipment as well as steppers, bikes, rowers, and treadmills. There is also an indoor climbing wall, a three-dimensional structure with various levels of difficulty along with a modern locker rooms and snack bar. Many of the younger stakeholders reported using this facility. It appears that most fitness offerings in Farmington are currently being met by the combination of City, private facilities, and the College. There may be a gap of programs and facilities in the west part of the City. However, with the growing trend of overweight and obesity challenges in Farmington (as in the rest of the country), it may be a benefit for the City to prioritize fitness and wellness as a community priority. If new programs, classes, and or facilities are to be offered, the City may want to first consider offering a partnership to existing fitness providers, while also making sure that there are mechanisms in place that allow for residents of all income levels to participate. If addressing the rising obesity rates is determined to be a priority, rather than just picking up the next programming trend that comes along, the City should utilize community-wide systematic assessment tools to determine the best approach. 48 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Senior Programming The Department offers a large number of Senior Programs and Services for the community including screenings and clinics, hobby based programs, Tai Chi and Chair and Strength Aerobics and Holiday Social Events. The Department recovers 80 percent of the cost of providing the programs through fees and charges. There are a number of outside services providers for senior programming in the area including, Medicare, Aztec Senior Center, Defined Fitness, San Juan College, and the Farmington Community Health Center. The Bonnie Dallas Senior Center offers a multi- dimensional program with a wide variety of leisure activities. The minimum age to participate in these activities is 50. The activities range from recreational to educational, active to passive, individual to group. Some activities are held at other locations in the community, and the center provides transportation to these activities, whenever possible. Transportation services are also provided for participants to the Senior Center, hospital, and local doctors offices with a 24-hour advance reservation. Stakeholder feedback indicates that the programs at the Senior Center are some of the most loved and well utilized in the City, and there was little to indicate needs for change beyond adding staff to help offer more programs. The fitness areas are substantial and very well-used. There are multiple multi- purpose spaces. There is a lack of parking, and this could be addressed by potentially pursuing an agreement with a landowner for leasing a parcel of land that is directly south of the center. As there is significant space that is not fully-utilized, especially during evening and weekend times (if additional staffing can be made available), this is one area in which the facilities might be changed to address the needs of adults of all ages, especially during those times that are not heavily used by the current senior population. It is also important to note that the current Baby Boomer generations will be less likely to use a center called a “senior center.” The next few years may be good time to address this designation for broader, all-ages adult use to help mitigate this coming anticipated decrease, if these national trends hold true in Farmington. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- Social Services The Department offers a variety of Social Services at its Sycamore Park Community Center and Farmington Indian Center locations which include (but are not limited to) Alzheimer’s meetings, cooking classes, CYFD visitations, mom’s club meetings, blood pressure screenings, GED classes, and San Juan County Extension Service. No outside service providers were identified by the Department for Social Services programming. Sports The Department offers adult and women’s co-ed softball, girls fast pitch softball; youth and high school baseball, high school soccer, women’s and co-ed volleyball, YAFL Football; youth, high school, and adult tennis classes; and dodgeball, kickball, and wallyball tournaments. The department recovers 100 percent of the cost of providing the programs through fees and charges. No outside service providers were identified by the Department for community sports programming. Therapeutics The Department offers Dungarvin, PMS Shield, Tungland, San Juan County for Independence, and High Desert for Theraputics programming for the community. The Department fully subsidizes these services to the community. Environmental Education The Department offers a variety of Environmental Education programs through its Parks, Nature Centers, and Museum including (but not limited to) nature walks, bird watching, compass games, Picnic in the Park for Preschoolers, Trail Lunch for Families, and Traditional Use of Plants. The Department fully subsidizes these services to the community. The Department fully subsidizes these services to the community. No outside service providers were identified by the department for Environmental Education programming. Outdoor Recreation and Cultural Tourism Farmington is well situated geographically to be a potential hub in Northwest New Mexico. Over the years, for whatever reason, on a national scale, Farmington has escaped strong notice in its potential position as a hub for visiting the entire Four Corners region archaeological, water-based, and access to state and federal lands. Within 50 miles, there are cliffs and ruins, many lakes, and the rivers, yet from a tourist standpoint, Farmington is relatively unknown on the national map. Farmington is surrounded by interested ecological and cultural assets. The Navajo Indian Reservation is west of Farmington, the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation is to the northwest, and the Southern Ute Indian Reservation is northeast of the city. Prehistoric Native American ruins are located nearby. The Aztec Ruins National Monument and the Salmon Ruins are ancient dwellings located just to the northeast and the east of Farmington. Mesa Verde National Park lies about 40 miles (64 km) to the northwest, and Chaco Culture National Historical Park is about 50 miles (80 km) to the southeast. Farmington features a relatively mild four-season semi-arid climate that is cooler than the overall southwest, yet warmer than the alpine environments just a few miles north. This leads to very pleasant spring and fall seasons that allow for longer tourism shoulder seasons. While Durango is in mud, Farmington has spring flowers. When the southern communities are baking, Farmington has relatively milder, but still warm temperatures perfect for boating, hiking, golf, and other outdoor activities. 50 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- However, overall Farmington is mostly known nationally for its relationship with the oil and gas industry, and the infamous 1950s UFO sightings. The civil unrest between City residents and Tribal Nation residents has been well-known; however, at this time stakeholders are reporting that the relationships are greatly improved and can continue to be made better through discussion and collaboration between the leaderships of both communities. The lines of differentiation and prejudice seem to be fading in most areas of town, and there can be continued emphasis in highlighting the integration of cultures while showcasing the best aspects for preservation and educational purposes. It appears that many of the offerings of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department often act as a bridge for these community connections. While it has a strong population base of over 46,000 that supports major retail, lodging, and restaurant industries, most tourists are not aware of Farmington beyond a “drive-through” on the way east or west. The majority of tourists go to Durango, Moab, and even Cortez and the airport is not a major draw. Program Development Understanding core services in the delivery of parks and recreation services will allow the City of Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department to improve upon those areas while developing strategies to assist in the delivery of other services. The basis of determining core services should come from the vision and mission developed by the city and what brings the greatest community benefit in balance with the competencies of the department and the competitive market. Staff program area experts should be assigned to develop and oversee specific areas in order to ensure consistent program characterizes instructor qualifications, training and evaluation, instructor pay scales, and fees. Experts will also be charged with program research and development. This centralized programming service can be made available to community center directors so that they can offer comprehensive, yet excellent, programs at the centers. Program areas, at a minimum, should include fitness and wellness, aquatics, cultural arts, sports, outdoor recreation, and therapeutic recreation. The Department should pursue program development around the priorities identified by customer feedback, program evaluation process, and research. Those following criteria should be examined when developing new programs. • Need: outgrowth of a current popular program, or enough demonstrated demand to successfully support a minimal start (one class for instance) • Budget: accounting for all costs and anticipated (conservative) revenues should meet cost recovery target established by the Department • Location: appropriate, available and within budget • Instructor: qualified, available and within budget • Materials and supplies: available and within budget • Marketing effort: adequate and timely opportunity to reach intended market, within budget (either existing marketing budget or as part of new program budget) Further research into what types of programming would be successful needs to be done. Successful programs utilize continuous creative assessments, research, and planning. The Department should create a process that evaluates the success of current program offerings and criteria to determine if new program ideas should be instituted or if changes should be made to current programs. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moreover, new leisure and recreation trends may drive different needs. It is very easy to focus on programs that have worked for a number of years, especially if they are still drawing enough interested participants to justify the programs continuation. Starting new programs, based on community demand and/or trends, can be risky due to the inability to predict their success. If the program interest seems great, as with those identified in the citizen survey, then the programs should be expanded. Available space may hinder new or expanded opportunities in some cases. Through collaboration with other agencies and the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department can take advantage of one of these trends and become a major southwest hub as the “doorstep” to outdoor recreation and cultural assets. To do so, the Department could: • Increase collaboration with the Navajo and Ute Mountain Nations to promote and increase Native American cultural offerings, educational programs, and crafts through the Visitor Centers and other special events • Offer educational trips to the various amenities • Provide “Intro to” overnight and skills-based classes • Create and Environmental Education and Nature Based programs and trips. • Work more with lodging partners to be a link for City and regional outdoor recreational activities and cultural offerings Using historical participation levels to determine program popularity and participant feedback can be helpful in deciding if programs should be continued. In addition, utilizing citizen surveys and participant feedback, and researching trends in park and recreational programming are useful tools in determining future programming needs and desires. Sources for trends information include: • State Parks and Recreation Associations and Conferences • National Recreation and Parks Association • International Health, Racquet, and Sports Association • Parks and Recreation Trade Publications • Outdoor Recreation Publications Program Evaluation All current programs should be evaluated annually to determine if they should be continued, changed (market segment focus, time/day offered, etc.), or discontinued. A few simple questions should be asked about each program that includes: • Is participation increasing or decreasing? If participation is increasing, then it could clearly mean that the program should be continued. If participation is decreasing, are there any steps to take to increase interest through marketing efforts, change the time/day of the program is offered and change the format or instructor? If not, it may be time to discontinue the program. • Is there information contained in the participation feedback that can be used to improve the program? • Are cost recovery goals being met? If not, can fees be realistically increased? • Is there another provider of the program that is more suitable to offer it? If yes, the Department could provide referrals for its customers for the program it does not or is not willing or able to offer. • Is this program taking up facility space that could be used for expansion of more popular programs or new programs in demand by the community? 52 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Financial Sustainability It is important for the City to develop a Resource Allocation and Pricing Philosophy that reflects the values of the community and the responsibility it has to the community. This Philosophy will be especially important if the city moves forward in the development of new programs, additional and/or expanded facilities, and as it strives for sustainability and determines how much it is willing to subsidize operations with tax dollars. One means of accomplishing this goal is applying a process using an industry tool called the “Pyramid Methodology.” This methodology develops and implements a refined cost recovery philosophy and pricing policy based on current “best practices” as determined by the mission of the agency and the program’s benefit to the community and/or individual. Critical to this philosophical undertaking is the support and understanding of elected officials and ultimately citizens. Whether or not significant changes are called for, the agency wants to be certain that it is philosophically aligned with its residents. The development of the core services and cost recovery philosophy and policy is built on a very logical foundation, using the understanding of who is benefitting from recreation services to determine how the costs for that service should be offset. Recreation programs and services are sorted along a continuum of what delivers the greatest community benefit to what delivers the greatest community benefit. The amount of subsidy for each level (not necessarily each individual program) is then determined to create an overall cost recovery philosophy. Developing effective ongoing systems that help measure success in reaching cost recovery goals and anticipate potential pitfalls are dependent on the following: • Understanding of current revenue streams and their sustainability • Tracking all expenses and revenues for programs, facilities, and services to understand their contributions to overall department cost recovery • Analyzing who is benefiting from programs, facilities, and services and to what degree they should be subsidized. • Acknowledging the full cost of each program (those direct and indirect costs associated with program delivery) and where the program fits on the continuum, of who benefits from the program or service to determine appropriate cost recovery targets. • Defining direct costs as those that typically exist purely because of the program and the change with the program. • Defining in-direct costs as those that are typically costs that would exist anyway (like full-time staff, utilities, administration, debt service etc.) • Program fees should not be based on ability to pay, but an objective program should be in place that allows for easy access for lower income participants, through availability of scholarships and/or discounts. In many instances qualification for scholarships and/or discounts can mirror requirements for free or reduce cost lunch in schools. Marketing The main reasons for not using Farmington program or amenities include: • Not aware of programs or facilities (52 percent of households) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Therefore, it is important that the Department improve communications with residents about program/event offerings and Department information. • Develop other electronic based methods to improve communication including email blasts and newsletters. • Look at incorporating smart phone app offerings like that of the GoStrive App which can help:  Build a stronger, healthier community through activities and programs.  Cultivate an interactive link between agencies and participating individuals.  Optimize programs with powerful analytics to reduce costs and generate revenue.  NRPA member? Join the “GoStrive. Go Play.” campaign – it’s free! Festivals The majority of households indicated they had a need for the following programs, activities, and special events: • Special events concerts, festivals) (86 percent of households indicate they have a need; these households indicate this need as being 50 percent met on average) Overview Festivals are defined as an event, usually staged by a local community, which centers on some unique aspect of that community19. Role of Festivals in the Community Both City-produced and co-sponsored festivals and events offer diverse cultural and recreational experiences to citizens and visitors while providing a strong economic impact on the region. Hotels, restaurants, retail shops, and convenience stores all benefit from the thousands of people that attend these events. City-produced festivals also provide opportunities for sponsorship and booth space, which helps to promote local businesses, merchants, and non-profit organizations.20 Through co-sponsored events, the City has the opportunity to have a presence at each of those events. City produced festivals should work to support the local community through involvement of the community in several other ways including: input to the operations of the events themselves; direct involvement along the lines of providing opportunity for local artists/exhibitors and non-profit organizations; consideration of local businesses; and minimizing negative impact to the local community. Economic Impact In the context of urban development, from the early 1980s, there has been a process that can be characterized as “festivalization,” which has been linked to the economic restructuring of cities, inter- city competitiveness, and the drive to develop cities as large-scale platforms for the creation and consumption of “cultural experience.” The City of Farmington, however, could find itself with the challenge of directing money to a variety of activities to fund its own festivals as well as co-sponsored festivals, all of which can indirectly benefit the community through tourism. 19 Wikipedia on Festivals 5.12.08, http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivals 20 AEA Consulting, Thundering Hooves Maintaining the Global Completive Edge of Edinburgh’s Festivals, Full Report May 2006 54 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Research indicates that the success rate for festivals tends to be evaluated simplistically on the basis of profit (sales), prestige (media profile), and size (numbers of events), often translated into numbers of visitors. Research from the European Festival Research Project (EFRP) indicates that there is evidence of local and city government supporting and even instigating and managing particular festivals themselves to achieve local or regional economic objectives, often defined very narrowly (sales, jobs, and tourists).21 There is also a growing number of smaller, more local, community-based festivals and events in cities, most often supported by local councils that have been spawned partly as a reaction to larger festivals that have become prime economic-drivers. Such community-based festivals often try to re-claim cultural ground based on their social, educational, and participative value. It is important to recognize the financial impact that drives economy. When the cost of travel is more expensive, it will be more difficult to draw people from further distances as people travel less due to a tightened economy. It is important to have a coordinated strategy, not only among the festivals/events, but also for other needs of the Department and the City as a whole so as to avoid multiple requests to potential sponsors, and/or requests that do not maximize the potential opportunity. Opportunities may exist to coordinate regional festivals on a regional basis maximizing the potential to attract additional promotional efforts and grant funding, by working with the Northwest New Mexico Arts Council and State Department of Tourism to benefit from their promotion and funding opportunities. Other opportunities may come to light by working with other Regional cities that offer similar festivals to coordinate schedules, discuss mutually beneficial promotional strategies and state level financial support. Evaluations In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of festival offerings in Farmington, and to ensure that all festivals are working together to support overall City goals, an ongoing evaluation of festivals should address the following areas: • Content - review the inventory of festivals and events offered by the City and outside agencies to determine if there is a duplication of events, or a gap in types of events. If duplications are present, the City should look at cooperative efforts to combine offerings. The City could also explore combining several independent events into one longer event as a means to maximize resources within the city or sponsorships. • Demographic - analyze what population is benefiting from the events and to what degree they should be supported financially or by other City resources. • Geographic - evaluate where events are held in consideration of appropriateness, capacity issues, and sustainability of the physical resource. Map location of festival inventory to ensure services go beyond the downtown area and do not exceed the physical resource capacity of the downtown area. 21 European Festivals Research Project (EFRP), http://www.efa.eu/newpublic/?p=home&efrp&- session=s:40CF22090c8d02CC88HWRq50579F, 5/14/2008 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Organizational Analysis GreenPlay broadly assessed the organizational and management structure of the PRCA Department and staffing to determine effectiveness and efficiency in meeting current and future departmental responsibilities as related to the community’s needs. The needs assessment – including input from staff interviews, community and key stakeholder engagement, and level of service analysis, along with the consultant’s expertise – has identified a few areas for operational enhancement. These key organizational issues identified and observed as areas for improvement include: • Better marketing and communication of activities • Partner with local agencies such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Bureau to market regionally to attract tourism and outdoor recreational opportunities • Improve the website so it is current and usable for patrons • Improve technology so all staff are operating on the newest computers and software including a connected registration system at all PRCA facilities • Improve and update park and wayfinding signage and maps • Improve partner agency relationships Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis To develop a short and long-term strategy for the future planning of Farmington’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department, we conducted a SWOT Analysis. A SWOT Analysis is an effective and realistic way of identifying the market and internal and external Weaknesses, and for examining the Opportunities and Threats faced by the organization. The result of this process helps identify any deficiencies in the organization and is described below along with definitions of terms. The process is described below includes definitions as well as the PRCA organization results. SWOT Analysis Definitions: SWOT Analysis: Appreciative inquiry and analysis of internal and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats. Discussion includes the why and examples. • Internal Major of the PRCA that should be capitalized upon. may include competencies in various areas. • Internal Weaknesses: Major weaknesses of the PRCA that the agency has control over positively impacting, addressing or changing. Weaknesses include any items that can be harmful, detrimental, and/or cause a negative impact. • External Opportunities: An opportunity is an attractive arena to take action in which the PRCA would enjoy a competitive advantage, would further the agency in meeting their vision or fulfilling their mission, or enhance the development of its services. The agency should watch and plan for these if there is a high probability of occurrence. • External Threats: A challenge posed by an unfavorable trend, event, or development in the environment. This threat might lead, in the absence of purposeful action, to the erosion of the PRCA quality service provision, financial and service sustainability, or the agency’s position or credibility. In some instances, this could also be detrimental to the parks and recreation industry. PRCA should identify and prepare to mitigate all foreseeable threats. 56 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- During a meeting with staff the team began brainstorming to identify potential weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. As a group, the weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were listed, and then ranked them according to the following. After the brainstorming session regarding the and weaknesses, a consensus was reached on ranking the performance and importance rating scale for each item. • Performance: rated as major strength, minor strength, neutral (neither major nor minor), minor weakness or major weakness. • Importance: rated the importance of each item to success of the Department. Rating is high, medium or low. • After consensus was reached on each strength or weakness a rating for performance and importance, a Performance-Importance Matrix was developed. • The PRCA Major/High and Minor/High and weaknesses were plotted on a chart (below). Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- For each opportunity, a consensus rating for attractiveness (high or low) and success probability (high or low) was established. • Attractiveness refers to how attractive the opportunity is to the Department in furthering their mission, fulfilling their vision, improving their revenue generation, cost recovery, or decreasing expenses. Rating is either high or low. • Success probability relates to whether the department’s will enable it to be successful in this area. Rating is either high or low. • We then charted the PRCA consensus ratings for each opportunity for attractiveness and success probability into an Opportunity Matrix (below). 58 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- For each threat, a consensus rating to specify the likelihood that it will happen (probability of occurrence) and the seriousness of the threat) was established. • Probability of occurrence relates to the likelihood that the threat will happen. Rating is either high or low. • Seriousness of the threat is rated either high or low. • We then charted the PRCA consensus ratings for each threat for probability of occurrence and seriousness into a Threat Matrix (below). Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- Staffing Analysis GreenPlay broadly assessed the management structure and staffing levels of the PRCA Department to determine effectiveness and efficiency in meeting current and future departmental responsibilities as related to the community’s needs. Many observations were taken into account to determine if the PRCA Department had the right mix of staffing in the right places within the department. The staffing analysis process included the observations and assessments of: • Community input • Community satisfaction rates • Staff focus group • Individual staff interviews • Facility tours • Observations of quality of maintenance • Full hours of operation • Professional knowledge in Parks and Recreation organizations • SWOT Analysis • Organizational chart Many of the items identified in the SWOT Analysis had much discussion including examples as well as all the elements as to why it should fall on the charts where it did. The shortened description in the chart does not represent the entire conversation and therefore negative conclusions should not be drawn from these charts without a discussion of the total intent. 60 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Staffing Considerations After considering all of the organizational observations and staffing assessment, the consultant team has determined the PRCA Department has an adequate number of staff to operate its current system with the right mix of staff in the right places within the department. To operate more effectively in the future and to implement the Master Plan, PRCA should consider elevating the following duties to either existing staff or additional staff. • Add grant research and writer position (staff or contractual) • Establish a staff liaison to enhance partnership with Navajo Nation • Ensure staffing resource levels can maintain existing and new facilities at or above acceptable standards as the Master Plan is implemented Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. What We Have Now – An Analysis of Spaces and Services A. Inventory Assessment and Level of Service Analysis The purpose of this Inventory Assessment and Level of Service (LOS) analysis is to evaluate how facilities and parks in Farmington serve the community. The analysis may be used as a tool to benchmark current level of service and to direct future planning efforts. Combined with other findings, including survey results and focus group and stakeholder feedback, it is also intended to indicate the level of service anticipated by the community. B. GRASP® Methodology An analytical technique known as Composite-Values Methodology (CVM) was used to analyze level of service (LOS) provided by assets in Farmington. The proprietary version of CVM used by GreenPlay and Design Concepts is known as GRASP® (Geo- Referenced Amenities Standard Process). This process yields analytical maps and data that may be used to study LOS across the study area. Why Level of Service? Level of Service for a community recreation system is important as it is indicative of the ability of people to pursue active lifestyles. LOS can have implications on health and wellness, the local economy, and quality of life and tends to reflect community values. It is often emblematic of the manner and extent to which people are connected to their communities. Perspectives Maps and data quantifications produced using the GRASP® methodology are known as perspectives. Level of Service perspectives show how well the community is served by any given set of assets. Maps are utilized along with quantified measurement charts to provide a benchmark of what a community may use, and determine its success providing services both at present and over time. Each perspective is a model of the service being provided across the study area. The model can be further analyzed to derive statistical information about service in a variety of ways. Perspective maps and charts are produced based on scoring calculations determined by applying the GRASP® process to the City of Farmington inventory. Each park or recreation location, along with all on- site component assets, has been assigned a service value, or GRASP® score. These GRASP® scores are distributed on a map based on a measured distance from each asset. This distance is called a catchment area, or buffer. The catchment area is a radius that extends outward in all directions from the asset and represents a reasonable travel distance to an asset for a majority of the users. Composite-Values Level of Service (LOS) Analysis – This is the process used to inventory and analyze the assets, including quantity, location, and various qualities of each. The process utilizes MS Excel, MS Access, and common GIS software. The composite-values based LOS analysis process used by GreenPlay and Design Concepts is proprietary, and known as “GRASP®” (Geo-referenced Amenities Standards Process). It has been somewhat automated through creation of additional software code and template design for efficiency in data collection and analysis. A detailed history and overview of Composite-Values Methodology (CVM) and description of GRASP® methodology is included in Appendix D. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 63 ---PAGE BREAK--- A GRASP® score ascribed to a catchment area yields a service area for a particular asset which reflects that score. When service areas for multiple components are plotted on a map, a picture emerges that represents the cumulative level of service provided by that set of components in a geographic area. Image A: Example of City of Farmington GRASP® Level of Service (LOS) On a map, darker shade results from the overlap of more service areas. Darker shades indicate areas served by more and/or higher quality components. All shades have GRASP® scoring values associated with them such that for any given spot on a perspective map there is a GRASP® Level of Service score for that reflects cumulative scoring for nearby assets. Image A, above, provides an example to illustrate. Creating the Inventory The Level of Service analysis process involved assembly of a detailed inventory of public and semi-public physical assets available for use by the Farmington community. This asset inventory was created to serve the city in a number of ways. It can be used for a wide variety of planning and operations tasks such as asset management as well as future strategic and master plans. The assets inventory currently includes public parks, recreation, and trails assets managed by the Parks and Recreation Department and those school facilities that are open to usage for recreation outside of school hours. Several other alternative providers were also identified, located, and scored during the inventory process. Map A shows the study area and key locations of properties. Larger scale maps may be found in Appendix B. In planning for the delivery of parks and recreation services, it is useful to think of parks, trails, indoor facilities, and other public spaces as parts of an infrastructure. This infrastructure allows people to exercise, socialize, and maintain a healthy physical, mental, and social wellbeing. The infrastructure is made up of components that support this goal. Components include such amenities as playgrounds, picnic shelters, courts, fields, indoor facilities, and other elements that allow the system to meet its intended purpose. In the inventory of assets, the following information is collected: • Component type and location • Evaluation of component functionality • Evaluation of associated comfort and convenience features at a location • Evaluation of general design and ambience at a location • Site photos • General comments The immediate surroundings of a component affect how well it functions, so in addition to scoring components, each park site or indoor facility was given a set of scores to rate its comfort, convenience, and ambient qualities. This includes traits such as the availability of restrooms, drinking water, shade, scenery, etc. These modifier values are attributed to any component at a given location and serve to enhance component and location scores. For the purposes of scoring, each location is considered a component in and of itself. Thus reference to “components” includes also includes the site at which a component is located. All scoring is based on condition, size, site capacity, and overall quality. The inventory team used the following three tier rating system to evaluate these: 1 = Below Expectations 2 = Meets Expectations 3 = Exceeds Expectations 64 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Map A: City of Farmington system map showing all parks and recreation inventory included for GRASP® analysis. Asset Scoring A complete Inventory Atlas is provided as a staff level document. In addition, inventory summaries for both indoor and outdoor facilities and parks are included in Appendix D. Also, included in the appendix are numerous tables of low scoring components and facility/park modifiers. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- Inventory Summary Catchment Areas Catchment areas, also called buffers or radii, are used to calculate total GRASP® Level of Service scores. A radius of a specific distance is drawn around each component. The total score for that component is then applied to that buffer and overlapped with all other component catchment areas. This process yields the data used to create perspective maps and analytical charts. People use a variety of transit modes to reach a recreation destination: on foot, on a bike, in a car, via public transportation, or utilizing any combination of these or other alternatives. The mode is often determined, at least in part, by the distance to be travelled. The GRASP® system accounts for this by applying more than one catchment area distance to examine access to assets. Inventory Assessment • Park maintenance is generally excellent and performed in a good fashion, but a few locations are prone to vandalism. • Several parks and amenities are reaching their useful life expectancy and are in need of renovation. • Existing dog parks are exceptional. • Noted high quality turf in all parks. • Non-turf areas deserve some attention to help with drainage and erosion. • Majority of the playgrounds have sand safety surfacing that should be upgraded. • Several parks have below standard playground structures or local playgrounds where destination playgrounds are warranted. • Several parks have dated shelters that do not meet current standards. • Several parks have basketball courts that do not meet current standards. • Skate Parks suffer from lack of quality components. • More can be done to take advantage of lakes, ponds, and the river. • ADA accessibility is limited in many parks. 66 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- The GRASP® methodology typically applies two different catchment area distances to calculate scoring totals, yielding two distinct perspectives used to examine a recreation system: 1. Overall Level of Service 2. Walkable Level of Service Overall LOS analysis applies a primary catchment distance of one mile. This is considered a suitable distance for a bike ride or a short drive in a car, or an even longer walk. A one-mile catchment is intended to capture recreational users travelling from home or elsewhere to a park or facility by way of bike, bus, or automobile. Walkable LOS analysis uses a more focused catchment distance intended to capture users within a ten to fifteen minute walk travelling at a leisurely pace. This distance can range from as short as 1/4 mile to as high as 1/2 mile depending on the study area. For the City of Farmington, a 1/2 mile catchment buffer was used. This distance represents a travel time of 15 minutes based on an average walking speed of three miles per hour. A 1/2 mile catchment is able to account for longer actual walking distances due to indirect routes, as are commonly found in a grid street pattern, and serves to ensure a travel time of 15 minutes or less for most people. Further discussion of walkable distances and catchment buffer types may be found in Appendix C. Academic and professional research on walkability is inconclusive. At least two agencies, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Trust for Public Land (TPL), have used 1/2 mile as a walkable distance for studies they have conducted. Other studies in this country and internationally have used one mile or one kilometer (.62 miles) as walkable distances. Blanck et al., Let’s Go to the Park Today: The Role of Parks in Obesity Prevention and Improving the Public’s Health, Childhood Obesity, Oct 2012 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- C. Findings Summary of Findings from the LOS Analysis Perspective maps were generated along with quantitative data charts to evaluate the assets available to residents. For purposes of this study, the city limit boundary of Farmington was used as the extent of the study area. The Farmington city boundary may be found in Map A for reference. Table 8 below shows the population. This figure was also used to calculate the population/acre as a measure of population density to be used in additional LOS calculations. Additional population discussion can be found in Section III B: Farmington Population and Demographic Trends of this document. Table 8: Farmington Population Statistics Subarea Total Acres 2013 Population 2013 Population Per Acre NE 8640 18810 2.18 NW 6499 16046 2.47 SE 4773 8783 1.84 SW 1266 3177 2.51 City of Farmington 21179 46,815 2.21 Key Level of Service Findings • The City of Farmington provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities. These opportunities are well distributed throughout the 79 outdoor facilities, and 19 indoor facilities which include the recreation center, library, museums, and community centers. • The overall level of service is high, as 71% of the land within the City limits meets or exceeds the chosen minimum standard threshold for level of service if accessed using by an automobile. • Areas falling below this threshold in overall level of service or without service are on the perimeter of the city and have a relatively low population density. • Access to recreation opportunities by walking is also well distributed and very high in parts of the city. • Walkable access to recreation is often limited by major pedestrian barriers such as large, busy streets of nature features such as the river. • More than half (69%) of all city land is within walking distance of at least one recreation component. • Forty-two percent (30%) of city residents live within a walkable distance of a park or facility that meets or exceeds the minimum standard for level of service, equal to Vista De La Plata and the River Trail or Chula Vista, Sycamore, and Rio Vista can stand alone without trail access • Areas with walkable level of service below the threshold or without any service may tend to be commercial or industrial areas or tend to be more rural settings. 68 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Overall Level of Service One perspective was created to examine Overall Level of Service for the City of Farmington. Results of this analysis are displayed in Map B and Map B-1. Map B: General Access to All Recreation Components Map B models access to all recreation components by all transportation modes. One-half mile and one- mile catchment radii have been placed around each component and shaded relative to the component’s GRASP® score. As a result, scores are doubled within one-half mile of the asset to reflect the added value or premium for walkable proximity. Map B: General Access to All Recreation Components in the City of Farmington In general, Map B indicates that Farmington has excellent distribution of facilities and good general access to parks and recreation facilities. Areas of higher concentration are notable, particularly around the Fairgrounds Park, Soccer Complex, and Aquatic Center core. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 9: Statistics for Map B A B C D Percent of Total with LOS Average LOS per Acre Served Avg. LOS Per Acre / Population per acre GRASP® Index City of Farmington 97% 223 101 48 Column A: Shows the percentage of study area that has at least some service (LOS Column B: Shows the average numerical value of LOS for the total area. Column C: Shows the results of dividing the number from the previous column (Average LOS per Acre Served) by the population density of the area. Column D: Shows the GRASP® Index, a simple numerical calculation that involves dividing the total numerical value of all of the components in a given area by the population of that area, in thousands. The difference between the GRASP® Index and the previous number is that the GRASP® Index reflects the total value of assets in the area in relation to the number of people the assets serve, while the previous number relates the density of service per acre to the density of people per acre. It also allows service from assets outside the planning area to be accounted for, while the GRASP® Index does not. Figure 1, shows statistics from an analysis of the values on Perspective A applying a minimum standard, or threshold. Total GRASP® scoring values were bracketed to show where LOS is above or below a threshold value of 67.2. It shows the percentages of the study area that have no service, fall below this threshold value, or exceed this threshold. These results are also shown on Map B-1, inset with Map B in the Appendix and below. Figure 10: Statistics for Map B 70 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Map B-1: Threshold map displays General Access to All Components in the City of Farmington based on a minimum standard. The minimum standard score of 67.2 equates to the LOS provided by a typical neighborhood park and a trail. On Map B-1, areas that lack any service are shown in gray. Areas with at least some service are shown in yellow. Areas shown in purple have LOS that exceeds the threshold score of 67.2. This score represents access to the equivalent of a typical neighborhood park and access to a trail. A park with this score might include a playground, shade shelter, and an open turf area. Vista De La Plata is an example of a City of Farmington park with this cumulative score. Out of the total study area, 71 percent has an overall LOS score above this minimum value threshold. Walkability is a measure of how user- friendly an area is to people travelling on foot. A walkable environment benefits public health, the local economy, and quality of life. Many factors influence walkability. These include presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of- way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety considerations among others. Walkability is an important aspect of recreational connectivity – the extent to which community recreational resources are physically linked to allow for easy and enjoyable travel between them. These concepts are discussed further in Section C of Appendix E. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 71 ---PAGE BREAK--- Walkable Level of Service For the City of Farmington’s walkable level of service perspective analysis, pedestrian barriers were determined and used to clip the service coverage. These are typically major streets, railroad tracks, and rivers that restrict pedestrian movement and pose a potential risk to public safety. This accounts for the need to cross these obstacles as it serves to limit walkable access to assets. Map C: Walkable Access to All Recreation Components Map C models access to all recreation components by walking. One-half mile catchment radii have been placed around each component and shaded relative to the component’s GRASP® score. This represents a distance from which convenient access to the component can be achieved by an average person within a fifteen minute walk. Scores are doubled within this catchment to reflect the added value of walkable proximity, allowing direct comparisons to be made between Map B and Map C. Map C: Walkable Access to All Recreation Components in the City of Farmington Map C analysis is intended to show the LOS available across Farmington if walking is the only way used to reach assets. Similar to Map B this map indicates higher levels of service around the Fairgrounds and Aquatic Center core area, Bonnie Dallas and Civic Center area and surrounding Berg and Animas. As this walkability analysis accounts for pedestrian barriers, levels of service are notably truncated. 72 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 10 shows the statistical information derived from perspective Map C analysis. Table 10: Statistics for Map C A B C D Percent of Total with LOS Average LOS per Acre Served Avg. LOS Per Acre / Population per acre GRASP® Index City of Farmington 69% 49 22 48 The numbers in each column are derived as described in the explanation for Map B above. The most notable difference between these perspectives, Map B, and Map C, is that LOS is lower for a person who must walk to get to assets than it is for someone who can drive. Map C-1: Threshold map displays Walkable Access to All Components in the City of Farmington based on a minimum standard. The minimum standard score of 67.2 equates to the LOS provided by Vista De La Plata plus a trail. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 73 ---PAGE BREAK--- On Map C-1, areas displayed in gray have no service within a walkable distance. Areas shown in yellow on the inset map Map C-1 are areas of opportunity. These are areas where land and assets that provide service are currently available but that do not meet the minimum standard threshold value. It may be possible to improve the quantity and quality of those assets to raise the LOS without the need for acquiring new lands. Purple areas indicate walkable level of services meets or exceeds the minimum standard. Figures 11 & 12, compare this same walkable level of service coverage based and acreage and population respectively. Figure 11: Walkable Access to All Recreation Walkable access to assets based on acreage. This chart displays level of service based simply on acres. Figure 12: Percentage of Population with Walkable Access to Service Walkable access to assets based on population. This chart displays level of service based on where people actually live. It was produced using the walkable level of service data shown in Map C-1 as compared with geospatial population data based on U.S. Census blocks. A comparison of the previous pie charts shows that walkable level of service is actually better than it looks on the map. Though only 69 percent of City land is within walking distance of some type of recreation, an impressive 91 percent of the actual population is provided some level of walkable service. This is due to the fact that areas with walkable LOS in the City tend to be those with higher populations. Assets tend to be concentrated where people live rather than in rural, commercial or industrial areas. Based on acreage alone, the walkable level of service for Farmington is already acceptable so this proximity of assets in populated areas is further validation of the system as a whole. 74 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Level of Service Summary Tables The set of tables below show the statistics from both the overall and walkability perspectives in one place for comparison: Service Coverage Summary - Percent of City With Service General Access Map B Walkable Access Map C City of Farmington 97% 69% LOS Summary - Average LOS Per Acre Served General Access Map B Walkable Access Map C City of Farmington 223 49 LOS Summary - Average LOS Per Acre / Population Per Acre General Access Map B Walkable Access Map C City of Farmington 101 22 LOS Summary - GRASP® Indices General Access Map B Walkable Access Map C City of Farmington 48 48 Walkable Access to Playgrounds Based on public input, there is an aspiration for walkable access to playgrounds. Playgrounds can be categorized as local or destination playgrounds and may be defined as follows: Destination playgrounds serve as a destination for families from the entire community. These playgrounds typically have restrooms and parking on-site. They may also incorporate a theme and include special features like a climbing wall, spray features, or adventure play. A local playground is intended to serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Generally these playgrounds are smaller and do not have restrooms or on-site parking. The current inventory included 42 playgrounds located throughout the city. Two of these playgrounds were classified as destination playgrounds for the purposes of this study. (Brookside and Sycamore Parks) Map D show analysis that was completed which again used one-half mile (15 minute walk times) to city and school playgrounds. As previously mentioned, identified pedestrian barrier limit walkable access to playgrounds in this analysis. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 75 ---PAGE BREAK--- Map D: Walkable Access to Playgrounds in the City of Farmington Of importance on this map is the fact that the majority (light orange areas) of the current playground access is associated with playgrounds that do not currently meet a city standard because of playground structure condition or inadequate playground surfacing. Also included on that map are those areas that only have access to an elementary school playground. Labels on this map correspond to service areas indicated in Table 11. 76 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 11: Statistics for Map D Total population and population of the 2 to 12 age group are shown in the table. Rows shaded in yellow indicate those areas with the highest populations of 2 to 12 age group. Rows shaded in pink represent those areas with only school access and the highest populations of the age group. Service area indicated in gray shows that 1764 of the age group do not have walkable access to playgrounds. Overall, the following pie chart shows that 78% of the 2 to 12 age group has walkable access to a playground. 51% of the children access the lowest scoring playgrounds and 14% are limited to walkable access to a school playground. 13% of the age group have walkable access to a standard playground. A standard playground is defined as a playground in a park that scored a or during assessment visits. Playgrounds that scored a during assessment visits either are due for replacement or need to have safety surfacing updated to comply with ADA standards. Service Area 2013 Total Population (Esri) 2013 Ages 2 to 12 % Service Area 2 to 12 Population % of Total Population % Total 2 to 12 Population 0 10258 1764 17.2% 21.9% 21.9% 1A 953 177 18.6% 2.0% 2.2% 1B 218 48 22.0% 0.5% 0.6% 1C 1171 241 20.6% 2.5% 3.0% 1D 1791 269 15.0% 3.8% 3.3% 1E 61 13 21.3% 0.1% 0.2% 1F 134 21 15.7% 0.3% 0.3% 1G 862 151 17.5% 1.8% 1.9% 1H 5328 938 17.6% 11.4% 11.6% 1I 1019 165 16.2% 2.2% 2.0% 1J 1838 334 18.2% 3.9% 4.1% 1K 1785 419 23.5% 3.8% 5.2% 1L 16 2 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1M 1915 305 15.9% 4.1% 3.8% 1N 2362 361 15.3% 5.0% 4.5% 1O 1769 310 17.5% 3.8% 3.8% 1P 2298 383 16.7% 4.9% 4.7% 2A 720 113 15.7% 1.5% 1.4% 3A 323 60 18.6% 0.7% 0.7% 3B 2657 397 14.9% 5.7% 4.9% 3C 2060 397 19.3% 4.4% 4.9% 3D 426 45 10.6% 0.9% 0.6% S1 227 47 20.7% 0.5% 0.6% S10 594 117 19.7% 1.3% 1.5% S2 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S3 549 84 15.3% 1.2% 1.0% S4 1266 199 15.7% 2.7% 2.5% S5 245 37 15.1% 0.5% 0.5% S6 963 169 17.5% 2.1% 2.1% S7 1103 180 16.3% 2.4% 2.2% S8 1861 313 16.8% 4.0% 3.9% S9 42 7 16.7% 0.1% 0.1% Total 46814 8066 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 77 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 13: Percentage of 2-12 Year Olds with Access to Playgrounds Chart D: Walkable access to playgrounds based on population. This chart displays access to quality playgrounds based on the percentage of the 2 to 12 age group. From this initial analysis, one can go a few steps further to identify areas of age group population concentrations. Planning and prioritization based on the potential population served is one method of impacting the largest number of children. This analysis and results are shown in the Map D-1 and on Table 12 (below). 78 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Map D-1: Further analysis of walkable access to playgrounds. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 79 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 12: Statistics for non-served areas in Map D-1 Essentially, those areas with a higher numbers of the 2-12 age group received a higher priority. There are a few areas to note regarding this final analysis: Service area 0A7 includes the area around the Sports Complex. There are future plans to incorporate a playground between the two sets of ballfields. This analysis would support those future plans. Service area 0D2 is a development with an existing undeveloped park parcel which could be home to a future playground. It was noted during assessment visits that there is an HOA park with a playground in this area as well. Staff should further investigate this area and determine if there are current alternative providers such as HOA’s and the quality of the playground currently serving this population. Also, as noted, 14% of a current population only has walkable access to school playgrounds. School Partnerships School assets were scored and included in the inventory used for level of service analyses. However, scoring for school components is discounted based on limited public access as recreational facilities on school grounds are only available during non-school hours and on weekends. In reality, due to this limited availability, such facilities are often neglected by the community as they are not recognized as part of the City’s recreation system. One way to address this issue is to partner with schools to promote use of school facilities through on-site community programming and environmental cues to make them easier to use and more inviting. A Sample Partnership Policy is located in Appendix F. School partnerships can be valuable throughout the Farmington community. Existing partnerships should be strengthened if possible as school assets do improve the level of service provided to city residents. Particular efforts should be made to strengthen ties with Apache, Ladera Del Norte, Northeast and County Club Elementary schools as these are located in higher priority areas on map D-1. These are areas with a significant number of children but no park playground access within walking distance. Service Area 2013 Total Population (Esri) 2013 Ages 2 to 12 % Service Area 2 to 12 Population % of Total Population % Total 2 to 12 Population 0A1 115 28 24.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0A2 15 4 26.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0A3 226 23 10.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0A4 74 13 17.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0A5 1015 251 24.7% 2.2% 3.1% 0A6 57 11 19.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0A7 663 120 18.1% 1.4% 1.5% 0A9 5 1 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0A10 5 1 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0A11 377 54 14.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0D1 1193 185 15.5% 2.5% 2.3% 0D2 862 133 15.4% 1.8% 1.6% 0E1 7 2 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0E2 417 68 16.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0E3 65 7 10.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0E4 180 35 19.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0E5 45 9 20.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0E6 930 193 20.8% 2.0% 2.4% 0E11 46 8 17.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0E12 8 2 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Learning Landscapes, a program developed by faculty and students at the University of Colorado at Denver, engages the local community to envision, plan, build, and maintain custom playgrounds at neighborhood schools. The intention is to extend learning opportunities beyond the school walls and into the community. Redeveloped school grounds typically include demonstration gardens, yard games, art, shade features, and outdoor classroom facilities as well as play equipment. Volunteers are put to work in the planning and construction of these new facilities alongside emerging professionals and school personnel. The result is a sense of community investment and ownership in these assets such that they better serve nearby residents. This program serves to foster stronger ties between schools and neighbors by with open lines of communication and a commitment to shared resources. Such a program can have a positive impact on the role that school ground facilities play in neighbors’ daily lives, and as such elevate the level of service for the area. The Learning Landscapes webpage (http://www.learninglandscapes.org/) describes the in this way: Learning Landscapes leads UCD students, elementary schools, and community members in the redesign of schoolyards into fun, multi-use parks designed to reflect the culture of the surrounding community. The Learning Landscapes project helps reconnect communities with neighborhood schools. By listening and actively involving the school community throughout the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the Learning Landscape schoolyard. Each school is asked to form a Learning Landscape team to help inform design and programming decisions as well as keep a watchful eye for vandalism and maintenance issues after construction is complete. The Learning Landscapes team recruits students, parents and surrounding community help to build, maintain and improve the Learning Landscape. Each new Learning Landscape has a volunteer build day where the school and community volunteers develop a sense of ownership and civic pride by creating outdoor artwork planting gardens, laying sod, or building play equipment. We document and distribute site-specific resources for educators and community members on the outdoor educational elements unique to each Learning Landscape schoolyard. Promoting the programmatic use of the Learning Landscape is critical for the long-term viability and sustainability of these projects. Lastly, this analysis does not prioritize playground upgrades at parks such as Brookside Park which has several playgrounds. One of those playgrounds scored a and the others scored a Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 81 ---PAGE BREAK--- Key Conclusions Other Types of Analysis Capacities Analysis One of the traditional tools for evaluating service for parks and recreation is the capacity analysis. This analysis compares the quantity of assets to population. Table 13 shows the current capacities for selected components in Farmington. This table can be used in conjunction with other information, such as input from focus groups, staff, and the general public, to determine if the current capacities are adequate or not for specific components. Proximity and transportation are relevant factors affecting levels of service. The provision of assets is reasonably equitable across the City, especially given resident access to motorized transportation. However, this picture changes upon examination of walkable access to assets. While the majority of the City still receives service, many areas do lack service altogether or receive a level of service that falls below the minimum standard threshold. The most obvious way to increase overall LOS is to add assets in any area with lower service. However, as fewer people tend to live in many of these low-service and no-service areas, a more effective approach is to increase service in areas where localized population is greater but service is low. Additional analysis and a review of the information received from surveys, focus groups, and other sources will be needed in context to further identify the best locations for future improvements. 82 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 13: Capacities LOS for Community Components Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 83 ---PAGE BREAK--- The capacities table is based purely on the quantity of assets without regard to quality or functionality. Higher LOS is achieved only by adding assets, regardless of the condition or quality of those assets. In theory, the LOS provided by assets should be based on their quality as well as their quantity. GRASP® Index Table 14 shows the GRASP® Indices for the various components based on the 2013 population. The capacities table is based purely on the quantity of assets without regard to quality or functionality. Higher LOS is achieved only by adding assets, regardless of the condition or quality of those assets. In theory, the LOS provided by assets should be based on their quality as well as their quantity. In the case of Farmington playgrounds currently score at 139.25 and have a GRASP® Index of 3.0. Based on population projections by the year 2018, Farmington would need to provide an additional 1.8 worth of GRASP scoring through playgrounds to maintain the current level of service per capita. It should be noted that an increase in GRASP® score can occur through upgrades to current components, addition of new components, or a combination of upgrades and additions. This is especially useful in communities where the sustainability of the parks and recreation system over time is important. In the past, the focus was on maintaining adequate capacity as population growth occurred. Today, many communities are reaching build-out while others have seen population growth slow. The focus in such communities has shifted to maintaining current levels of service as components age or become obsolete, or as needs change. The GRASP® Index can be used to track LOS under such conditions over time. The following table shows the GRASP® Indices for the various components based on the 2013 population. The authors of this report have developed a tool that incorporates both quantity and quality for any given set of assets into a single indicator called the GRASP® Index. This index is a per capita ratio of the functional score per population in thousands. The GRASP® Index can move up or down over time as either quantity or quality changes. For example, if all of the playgrounds in a community are allowed to deteriorate over time, but none are added or taken away, the LOS provided by the playgrounds is decreasing. Similarly, if all of the playgrounds are replaced with new and better ones, but no additional playgrounds are added, the LOS increases even though the per- capita quantity of playgrounds did not change. 84 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 14: GRASP® Community Component Index Projected Community Components GRASP® Index 2018 Current Population 2013* 46,815 Projected Population 2018* 47,413 Total GRASP® Community Score per component type GRASP® score per 1000 population (GRASP® Index) Total GRASP® score needed at projected population Additional GRASP® score needed Ballfield 208.4 4.5 211.1 2.7 Basketball 91.7 2.0 92.9 1.2 Complex, Ballfield 42.6 0.9 43.1 0.5 Horseshoes 26.4 0.6 26.7 0.3 Event Space 50.7 1.1 51.3 0.6 Fitness Course 17 0.4 17.2 0.2 MP Field, Large 66.6 1.4 67.5 0.9 Loop Walk 28.8 0.6 29.2 0.4 Garden, Display 20.9 0.4 21.2 0.3 Picnic Grounds 36.55 0.8 37.0 0.5 Playground, All Sizes 139.25 3.0 141.0 1.8 Shelters, All Sizes 203 4.3 205.6 2.6 Tennis 175.2 3.7 177.4 2.2 Dog Park 28.35 0.6 28.7 0.4 * Population data source: ESRI Business Analyst Online Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 85 ---PAGE BREAK--- GRASP® Comparative Data The GRASP® Index for the City of Farmington is 48. Because every community is unique, there are no standard or “correct” numbers for these. However, it is useful to note that the GRASP® Index for the City of Farmington falls within the higher range. The table below provides comparative data from other communities. For reference statistics have been included for other communities of similar size population to Farmington across the country. It is notable that the GRASP® Index score for Farmington exceeds that of most other cities listed. Other items to note in this table include that Farmington has the highest number of total facilities of any other city in the table. Additional categories in which Farmington is at or near the top have been highlighted in green. In one instance, “average components per site,” Farmington falls below others in the table. In this case, it may be a simple case of having many sites that are currently undeveloped. Table 15: GRASP® Comparative Data More on Utilizing the GRASP® Perspectives Different Perspectives can be used to determine levels of service throughout the community from a variety of views. These Perspectives can show a specific set of components, depict estimated travel time to services, highlight a particular geographic area, or display facilities that accommodate specific programming. It is not necessarily beneficial for all parts of the community to score equally in the analyses. The desired level of service for any particular location will depend on the type of service being analyzed and the characteristics of the particular location. Commercial, institutional, and industrial areas might reasonably be expected to have lower levels of service for parks and recreation opportunities than residential areas. Levels of service for retail services in high density residential areas should probably be different than those for lower density areas. Each Perspective shows the cumulative levels of service across the study area when the catchment areas for a particular set of components are plotted together. As previously stated, darker shades represent areas in which the level of service is higher for that particular Perspective. It is important to note that the shade overlaying any given point on the Perspective represents the cumulative value offered by the surrounding park and recreation system to an individual situated in that specific location, rather than the service being provided by components at that location to the areas around it. STATE CITY YEAR POPULATION STUDY AREA SIZE (Acres) # OF SITES (Parks, Facilties, etc.) TOTAL # OF COMPONENTS AVG. # COMPONENTS per SITE TOTAL GRASP® VALUE (Entire System) GRASP® INDEX AVG. SCORE/SITE % of TOTAL AREA w/LOS >0 AVG. LOS PER ACRE SERVED NUMBER OF COMPONENTS PER POPULATION AVERAGE LOS/POP DEN PER ACRE pop den (per acre) VT Essex 2011 28,858 25,230 47 153 3.3 895 31 19.0 72% 11.0 5 10 1.1 ID Post Falls 2011 29,062 24,928 35 271 7.7 1005 35 28.7 71% 169 9 145 1.2 OR Oregon City 2006 29,540 5,944 51 215 4.2 NA NA NA 86% 45 7 9 5.0 CO Commerce City 2006 36,049 26,270 90 357 4.0 1047 29.0 11.6 73% 113 10 82 1.4 CA La Quinta 2006 39,614 22,829 27 143 5.3 611 15 22.6 79% 78.0 4 45 1.7 UT South Jordan 2006 44,276 14,081 48 172 3.6 1578 36 32.9 44% 29.8 4 9 3.1 CA Palm Springs 2013 44,468 60,442 16 162 10.1 1149 26 71.8 69% 164.9 4 223 0.7 CA Palm Springs 2010 50,663 60,442 16 123 7.7 1030 20 64.4 62% 85.5 2 102 0.8 OR Corvallis 2011 54,462 18,006 54 309 5.7 2217 41 41.1 93% 289 6 96 3.0 MO Liberty 2013 56,041 53,161 39 298 7.6 607 11 15.6 57% 107 5 102 1.1 MA Brookline 2009 60,000 NA 74 128 1.7 551 9 7.4 NA NA 2 NA NA CO Farmington 2014 46,815 21,179 98 354 3.6 2204 48 22.5 97% 223 8 101 2.2 Used in conjunction with other needs assessment tools (such as needs surveys and a public process), Perspectives can be used to determine if current levels of service are appropriate in a given location. If so, plans can then be developed that provide similar levels of service to new neighborhoods. Conversely, if it is determined that different levels of service are desired, new planning can differ from the existing community patterns to provide the desired LOS. 86 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Great Things to Come – Recommendations & Action Plans A. Recommendations Findings of all the input throughout this process, the qualitative and quantitative data, and the GRASP® LOS analyses provide some guidance in consideration of how to improve parks and recreation opportunities in the City of Farmington. This section describes ways to enhance the level of service and the quality of life through improvement of existing sites, future development of new facilities, organizational enhancements, financial improvements, increased programming, improved safety, and potential partnerships. Note: Any reference to level of service scoring throughout this recommendation discussion relies on walkable level of service analysis. Overall level of service scoring from a driving standpoint was high and thus offered minimal need for improvement. Despite that walkable coverage provided is generally good; an examination of walkable level of service does reveal areas on which to focus improvement efforts. Improve Organizational Credibility and Operational Efficiencies Enhance and Improve Internal and External Communications The current PRCA Marketing Plan needs to be updated and enhanced to address tourism and outdoor recreational opportunities including all the recommendations in the Master Plan for programs, services, and facility upgrades. The current website needs to be upgraded and maintained with up to date information in a user friendly and convenient format for patrons. The marketing and communication of PRCA activities should be enhanced with a focused effort on adopting open lines of communication and meetings with partners and potential partners within the community. Attract Tourism and Develop Outdoor Recreation Opportunities There was a lot of support to attract tourism through outdoor recreational opportunities as a regional marketing effort. PRCA needs to create branding of Farmington as an “Outdoor Recreation Destination” and strategize the implementation of this branding in the upgraded PRCA Marketing Plan. The local terrain, climate, and amenities can be a major regional draw to the area and provide some welcome economic impact to the community. PRCA should partner with other agencies and alternative providers on regional outdoor recreation services such as jeep trails and mountain biking opportunities. For a Sample Partnership Policy see Appendix G. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 87 ---PAGE BREAK--- Many of the existing facilities such as Farmington Lake, Berg Park and Animas Park, Farmington Sports Complex and Lions Wilderness Park all improve the quality of life of residents but also have the potential to attract users from a regional or state perspective. Access to water, combined with climate, terrain variety and availability of existing lands (both city owned and alternative providers), the City of Farmington could become a destination for outdoor enthusiasts. Access to adjacent federal recreation lands further strengthens Farmington’s position to become an outdoor recreation destination. Outdoor recreation activities are included in the national trends and are becoming more prevalent as destinations which increase the economic impact to those areas with the outdoor amenities to market regionally. Some of these activities that could be included in these Farmington parks are water sports (paddle boarding, kayaking, canoeing, fishing, boating, etc.), Adventure Sports (Mountain Biking, Bicycle Pump Tracks, Jeep or 4wd trails, Zip Lines, etc.) camping, disk golf, miniature golf, aquatic parks, spray parks, running, bicycling, camping, hiking, and bird watching. One specific City-owned asset mentioned above that appears to provide great opportunity and is currently under-utilized is Farmington Lake. It is understood that as this lake is part of the City’s water supply chain, decisions were made to limit recreational offerings. However, there is strong demand for waterfront activities such as non-motorized boating, fishing, and camping that could be offered at the lake, and if managed well, provide a strong positive revenue source for the City. In addition, as there is no current management presence at the lake, the lake has attracted non-sanctioned users. Basically people are still using the Lake for recreation now, but it is not well-managed and/or taking advantage of the revenue and opportunities that could be provided for the community. There are hundreds of communities in the U.S. which utilize best practices to manage city drinking supply reservoirs for recreational use. It may be time for the City to revisit this amenity’s use for Farmington for recreation and camping. Farmington Lake can become the City’s flagship park and can be the local and regional attraction that will boost the local economy. A formal Boaters Guide to the Farmington Region should be created that includes water access and camping information, along with retail guides, lodging, and relevant partner information. The guides can be distributed as well as online versions included on all partners’ websites. PRCA should continue to promote the Piñon Hills Golf Course as a premier municipal golf course and conduct a feasibility study to upgrade the clubhouse to include a golf outing area which would reflect its premier stature The Lions Wilderness Park Disc Golf course should be promoted as a premier disc golf course and upgrade the amenities to reflect its stature. Improve and Upgrade PRCA’s Use of Technology The current level of technology within the PRCA is a barrier to being able to serve the public well and work within the organization as efficiently and effectively as possible. Many staff members are operating with obsolete software and very old computer systems which makes it very difficult and much more time consuming to complete tasks. Computers and software needs to be improved and upgraded so all PRCA staff are operating on a current system. An integrated registration system should be implemented at all PRCA locations to allow for “real time” registration at all public facility computers. 88 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Recreational Connectivity - Provide Easier and More Convenient Connections for Users to Parks and Facilities The definition of recreation has evolved in recent years to include aspects of the built environment that are more important today than they were in the past. People are more inclined these days to integrate recreational opportunities within their daily lives. The infrastructure available to get people to and from destinations is of greater importance than ever before as more and more people have started to prefer a leisurely walk or bike ride to a trip in the car. People increasingly expect that parks, recreation centers, and other community resources be easy destinations to access for a variety of users employing different modes of travel to include walking and bicycling. This concept of may be referred to as recreational connectivity. Recreational connectivity may be defined as the extent to which community recreational resources are transitionally linked to allow for easy and enjoyable travel between them. In addition to recreational trails, this may also include city sidewalks, bicycle paths, bicycle routes, and public transit infrastructure. Of course the scope of creating and maintaining such a network is a substantial undertaking that involves many players. Along with a community expectation for this type of user-friendly network infrastructure comes the expectation that stakeholders work together in the interest of the public good. At the municipal level this might include public works, law enforcement, private land-owners, public transit operators and user groups as well as the local parks and recreation department. This concept of recreational connectivity is important within the scope of parks and recreation planning but also has deeper implications for public health, the local economy, and public safety among other considerations. As more and more people look for non-automotive alternatives to get to and from local destinations, a complete network of various transportation options is in greater demand than ever to include walking trails, bicycle paths, bicycle routes, and public transit. Other elements of this infrastructure might include street/railroad crossings, sidewalk landscaping, lighting, drainage, and even bike-share and car-share availability. Many of the residents thought it was very difficult to find the local PRCA amenities based on the need for better signage (both wayfinding and within parks). PRCA should conduct a park identification sign inventory and condition assessment and insure all parks are clearly and consistently signed as Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs facilities. There is also a need to improve directional/wayfinding signage as well as maps to facilities on roadways and within parks. Trail maps with distances and local leisure amenities should also be created and distributed to users. PRCA should improve partner agency relationships within Farmington, the state of New Mexico, and the region to create some positive outcomes of establishing partnerships. PRCA should work with partners such as the Chamber of Commerce to create a central clearing house (one stop shop) for distribution of park and recreation materials and opportunities. For a Sample Partnership Policy see Appendix G. A final consideration in regard to recreational connectivity is public transportation. Though this falls outside the realm of parks and recreation, many residents are limited to or enjoy the convenience that public transit affords. The City of Farmington has an established public transportation provider, Red Apple Transit that provides bus service within the city. PRCA should work with the Red Apple Transit to increase park and recreation access via public transit by adding park locations to route maps and increasing the number of park specific bus stops. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 89 ---PAGE BREAK--- Red Apple buses operate on 5 fixed routes and schedules based on the following map and route images. 90 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- It is notable that only a few existing parks are included as designated bus stops and that parks in general are not included on the map. Additional designated bus stops at parks would enhance the walkability between parks, increase the connectivity between parks and other city amenities, and decrease the barriers between all the citywide amenities. As the City of Farmington embarks on the implementation of this master plan, reconfiguring routes to include new bus stops would be a great issue to partner with Red Apple Transit to enhance the number of stops at parks for the overall improvement of the quality of life in the Farmington community. Enhance Diversity by Improving Partner Agency Relationships Including Embracing and Highlighting Other Cultures, Cultural Awareness, and Community-Sensitive Development PRCA should open lines of communication and meetings with local partner agencies including the Navajo nation. In Farmington, there are a variety of cultural differences and diversity; however, most of the development of the City and its parks and other resources has been developed from an Anglo viewpoint related to cultural significance. At times, this has led to rejection of the development by nearby neighbors in the community. For example, Vista De La Plata Park was developed on the west side of the City by parks staff without community input from the neighborhood. There has been repeated vandalism of the park, leading parks staff to wonder at times why they bothered to make the investment. One possibility is that the neighborhood was not engaged, and therefore does not buy-in and/or take ownership of the park. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 91 ---PAGE BREAK--- Various environmental sociology studies22 have shown that more effective management of project development can occur if developers consider the potential sociological and cultural framework of meanings of the affected landscapes. There could be small changes in design and portrayed culture in the parks that would create that feeling of ownership if neighborhood residents were more involved in the development process. This is often known in the field of parks and recreation management as “Adopt-A-Park” type practices, but they can go a long way to an agency being perceived as more culturally aware and open to community engagement. The end result is typically higher community self- protection and pride for their new assets. Create New Staffing Assignments and/or Hire New Employees for Added Responsibilities A grant writer position should be added to the PRCA staff (or contractual) to create consistent year round grant research, writing, and tracking. This position can enhance the financial abilities of PRCA to implement this Master Plan though federal, state, regional, and local grant opportunities. A contractual grant writer may be hired for a percentage of successful grant dollars PRCA receives due to their efforts. PRCA should establish a staff liaison to enhance the partnership with the Navajo nation. This could be a staff re-assignment if the resources are present within the existing staff. A current PRCA staff member needs to be assigned to manage the new PRCA website and keep it current. A current PRCA staff member needs to be assigned to manage and address all water-related topics including rivers and lake issues. As this Master Plan is implemented, PRCA must ensure the staffing resource levels can maintain all the existing and new facilities at or above the acceptable standards. Improve Financial Situations Implement Equitable User Fees and Assessment Fees There is a consensus to implement and utilize equitable user fees and assessment fees for PRCA activities based on a value received by the participant for the services with a personal benefit. PRCA needs to create a Cost Recovery Policy by utilizing the Pyramid Pricing Methodology (Appendix H) to determine a consistent method of pricing PRCA activities throughout the department. Consider Increase of Tax Increment Levels The community appears willing to increase tax increment levels to pay for the improvements that come out of this PRCA Master Plan over the next several years. A campaign for a community investment may be a successful way of implementing the long term recommendations in the Master Plan. 22 Greider, Thomas and Lorraine Garkovich, 1994, “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment”, Rural Sociology 59: 1 – 24. 92 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Pursue Grant Opportunities It would be wise for PRCA to pursue any and all grant opportunities at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. There are still numerous grants available to the City of Farmington at all levels to assist in the funding of this Master Plan and continuous operational dollars. PRCA should consider partnering with public health organizations and/or local medical institutions in Healthy Communities Initiative (www.gpred.org/hcrg) and funding sources. A Sample Partnership Policy can be found in Appendix F. Improve Programs and Service Delivery Increase Programming for Families, Youth, and Teens The public would like to see PRCA provide additional programs for families, youth, and teenagers in all sectors of the city. As the City of Farmington updates, improves or repurposes existing parks it should take into consideration the demand for additional family, teen and youth programming opportunities. Adding a miniature golf course at Civitan Golf Club is one example could help satisfy this need. Other opportunities include adding splash pads in other park locations throughout the city. Splash pads have a low operational cost and provide a great neighborhood free activity. Increase Programs in Wellness/Fitness, Cultural, Special Needs, and Water Craft PRCA should expand programs in wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, and water craft programs such as kayaking, canoeing, standup paddle boarding, etc. As the City of Farmington updates, improves or repurposes existing parks it should take into consideration the demand for wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, and water craft programs such as kayaking, canoeing, and standup paddle boarding programming opportunities. PRCA should consider adding loop walks, mileage markers, and fitness course equipment to existing park locations across the community to increase the activity on trails. An overall museum feasibility study should be completed which will establish the future of the E3 Children’s Museum and the creation of a state of the art Indian Heritage Center. PRCA should also consider a feasibility study to allow water craft at Lake Farmington as a minimum if an overall site Master Plan is not conducted at Lake Farmington. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 93 ---PAGE BREAK--- Increase the Number of Special Events and Festivals The distribution and variety of existing facilities provides many opportunities to host special events and festivals throughout the community. In addition, strategic use of special events, festivals, and programming may help increase use of some spaces and therefore help to promote safer more secure parks. For example, hosting larger events in Berg Park and Animas River Park will draw more users and traffic thus creating more “eyes on the park” situations. Anima has a very large but seemingly under- utilized plaza adjacent to the river. Many of these special events and festivals can also be located downtown and assist in creating that much wanted connection between the river and the downtown area. Area merchants, restaurants, and hotels can help promote these activities to their patrons which also will create a positive perception of safety in these areas of Farmington. Improve Facilities and Amenities Maintain and Improve Existing Facilities There was an overwhelming public response to make sure PRCA maintains and improve existing facilities. Many of these needs may be addressed within the existing system by upgrading facilities, retrofitting less used assets, and by establishing or strengthening partnerships. PRCA should continue the development of system wide self-evaluation to identify low scoring assets and amenities and implement a strategy for repair, repurpose or replacement (see Staff Resource Document for examples of current issues). Level of Service Improvements Areas of the City that either fall below the minimum standard threshold or provide no service at all, called low-service areas and no-service areas, often provide opportunities for improvement. This might involve fixing up a tired picnic shelter or updating playground structures or safety surfacing. Such efforts to improve level of service are more attainable than alternatives that require land acquisition and large- scale capital investment. Several such opportunities exist to improve walkable level of service in Farmington. Low-Score Components Maintaining and improving existing facilities was ranked highest in public input in regards to goals in the next 5 to 10 years. Developing a method or process for continued assessment of existing facilities is key to monitoring existing resources. The assessment process used for this plan involves scoring of all included assets. This scoring takes into account condition and functionality. Those components with low-scores may be addressed one by one and will serve to improve level of service. The easiest and most obvious way to raise level of service is to improve low-score components, those that were scored down because they do not meet expectations. This entails repair, refurbishment, or replacement of existing components at a site that are in need of some attention. A step-by-step process for scoring and strategies to address low-score components may be found in Appendix D. 94 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Low-Score Modifiers In scoring inventory locations additional consideration was also given to basic site amenities, called modifiers. These are things that support users during their visit such as design and ambience, drinking fountains, seating, BBQ grills, security lighting, bike racks, restrooms, shade, access, and parking among others. These help inform overall GRASP® scoring. Modifiers that do not meet expectations are scored down. Modifiers at a site that are in need of some attention such as repair, refurbishment, or replacement. Booster Components Another way to enhance existing assets is through the addition of booster components intended to “boost” the level of service at specific existing park sites or recreation facilities through the addition of new components. These are most effective in low-service areas in which park sites already exist that have space for additional components. Based on the isolation analysis that displayed need areas based on population several such locations exist. High Demand Components The statistically-valid survey asked respondents to rank facilities by importance based on those they felt the city needed to add or improve. These high demand components should be considered in any efforts to add new components to the Farmington recreation system. The highest priority for added, expanded or improved outdoor activities listed by survey respondents are: 1. Improve Quality of Life and Attract Tourism 2. Trails and Connectivity 3. Water Access (River and Lake) 4. Family, Youth and Teen Programming 5. Safety and Security 6. Large Special Events PRCA should hire a consultant to conduct an overall Recreation Center Feasibility Study that collectively includes The Recreation Center (how to repurpose), The Senior Center (potentially convert to an all adults age multi-purpose center), and a potential new Community Center on the East side of Farmington that serves the Couch Mesa area. The Indoor Aquatic Center needs to be renovated to repair existing structural issues and add new leisure aquatic features, a large therapeutic pool, warm swim lanes, and a birthday party multipurpose rental room. Once the improvements are completed and the new amenities are operable in the Indoor Aquatic Center, the activities and patrons from the Lions Pool can be relocated and the Lions Pool leveled. Expand Trails and Connectivity Paved and unpaved trails were indicated as one of the most important type of facilities or amenities. Further development of the river trail is one of the keys to fulfilling this public need. PRCA needs to conduct a City Wide Trails Master Plan or Multi-Modal Transportation Plan that includes a Recreational Trails component for further development of the trail system in Farmington. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 95 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Trail System Recreational connectivity in most American cities usually starts with trails. A trail may be defined as any off-street or on-street connection dedicated to pedestrian or bicycle users. Recreational trails, as distinguished from transportation trails, typically pass through park lands or natural areas and can be soft or hard surface. Recreational trails are the only elements of an alternative transit network that traditionally fall to parks and recreation professionals. They are intended mostly for leisure and enjoyment of resources. Transportation trails, the sidewalks or paved trails found in street right-of- ways in most municipalities, are intended more for utility in getting from one place to another. Yet these two types of city infrastructure must work together to create a well-connected community. The resulting trail system includes all trails that serve pedestrian and bicycle users in a community for purposes of both recreation and transportation. As a trail system matures, the need emerges to address barriers such as roadways, rivers, and railroad crossings that separate distinct trail networks in order to create a truly connected trail system. A trail network is a part of a trail system within which major barrier crossings have been addressed and all trails are connected. Trail networks within a trail system are typically separated from each other by such barriers or by missing trail connections. Crosswalks, pedestrian underpasses, and bridges can be used to help users navigate barriers. New trails may be added to merge trail networks and improve overall connectivity. Most cities have several trail networks that connect users to common destinations such as schools, shops, restaurants, and civic and religious institutions in addition to parks and recreation facilities. The more integrated these networks, the more connected a city or town. Building a trail system involves many considerations beyond the control of park and recreation managers. Vacant lands, utility easements, street right-of-ways, and existing social trails may be worth investigating for trail feasibility and to determine how trail development in these areas might impact overall connectivity. However, other departments and agencies will need to be consulted and partnered to address issues such as land acquisition, street crossings, and utility maintenance. To complicate matters, the distinction between a recreational trail and a transportation trail can be hazy. Further, on- street connections via usable, comfortable bicycle lanes and routes are also critical to establishing good recreational connectivity. Though these connections can be invaluable to a city’s infrastructure, as they supplement a trail system they introduce another set of stakeholders and complications. The types of collaboration necessary to build a trail system are not without their challenges, yet can yield lasting partnerships that benefit the community. The sooner the discussion is started, the better. Potential partners can include school districts, public works departments, county offices, state entities, federal agencies, and/or private land owners among others. It is important to convince stakeholders that their cooperation is critical to the public good. It can be helpful to remind them of the economic boost that often results from investment in recreational infrastructure like a trail system. Of course, not all players stand to gain from trail development. It is essential that land managers and planners be aware of all possible implications inherent in their efforts. A Trails and Alternative Modes of Transportation Master Plan is highly recommended. This planning effort should include all relevant city departments in order to create a comprehensive and implementable plan. This plan should also address frequency and distribution of waysides, trailheads, access points, and interpretation. 96 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Farmington has potential for an outstanding trail system. Here are a few general strategies to use in planning efforts as this system is established: • Work with a variety of departments, offices, and agencies to obtain assistance and access in creating trail links • Look for ways to relieve cost burdens for property maintenance presently borne by other utilities by adapting these properties to create recreation opportunities • Create connections that blend recreation opportunities with restaurants and retail opportunities for greater economic impact (for example the river walk to downtown connection) • Create connections that allow safe, comfortable routes between homes, schools, and civic and religious institutions for user convenience • Look at existing utility areas such as power line easements, drainages, and detention ponds for options to improve connectivity • Use wide, under-utilized or non-used street corridors for best pedestrian and bike routes within developed parts of the city Where to Start? Even the most well-planned, extensive trail system has to start somewhere. Unless a city is already highly urbanized, good opportunities usually exist with which to begin building a trail system. Existing parks and open space area are the first place to plan new trails, with this idea of recreational connectivity in mind. Such interior trail assets, once established, provide a good point of departure to look outside park boundaries. It is helpful to recognize that trails may be developed at a variety of scales. Many trails serve park users only while others are of citywide or regional extent. Also, people with a destination in mind tend to take the most direct route while recreationists tend to enjoy loop or circuit trails more than linear trails. An exemplary trail system will provide multiple opportunities for users to utilize trail segments to access different parts of the city directly or enjoy recreational circuits of various size. By employing park trails, city trails, and regional trails users should ideally be able to pick and choose from several options to reach a destination or spend time recreating. Park Trails In the City of Farmington, the process of building a trail system is underway. Although city and regional trails still have yet to be developed, the city recreation system already provides an impressive level of service. Many users regularly enjoy existing trails and loop walks within parks. A few enhancements could make these heavily used pathways even better. As many users seem focused on exercise the addition of mileage markers along loop walks and internal park trails would be useful. Users could track their distances which might also encourage them to try out other trail opportunities of similar length. As users tend to be intent on getting a workout rather than a leisurely stroll, it might also be to consider adding cardio fitness stations at points along the loop or trail as well. New measured loop walks could also be developed at a number of the larger parks such as Brookside Park, Civitan Park, Jaycee Park and Highland View Park to better serve a variety of residents. Location enhancements such as mileage markers and cardio fitness stations could be included to provide additional functionality and fitness needs. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 97 ---PAGE BREAK--- The natural area trails at Lions Wilderness Park and Farmington Lake could benefit from interpretive signage and mapping. Formal trailheads in these locations would also add convenience features such as parking, staging areas, seating, drinking water, bike racks, map and information kiosks, etc. would also increase the appeal of these trail systems. City Trails With internal park trails established, the next step is to focus on connecting these park assets to each other and to various places within the city. The city has developed an informative map of current trails and bike friendly streets. This will involve capitalizing on existing opportunities to create strategic off-street and on-street pedestrian and bicycle links between popular recreation locations. Strategies to retrofit developed areas to meet the need for safe routes through town may be based on recommendations in this plan as well as other “complete streets” resources. Priority should be given to developing connections between existing parks, schools and other community resources. Regional Trails Regional trails can also be developed in coordination with other types of trails and routes. Development of the riverfront trail and extension of that trail could be key to the development of a regional trail system that begins to connect to adjacent towns and cities. Trail Typology In addition the park, city, regional trail hierarchy already discussed it may be useful to employ a trails typology. A new “trail” may actually consist of several infrastructural improvements. A trail typology of three different types is recommended for use in the City of Farmington. These are: 1. Bike Lane and Detached Sidewalk 2. Urban Trail 3. Multi-Use Trail Three trail types to be considered in developing a trail system in an established community such as Farmington. This typology may be applied to a network of connections to determine the most appropriate type for each trail segment. Pedestrian and bicycle users are accommodated in different ways in each trail type. Selection for each is largely driven by the surrounding built environment. 98 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Each trail type refers to a strategy for connecting one place to another. The primary consideration is how to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle users travelling along the same route. In more developed areas, this might involve routing cyclists along an on-street route with a pedestrian path (essentially a sidewalk) in the right-of-way. An alternative to this is the urban trail, a right-of-way path wide enough to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, the traditional multi-use trail provides users with an off-street connection, typically through open space areas or parks. This last is often considered the ideal trail type, yet the land dedication needed to support a multi-use trail makes it impractical or impossible to develop this type of trail in many parts of an established community such as Farmington. The 2013 Farmington Master Plan Update highlights trails and routes to be considered to enhance connectivity in the future. The consulting team for this Parks and Recreation Master Plan has applied the aforementioned trails typology to the network of connections noted in the Farmington Master Plan. The results are shown in the visioning map below. Connecting People to Trails As the Farmington trail system continues to develop additional resources will be desirable to support users. It may be to consider signage and wayfinding strategies, trailheads and access points, public trail maps, and smartphone applications as strategies to connect people to trails and affect a positive user experience. Signage and Wayfinding Signage and wayfinding strategies should be employed to enhance the Farmington trail system by promoting ease of use and improved access to recreational resources. An important aspect of effective signage and wayfinding markers is branding. An easily identifiable hierarchy of signage for different types of users assists residents and visitors as they navigate between recreation destinations. Further, a strong brand can imply investment and commitment to alternative transit and which can positively impact city identity and open up economic opportunities. Additional discussion of signage and wayfinding may be found in the 2013 Farmington Master Plan. Trailheads & Access Points It is also important to provide users access to trails. There are two ways to approach this. First, formal trailheads may be developed to include parking, bike racks, signage, restrooms, drinking water, a trail map, and other amenities. A trailhead is most appropriate to provide access to trails that serve a higher volume of users at destinations reached by automobile. The second approach involves simply providing a trail access point, usually without the extensive amenities found at a trailhead. Trail access points such as this are more appropriate in residential or commercial areas where users are more likely to walk or ride a bicycle to reach the trail. Map & App Resources By making trail maps available users may enjoy Farmington trails with greater confidence and with a better understanding of distances, access points, amenities, and the system as a whole. Even with a developing trail system such a trail map can provide valuable information to users. For example, the City of Farmington created a bike map (see the following graphic) for the community, which includes various trail types to include bike paths and bike routes. In addition to showing streets with bicycle paths and safe on-street bike routes, the Farmington map also includes information about trail ownership, helpful as it displays some trails within easements or even on private land with use agreements. As the trail system evolves, this map should be updated to produce newer versions for distribution to users. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 99 ---PAGE BREAK--- The City of Farmington provides a trail and bicycle map to users with a host of information about trails, bike paths, and bike routes. Another way to provide a trail map to users is through web based smartphone technologies. Maps made available on this type of platform are more dynamic for users, always on hand, and can be easily updated. Upfront investment needed for this type of resource may be cost prohibitive at the present time. However, it is likely as technologies advance these costs will become more manageable in the future. It may be worth considering development of web based maps in long term planning decisions. There is strong indication that a pedestrian connection between Downtown Farmington and the river is very important to citizens. Connectivity between trails and pathways is also indicated as an important consideration. Although the City currently has a very limited trail and bike route network, there are ways to enhance those assets that do exist and best practices for future development. Ensure ADA Accessibility at All Facilities ADA Transition Plan and Compliance According to the ADA.gov website, “Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities.” “One important way to ensure that Title II's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self-evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to pinpoint the facilities, programs and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local governments are complying with the ADA.” PRCA needs to develop an ADA Transition Plan which is also required to implement needed changes identified during the self-evaluation process. Ongoing self-evaluation and development of a comprehensive transition plan must be a high priority of the Parks and Recreation Department. PRCA should create a plan to address the aging playground structures and the numerous safety surfacing deficiencies that currently exist. 100 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Update Outdated Amenities That Do Not Function Well PRCA should develop and implement a plan for regular site specific master plans as parks and their amenities reach expected life span. Brookside Park might be considered a priority with Kiwanis Park, Justis Park, Civitan Park, Westside Estates Park, Sun Valley Park, Sycamore Park, Boyd Park, and Boat Launch also ranking high on the priority list. City standards for assets should be developed including but not limited to playground structures and surfacing, picnic shelters, basketball courts, skate parks, etc. PRCA should develop a Deferred Maintenance Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget. The Plan should be implemented to replacement the PRCA assets that are not currently meeting city standards. PRCA should consider developing new or improving destination playgrounds at larger community parks such as the Sports Complex, Brookside, Sycamore and Kiwanis Parks. Improve Water Access Opportunities The City of Farmington should continue to support the implementation of the Riverine Plan and to connect the river trail to downtown Farmington via a pedestrian friendly corridor that can act as a method of revitalizing the downtown area. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 101 ---PAGE BREAK--- River Access, Management, and Economic Development Farmington is blessed to have three rivers running through the City; the San Juan River, the Animas River, and the La Plata River. While there have been many efforts for improvements for river access and trails in town and around Farmington since the 1980s, the City has not been overly active in attracting river users from outside the Farmington area to these rivers. In comparison, the San Juan River below Navajo Dam (just 35 miles upstream from Farmington) is highly touted as a National Quality Water stretch for trout fishing, attracting thousands of fishers per year. The San Juan River managed by the Bureau of Land Management from Bluff to Mexican Hat in Utah brings in tens of thousands of river users from all over the country each year, but few of these river runners know of the river-related assets around Farmington. The Animas River in Durango has become a primary economic development standpoint for the City of Durango, but few outside of Farmington are even aware of this same river corridor in Farmington. It may be time for the City of Farmington to recognize the strong economic and recreational benefits that these rivers offer to the City, and the most logical department to manage these assets appears to be the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs. The River-Related Trails Systems Founded in 1987, the River Reach Foundation, (a local non-profit organization) began developing Farmington’s Riverine corridors as a means to protect, promote and enhance the city and natural assets. In 2012, the City of Farmington Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department, received a letter from the Secretary of the Interior noting that the Berg/Animas Trail had been designated a National Recreation Trail (NRT). It joined 40 other newly designated NRT’s across the United States. The National Trail System Act of 1968 authorized the creation of a national trail system comprised of NRTs, National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails. NRTs exemplify trails of local and regional significance. To be recognized as a NRT, a trail or trail system must be open and in use by the public for at least 10 years. Additionally, the trail should be designed, constructed and maintained according to best management practices. The Berg/Animas Trail is one of two National Recreation Trails north of Santa Fe; the other being in Taos. The River Reach Foundation in partnership with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs employees and community volunteers have worked many years to develop the Berg/Animas Trail. Positive Economic impact from river users can be high. For example, according to a Colorado study, the average user expenditure per day for out-of-town river users was $119.18 in 2011. “In the 80s, a bunch of people got together and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we used our river the way places like Boise, Idaho and Spokane, Washington use their river –as a focal point of their community’…Running the river through town, you are suddenly out in the wilderness in the middle of Farmington. It is an amazing feeling… We want people to be able to jump on a trail on one end of the city and walk that trail to the other end of the city. That is our ultimate goal… When you see people on the river, there is no difference in race or age or culture; everybody is the same and everybody is having a good time. Once people are on the river, something magical happens.” Damon Weems, River Reach Foundation 102 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Future development of the newly designated NRT will connect with existing trails and facilities such as the Gateway Museum and Visitors Center, Boyd Park and Westland Park and eventually extend to the City of Aztec. The Berg/Animas trails serve the citizens of the city of Farmington, neighboring cities in the Four Corners region and members of the four Indian tribes. Berg and Animas Parks are the site of the Riverfest, Four Corners Story Telling Festival and Winterglow. Riverfest is a celebration sponsored by the River Reach Foundation to develop the Riverine corridor. River Corridor Management Planning There have been a variety of planning efforts for the river corridors in Farmington and other communities in the region, but there has not been a full study comprehensive of the corridor completed since 1990 when the River Reach Foundation led Farmington’s Riverine Plan. That plan addressed tourism, traffic, access, stewardship, conservation, recreation, and incorporation of the plan in to the “urban design” for Farmington, but many of the elements of that plan were most likely deemed too progressive for Farmington’s culture at that point in time. However, in review of the plan, many of the suggestions still ring true today, and the time may be right to revisit an update of that type of river corridor management plan. The River Reach Foundation, working with key partners, has made great strides with the trails planning, the connections of Animas and Berg Parks, interpretive signage, land acquisitions and easements, and the annual Riverfest. In 2013, a working committee with a variety of stakeholders came together to form the grass-roots “Paddle Trails Committee.” This committee is supported by efforts from staff with the National Forest Service, The City of Farmington, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and other key stakeholders and it is currently holding meetings to look at establishing “Four Corners Paddle Trails – Family Friendly River Adventures”. Some Preliminary Goals for the Paddle Trails • Year-round half-day to multi-day paddling adventures, some primitive camping and provides close to home river experiences. • Swift water, outstanding scenery, wildlife viewing, and fishing opportunities define the experiences. • Through increased river access, residents and visitors gain knowledge about water quality and conservation issues. • Promotion and marketing of the Paddle Trails increases visitor expenditures in local communities. Vision for the Four Corners Paddle Trails Families, friends and adventurers travel to the Four Corners region to enjoy river recreation on 90 miles of the Animas River and 45 miles of the San Juan River. Public land managers and local governments cooperatively manage river information, access sites and public safety. The development of the Berg/Animas trails began in the mid-1980s when property owners donated their land to the city. When the River Reach Foundation was founded around 1987, it partnered with the City to acquire lands and funding for improvements to the river corridor and jointly, the two entities began developing the trail as it is known today. To date, the River Reach Foundation operates as a land trust and is able to receive easement to the river corridor. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 103 ---PAGE BREAK--- Much like the National Recreation Trails designation for the on-land trails, there could be benefits from achievement of a National Water Trails System designation for the Farmington Region river trails. This designation serves to bring existing and newly identified water trails around the country together into one cohesive national network of exemplary water trails. The National Water Trails System is designed to be a network of water trails the public can explore and enjoy, as well as a community of water resource managers that can benefit from information sharing and collaboration. As a result of the NWTS designation, national water trails may gain: • Positive economic impact from increased tourism • Assistance with stewardship and sustainability projects • Increased protection for outdoor recreation and water resources • Contribution to public health and quality of life from maintaining and restoring watershed resources • Access to networking and training opportunities • Assistance with recognition and special events highlighting the trail Figure 14: Current Informal River Access Guide Tying the River to Downtown As suggested in the 1990 Farmington Riverine Plan and in many discussions since that time, one opportunity for Farmington is to physically “tie” the river corridor to the Downtown area through enhanced urban design, trail designations, signage, and the creation linking the “Riverfront Zone” to the historic downtown. Loop trails and architectural theming can invite tourists and residents to explore both on foot, and to stay awhile, recreating and spending dollars with Farmington merchants. 104 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Constraints and Considerations for River-Related Improvements Any improvements in river-related access or recreational opportunities will need to include a careful focus on the constraints surrounding these improvements, such as: • Adjacent landowners concerns – As property owners, the adjacent landowners may have valid concerns related to increased use of the river or any new adjacent trails. Many have paid a premium price for river front property and do not want to open their lands to the public use, even if that use may be legal “float through” usage. Care needs to be taken to address the landowner concerns, provide education and best privacy practices related to these issues, and also balance the concerns with the benefits (increased property values, connectivity, and community good) that come from this type of river-related development. • Identification of additional approved access and camping locations – The current informal River Access Guide identifies access points within 15 miles upstream from Kirtland. These are a great start for day-trip boaters, but there is no identification of appropriate camping locations for overnight visitors. To capitalize on non-resident draw, there needs to be attention to allowances for overnight stays, and identification of various camp areas along the route to allow for floats of at least 20 to 30 miles 3 days). There is an opportunity to become known as a family-centered, entry-level boating hub for the San Juan below Navajo Dam, and above the very popular but limited permit sections below Bluff, UT. This will require strong cooperation with land owners of various types but also provides opportunity for direct and indirect revenue generation. • Tribal Relations – Much of the land around and below Farmington’s rivers is owned by the Navajo or Ute tribes, and as indicated in other sections, there needs to be strong relationship building between the City of Farmington and these tribal leaders to help ensure mutual benefit from these public projects. The Navajos are seeing strong benefit from recreational river permitting on the San Juan below Bluff, UT, with a working relationship with the BLM for those sections. A similar mutually beneficial working relationship with the City of Farmington and surrounding communities should always be a strong goal. • River Safety Issues – Water safety is always key, and although these rivers are primarily Class I – II “float” sections, there needs to be strong education related to the potential hazards of moving water. This is especially true for non-experienced or entry-level recreational users such as tubers and/or beginning boaters. Often the highest level of death from drowning can come from alcohol use, non-use of lifejackets, and/or simple unawareness of the strength of moving water (even when it is flat). All entry and access points should include education regarding the suggested use of life jackets for ALL activities, potential for entrapment and drowning, and regulations and education to help minimize alcohol use while on or around the river. In addition, due the natural seclusion and “wild” feeling of the corridor, it may be important to have increased visibility in law enforcement patrols and emergency response call boxes along the trails and key access points. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 105 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Physical Impediments to Navigation – In order to promote safe usage, it is important to make sure that safe navigation is possible. For example, currently there is a dangerous low head keeper dam in place at the Penny Lane Dam on the Animas River between Aztec and Farmington. City Public Works staff have been working to determine a re- engineering of the dam that would make it a safe passage for river users. This structure needs to be reworked to allow for continued operations with safe passage. In addition, in order to meeting national accessibility guidelines and qualify for NRTS designation, at least some key river access points must be designed to include accessibility options that allow for people with disabilities to enjoy the amenities. It is unknown if there are other safety impediments on the river but the full corridor should be assessed prior to increase marketing for promotion. • Wildlife conservation, migration, and nesting habitats – Obviously the river is an important wildlife corridor. Care should be taken to identify and protect critical habitat, and to provide education and/or remedies for any improvements to help ensure that habitat is conserved and/or improved. In past years, there were many concerns on a national level that recreation and wildlife habitat were not compatible. With the advances in river management these concerns have been mostly abated, as long as best practices for this consideration are part of any access or recreational improvement is part of the design. Fish ladders, regulated quiet areas, and other elements can help educate and actually improve these habitats. • Need for education in addition to promotion and activity – River management in any community needs to include strong, funded attention to education to environmental education, conservation, and safety. Environmental education itself can be a strong community draw, and there are many communities that have used this focus to create a culture of preservation that promotes eco-tourism. With the assets available in Farmington, this appears to be an under-utilized opportunity. Key Opportunities for River-Related Improvements for Farmington To move forward, the City may want to more formally allocate resources through creation of a River Corridor Management Plan that ties all of the recreation, conservation, trails, tourism, city-planning, and economic development goals. For example, the City of Durango recently completed a similar plan. The Durango 2013 Animas River Corridor Management Plan was developed through a technical assistance grant from the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. While the specific improvements for the River Corridor are beyond the scope of this Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan, some key opportunities appear to be: • Complete a comprehensive Farmington River Corridors Management Plan with the City as lead agent to address the various opportunities and challenges. • Increase visibility of the river to residents and non-residents alike through improved signage and access, along with continued collaboration with the Chamber and Convention and Visitors Bureau for alignment with downtown and attraction of Non-Residents. The use of boater related social media (online listserves such as Utahrafters and Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association on Yahoo Groups, along with Facebook pages, and other social channels are major information dissemination opportunities). 106 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • Assign specific City staff person to manage and address all on river-related topics. Currently there are no City staff who are specifically assigned to deal with these opportunities. • Create a formal Boaters Guide to the Farmington Region – including access and camping information, along with retail guides, lodging, and relevant partner information. Distribute this guide in print and online versions, along with a strong updated web presence. • Continue to collaborate with the River Reach Foundation, the Navajo Nation, and all other stakeholders to increase use, access, conservation, and promotion of the trails, access, environmental education, and Paddle Trail concepts, with City leadership’s support and assigned resources. River Related Sources Commercial River Use in the State of Colorado, 1988 – 2011, Colorado River Outfitters Association, http://www.croa.org/media/documents/pdf/2011-commercial-rafting-use-report-final.pdf Durango Animas River Corridor Management Plan, 2013, City of Durango, CO http://www.durangogov.org/DocumentCenter/View/1749 Economic Impacts of Whitewater Recreation, 2006, City of Durango, CO http://www.durangogov.org/DocumentCenter/View/57 Farmington’s Riverine Plan, 1990, River Reach Foundation, led by Urban Edges and DHM Design, hardcopy of plan provided by the River Reach Foundation “Four Corners Paddle Trails - Family Friendly River Adventures”, August 2013, PowerPoint provided by the Paddle Trails Working Committee Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 107 ---PAGE BREAK--- PRCA should conduct a site specific Master Plan for the development of Farmington Lake as a flagship park for the City of Farmington. PRCA can look for additional water access opportunities at existing parks and undeveloped parcels and clear brush that would insure better sight lines to the water. Improve Restroom Availability and Maintenance PRCA should continue to monitor restroom use and vandalism while assessing the need for additional restrooms. The maintenance standards should be elevated where needed to ensure the cleanliness of the restrooms and to keep them vandal free. The restrooms could be open for longer hours to improve customer satisfaction. Improve Safety and Security Improve Safety Perception of Riverwalk Public perception of safety and security issues is often as much about marketing and promotion as it is about police presence and patrols. An example of this is on the river trail behind the hotels located on Scott Avenue. Hotel patrons are being warned to not utilize these trails because they are not safe yet there have not been many incidents reported. Police patrols seem to be more than sufficient to deter a negative environment. The City of Farmington can work with local law enforcement and business owners along the Riverwalk to continue patrols and self-patrol areas of concern. The City can also track and publicize the small number of incidents that actually occur. The most effective way to make these trails safe is to increase usage and positive activities on the trails and surrounding areas. Additional steps can be taken to remove some brush to improve sight lines to the river, install low level safety lighting, potentially install emergency call stations, add trail mile markers and add map stations along the trails. Increase Security Lighting at Many Park Amenities PRCA should monitor reports of vandalism and loitering to pinpoint areas within the park system where some of the negative behavior is occurring. Based on this information, PRCA can add security lighting at the park amenities where the negative types of activities such as vandalism and loitering are creating an unsafe perception. In addition, strategic programming efforts and inclusion of principles of Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) can help improve safety in parks. 108 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- B. Recommendations with Actionable Planning, Cost Estimates and Prioritization The following Goals, Objectives, and Action Items for the recommendations are drawn from the public input, inventory, level of service analysis, findings feedback, and all the information gathered during the master planning process with a primary focus on maintaining, sustaining, and improving City of Farmington parks, open space, and trails. All cost estimates are in 2014 figures. Goal 1: Improve Organizational Credibility and Operational Efficiencies Objective 1.1: Enhance and improve internal and external communication of activities an services Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.1.a Update and enhance the PRCA Marketing Plan including tourism and outdoor recreation opportunities $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.1.b Upgrade and maintain a website to provide current information in a usable and convenient format for patrons $3,000 Staff Time Short Term 1.1.c Adopt open lines of communications and meetings with partners and potential partners $0 Staff Time Short Term Objective 1.2: Attract tourism and develop outdoor recreation amenities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.2.a Create Branding of Farmington as an “Outdoor Recreation Destination” and strategize implementation in the Marketing Plan $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.2.b Partner with other agencies and alternative providers on regional outdoor recreation services such as jeep trail and mountain biking opportunities (Sample Partnership Policy Appendix $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.2.c Develop a Site Master Plan for Farmington Lake. Consider destination program elements such as RV and tent camping, water access, boating, fishing, swimming, marina, adventure sports such as single track trails, zip lines, etc. $200,000 Staff Time/TBD Short to Mid Term 1.2.d Continue development and implementation of Riverine Plan including pedestrian connection from river to Downtown Farmington $25,000,000 Staff Time Short to Mid Term Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 109 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1.2.e Consider improvements or additional river access opportunities TBD TBD Mid Term 1.2.f Create a formal Boaters Guide to the Farmington Region including water access and camping information, along with retail guides, lodging, and relevant partner information. Distribute printed and online versions and include on the PRCA website. $0 $5,000 + Staff Time Mid Term 1.2.g Continue to promote Piñon Hills Golf course as a premier municipal course and conduct a feasibility study to upgrade club house to reflect its stature $50,000 Staff Time Mid to Long Term 1.2.h Promote Lions Wilderness Park Disc Golf course as a premier course and upgrade amenities to reflect its stature $15,000 Staff Time Short to Mid Term Objective 1.3: Improve and upgrade PRCA’s use of technology Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.3.a Improve & upgrade computers and software so all PRCA employees are operating on a current system. Implement an integrated registration system at all locations. $175,000 Improve Staff Time Resources Short Term Objective 1.4: Provide easier and more convenient connections for users to parks and facilities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.4.a Conduct park identification sign inventory and insure all parks are clearly and consistently signed as Farmington Park facilities. $15,000 or in- house staff Staff Time Short Term 1.4.b Improve directional/wayfinding signage and maps to facilities on roadways & within parks. $50,000 Staff Time Short to Mid Term 1.4.c Work with partners such as Chamber of Commerce to create central clearing house (one stop shop) for distribution of recreation materials and opportunities (Sample Partnership Policy Appendix $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.4.d Work with Red Apple Transit to increase park and recreation access via public transit. Add park locations to route map and increase number of park specific bus stops. $0 Staff Time Short to Mid Term 110 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Objective 1.5: Enhance diversity by improve partner agency relationships including embracing and highlighting other cultures and cultural awareness Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.5.a Open lines of communication and meetings with partner agencies including Navajo Nation $0 Staff Time Short Term Objective 1.6: Create new staffing assignments and/or hire new employees for added responsibilities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 1.6.a Add a grant research and writer position (staff or contractual) $0 $30,000 or % of successful grants Short to Mid Term 1.6.b Establish a staff liaison to enhance partnership with Navajo Nation $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.6.c Establish and/or assign a staff person to manage the new website and keep it current $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.6.d Establish and/or assign a staff person to manage and address all on water-related topics including rivers and lakes $0 Staff Time Short Term 1.6.e Ensure staffing resource levels can maintain existing and new facilities at or above acceptable standards as master plan is implemented $0 TBD Short to Long Term Goal 2: Improve Financial Situations Objective 2.1 Implement equitable user fees and assessment fees Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 2.1.a Develop Pyramid Pricing Methodology (Appendix I) and Cost Recovery Policy. $35,000 Increased revenue TBD Short Term Objective 2.2: Consider Increase Tax Increment Levels Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 2.2.b Campaign for community investment in long term Master Plan implementation. $0 $0 Short Term Objective 2.3: Pursue grant opportunities Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 111 ---PAGE BREAK--- Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 2.3.a Research, submit, and track federal, regional, state, and local grants. Matching Funds TBD Staff Time Short Term 2.3.b Consider partnership (Sample Partnership Policy Appendix G) with Public Health or Local Medical Institutions in Healthy Communities Initiative (www.gpred.org/hcrg) and funding sources. $0 Staff Time Short Term Goal 3: Improve Programs and Service Delivery Objective 3.1: Increase programming for families, youth, and teens Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 3.1.a Expand program opportunities for teens, families, and youth in all locations. $0 TBD Short Term 3.1.b As assets are refurbished or repurposed consider applicability to teen, youth, and family programming opportunities. TBD TBD Short to Mid Term 3.1.c Relocate horseshoe complex from Civitan Golf Course to Civitan Park and repurpose area with teen, youth and family friendly miniature golf course. $0 $40,000 Short to Mid Term Objective 3.2: Increase programs in wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, water craft Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 3.2.a Expand wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, water craft programming opportunities. $0 TBD Short to Mid Term 3.2.b As assets are refurbished or repurposed consider applicability wellness/fitness, cultural, special needs, water craft opportunities. TBD TBD Short to Mid Term 3.2.c Consider adding loop walks, mileage markers, fitness course equipment to existing park locations across the community. $2,000 per mile + equipment TBD $0 Short to Mid Term 3.2.d Consider museum feasibility study to include future of E3 Children’s Museum and Indian Heritage Center. $50,000 $0 Short to Mid Term 112 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- 3.2.e Consider feasibility study to allow water craft at Farmington Lake. $50,000 If separate (currently included in Park Master Plan 1.2.c) $0 Short to Mid Term Objective 3.3: Increase number of special events and festivals Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 3.3.a Expand neighborhood and community special event and festival opportunities at a variety of locations community wide. $0 TBD Short Term Goal 4: Improve Facilities and Amenities Objective 4.1 Maintain and improve existing facilities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.1.a Continue development of system wide self- evaluation to identify low scoring assets and amenities. Implement strategy for repair, repurpose or replacement. (see Staff Resource Document for examples of current issues) TBD Staff Time Ongoing CIP 4.1.b Hire a consultant to conduct an overall Recreation Center Feasibility Study that collectively includes The Recreation Center (how to repurpose), The Senior Center (potentially convert to an all adults age multi- purpose center), and a potential new Community Center on the East side of Farmington that serves the Couch Mesa area. $75,000 $0 Short Term 4.1.c Renovate the Indoor Aquatic Center to repair existing structural issues and add new leisure aquatic features, a large therapeutic pool, warm swim lanes, and a birthday party multipurpose rental room. Once the improvements are completed and the new amenities are operable in the Indoor Aquatic Center, the activities and patrons from the Lions Pool can be relocated and the Lions Pool leveled. Aquatic firm already hired $0 Short to Mid Term Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 113 ---PAGE BREAK--- Objective 4.2: Expand trails & connectivity Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.2.a Expand River Trail, connect amenities via trails. $2,000 per mile $0 Short to Mid Term 4.2.b Conduct City Wide Trails Master Plan or Multi-Modal Transportation Plan with Recreational Trails Component for further development of trails system. $100,000 $0 Short to Mid Term 4.2.c Ground truth and investigate actual validity of current Farmington Bike Map to insure accuracy. $0 Staff Time Short Term 4.2.d Connect Downtown Farmington to expanded River Trail through pedestrian friendly corridor. $5,000,000 $0 Mid to Long Term Objective 4.3: Ensure ADA accessibility at all facilities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.3.a Complete ADA Self Evaluation assessment. $0 Staff Time Immediate 4.3.b Create and implement a department wide ADA Accessibility Transition Plan to address deficiencies. $0 Staff Time Immediate 4.3.c Develop a plan to address aging playground structures and safety surfacing deficiencies. $0 Staff Time Short Term Objective 4.4: Upgrade outdated amenities that do not function well Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.4.a Develop and implement plan for regular site specific master plans as parks and their amenities reach expected life span. Brookside Park might be considered a priority with Kiwanis Park, Justis Park, Civitan Park, Westside Estates Park, Sun Valley Park, Sycamore Park, Boyd Park, and Boat Launch also ranking high on the priority list. $30,000 - $60,000 per park depending on size and amenities Staff Time Short Term 4.4.b Develop city standards for assets including but not limited to playground structures and surfacing, picnic shelters, basketball courts, skate parks, etc. $0 Staff Time Short Term 114 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- 4.4.c Develop Deferred Maintenance Plan and Budget. Implement plan for replacement of assets not currently meeting city standards. $0 Staff Time Short Term 4.4.d Consider developing new or improving destination playgrounds at larger community parks such as the Sports Complex, Brookside, Sycamore, and Kiwanis Parks. $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 each $0 Mid Term Objective 4.5: Improve water access opportunities (river, lake, ponds) Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.5.a Continue to implement Riverine Plan including connection of river to Downtown Farmington via pedestrian friendly corridor. $25,000,000 $0 Mid to Long Term 4.5.b Complete a comprehensive Farmington River Corridors Management Plan with the City as lead agent to address the various opportunities and challenges. $0 Staff Time Short to Mid Term 4.5.c Conduct site specific Master Plan for development of Lake Farmington as flagship park. $200,000 $0 Short to Mid Term 4.5.d Improve existing water access opportunities through clearing of brush, insuring sight lines to water, etc. $20,000 to $50,000 Staff Time Short Term 4.5.e Look for additional water access opportunities at existing parks and undeveloped parcels. TBD Staff Time Short Term 4.5.f Continue to collaborate with the River Reach Foundation, the Navajo nation, and all other stakeholders to increase use, access, conservation, and promotion of the trails, access, environmental education, and Paddle Trail concepts. $0 Staff Time Mid to Long Term Objective 4.6: Improve restroom availability & maintenance Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 4.6.a Continue to monitor restroom use and vandalism. Add restrooms, lengthen open hours and elevate cleaning standards where needed. TBD Staff Time Short to Mid Term Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 115 ---PAGE BREAK--- Goal 5: Improve Safety and Security Objective 5.1 Improve safety perception of Riverwalk Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 5.1.a Track and publicize small number of incidents $0 Staff Time Short Term 5.1.b Create foot traffic by capitalizing on programming opportunities $0 TBD Short Term 5.1.c Work with local law enforcement and business owners along Riverwalk to continue patrols and self- patrol areas of concern $0 Staff Time Short Term Objective 5.2: Increase security lighting at many park amenities Actions Capital Cost Estimate Operational Budget Impact Timeframe to Complete 5.2.a Monitor reports of vandalism and loitering. Add security lighting at park amenities where vandalism & loitering occurs TBD $0 Short Term 5.2.b Implement CPTED principles in areas of concern TBD $0 Short Term 116 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Community Input Summary Public Process for the Farmington New Mexico Parks and Recreation Master plan was held the week of October 21 - 24, 2013 and consisted of 182 participants in 11 focus groups, 5 public forums, and 4 city official individual interviews. This is the summary the key issues and input that was mentioned in the focus group meetings. City of Farmington Department Heads were asked a series of questions. Below is a summary of the resulting input to those questions. PRCA Communication, access to information is an issue: • Trails signage/info – need more detailed signage, ie… mileage, maps, etc…  Lions Wilderness Park trails & Frisbee Golf Course is confusing for access and information  Newcomers can’t find access to river or facilities • Recreation Center & Pools  Difficult & confusing to navigate website to sign up for program  Many don’t know when programs are offered  Have to sign up for high demand programs (like swim lessons) during work hours – should maybe be a lottery rather than first come first served? • No central place for access to information • Marketing events to public  Most events are confined to advertising in the local newspapers – hit or miss  Implement & use electronic/high visibility signage  Implement mobile application – especially with high percentage of low income as they may not have computers but they have smart phones PRCA • Parks & Facilities look great – especially parks – we are desert and so our provision of public green space is important • Fountains at Berg Park and Orchard Park • Large number of green spaces spread fairly evenly throughout the City • Private neighborhood parks • Great Aquatic Center • Large number of events – Riverfest, Freedom Days, TGIF @ Orchard Park, Connie Mack, Totah Festival • Ballfields – parks maintains beautifully and supplies many items, such as bases etc.. • Golf Courses – Pinon Hills GC and Civitan GC • PRCA employees/staff have good reputations Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 117 ---PAGE BREAK--- PRCA Weaknesses & needs fixing: • More restrooms at more parks • Amphitheater is under utilized • Too many events? May need to streamline – cannot be everything for everyone any more • Department is too large with multiple divisions – may be duplication within dept. and within City • Safety issues in Parks – perceived and actual  Environmental design needed to help with crime prevention  Need 24 hour and additional security lighting in parks  Skateparks are currently controlled by older groups. Younger/smaller children unable to use skate parks as a result. Add staffing to help manage scheduling of skate parks – or a youth group to help smaller kids and girls feel welcome  Citizens of neighborhood parks adopt park, become self-policing to reduce vandalism and other safety issues. • More bike and walking trails needed • Better programming and utilization of parks Programs/Amenities needed or added. • River trails • Ice Skating • Miniature Golf Course • Water Park • RV Facilities – maybe at Farmington Lake • Transportation – especially for youth and seniors • Outdoor movies Diversity in Culture • Integration – many have moved to town from reservation • Establish a Native American Cultural Museum • Better marketing of local crafts and skills  Working farm with sheep & crops. On site family (couple) to demonstrate culture  Indoor market place established at Indian Center for marketing local native crafts  Add more variety of cultural events to reflect local cultural diversity Amenities to Repurpose • Recreation Center • Add recreational activities not associated with sports • Wellness program – address juvenile obesity • Connect all bike/walking trails together – possible form a loop around the city 118 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- How do we support these actions and improvements? • Do assessment of current and future needs. • Reestablish park fees • Increase Gross Receipt Tax • Raise/Implement fees • Level of support and willingness to implement the above items.  Many in the community are willing to pay a little more in taxes to maintain “quality of life.”  There will be hesitation by some in the community to increase taxes, fees, etc.. Key Partners/Stakeholders • Schools/ Hospital • Economic Development • Tourism What will it take for plan to be successful? • Make current/existing better • Maximizing resources • Obtaining input, doing research that shows strong community support • Reviewing what we have and not duplicating programs – refer when possible to college and hospital • Promoting physical activities such as walking/bicycling • Establish activities geared for Boomers and Senior Citizens • Promote “quality of life” such as good weather, four seasons, lots of sunny days A Staff focus group was held on October 21st to get input as part of the needs assessment process for this Master Plan Update. Following is a summary of the input related to participant’s opinions about the weaknesses/challenges and opportunities related to parks and recreation facilities and services in Farmington. • Customer Service (we go the extra mile) • Quality facilities and parks • amazing free stuff • activities, locations • inter-departmental working together • World famous staff • Diverse programs • Good reputation • Awesome patrons • Great community involvement • Green grass • Outstanding medians Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 119 ---PAGE BREAK--- Weaknesses/Challenges • Need bigger budget • Pricing structure is way off (too much free stuff) • Past focus on new stuff and older stuff is getting warn out • Need to upkeep older amenities • Cross-marketing is weak • Lack of staff • Use of technology – need to upgrade computers, lighting, • We built, but now we need to upgrade • We don’t use to full capacity • Sometimes in-house programs compete against each other • Training is cut • Understaffed • Brand and identity needs to be updated. Opportunities What additional programs or activities do you feel the Department should offer that are currently not available? • programming along the river, need kayaking or other on-water opportunities • Need programming for teens and tweens • Need summer week-long camps. Do one now, but need more or maybe longer • At animal shelter – need more options for training, dog parks, socialization with dogs • Walking/running programs • Need more pre-K programs – parent/tot • Outdoor education • Concerts / culture / music • Expanded food program in Silver program that could serve boomers, to increase use/longer hours/drop-in What improvements are needed at existing facilities? Where are these improvements needed? • Recreation center • Brookside outdoor swimming pool is outdated and old • Upgrading shower facilities at Indian Center • Theatre Upgrade – Civic Center • Farmington Lake – could do boating, more programs, fishing pier, could be like Cherry Creek, extending trail system, • More parking at Senior Center • Area park shelters – structures are sound but need upgrades • Upgrading electrical to 220V for events at parks • Irrigation and clubhouse at golf course need upgrades • New Deck @ Lions Pool, new lines, lockers, surge tank • Extend gym at Sycamore • Surveillance – cameras • Dining hall at Senior Center • Playground surfacing – need to upgrade play structures • Irrigation systems at some parks, erosion control 120 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • Decks repainted and lockers in locker rooms at aquatics center • Increase size of fitness center at Senior Center • Admin building is embarrassing • Incorporate technology at any trails systems, lighting, implement in all applications Are there any portions of the community that are underserved? Please explain where and what type of amenities are needed, what market segment needs more attention, etc.). • Hispanic and Navaho populations – don’t have much programming in Spanish, and programs don’t seem to be well used – translation, lower economic base, may need more targeted community center, Harper Hill, all other tribes - American Indian • Harper Hill and Crouch Mesa – local technology • Need programs out east – but may have higher economic base (may be able to travel) • Youth in Indian Center area, Chicken – geographic inequities / LOS should identify this • South of Main is an area folks won’t go • Used to be a state statute or 1 mile service area – parks development – Four geographic areas/ districts are very close. – need to look at this, was $200 per household for impact fee, but now not doing this. – need to look at park development fee. – may need to verify if should use a buffer or park geographic sub-areas to set standard • Ages 50 – 65, The working - will never be “seniors” • Bus system does not fully serve all of community – not good public transportation to get to a regional center What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see the community provide? • A sports complex –there was a plan to put a main park (with new playground) in between ball fields – need to add • New Hogan to replace the one that was vandalized. • Senior center café (not called senior) – Coyote Cafe • New recreation center • New splashpad at Brookside and also at Sycamore Park • Waterpark • Crouch Mesa “Real” community center – community center is focused on local neighborhood center - • Could do a regional recreation center – may need to look at a hybrid model for center provision a larger regional center and some neighborhood focus centers Sycamore was originally a pilot for up to six community centers but then economy took a downturn, so that model became more expensive. • Need more softball fields • Putt-Putt golf course at the • Outdoor classrooms • Community gardens – we are spending money to water grass, and we are second hungriest community in the US – need to use water to feed people • Need a destination event along the river – Regional Riverfront Park • Update downtown – improve recreational opportunities downtown • Trail system along Animas River – need to connect shopping, downtown • Bike trails – work with BLM – one plan in discussion, but very early stages, working with metropolitan organization Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 121 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Currently partnering with university for climbing wall, weight center, cross-promote, so they can go to multiple centers, parenting, line dancing, specific neighborhood • X# of Neighborhood – MP space, game room, gym, and kitchen. • 1 - Community- more MP, walking track, amenity and size • River safety – west of Broadway, that part of town, used to be a red light district, • Looking at equity – not cookie cutter, but what they need for the community • Could do a new American Indian Cultural Center (maybe a different facility) (how does this work with the museum in town?) – Could do a large integrated plaza with Anglos, Hispanics and Indians? How do you believe the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department should be financially supported? Should they be self-supported through user fees, completely through taxes, alternative funding or a combination of each? Please elaborate. • Grants • Rec fees – gross receipts tax sunset 19 year ago. Used taxes to build new facilities, then a new tax, and then a new one for operations. – about half think it might pass/people have been lining up to see a temporary tax – need to ask about tax tolerance and willingness to pay on survey. ¼ of 1% is magic number • Property tax • Park development fee (rec. dedication fee) • Not had a bond referendum – typically do CO’s against gross receipts • Some sort of cost recovery model for specialized services – while still offering free or affordable • Do not have a scholarship program • Do not have a program with philanthropic support • Lodgers tax – Bed, Board or Booze tax – on alcohol – get 30% of lodgers tax • Could create a Foundation (we have a number of small foundations) • Partnerships. Who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community with regards to assisting with the implementation of this plan? • BHP • BP America • Merrion • Conoco-Phillip • Oil and gas is second only to shopping - Other Oil and Gas • River Reach Foundation has purchased parkland • Schools (maybe not financial) – need to include • Pet Foundation • Connie Mack • FABC – Farmington Amateur Baseball Corp. • Farmington Museum Foundation • Hospital • Anasazi Foundation (they sponsor, not partner) • Home Runners • Henry Production 122 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • Most are handshake deals – some work, some don’t • Boys and Girls Club – they run the City building • San Juan College – facility partner • UNM have satellite facilities through San Juan College What are the key issues and values in the Farmington community that need to be considered while developing this Master Plan? • ADA Compliance • How do we continue to maintain what the City has put together and keep quality • Service to the community • What is that one thing – signature element • Need to link downtown to the river – competing interests between downtown and riverfront (hotels), • River access – River usage, private land, reservation collaboration • Farmington is bypassed – 550 goes from Aztec up to Durango • Farmington has given everything for free – quality of life, need to get stuff going for wives and families while men were in oil fields • Oil and gas – we’ve been boom and bust since the 40’s, but we also have coal industries (power plant community) shutting down, losing 1,300 jobs. Need to find new way to fund. • Afraid of tourism? • Other communities come here to shop, but we go to Durango to eat, and they are adding. Are there any political sensitivities we should be aware of that could impact the success of the city’s planning efforts? • Biggest problem is to get consensus on one thing – they all want what they want for their own districts – two will disagree, very much a three-two council – oil/water, may want to adjust findings/draft dates • Community loves parks and facilities – community support • Fee discussion • Capital fund but not operational • Very conservative town – want to keep small town feel. Council members were born and raised here. Huge difference of opinion on “what we should be spending money on” • Decreasing population – have to look at how to handle determination of priorities – gross receipts are not growing – are we grown too far • Tax repeal 1% in 2015 – had a chance to not do this but it During the next 5-10 years, what are the top priorities for the Parks and Recreation Department? • Can do survey by District, but LOS analysis by north/south - political climate can be looked at community level • Fix what we already have (programs and amenities) • Staffing levels (staff goes beyond and beyond) – we do more with less • Huge volunteers in some areas (but not others) – need a more global focus • Need to find best way to get the news out & branding focus • Marketing does not have as much control • Would like to see a signature facility- • 31 acres near downtown – could be mercantile hub/events –also tied to the river Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 123 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Nice outdoor center at the lake – is a drinking water, and invasive mussel problem • Could do a big regional recreation center – draw for all – conference center? • RV parks are all asphalt – could provide more of a “state park” environment Areas to eliminate: • Shadow Bluff Lake not being used to potential, used as community dumping, could be used as recycle center, parks maintenance? • Brookside should be something different – could be a splash pad • Repurposing the Indian center to be a recreation center Four City Council/City Official interviews were held the week of October 21st – 24th. Following are the results of those interviews. What are the key issues and values in the Farmington community that need to be considered while developing this Master Plan? • Declining revenues • Aging Infrastructure • Shift in economy – Boom or Bust • Farmington is a regional Commercial Center for shopping • 45,000 weekday and 100,000 weekend population • Councilman Dan Donnelly will send survey information and crime statistics from the Sycamore project area. Based on Dr. Ruby Payne’s book on Poverty. • Diversity of community • Cultural assets During the next 5-10 years, what are the top priorities for the Parks and Recreation Department? • Tourism – natural resources are regional (or national) attractions that need to be upgraded and marketed • Attract retirees via quality of life amenities and activities • Community Center in Couch Mesa • Utilize the existing organized teen groups on an ongoing basis including: • Mayor’s Teen Advisory Group • Teens at Sycamore Community Center • High School Student Councils – FHS & PVHS • San Juan College Student Council – Bob Campbell (City) plus Red Apple Transit representative • Economic Development • Look at composite of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department and the breadth of operations – Should museums, animal shelter, Civic Center, etc. be in the department? • Implement equitable User Fees • Should the golf courses be in the enterprise fund or general fund? What (if anything) makes golf different from other recreational activities in the general fund? • Review our Park Impact Fees to make sure they are at the appropriate level. • Ecotourism – Attractions which visitors will pay to utilize which will add to our Gross Receipts Tax base • Regional marketing of natural resources – Billboards, targeted magazines, 124 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- What additional programs or activities do you feel the Department should offer that are currently not available? • Leave special activities at Sycamore even if you add community-wide events • River activities – tubing, canoeing, kayaking, etc. • World class events using our natural resources Are there any portions of the community that are underserved? • Couch Mesa • Teens • South • Kirtland • Bloomfield Do you think residents would be supportive of a no-tax increase levee, if it is found that there are insufficient funds to build and/or properly operate and maintain park and recreational facilities and programs to the standards desired by the community? • Yes, if done correctly and the timing were good. Who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community with regards to assisting with the implementation of this plan? • San Juan Safe Communities Non-Profit • Red Apple Public Transit • MPO – buses kids to Boys & Girls Club but does not run late enough to bring back • Metropolitan Planning Department • Bureau of Land Management What improvements are needed at existing facilities? Where are these improvements needed? • Expand the volunteers into a formal organization with a full time coordinator • Expand river trails for pedestrians and bikes • Add biking and hiking trails connecting neighborhoods and amenities • Add bike trails to neighboring communities – Aztec, Bloomfield (Metropolitan Planning Department) • Upgrade all older facilities (especially the Aquatic Center) to state-of-the-art amenities What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see the community provide? • Connection between River and Downtown – See Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan 2009 • Additional Open Space – Land Acquisition for recreational uses • Mountain biking trails • Jeep Trails • River • Add neighborhood parks with Park Impact Fees • Walking and biking trails connecting the river, downtown, north side, rest of community • Organized, developed, and maintained Jeep Trails • Organized, developed, and maintained Mountain Bike Trails • BMX Bike Facility • Outdoor adventure activities Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 125 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Equestrian trails • Teen Center – add on to Library The following input is a summary of the eleven Focus Groups and five Public Forums facilitated during the week of October 21st through 25th. How long have you been a resident of Farmington? • Majority responded that they have been a resident for 20 + years • 5 – 9 years and 10 – 19 years tying for the second most as a Farmington resident The focus group participants listed the following as the of the Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department currently, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Park Amenities, Number and Maintenance of Parks and Green Spaces • Aquatics Center • Programs diversity and Quality Community and Special Events • Recreational Facilities • Staff • Golf Courses The focus group participants listed the following as the weaknesses of the waterparks currently, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Safety and Security Issues in Parks • Connectivity throughout the system with biking/hiking/pedestrians trails • Lack of staff • Lack of Communication, marketing, advertising and signage The Focus group participants listed the following as additional program or activities they feel the Department should offer that are currently not available, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Teen Programming and events • Cultural Programs and Events • Nature Based Programming • Expansion of Special Events The focus group participants listed the following additional park and recreation facilities they would like to see the community provide, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Recreation / Community Centers • Trails Systems • Outdoor Sports facilities • Development of River / Lake areas and amenities • Splashpad / park for kids • Community Gardens • Performing Arts Center When asked how satisfied are you with the quality of current programs offered: • 31% rated it as Excellent • 58% rated it as Very Good 126 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • 10% rated it as Good • 1% rated it as Fair When asked how satisfied are you with the overall quality of the existing park and recreation facilities provided by the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department: • 15% rated them Excellent • 60% rated them Very Good • 25% rated them as Good. When asked how would you rate the overall level of maintenance at the facilities owned or operated by the Department: • 15% rated it as Excellent • 60% rated it as very good • 25% rated it as good The Focus group participants listed the following improvements are needed at existing facilities and where are these improvements needed, in no particular order: • Kids waterpark unsafe surface (slippery) • Outdoor exercise equipment/fitness trails • Upgrade existing facilities; skateboarding parks, • Museum Summer Terrace Series • Expansions to bring in larger events to help fund to expansion • Ricketts parking and seating needs to be increased • River Rock Structure • Equipment rentals • River vendors • Programming for existing amenities • Complete streets, walkability, bicycling • National Recognition • Beautification at city gateways; medians • Lion’s pool locker rooms are not big enough (more benches and lockers) • Flooding control at Nature Center • More bathrooms from Animas to Berg • Better signage at the riverine • Parks need bathrooms especially larger parks with shelters and/or fields (ex: North Dustin, Among the Waters) • Face lift at Nature Center • Pedestrian/bike bridge across river @ museum • Expand meeting room/classroom/group room @ Nature Center • Entrance/Exit to museum • Civic Center – larger sky space/ elevator • Move large dog entry – not to pass picnic area • Alcohol at Events • Civitan Golf Course-convert horseshoe pits to miniature golf course • PHGC –year round/winter driving range/club storage • Skateparks-safety issues Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 127 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Connector trails-attached by parks • Children’s Museum • Nature Center • Crouch Mesa CC (expand/enlarge) • Trail signage • Fly Space @ Civic Center • More showers at Indian Center • Indian Center to be open on Mondays • Signage – a phone number at trails – a contact number to help with visitors • Computer access • Rec Center – roof leaks/need meeting room • Outdoor Theatre – more use/more cost recovery • Connie Mack – locals use out-of-towners (economic impact) • Open Harvest Grove Barn – Historic – class rooms • Senior Center Equipment • Public transportation later hours (night time) for disabled & seniors • Handicap accessibility • Accessible restrooms in parks and facilities • River Access Points • Signage at access points • Images on signs vs. words • Art in Parks • Swimming at Farmington Lake • Fishing, Camping/RV • Webcams/security cameras • River trail expansion • Recreation center; lighting, a mysterious hum • Gateway museum; café near the river, build up potential of that river area • Brookside park change into a water park • Re-invest in the golf course cart/walking paths, and aquatic center upgrades in tile & party rooms. • Farmington Lake • Turn into a regional recreational area • Make it safe for use (swimming) canoes • Paddle Boats • Jeeping • Kayaks • Biking • Camping • RV site • Skate park ramps • Signage at Berg Park/Trail signage • Metal has thinned at skate parks • Holes forming at skate park - Brookside (couple inches deep/wide) • Wall at the skate park (Brookside) has fell over - needs repair. • More spacious gym at Sycamore Park Comm. Center 128 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- • River walk on west side • Bike trails on glade • Lion’s Wilderness • Disc Golf course, seated targets/goals • Advertisement/communication of facilities, web site listings, electronic bill boards (main street, visitor center, various facilities), radio (104.5), electric city bill • Boys and Girls Club • Permanent benches at museum for growers market • Senior center expansion • Electronic bill boards expanded information • More safety at parks • Senior center open later – closes to early • Classrooms get to full at senior center – there is limited space • Transportation • Farmers market – shade, more space – • Could use Tibbett old school could be used as art studio, etc. • Close street downtown during TGIF events and possibly move farmers market to downtown • Dog parks Focus group participants listed the following portions of the community that are underserved, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Teens • South / Southwest Community • Crouch mesa • Westside Community • Adult Programming • NE Farmington • Foothills/Upper Foothills • Eastside • Troy King area • Navajo Nation • Special Needs community • African America community – more visibility, cultural awareness Focus group participants were asked to list any facilities and/or programs currently available that should be eliminated: • Great parks here in Farmington just need to be more accessible • No elimination • Airport – revamp it or get rid of it • Spending too much on the airport – move or close it – shuttle to Durango at the airport in/out • Lions wilderness park is underutilized - – could be used for music festivals or more events, more programs Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 129 ---PAGE BREAK--- When asked how you would rate the quality of customer service provided by the Parks and Recreation staff: • 44% rated it as Excellent • 51% rated it as Very Good • 5% rated it as Good When asked how effective is the Department in seeking feedback from the community and users on improving its performance: • 20% rated it as Excellent • 5% rated it as Very Good • 48% rated it as Good • 27% rated it as Fair Focus group participants were asked how you believe the Parks and Recreation Department should be financially supported, should they be self-supported through user fees, completely through taxes, alternative funding or a combination of each, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Gross Receipts Tax • Grants • User Fees • Bond Referendum / Property Tax • Private Donations • Corporate Sponsorships / Naming Rights • Park Impact Fees • Increase Volunteer Programs • Fundraising Do you think residents would be supportive of a tax increase levee, if it is found that there are insufficient funds to build and/or properly operate and maintain park and recreational facilities and programs to the standards desired by the community? • Public would support but City Council will not push it • Some thought a special tax would pass if campaigned properly • Majority felt a gross tax receipt increase levee will work if presented correctly. • Majority felt a bond or referendum would pass • It’s been done twice for some of the facilities in the past. As long as there is a vision that goes along with it. • A few feel the community will agree to increase in gross receipts and allow user fees • The could be a small mill levy – especially if earmarked for maintenances – don’t want deferred maintenance to stack up and be more expensive later 130 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Focus group participants were asked who are the key partners and stakeholders in the community with regards to assisting with the implementation of this plan, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Gas and Energy Industries • Region / Neighboring Cities • River Reach Foundation, other Foundations • San Juan College and Local Schools • State Department of Transportation • Local Tribes • Metropolitan Planning Organization • Chamber of Commerce, Convention and Visitor Bureau Business Community, Travel / Tourism • Civic Groups • Hospital / Medical Center Focus group participants were asked what are the key issues and values in the Farmington community that need to be considered while developing this Master Plan, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Cultural diversity • Family Oriented / Quality of Life / Safety • Communication / Marketing / Signage • Connectivity / Trails • Tourism / Economy • Environment Focus groups were asked are there any political sensitivities we should be aware of that could impact the success of the city’s planning efforts, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Community / Cultural Diversity • Taxes • Community Zones • Political Divides • Alcohol in Parks / Functions • Oil and Gas industry • Drinking water from the lake • Connie Mack costs • Transient population • Land owners issues on riverfront access – history • No Swimming in Farmington Lake • Increasing user fees will cause some to resist • Parks and Recreation could get lost behind the big issues (pecking order; roads, police, fire etc) • Building low quality • Public good – what is it and how to we deal with it - connect parks to benefits provided in people’s minds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 131 ---PAGE BREAK--- Focus group participants were asked during the next 5-10 years, what are the top priorities for the Parks and Recreation Department, with those mentioned most frequently listed first: • Trails and Connectivity • Improve Communication and Marketing • Improved Cultural Relationships • Maintain and Improve Existing Facilities • Improved Safety and Security • Improve Quality of Life and Attract Tourism • Increase and Improve Large Special Events • Additional Funding • Increased Programming for Family, Youth and Teens A Teen/Pre-Teen focus group was conducted at the Library on October 23rd to gather input on what the teen and pre-teen age group would like to see from the Farmington Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Department in the next several years. Below is the input received from the teen/pre-teen group. What programs or activities would you like to see offered in Farmington that is currently not available? In no particular order: • More shopping • Fencing • Amusement Park • Chocolate Factory • Water park – water slides (outdoor) • Teen get together – music place, coffee place • Musical /arts facility • Teen classes – dancing, cooking (teen college) • Concert venue • Bring more concerts to local area • More Theaters • Indoor waterparks • More parks • A bigger recreational area for kids and students to do more activities and encourage homework to be fun for students to learn • Dodgeball • Skate parks What improvements are needed at existing Park and Recreation facilities? In no particular order: • Add more to the mall • More teen shows/productions (sandstone) • More dog bags • Planetarium • More motivation to education and learning 132 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- What additional park and recreation facilities would you like to see in Farmington? In no particular order: • Theatre/amphitheater • A building with food/arcade • Indoor skate park • Studio with a stage • Study center/homework area • A place to organize for another activity • Arcade games • Indoor skate park • Basketball court • Outdoor facilities • WiFi • Motocross track • Arcades • More museums • More libraries • More Playgrounds • Boys & Girls club to expand for more kids & students Would you like to see a dedicated teen center in Farmington? 10 voted yes (everyone) Where should it be located? • By Library, it’s the center of the whole city. • Closer to the high schools. • By the swimming, by the library • Around or between school districts • Orchard Plaza • Farmington public library How should a teen center be operated? • An adult in charge of overlooking the teen center but have teens working there. • Adults should run the teen center Committee of teens in different areas of interest. • Program advisory group of teens being in charge. • Democracy like • Make it available for parties – birthday party During the next 5-10 years, what are the top priorities for the Parks and Recreation Department? • Building a teen center • Helping the environment, participating in our community and having fun Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 133 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – GRASP® Maps Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 135 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – GRASP® Composite Values Method For Level of Service Analysis A. GRASP® History and Methodology GRASP® Glossary Buffer: see catchment area Catchment area: a circular map overlay that radiates outward in all directions from an asset and represents a reasonable travel distance from the edge of the circle to the asset. Used to indicate access to an asset in a level of service assessment Component: an amenity such as a playground, picnic shelter, basketball court, or athletic field that allows people to exercise, socialize, and maintain a healthy physical, mental, and social wellbeing Isolation analysis: an examination on a map of places within a study area that meet specific criteria, often included as part of a level of service assessment Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Process® (GRASP®): a proprietary composite-values methodology that takes quality and functionality of assets and amenities into account in a level of service assessment Level of service (LOS): the extent to which a recreation system provides a community access to recreational assets and amenities Low-score component: a component given a GRASP® score of or as it fails to meet expectations Low-service area: an area of a city that has some GRASP® level of service but falls below the minimum standard threshold for overall level of service Modifier: a basic site amenity that supports users during a visit to a park or recreation site, to include elements such as restrooms, shade, parking, drinking fountains, seating, BBQ grills, security lighting, and bicycle racks among others No-service area: an area of a city with no GRASP® level of service Perspective: a map or data quantification, such as a table or chart, produced using the GRASP® methodology that helps illustrate how well a community is served by a given set of recreational assets Radius: see catchment area Recreational connectivity: the extent to which community recreational resources are transitionally linked to allow for easy and enjoyable travel between them. Recreational trail: a soft or hard surface trail intended mostly for leisure and enjoyment of resources. Typically passes through park lands or natural areas and usually falls to parks and recreation professionals for planning and management. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 145 ---PAGE BREAK--- Service area: all or part of a catchment area ascribed a particular GRASP® score that reflects level of service provided by a particular recreational asset, a set of assets, or an entire recreation system Threshold: a minimum level of service standard typically determined based on community expectations Trail: any off-street or on-street connection dedicated to pedestrian, bicycle, or other non-motorized users Trail network: a part of a greater trail system within which major barrier crossings have been addressed and all trails are functionally connected by such things as crosswalks, pedestrian underpasses, and/or bridges. Typically separated from other trail networks by missing trail connections or by such barriers as roadways, rivers, or railroad tracks. Trail system: all trails in a community that serve pedestrian, bicycle, and alternative transportation users for purposes of both recreation and transportation Transportation trail: a hard surface trail, such as a city sidewalk, intended mostly for utility in traveling from one place to another in a community or region. Typically runs outside of park lands and is managed by Public Works or other city utility department. Composite-Values Level of Service Analysis Methodology Analysis of the existing parks, open space, trails, and recreation systems are often conducted in order to try and determine how the systems are serving the public. A Level of Service (LOS) has been typically defined in parks and recreation master plans as the capacity of the various components and facilities that make up the system to meet the needs of the public. This is often expressed in terms of the size or quantity of a given facility per unit of population. Brief History of Level of Service Analysis In order to help standardize parks and recreation planning, universities, agencies and parks and recreation professionals have long been looking for ways to benchmark and provide “national standards” for how much acreage, how many ballfields, pools, playgrounds, etc., a community should have. In 1906 the fledgling “Playground Association of America” called for playground space equal to 30 square feet per child. In the 1970’s and early 1980s, the first detailed published works on these topics began emerging (Gold, 1973, Lancaster, 1983). In time “rule of thumb” ratios emerged with 10 acres of parklands per thousand population becoming the most widely accepted norm. Other normative guides also have been cited as “traditional standards,” but have been less widely accepted. In 1983, Roger Lancaster compiled a book called, “Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines,” that was published by the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA). In this publication, Mr. Lancaster centered on a recommendation “that a park system, at minimum, be composed of a core system of parklands, with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population (Lancaster, 1983, p. 56). The guidelines went further to make recommendations regarding an appropriate mix of park types, sizes, service areas, and acreages, and standards regarding the number of available recreational facilities per thousand population. While the book was published by NRPA and the table of standards became widely known as “the NRPA standards,” these standards were never formally adopted for use by NRPA. 146 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Since that time, various publications have updated and expanded upon possible “standards,” several of which have been published by NRPA. Many of these publications did benchmarking and other normative research to try and determine what an “average LOS” should be. It is important to note that NRPA and the prestigious American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, as organizations, have focused in recent years on accreditation standards for agencies, which are less directed towards outputs, outcomes and performance, and more on planning, organizational structure, and management processes. In essence, the popularly referred to “NRPA standards” for LOS, as such, do not exist. The following table gives some of the more commonly used capacity “standards” today. Commonly Referenced LOS Capacity “Standards” Activity/ Facility Recommended Space Requirements Service Radius and Location Notes Number of Units per Population Baseball Official Little League 3.0 to 3.85 acre minimum 1.2 acre minimum ¼ to ½ mile Unlighted part of neighborhood complex; lighted fields part of community complex 1 per 5,000; lighted 1 per 30,000 Basketball Youth High school 2,400 – 3,036 vs. 5,040 – 7,280 s.f. ¼ to ½ mile Usually in school, recreation center or church facility; safe walking or bide access; outdoor courts in neighborhood and community parks, plus active recreation areas in other park settings 1 per 5,000 Football Minimum 1.5 acres 15 – 30 minute travel time Usually part of sports complex in community park or adjacent to school 1 per 20,000 Soccer 1.7 to 2.1 acres 1 to 2 miles Youth soccer on smaller fields adjacent to larger soccer fields or neighborhood parks 1 per 10,000 Softball 1.5 to 2.0 acres ¼ to ½ mile May also be used for youth baseball 1 per 5,000 (if also used for youth baseball) Swimming Pools Varies on size of pool & amenities; usually ½ to 2-acre site 15 – 30 minutes travel time Pools for general community use should be planned for teaching, competitive & recreational purposes with enough depth (3.4m) to accommodate 1m to 3m diving boards; located in community park or school site 1 per 20,000 (pools should accommodate 3% to 5% of total population at a time) Tennis Minimum of 7,200 s.f. single court area (2 acres per complex ¼ to ½ mile Best in groups of 2 to 4 courts; located in neighborhood community park or near school site 1 court per 2,000 Volleyball Minimum 4,000 s.f. ½ to 1 mile Usually in school, recreation center or church facility; safe walking or bide access; outdoor courts in neighborhood and community parks, plus active recreation areas in other park settings 1 court per 5,000 Total land Acreage Various types of parks - mini, neighborhood, community, regional, conservation, etc. 10 acres per 1,000 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 147 ---PAGE BREAK--- Sources: David N. Ammons, Municipal Benchmarks - Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards, 2nd Ed., 2002 Roger A. Lancaster Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1983), pp. 56-57. James D. Mertes and James R. Hall, Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenways Guidelines, (Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1996), pp. 94-103. In conducting planning work, it is key to realize that the above standards can be valuable when referenced as “norms” for capacity, but not necessarily as the target standards for which a community should strive. Each community is different and there are many varying factors which are not addressed by the standards above. For example: • Does “developed acreage” include golf courses”? What about indoor and passive facilities? • What are the standards for skateparks? Ice Arenas? Public Art? Etc.? • What if it’s an urban land-locked community? What if it’s a small town surrounded by open Federal lands? • What about quality and condition? What if there’s a bunch of ballfields, but they haven’t been maintained in the last ten years? • And many other questions…. GRASP® (Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program) In order to address these and other relevant questions, a new methodology for determining Level of Service was developed. It is called a composite-values methodology and has been applied in communities across the nation in recent years to provide a better way of measuring and portraying the service provided by parks and recreation systems. Primary research and development on this methodology was funded jointly by GreenPlay, LLC, a management consulting firm for parks, open space and related agencies, Design Concepts, a landscape architecture and planning firm, and Geowest, a spatial information management firm. The trademarked name for the composite-values methodology process that these three firms use is called GRASP® (Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program). For this methodology, capacity is only part of the LOS equation. Other factors are brought into consideration, including quality, condition, location, comfort, convenience, and ambience. To do this, parks, trails, recreation, and open space are looked at as part of an overall infrastructure for a community made up of various components, such as playgrounds, multi-purpose fields, passive areas, etc. The ways in which the characteristics listed above affect the amount of service provided by the components of the system are explained in the following text. Quality – The service provided by anything, whether it is a playground, soccer field, or swimming pool is determined in part by its quality. A playground with a variety of features, such as climbers, slides, and swings provides a higher degree of service than one with nothing but an old teeter-totter and some “monkey-bars.” Condition – The condition of a component within the park system also affects the amount of service it provides. A playground in disrepair with unsafe equipment does not offer the same service as one in good condition. Similarly, a soccer field with a smooth surface of well-maintained grass certainly offers a higher degree of service than one that is full of weeds, ruts, and other hazards. 148 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Location – To be served by something, you need to be able to get to it. The typical park playground is of more service to people who live within easy reach of it than it is to someone living all the way across town. Therefore, service is dependent upon proximity and access. Comfort – The service provided by a component, such as a playground, is increased by having amenities such as shade, seating, and a restroom nearby. Comfort enhances the experience of using a component. Convenience – Convenience encourages people to use a component, which increased the amount of service that it offers. Easy access and the availability of trash receptacles, bike rack, or nearby parking are examples of conveniences that enhance the service provided by a component. Ambience – Simple observation will prove that people are drawn to places that “feel” good. This includes a sense of safety and security, as well as pleasant surroundings, attractive views, and a sense of place. A well-designed park is preferable to poorly-designed one, and this enhances the degree of service provided by the components within it. In this methodology, the geographic location of the component is also recorded. Capacity is still part of the LOS analysis (described below) and the quantity of each component is recorded as well. The methodology uses comfort, convenience, and ambience as characteristics that are part of the context and setting of a component. They are not characteristics of the component itself, but when they exist in proximity to a component they enhance the value of the component. By combining and analyzing the composite values of each component, it is possible to measure the service provided by a parks and recreation system from a variety of perspectives and for any given location. Typically this begins with a decision on “relevant components” for the analysis, collection of an accurate inventory of those components, analysis and then the results are presented in a series of maps and tables that make up the GRASP® analysis of the study area. Making Justifiable Decisions All of the data generated from the GRASP® evaluation is compiled into an electronic database that is then available and owned by the agency for use in a variety of ways. The database can help keep track of facilities and programs, and can be used to schedule services, maintenance, and the replacement of components. In addition to determining LOS, it can be used to project long-term capital and life-cycle costing needs. All portions of the information are in standard available software and can be produced in a variety of ways for future planning or sharing with the public. It is important to note that the GRASP® methodology provides not only accurate LOS and facility inventory information, but also works with and integrates with other tools to help agencies make decisions. It is relatively easy to maintain, updatable, and creates easily understood graphic depictions of issues. Combined with a needs assessment, public and staff involvement, program and financial assessment, GRASP® allows an agency to defensibly make recommendations on priorities for ongoing resource allocations along with capital and operational funding. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 149 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D – Asset Scoring for the City of Farmington Inventory asset locations for the City of Farmington GRASP® Level of Service analysis may be organized into the following categories: Parks Farmington’s parks range in size from the approximately quarter acre Orchard Park to the 500+ acre Farmington Lake. These parks are well distributed across the city and provide access to the majority of Farmington citizens. The parks are extremely well maintained and offer a variety of both active and passive recreational opportunities. While not formally classified, the parks generally fall into three subcategories: Regional Parks These parks generally serve a larger audience and typically provide onsite parking, numerous opportunities to connect with nature and also provide some programmed spaces such as the amphitheater and Disk Golf Course at Wilderness Park. • Animas River Park • Berg Park • Farmington Lake • Lions Wilderness Park Sports Complexes These parks generally serve a large sports oriented audience and typically provide onsite parking. • Fairgrounds Park • Justis Park • San Juan College • Farmington Soccer Complex • Farmington Sports Complex Neighborhood Parks These parks are located throughout the community and are generally within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. These parks typically offer amenities such as playgrounds, picnic shelters and basketball. • Bartens Park • Beckland Hills Park • Boyd Park • Brook Haven East and Brook Haven West • Brookside Park • Chula Vista Park • Civitan Park • Colinas Del Norte Park • Fairview Park • Foothills Park • Highland View Park • Jaycee Park Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 151 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Kiwanis Park • Koufax Park • Lions Park • Los Ninos Park • Milagro Park • Mossman Gladden Park • Northridge Park • Orchard Park • Oscar Thomas Park • Puesta Del Sol Park • Rio Vista park • Saddleback Park • Sandalwood Park • Sun Valley Park • US West Park • Vietnam Veterans Park • Vista De La Plata • Westland Park • Westside Estates Park Special Use Facilities These facilities are located throughout the community and are generally more limited to single recreation opportunities such as Tennis at Cooper Street Tennis Courts. • Boyd Park Boat Launch • Cooper Street Tennis Courts • Doc Jones Field • Radio Control Park • Ricketts Park Golf Courses • Civitan Golf Club • Pinon Hills Golf Course Municipal Facilities These outdoor spaces support or are primarily associated with indoor facilities such as a community center. Components and recreation opportunities vary from passive spaces and public art at the Civic Center to neighborhood park amenities at Intertribal Indian Center. • Aquatic Center • Bonnie Dallas Senior Center • Civic Center • E3 Children’s Museum • Gateway Park • Intertribal Indian Center • Public Library • Sycamore Park 152 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Open Lands and Currently Undeveloped Properties • Bluff Shadows Lake • Confluence Park Farms • Open Land A • Open Land B • Glade Park East and Glade Park West • Hydro Power Plan • Oscar Thomas Park Undeveloped Parcel • Rancho De Animas • River Bend Park • Stillwater Park • Tierra Del Sol • Vista Arroyo Trail • Vista De La Plata Undeveloped Parcel • Wildwood Park Schools Schools provide a level of service and access to recreational opportunities in Farmington as in most cities, but access may be limited to non-school hours and therefore is included in the analysis at a discount. In addition to limited access, the quality of equipment and standards of maintenance may not be consistent with City of Farmington standards. Schools can, however, provide much needed access to sports fields from a programming standpoint through partnerships. The City of Farmington utilizes several school facilities both in indoor and outdoor programming. Assets at the following schools were included in the outdoor level of service analysis: School Scoring: Other Outdoor Providers • Boys and Girls Club • San Juan College Campus Environmental Learning Center SCHOOL: LEVEL ITEMS IDENTIFIED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY TOTAL COMPONENTS DA MODIFIERS DISCOUNT ASSUMED SCORING ROCINANTE HIGH SCHOOL H 2 MP FIELDS AND A TRACK 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL M NONE 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 BILINGUAL/ INDIAN EDUCATION NONE 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 EXCEPTIONAL PROGRAMS NONE 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 MCKINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E MP FIELD AND PLAYGROUND 2 2 1.1 0.5 2.2 LADERA DEL NORTE ELEM E 2 MP FIELDS, PLAYGROUND, SHADE SHELTER, MULTIUSE COURT 5 2 1.1 0.5 5.5 ANIMAS ELEMENTARY E 2 MP FIELDS, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 4 2 1.1 0.5 4.4 HERMOSA JR HIGH SCH M MP FIELD 1 2 1.1 0.5 1.1 CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION NONE 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 MESA VERDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E OPEN TURF, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 BLUFFVIEW ELEMENTARY E OPEN TURF, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 NORTHEAST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E 2 MP FIELD, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT, TRACK 5 2 1.1 0.5 5.5 MESA VIEW JR. HIGH SCHOOL M INCLUDED AS OUTDOOR LOCATION AND SCORED 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 ESPERANZA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E OPEN TURF, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT, LOOP WALK/TRACK, MP FIELD 5 2 1.1 0.5 5.5 TIBBETTS MIDDLE SCHOOL N MP FIELD, TRACK 2 2 1.1 0.5 2.2 MC CORMICK SCHOOL E MP FIELD, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 COUNTRY CLUB ELEMENTARY/FARMINGTON SPECIAL PRESCH E OPEN TURF, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 APACHE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E OPEN TURF, PLAYGROUND, MULTIUSE COURT 3 2 1.1 0.5 3.3 FARMINGTON HIGH AND CENTRAL OFFICE H ADD MP FIELD AND TRACK (KOUFAX PARK ALREADY INCLUDED IN INVENTORY) 2 2 1.1 0.5 2.2 PIEDRA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL H INCLUDED AS OUTDOOR LOCATION AND SCORED 0 2 1.1 0.5 0 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 153 ---PAGE BREAK--- Trail Easements These are primarily existing or future trail corridors. • Boyd Trail Easement • Hicks Trail Easement • Trail Easement • Willet Ditch Trail Trails GIS data was provided by the City of Farmington. For the purposes to Park and Recreation Master Planning only off-street trails are included in level of service analysis. While bike lanes and bike routes are also important in alternative transportation planning efforts and their development has importance in an overall accessible system they are rarely the sole responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. For the purposes of this plan all identified GIS trails were assigned an assumed score based on the following formula. All other trails and loop walks within parks have been identified and scored as single components and included in the park scoring. Trail Assumed Score of 14.4 (3 x 2 x 2 x 1.2 = 14.4) *This assumes an active component, passive component and a parcel score similar to a park Indoor Facilities The City has several indoor facilities that provide spaces for a variety of programming. The physical assets represented by these facilities have been inventoried. Aquatic Facilities • Farmington Aquatic Center • Lions Pool Community Centers • Bonnie Dallas Senior Center and Annex • Crouch Mesa Community Center • Farmington Indian Center • Sycamore Community Center City Facilities • Animal Shelter • Farmington Recreation Center • Farmington Sports Tennis Center • Harvest Grove Farm • Riverside Nature Center Civic Facilities • Farmington Civic Center • Farmington Public Library Golf Club House • Civitan Golf Pro Shop • Pinon Hills Golf Pro Shop 154 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- Museums • E3 Children’s Museum and Science Center • Gateway Museum and Visitor Center School Facilities • Ayers Elementary • Campbell Elementary • Farmington High School • Farmington Middle School Other Indoor Providers • Boys and Girls Club Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 155 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E – LOS Inventory Tables Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 157 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Outdoor ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Indoor ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Low Scoring Components Subarea MAP_ID LOCATION COMPONENT Score COMMENTS QUANTITY NE C066 AQUATIC CENTER Playground, Local 1 Playground has essentially been removed. Plans to replace with outside funding for boundless playground. Need to complete 1 NE C086 BARTENS PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C087 BECKLAND HILLS PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NE C089 BECKLAND HILLS PARK Shelter, Shade 1 Not the quality of other park shelters 1 NE C090 BECKLAND HILLS PARK Shelter, Shade 1 Not the quality of other park shelters 1 NE C153 FAIRGROUNDS PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C063 FAIRGROUNDS PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NE C157 FAIRVIEW PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 167 ---PAGE BREAK--- NE C315 FARMINGTON LAKE Water Access, Developed 1 Fishing pier needs to be rebuilt or reinstalled 1 NE C185 FOOTHILLS PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NE C199 JAYCEE PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NE C204 JUSTIS PARK Concessions 1 Building is dated but appears functional 1 NE C207 KIWANIS PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C042 KIWANIS PARK Playground, Local 1 Tot lot, Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C232 LIONS WILDERNESS PARK Trail, Primitive 1 Location unclear. No signs or trail guides. Capitalize on trail access, trailhead location, etc. 1 NE C068 LOS NINOS PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C220 MILAGRO PARK Picnic Grounds 1 Does not have a shelter or grills because of adjacency to gas facility 1 168 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- NE C235 NORTHRIDGE PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C253 RIO VISTA PARK Volleyball 1 Needs net and poor location away from other amenities 1 NE C250 RIO VISTA PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NE C257 SADDLEBACK PARK Playground, Local 1 Nice, newer playground. surfacing is sand and tile 1 NE C263 SANDALWOOD PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NW C111 BROOK HAVEN EAST Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NW C110 BROOK HAVEN EAST Natural Area 1 Not much of a natural area 1 NW C116 BROOK HAVEN WEST Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NW C125 BROOKSIDE PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 169 ---PAGE BREAK--- NW C130 BROOKSIDE PARK Natural Area 1 Not much of a natural area 1 NW C128 BROOKSIDE PARK Picnic Grounds 1 Does not meet standard of other picnic grounds 1 NW C126 BROOKSIDE PARK Skate Park 1 Popular but has some maintenance issues 1 NW C124 BROOKSIDE PARK Basketball 1 Surface is poor but only court with observed use 2 NW C122 BROOKSIDE PARK Aqua Feat, Pool 1 Pool looks dated 1 NW C127 BROOKSIDE PARK Playground, Destination 1 Poor surfacing at this extensive playground. Should have a shelter and a restroom associated with it to make it destination playground 1 NW C052 BROOKSIDE PARK Shuffleboard 1 Poor location and surfacing 2 NW C058 CIVITAN GOLF CLUB Horseshoes 1 Additional maintenance and amenities could make this a nice amenity 12 NW C143 CIVITAN PARK Open Water 1 While there is water adjacent to this park. The park does not take advantage of views to the water 1 170 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- NW C142 CIVITAN PARK Ballfield 1 Worely Ball Field. Overall the field looks like it is in decent shape good maintenance. Fencing and backstop could be updated. Dugouts could be updated. Locked gate limits neighborhood access 1 NW C139 CIVITAN PARK Playground, Local 1 Nice little tot lot under the shade trees with sand safety surfacing. 1 NW C138 CIVITAN PARK Playground, Local 1 Nice play with curbwall but sand and tile surfacing 1 NW C145 COLINAS DEL NORTE PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NW C215 LIONS PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NW C244 PUESTA DEL SOL PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NW C277 US WEST PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 NW C279 VIETNAM VETERANS PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NW C280 VIETNAM VETERANS PARK Open Turf 1 Slope limits function 1 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 171 ---PAGE BREAK--- NW C296 WESTSIDE ESTATES PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 NW C297 WESTSIDE ESTATES PARK Shelter 1 Not the quality of other park shelters 1 NW C295 WESTSIDE ESTATES PARK Open Turf 1 Limited space 1 SE C024 ANIMAS RIVER PARK Trailhead 1 Limited amenities. Could be a great asset 1 SE C019 ANIMAS RIVER PARK Event Space 1 Rocky Reach Landing. Enormous event space that lacks sense of place. Depending on how it is programmed could change this to a 2 or 3. 1 SE C023 ANIMAS RIVER PARK Picnic Grounds 1 Upgrade to quality of other picnic areas in town 1 SE C096 BERG PARK Playground, Local 1 Dated structure and sand safety surfacing 1 SE C098 BERG PARK Picnic Grounds 1 This picnic area could be upgraded a little bit this lacks what some other areas offer but is a little more natural setting 1 SE C135 CHULA VISTA PARK Basketball 1 Does not meet standard of other courts because of asphalt surface 1 172 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- SE C132 CHULA VISTA PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand safety surfacing and surface tiles. Large playground with minimal playground amenities 1 SE C078 GATEWAY PARK Water Access, General 1 No real way to access water 1 SE C195 HIGHLAND VIEW PARK Basketball 1 Does not meet standard of other courts 1 SE C194 HIGHLAND VIEW PARK Playground, Local 1 Because of location could be a destination playground. Close to the mall. Maybe add climbing piece, spray ground. Restroom and shelter close to playground. Lots of potential 1 SE C197 HIGHLAND VIEW PARK Shelter 1 Totally disconnected from the rest of park 1 SE C028 HIGHLAND VIEW PARK Loop Walk 1 Could be measured loop contained within the park 1 SE C225 MOSSMAN GLADDEN PARK Playground, Local 1 Playground is acceptable for a neighborhood park although the surfacing and tiles need updated to EWF and poured in place. Power pole in middle of playground 1 SE C227 MOSSMAN GLADDEN PARK Basketball 1 Two halfcourts but do not meet standard of other courts 1 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 173 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE C265 SUN VALLEY PARK Basketball 1 Does not meet standard of other courts 1 SE C267 SUN VALLEY PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand safety surfacing 1 SE C269 SYCAMORE PARK Playground, Destination 1 Fails as a destination playground. For a park that has a community center this should be destination. Sand safety surfacing and tiles should be updated 1 SE C271 SYCAMORE PARK Basketball 1 Update to city standard 1 SE C272 SYCAMORE PARK Skate Park 1 Could use some shade. Modular with a few maintenance and safety issues 1 SW C106 BOYD PARK Playground, Local 1 Sand Safety Surfacing 1 SW C076 BOYD PARK BOAT LAUNCH Water Access, General 1 Amenity seems neglected 1 SW C075 BOYD PARK BOAT LAUNCH Water Access, Developed 1 Amenity seems neglected 1 SW C109 BOYD PARK BOAT LAUNCH Natural Area 1 Amenity seems neglected 1 174 The City of Farmington, New Mexico ---PAGE BREAK--- SW C074 BOYD PARK BOAT LAUNCH Passive Node 1 Amenity seems neglected 1 SW C166 INTERTRIBAL INDIAN CN Playground, Local 1 Upgrad to city standard 1 SW C285 VISTA DE LA PLATA Playground, Local 1 Newer playground, several features. Sand safety surfacing with tiles that need replaced 1 SW C287 WESTLAND PARK Water Access, General 1 Water access could be enhanced /developed even more 1 SW C289 WESTLAND PARK Playground, Local 1 This park really deserves a better playground perhaps even a destination playground.. Sand and tile safety surfacing 1 SW C006 WESTLAND PARK Water Access, Developed 1 Designated as a water take out but not well developed 1 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 175 ---PAGE BREAK--- SUBAREA Map ID NAME Design and Ambiance Drinking Fountains Seating BBQ Grills Dog Station Security Lighting Bike Parking Restrooms Shade Connection to Trails Park Access Parking Seasonal Planting Ornamental Plantings Picnic Tables Comments NE L004 BARTENS PARK 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Nice little park NE L005 BECKLAND HILLS PARK 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 Nothing special about this park. Seems a little tired NE L109 BOYS &GIRLS CLUB 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 Adjacent to park with additional amenities NE L104 COOPER ST TENNIS COURTS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 NE L100 DOC JONES FIELD 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 Adjacent to Boys & Girls Club. ---PAGE BREAK--- NE L022 FAIRGROUNDS PARK 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 Nice facility. NE L023 FAIRVIEW PARK 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 Pleasant little park only one picnic table NE L003 AQUATIC CENTER 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Outdoor amenities associated with Aquatic Center NE L025 FARMINGTON LAKE 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 Highly underutilized facility. Great views of the open water. Water area controlled by Homeland Security and O.M.I. NE L069 FARMINGTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 Thoughtful design on outdoor areas NE L026 FOOTHILLS PARK 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 Nice little park setting NE L032 JAYCEE PARK 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Large park with few amenities. Could use shelter, picnic tables and a loop walk within the park ---PAGE BREAK--- NE L033 JUSTIS PARK 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Fencing and backstops are dated at this facility. Complex is showing age. NE L034 KIWANIS PARK 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 0 0 2 Great park setting but showing age. Could use some upgrades and would easily be a 3 for Design and Ambiance NE L037 LIONS WILDERNESS PARK 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 Great location that could offer even more opportunities. NE L039 LOS NINOS PARK 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 Adjacent to Boys & Girls Club. Park is a little difficult to get to because of fencing and busy street. Parking available north of center by field. Newer park design NE L041 MILAGRO PARK 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 Small pocket park NE L043 NORTHRIDGE PARK 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 Asphalt galore around playground. Great views from back side of park. The plantings at the front are a real nice entry to park ---PAGE BREAK--- NE L046 PIEDRA VISTA HS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Primarily High School fields are used for tournaments NE L047 PINON HILLS GOLF COURSE 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 One of top rated muni courses in US. Irrigation is dated and desperately needs upgrades NE L105 RICKETTS PARK 3 2 3 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Quality Baseball Stadium and Facility NE L050 RIO VISTA PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 This is really two parks. Upper and lower. Amazing views from upper park NE L052 SADDLEBACK PARK 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 Great little park on top of the hill great views nicely maintained NE L114 SAN JUAN COLLEGE CAMPUS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 While outdoor learning center isnt maintained by parks it does provide level of service NE L053 SAN JUAN COLLEGE FIELDS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Fields adjacent to outdoor learning center ---PAGE BREAK--- NE L054 SANDALWOOD PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 Nice developed park within natural park NE L055 SOCCER COMPLEX 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 Complex with parking on both ends it really should have another restroom the other side NE L063 VISTA ARROYO TRAIL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped parcel NE L068 WILDWOOD PARK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped parcel NW L008 BONNIE DALLAS 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 Outdoor amenities associated with Senior Center NW L012 BROOK HAVEN EAST 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 2 2 Nice shady spot NW L013 BROOK HAVEN WEST 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 Portolet restroom ---PAGE BREAK--- NW L014 BROOKSIDE PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 0 2 Nice park setting and popular but could stand some updates and possibly a master plan if there is a desire to repurpose the pool. For one of the nicer settings it feels disjointed. This could be one of the signature parks in town NW L016 CIVIC CENTER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Outdoor amenities associated with the Civic Center NW L018 CIVITAN GOLF CLUB 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 hole par 3 course NW L019 CIVITAN PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 Worely Ballfield as part of park. Lacking sidewalk access to the amenities. Large group shelter on the north with really no way to get there without walking across the grass. Definitely not ADA accessible NW L020 COLINAS DEL NORTE PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 Nice newer park. Very popular ---PAGE BREAK--- NW L110 E3 CHILDRENS MUSEUM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 Outdoor space associated with Museum NW L028 GLADE PARK EAST 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Undeveloped and fenced NW L029 GLADE PARK WEST 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 Currently undeveloped but does have a nice little parking area and some nice trees. Fairly flat for development opportunities NW L035 KOUFAX PARK 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 High School fields NW L036 LIONS PARK 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 Indoor pool on site NW L044 ORCHARD PARK 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Small urban plaza NW L048 PUESTA DEL SOL PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Pocket park on larger undeveloped parcel ---PAGE BREAK--- NW L024 SPORTS COMPLEX 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 A great complex that still means to be completed. There are some erosion control issues. Development of the great lawn between the two ballfield complexes and trail system would be nice. NW L060 STILLWATER PARK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped parcel pretty much a drainage area behind some new homes adjacent to mobile home park NW L058 U.S. WEST PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Fairly nice little two level park NW L062 VIETNAM VETERANS PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 ADA issues at this park because of hillside location NW L067 WESTSIDE ESTATES PARK 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 This park has amazing views but it is adjacent to a mobile home park and is pretty beat up. Reports of lots of vandalism here and failed to replace a lot of the infrastructure and amenities. Park is really needed in this area of town ---PAGE BREAK--- SE L002 ANIMAS RIVER PARK 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 0 3 2 A great park. Similar to Berg Park. It has two different trails that create a loop. One river trail and one nature / woodland trail SE L006 BERG PARK 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 3 2 2 0 2 2 Awesome park. Very popular linear park along river with multiple access points, passive nodes, seating, picnic tables. SE L015 CHULA VISTA PARK 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 Thoughtful design. Small but seems to serve the neighborhood well SE L027 GATEWAY PARK 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 Nice outdoor patio area with views and limited river access. Associated with Museum and Visitor Center SE L030 HIGHLAND VIEW PARK 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 This park could be very popular park just because of location but would benefit from redesign. One of the few parks bike parking SE L103 HYDRO POWER PLANT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SE L040 MESA VIEW SPORTS 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Primarily School fields are used for tournaments ---PAGE BREAK--- SE L042 MOSSMAN GLADDEN PARK 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 Not sure this park is ADA accessible into the playground,tennis courts, and basketball SE L111 OPEN LAND A 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SE L059 RANCHO DE ANIMAS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped parcel. Comes close to making it down to the river. SE L056 SUN VALLEY PARK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Maintained nicely but just lacking any real design. ADA accessiblity is an issue. No tables, seating, etc. SE L057 SYCAMORE PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 Overall this is a decent park with decent maintenance in areas that are maintained. Park feels a bit disconnected with field and skate park where they are located SE L061 TIERRA DEL SOL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This is actually a pretty cool drainage out in a remote subdivision. subdivision does have one small park and currently this parcel is undeveloped. ---PAGE BREAK--- SE L106 Trail Easement 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SE L113 Willet Ditch Trail Easement 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SW L007 BLUFF SHADOWS LAKE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped fenced parcel. No public access. SW L011 BOYD PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 Nice location along river. Definitely does not take full advantage of river views. Removal of some of the trash trees along the boardwalk would really help with views and bring the river into the park. Also there is no shelter in either parcel. SW L010 BOYD PARK BOAT LAUNCH 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 Could do a lot more here for river access SW L108 BOYD TRAIL EASEMENT 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited ---PAGE BREAK--- SW L107 CONFLUENCE PARK FARMS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SW L102 HICKS TRAIL EASEMENT 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SW L031 INTERTRIBAL INDIAN CENTER 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 Outdoor amenities associated with Community Center. Feels tired SW L112 OPEN LAND B 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Late addition to inventory. Not visited SW L045 OSCAR THOMAS PARK 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Pretty nice park in industrial part of town SW L101 OSCAR THOMAS PARK UNDEVELOPED 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undeveloped parcel SW L049 RADIO CONTROL PARK 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 Nice facility. Asphalt landing. Portable toilet. Shade structure at viewing area. Great views. ---PAGE BREAK--- SW L051 RIVER BEND PARK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 This part currently does not have any developed amenities. There is a new fire station and potential river access but currently no development. SW L064 VISTA DE LA PLATA PARK 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 This park is pretty remote. It has good views. Northern part of the park is undeveloped. Park has some access issues with the tiles at the playground SW L065 VISTA DE LA PLATA PARK NORTH UNDEVELOPED 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This section of the park is remote across the highway pretty much separated from the developed park SW L066 WESTLAND PARK 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 2 This is a very nice park with river setting. Park has nice amenities. Lots of trees. Location, setting, and ambiance deserve a 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F – Sample Sponsorship Policy Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 189 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample XX Parks & Recreation Department Sponsorship Policy Created for XX by: 211 N. Public Road, Suite 225 Lafayette, CO 80026 Phone: (303) 439‐8369 Fax: (303) 664‐5313 [EMAIL REDACTED] www.GreenPlayLLC.com © 2003, 2008, 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 2 XX Parks & Recreation Department Sponsorship Policy Introduction The following guidelines in this Sponsorship Policy have been specifically designed for the XX Parks & Recreation Department, while considering that these guidelines may be later adapted and implemented on a city‐wide basis. Some assumptions regarding this policy are:  Partnerships for recreation and parks facilities and program development may be pursued based on the XX Partnership Policy, encouraging the development of partnerships for the benefit of the city, its citizens, and potential partners. Sponsorships are one type of partnership, and one avenue of procurement for alternative funding resources. The Sponsorship Policy may evolve as the needs of new projects and other City departments are incorporated into its usage.  Broad guidelines are offered in this policy primarily to delineate which types of sponsors and approval levels are currently acceptable for the XX Parks & Recreation Department.  The policy should ensure that the definition of potential sponsors may include non‐ commercial community organizations (for example: YMCAs and Universities), but does not include a forum for non‐commercial speech or advertising.  Sponsorships are clearly defined and are different from advertisements. Advertisements are one type of benefit that may be offered to a sponsor in exchange for cash or in‐kind sponsorship.  The difference between sponsors and donors must be clarified, as some staff and the public often confuse and misuse these terms. Structure Part A of this document gives the Sponsorship Policy Part B gives the Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits Part C provides the vocabulary and Glossary of Sponsorship Terms ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 3 Part A. Sponsorship Policy XX Parks & Recreation Department I. Purpose In an effort to utilize and maximize the community’s resources, it is in the best interest of the City’s Parks & Recreation Department to create and enhance relationship‐based sponsorships. This may be accomplished by providing local, regional, and national commercial businesses and non‐profit groups a method for becoming involved with the many opportunities provided by the Parks & Recreation Department. The Department delivers quality, life‐enriching activities to the broadest base of the community. This translates into exceptional visibility for sponsors and supporters. It is the goal of the Department to create relationships and partnerships with sponsors for the financial benefit of the Department. Sponsorships vs. Donations It is important to note that there is a difference between a sponsorship and a philanthropic donation. Basically, sponsorships are cash or in‐kind products and services offered by sponsors with the clear expectation that an obligation is created. The recipient is obliged to return something of value to the sponsor. The value is typically public recognition and publicity or advertising highlighting the contribution of the sponsor and/or the sponsor’s name, logo, message, products, or services. The Sponsor usually has clear marketing objectives that they are trying to achieve, including but not limited to the ability to drive sales directly based on the sponsorship, and/or quite often, the right to be the exclusive sponsor in a specific category of sales. The arrangement is typically consummated by a letter of agreement or contractual arrangement that details the particulars of the exchange. In contrast, a donation comes with no restrictions on how the money or in‐kind resources are used. This policy specifically addresses sponsorships, the agreements for the procurement of the resources, and the benefits provided in return for securing those resources. Since donations or gifts come with no restrictions or expected benefits for the donor, a policy is generally not needed. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 4 II. Guidelines for Acceptable Sponsorships Sponsors should be businesses, non‐profit groups, or individuals that promote mutually beneficial relationships for the Parks & Recreation Department. All potentially sponsored properties (facilities, events, or programs) should be reviewed in terms of creating synergistic working relationships with regard to benefits, community contributions, knowledge, and political sensitivity. All sponsored properties should promote the goals and mission of the Parks & Recreation Department as follows: NEED SPECIFIC MISSION STATEMENT Sample XX Parks & Recreation Mission Statement: NEED SPECIFIC GOALS Sample Goals of the Park & Recreation Department: III. Sponsorship Selection Criteria A. Relationship of Sponsorship to Mission and Goals The first major criterion is the appropriate relationship of a sponsorship to the above outlined Parks & Recreation Department’s Mission and Goals. While objective analysis is ideal, the appropriateness of a relationship may sometimes be necessarily subjective. This policy addresses this necessity by including Approval Levels from various levels of City management staff and elected officials, outlined in Section B, to help assist with decisions involving larger amounts and benefits for sponsorship. The following questions are the major guiding components of this policy and should be addressed prior to soliciting potential sponsors:  Is the sponsorship reasonably related to the purpose of the facility or programs as exemplified by the Mission Statement and Goals of the Department?  Will the sponsorship help generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant than the City can provide without it?  What are the real costs, including staff time, for procuring the amount of cash or in‐ kind resources that come with the generation of the sponsorship? Sponsorships which shall NOT be considered are those which:  Promote environmental, work, or other practices that, if they took place in the City, would violate U.S. or state law dumping of hazardous waste, exploitation of child labor, etc.), or promote drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, or that constitute violations of law.  Duplicate or mimic the identity or programs of the Parks & Recreation Department or any of its divisions. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 5  Exploit participants or staff members of the Department.  Offer benefits which may violate other accepted policies or the Sign Code. DO YOU HAVE A SIGN CODE? B. Sponsorship Plan and Approval Levels Each project or program that involves solicitation of Sponsors should, PRIOR to procurement, create a Sponsorship Plan specific to that project or program that is in line with the Sponsorship Levels given in Part B. This plan needs to be approved by the Management Team Members supervising the project and in accordance to City Partnership, Sponsorship, and Sign Code policies. In addition, each sponsorship will need separate approval if they exceed pre‐specified limits. The Approval Levels are outlined below: Under $1,000 The program or project staff may approve this level of Agreement, with review by their supervising Management Team Member. $1,001 to $10,000 The Agreement needs approval of a Management Team Member. $10,001 to $25,000 The Agreement needs approval of the entire Senior Management Team and Department Director. Over $25,000 The Agreement needs approval of the City Supervisor (the City Supervisor may recommend a City Council or Board of Trustees review). C. No Non‐Commercial Forum is Permitted This criterion deals with the commercial character of a sponsorship message. The City intends to create a limited forum, focused on advertisements incidental to commercial sponsorships of Parks & Recreation facilities and programs. While non‐commercial community organizations or individuals may wish to sponsor Department activities or facilities for various reasons, no non‐commercial speech is permitted in the limited forum created by this policy. Advertisements incidental to commercial sponsorship must primarily propose a commercial transaction, either directly, through the text, or indirectly, through the association of the sponsor’s name with the commercial transaction of purchasing the commercial goods or services which the sponsor sells. The reasons for this portion of the Policy include: The desirability of avoiding non‐commercial proselytizing of a “captive audience” of event spectators and participants. The constitutional prohibition on any view‐point related decisions about permitted advertising coupled with the danger that the City and the Parks & Recreation Department would be associated with advertising anyway. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 6 The desire of the City to maximize income from sponsorship, weighed against the likelihood that commercial sponsors would be dissuaded from using the same forum commonly used by persons wishing to communicate non‐ commercial messages, some of which could be offensive to the public. The desire of the City to maintain a position of neutrality on political and religious issues. In the case of religious advertising and political advertising, specific concerns about the danger of “excessive entanglement” with religion (and resultant constitutional violations) and the danger of election campaign law violations, respectively. Guidelines for calculating the Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits are provided and outlined in Part B. IV. Additional Guidelines for Implementation A. Equitable Offerings It is important that all sponsorships of equal levels across divisions within Parks & Recreation yield the same value of benefits for potential sponsors. B. Sponsorship Contact Database A designated staff person or representative of the Parks & Recreation Department will keep an updated list of all current sponsors, sponsored activities, and contacts related to sponsorship. Purpose of Maintaining the Database:  Limit duplicate solicitations of one sponsor  Allow management to make decisions based on most appropriate solicitations and levels of benefits offered  Keep a current list of all Department supporters and contacts  Help provide leads for new sponsorships, if appropriate For staff below Management Team level, access to the database will be limited to printouts of listings of names of sponsors and their sponsored events. This limited access will provide information to help limit duplicated solicitations, and will also protect existing sponsor relationships, while allowing the evaluation of future sponsorships to occur at a management level. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 7 If a potential sponsor is already listed, staff should not pursue a sponsorship without researching the sponsor’s history with the most recently sponsored division. If more than one division wishes to pursue sponsorship by the same company, the Management Team shall make a decision based on several variables, including but not limited to:  History of sponsorship, relationships, and types of sponsorship needed.  Amount of funding available.  Best use of funding based on departmental priorities. C. Sponsorship Committee A committee consisting of the supervisors of each program using sponsorships and other management team designees shall meet twice per year to review the database, exchange current contract samples, and recommend adjusting benefit levels and policy as needed. Changes shall not take effect before approval by the Management Team. ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 9 Part B. Levels of Sponsorship Tiers and Benefits The following tiers are presented as a guideline for types of benefits that may be presented as opportunities for potential sponsors. Each sponsorship will most likely need to be individually negotiated. One purpose for these guidelines is to create equity in exchanges across sponsorship arrangements. While for the sake of ease the examples given for levels are based on amount of sponsorship requested, the level of approval needed from City staff is really based on the amount of benefits exchanged for the resources. The levels of approval are necessary because the costs and values for different levels of benefits may vary, depending on the sponsorship. It is important to note that these values may be very different. Sponsors will not typically offer to contribute resources that cost them more than the value of resources that they will gain and, typically, seek at least a 2‐1 return on their investment. Likewise, the City should not pursue sponsorships unless the total value the City receives is greater than its real costs. A hierarchy of Sponsors for events, programs, or facilities with more than one sponsor is listed below from the highest level to the lowest. Not all Levels will necessarily be used in each Sponsorship Plan. Note that the hierarchy is not dependent on specific levels or amounts of sponsorship. Specific levels and amounts should be designed for each property before sponsorships are procured within the approved Sponsorship Plan. Complete definitions of terms are included in Part C. Hierarchy of Sponsorship Levels (highest to lowest) Parks and Recreation Department‐Wide Sponsor  Facility/Park Title or Primary Sponsor  Event/Program Title or Primary Sponsor  Presenting Sponsor (Facility, Event, or Program)  Facility/Park Sponsor  Program/Event Sponsor  Media Sponsor  Official Supplier  Co‐sponsor ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 10 This hierarchy will help decide the amounts to ask various sponsors for, and will determine what levels of benefits to provide. It is important to build flexibility and choice into each level so that sponsors can have the ability to choose options that will best fit their objectives. Note that the benefits listed under each level are examples of value. The listing does not mean that all of the benefits should be offered. It is a menu of options for possible benefits, depending on the circumstances. These are listed primarily as a guideline for maximum benefit values. It is recommended that each project create a project‐specific Sponsorship Plan for approval in advance of Sponsorship procurement, based on the benefits available and the values specific to the project. I. Sponsorship Assets and Related Benefits Inventory TO BE DETERMINED FOR EACH AGENCY BASED ON OFFERINGS (PROPERTIES), VALUATION, AND DETERMINED BENEFITS A tiered structure of actual values and approval levels should be determined as part of a Sponsorship Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 11 Part C. Glossary of Sponsorship Terms Activation The marketing activity a company conducts to promote its sponsorship. Money spent on activation is over and above the rights fee paid to the sponsored property. Also known as leverage. Advertising The direct sale of print or some other types of City communication medium to provide access to a select target market. Ambush Marketing A promotional strategy whereby a non‐sponsor attempts to capitalize on the popularity/prestige of a property by giving the false impression that it is a sponsor. Often employed by the competitors of a property’s official sponsors. Audio Mention The mention of a sponsor during a TV or radio broadcast. Business‐to‐Business Sponsorship Programs intended to influence corporate purchase/awareness, as opposed to individual consumers. Category Exclusivity The right of a sponsor to be the only company within its product or service category associated with the sponsored property. Cause Marketing Promotional strategy that links a company’s sales campaign directly to a non‐profit organization. Generally includes an offer by the sponsor to make a donation to the cause with purchase of its product or service. Unlike philanthropy, money spent on cause marketing is a business expense, not a donation, and is expected to show a return on investment. Co‐sponsors Sponsors of the same property. CPM (Cost per Thousand) The cost to deliver an ad message to a thousand people. Cross‐Promotions A joint marketing effort conducted by two or more co‐sponsors using the sponsored property as the central theme. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 12 Donations Cash or in‐kind gifts that do not include any additional negotiated conditions in return. Synonyms: Philanthropy, Patronage. Editorial Coverage Exposure that is generated by media coverage of the sponsored property that includes mention of the sponsor. Emblem A graphic symbol unique to a property. Also called a mark. Escalator An annual percentage increase built into the sponsorship fee for multi‐year contracts. Escalators are typically tied to inflation. Exclusive Rights A company pays a premium or provides economic benefit in exchange for the right to be the sole advertised provider, at the most competitive prices, of goods purchased by consumers within Parks & Recreation Department facilities and parks. Fulfillment The delivery of benefits promised to the sponsor in the contract. Hospitality Hosting key customers, clients, government officials, employees, and other VIPs at an event or facility. Usually involves tickets, parking, dining, and other amenities, often in a specially designated area, and may include interaction with athletes. In‐Kind Sponsorship Payment (full or partial) of sponsorship fee in goods or services rather than cash. Licensed Merchandise Goods produced by a manufacturer (the licensee) who has obtained a license to produce and distribute the official Marks on products such as clothing and souvenirs. Licensee Manufacturer which has obtained a license to produce and distribute Licensed Merchandise. Licensing Right to use a property’s logos and terminology on products for retail sale. Note: While a sponsor will typically receive the right to include a property’s marks on its packaging and advertising, sponsors are not automatically licensees. Mark Any official visual representation of a property, including emblems and mascots. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 13 Mascot A graphic illustration of a character, usually a cartoon figure, used to promote the identity of a property. Media Equivalencies Measuring the exposure value of a sponsorship by adding up all the coverage it generated and calculating what it would have cost to buy a like amount of ad time or space in those outlets based on media rate cards. Media Sponsor TV and radio stations, print media, and outdoor advertising companies that provide either cash, or more frequently advertising time or space, to a property in exchange for official designation. Municipal Marketing Promotional strategy linking a company to community services and activities (sponsorship of parks and recreation programs, libraries, etc.) Option to Renew Contractual right to renew a sponsorship on specified terms. Philanthropy Support for a non‐profit property where no commercial advantage is expected. Synonym: Patronage. Perimeter Advertising Stationary advertising around the perimeter of an arena or event site, often reserved for sponsors. Premiums Souvenir merchandise, produced to promote a sponsor’s involvement with a property (customized with the names/logos of the sponsor and the property). Presenting Sponsor The sponsor that has its name presented just below that of the sponsored property. In presenting arrangements, the event/facility name and the sponsor name are not fully integrated since the word(s) “presents” or “presented by” always come between them. Primary Sponsor The sponsor paying the largest fee and receiving the most prominent identification (Would be naming rights or title sponsor if sponsored property sold name or title). Property A unique, commercially exploitable entity (could be a facility, site, event, or program) Synonyms: sponsee, seller. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 14 Right of First Refusal Contractual right granting a sponsor the right to match any offer the property receives during a specific period of time in the sponsor’s product category. Selling Rights The ability of a sponsor to earn back some or all of its sponsorship fee selling its product or service to the property or its attendees or members. Signage Banners, billboards, electronic messages, decals, etc., displayed on‐site and containing sponsors ID. Sole Sponsor A company that has paid to be the only sponsor of a property. Sponsee A property available for sponsorship. Sponsor An entity that pays a property for the right to promote itself and its products or services in association with the property. Sponsor ID Visual and audio recognition of sponsor in property’s publications and advertising; public‐address and on‐air broadcast mentions. Sponsorship The relationship between a sponsor and a property, in which the sponsor pays a cash or in‐kind fee in return for access to the commercial potential associated with the property. Sponsorship Agency A firm which specializes in advising on, managing, brokering, or organizing sponsored properties. The agency may be employed by either the sponsor or property. Sponsorship Fee Payment made by a sponsor to a property. Sports Marketing Promotional strategy linking a company to sports (sponsorship of competitions, teams, leagues, etc.). Supplier Official provider of goods or services in exchange for designated recognition. This level is below official sponsor, and the benefits provided are limited accordingly. Title Sponsor The sponsor that has its name incorporated into the name of the sponsored property. ---PAGE BREAK--- © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ‐ Sample Parks & Recreation Department –Sample Sponsorship Policy 15 Venue Marketing Promotional strategy linking a sponsor to a physical site (sponsorship of stadiums, arenas, auditoriums, amphitheaters, racetracks, fairgrounds, etc.) Web Sponsorship The purchase (in cash or trade) of the right to utilize the commercial potential associated with a site on the World Wide Web, including integrated relationship building and branding. ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix G – Sample Partnership Policy Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 207 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy and Proposal Format Created By: www.greenplayllc.com 211 N. Public Road, Suite 225 Lafayette, CO 80026 Phone: 303‐439‐8369 Fax: 303‐664‐5313 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] www.greenplayllc.com © 2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 2 Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy And Proposal Format Table of Contents Part One Page I. The Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy A. Purpose 3 B. Background and Assumptions 4 C. Partnership Definition 5 D. Possible Types of Partners 6 E. Sponsorships 7 F. Limited Decision‐Making Partnerships 8 G. Benefits of Partnerships 8 II. The Partnering Process 9 III. The Partnership Evaluation Process A. Mission and Goals 13 B. Other Considerations 13 C. Selection Criteria 15 D. Additional Assistance 16 Part Two The “Proposed Partnership Outline Format” 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 3 I. Sample Parks and Recreation Department Partnership Policy A. Purpose This policy is designed to guide the process for XX Parks and Recreation Department in their desire to partner with private, non‐profit, or other governmental entities for the development, design, construction, and operation of possibly partnered recreational facilities and/or programs that may occur on City property. The XX Parks and Recreation Department would like to identify for‐profit, non‐profit, and governmental entities that are interested in proposing to partner with the City to develop recreational facilities and/or programs. A major component in exploring any potential partnership will be to identify additional collaborating partners that may help provide a synergistic working relationship in terms of resources, community contributions, knowledge, and political sensitivity. These partnerships should be mutually beneficial for all proposing partners including the City, and particularly beneficial for the citizens of the community. This policy document is designed to: • Provide essential background information. • Provide parameters for gathering information regarding the needs and contributions of potential partners. • Identify how the partnerships will benefit the Sample Parks and Recreation Department and the community. Part Two: The “Proposed Partnership Outline Format,” provides a format that is intended to help guide Proposing Partners in creating a proposal for review by Sample Parks and Recreation Department staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 4 B. Background and Assumptions Partnerships are being used across the nation by governmental agencies in order to utilize additional resources for their community’s benefit. Examples of partnerships abound, and encompass a broad spectrum of agreements and implementation. The most commonly described partnership is between a public and a private entity, but partnerships also occur between public entities and non‐profit organizations and/or other governmental agencies. Note on Privatization: This application is specific for proposed partnering for new facilities or programs. This information does not intend to address the issue of privatization, or transferring existing City functions to a non‐City entity for improved efficiency and/or competitive cost concerns. An example of privatization would be a contract for a landscaping company to provide mowing services in a park. The City is always open to suggestions for improving services and cost savings through contractual arrangements. If you have an idea for privatization of current City functions, please call or outline your ideas in a letter for the City’s consideration. In order for partnerships to be successful, research has shown that the following elements should be in place prior to partnership procurement:  There must be support for the concept and process of partnering from the very highest organizational level – i.e.: the Board or Trustees, a council, and/or department head.  The most successful agencies have high‐ranking officials that believe that they owe it to their citizens to explore partnering opportunities whenever presented, those communities both solicit partners and consider partnering requests brought to them.  It is very important to have a Partnership Policy in place before partner procurement begins. This allows the agency to be proactive rather than reactive when presented with a partnership opportunity. It also sets a “level playing field” for all potential partners, so that they can know and understand in advance the parameters and selection criteria for a proposed partnership.  A partnership policy and process should set development priorities and incorporate multiple points for go/no‐go decisions.  The partnership creation process should be a public process, with both Partners and the Partnering Agency well aware in advance of the upcoming steps. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 5 C. Partnership Definition For purposes of this document and policy, a Proposed Partnership is defined as: "An identified idea or concept involving Sample Parks and Recreation Department and for‐ profit, non‐profit, and/or governmental entities, outlining the application of combined resources to develop facilities, programs, and/or amenities for the City and its citizens." A partnership is a cooperative venture between two or more parties with a common goal, who combine complementary resources to establish a mutual direction or complete a mutually beneficial project. Partnerships can be facility‐based or program‐specific. The main goal for XX Parks and Recreation Department partnerships is enhancing public offerings to meet the mission and goals of the City. The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in promoting partnerships which involve cooperation among many partners, bringing resources together to accomplish goals in a synergistic manner. Proposals that incorporate such collaborative efforts will receive priority status. Partnerships can accomplish tasks with limited resources, respond to compelling issues, encourage cooperative interaction and conflict resolution, involve outside interests, and serve as an education and outreach tool. Partnerships broaden ownership in various projects and increase public support for community recreation goals. Partners often have flexibility to obtain and invest resources/dollars on products or activities where municipal government may be limited. Partnerships can take the form of cash gifts and donor programs, improved access to alternative funding, property investments, charitable trust funds, labor, materials, equipment, sponsorships, technical skills and/or management skills, and other forms of value. The effective use of volunteers also can figure significantly into developing partnerships. Some partnerships involve active decision making, while in others, certain partners take a more passive role. The following schematic shows the types of possible partnerships discussed in this policy: Types of Partnerships Active Partnerships Management Agreements Program Partnerships Facility Leases Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) Semi‐Limited Decision Making Partnerships Sponsorships Limited Decision Making Partnerships Grant Programs Donor Programs Volunteer Programs ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 6 D. Possible Types of Active Partnerships The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in promoting collaborative partnerships among multiple community organizations. Types of agreements for Proposed “Active” Partnerships may include leases, contracts, sponsorship agreements, marketing agreements, management agreements, joint‐use agreements, inter‐governmental agreements, or a combination of these. An innovative and mutually beneficial partnership that does not fit into any of the following categories may also be considered. Proposed partnerships will be considered for facility, service, operations, and/or program development including associated needs, such as parking, paving, fencing, drainage systems, signage, outdoor restrooms, lighting, utility infrastructure, etc. The following examples are provided only to illustrate possible types of partnerships. They are not necessarily examples that would be approved and/or implemented. Examples of Public/Private Partnerships  A private business seeing the need for more/different community fitness and wellness activities wants to build a facility on City land, negotiate a management contract, provide the needed programs, and make a profit.  A private group interested in environmental conservation obtains a grant from a foundation to build an educational kiosk, providing all materials and labor, and is in need of a spot to place it.  Several neighboring businesses see the need for a place for their employees to work out during the work day. They group together to fund initial facilities and an operating subsidy and give the facility to the City to operate for additional public users.  A biking club wants to fund the building of a race course through a park. The races would be held one night per week, but otherwise the path would be open for public biking and in‐line skating.  A large corporate community relations office wants to provide a skatepark, but doesn't want to run it. They give a check to the City in exchange for publicizing their underwriting of the park's cost.  A private restaurant operator sees the need for a concessions stand in a park and funds the building of one, operates it, and provides a share of revenue back to the City.  A garden club wants land to build unique butterfly gardens. They will tend the gardens and just need a location and irrigation water. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 7 Examples of Public/Non‐Profit Partnerships  A group of participants for a particular sport or hobby sees a need for more playing space and forms a non‐profit entity to raise funds for a facility for their priority use that is open to the public during other hours.  A non‐profit baseball association needs fields for community programs and wants to obtain grants for the building of the fields. They would get priority use of the fields, which would be open for the City to schedule use during other times.  A museum funds and constructs a new building, dedicating some space and time for community meetings and paying a portion of revenues to the City to lease its land. Examples of Public/Public Partnerships  Two governmental entities contribute financially to the development and construction of a recreational facility to serve residents of both entities. One entity, through an IGA, is responsible for the operation of the facility, while the other entity contributes operating subsidy through a formula based on population or some other appropriate factor.  Two governmental public safety agencies see the need for more physical training space for their employees. They jointly build a gym adjacent to City facilities to share for their training during the day. The gyms would be open for the City to schedule for other users at night.  A school district sees the need for a climbing wall for their athletes. The district funds the wall and subsidizes operating costs, and the City manages and maintains the wall to provide public use during non‐school hours.  A university needs meeting rooms. They fund a multi‐use building on City land that can be used for City community programs at night. E. Sponsorships The XX Parks and Recreation Department is interested in actively procuring sponsorships for facilities and programs as one type of beneficial partnership. Please see the Sample Parks and Recreation Department Sponsorship Policy for more information. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 8 F. Limited‐Decision Making Partnerships: Donor, Volunteer, and Granting Programs While this policy document focuses on the parameters for more active types of partnerships, the City is interested in, and will be happy to discuss, a proposal for any of these types of partnerships, and may create specific plans for such in the future. G. Benefits of Partnerships with Sample Parks and Recreation Department The City expects that any Proposed Partnership will have benefits for all involved parties. Some general expected benefits are: Benefits for the City and the Community:  Merging of resources to create a higher level of service and facility availability for community members.  Making alternative funding sources available for public community amenities.  Tapping into the dynamic and entrepreneurial traits of private industry.  Delivering services and facilities more efficiently by allowing for collaborative business solutions to public organizational challenges.  Meeting the needs of specific groups of users through the availability of land for development and community use. Benefits for the Partners:  Land and/or facility availability at a subsidized level for specific facility and/or program needs.  Sharing of the risk with an established stable governmental entity.  Becoming part of a larger network of support for management and promotion of facilities and programs.  Availability of professional City recreation and planning experts to maximize the facilities and programs that may result.  Availability of City staff facilitation to help streamline the planning and operational efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 9 II. The Partnering Process The steps for creation of a partnership with the XX Parks and Recreation Department are as follows: A. XX Parks and Recreation Department will create a public notification process that will help inform any and all interested partners of the availability of partnerships with the City. This will be done through notification in area newspapers, listing in the brochure, or through any other notification method that is feasible. B. The proposing partner takes the first step to propose partnering with the City. To help in reviewing both the partnerships proposed, and the project to be developed in partnership, the City asks for a Preliminary Proposal according to a specific format as outlined in Part Two ‐ Proposed Partnership Outline Format. C. If initial review of a Preliminary Proposal yields interest and appears to be mutually beneficial based on the City Mission and Goals, and the Selection Criteria, a City staff member or appointed representative will be assigned to work with potential partners. D. The City representative is available to answer questions related to the creation of an initial proposal, and after initial interest has been indicated, will work with the proposing partner to create a checklist of what actions need to take place next. Each project will have distinctive planning, design, review, and support issues. The City representative will facilitate the process of determining how the partnership will address these issues. This representative can also facilitate approvals and input from any involved City departments, providing guidance for the partners as to necessary steps. E. An additional focus at this point will be determining whether this project is appropriate for additional collaborative partnering, and whether this project should prompt the City to seek a Request for Proposal (RFP) from competing/collaborating organizations. Request for Proposal (RFP) Trigger: In order to reduce concerns of unfair private competition, if a proposed project involves partnering with a private "for‐profit" entity and a dollar amount greater than $5,000, and the City has not already undergone a public process for solicitation of that particular type of partnership, the City will request Partnership Proposals from other interested private entities for identical and/or complementary facilities, programs, or services. A selection of appropriate partners will be part of the process. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 10 F. For most projects, a Formal Proposal from the partners for their desired development project will need to be presented for the City’s official development review processes and approvals. The project may require approval by the Legal, Planning, Fire and Safety, Finance, and/or other City Departments, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning Board, The Board of Trustees, and/or the City Supervisor’s Office, depending on project complexity and applicable City Charter provisions, ordinances or regulations. If these reviews are necessary, provision to reimburse the City for its costs incurred in having a representative facilitate the partnered project’s passage through Development Review should be included in the partnership proposal. G. Depending on project complexity and anticipated benefits, responsibilities for all action points are negotiable, within the framework established by law, to ensure the most efficient and mutually beneficial outcome. Some projects may require that all technical and professional expertise and staff resources come from outside the City’s staff, while some projects may proceed most efficiently if the City contributes staff resources to the partnership. H. The partnership must cover the costs the partnership incurs, regardless of how the partnered project is staffed, and reflect those costs in its project proposal and budget. The proposal for the partnered project should also discuss how staffing and expertise will be provided, and what documents will be produced. If City staff resources are to be used by the partnership, those costs should be allocated to the partnered project and charged to it. I. Specific Partnership Agreements appropriate to the project will be drafted jointly. There is no specifically prescribed format for Partnership Agreements, which may take any of several forms depending on what will accomplish the desired relationships among partners. The agreements may be in the form of:  Lease Agreements  Management and/or Operating Agreements  Maintenance Agreements  Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)  Or a combination of these and/or other appropriate agreements Proposed partnership agreements might include oversight of the development of the partnership, concept plans and project master plans, environmental assessments, architectural designs, development and design review, project management, and construction documents, inspections, contracting, monitoring, etc. Provision to fund the costs and for reimbursing the City for its costs incurred in creating the partnership, facilitating the project’s passage through the Development Review Processes, and completing the required documents should be considered. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 11 J. If all is approved, the Partnership begins. The City is committed to upholding its responsibilities to Partners from the initiation through the continuation of a partnership. Evaluation will be an integral component of all Partnerships. The agreements should outline who is responsible for evaluation and what types of measures will be used, and should detail what will occur should the evaluations reveal Partners are not meeting their Partnership obligations. ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 13 III. The Partnership Evaluation Process A. Mission Statements and Goals All partnerships with Sample Parks and Recreation Department should be in accord with the City’s and the Parks and Recreation Department’s Mission and Goals to indicate how a proposed partnership for that Department would be preliminarily evaluated. SAMPLE MISSION STATEMENT The XX Parks and Recreation Department will provide a variety of parks, recreation facilities, and program experiences equitably throughout the community. Programs will be developed and maintained to the highest quality, ensuring a safe environment with exceptional service while developing a lifetime customer. Services will demonstrate a positive economic investment through partnerships with other service providers, both public and private, ensuring a high quality of life for citizens of XX. (Sample) GOALS –  Promote physical and mental health and fitness  Nourish the development of children and youth  Help to build strong communities and neighborhoods  Promote environmental stewardship  Provide beautiful, safe, and functional parks and facilities that improve the lives of all citizens  Preserve cultural and historic features within the City’s parks and recreation systems  Provide a work environment for the Parks & Recreation Department staff that encourages initiative, professional development, high morale, productivity, teamwork, innovation, and excellence in management B. Other Considerations 1. Costs for the Proposal Approval Process For most proposed partnerships, there will be considerable staff time spent on the review and approval process once a project passes the initial review stage. This time includes discussions with Proposing Partners, exploration of synergistic partnering opportunities, possible RFP processes, facilitation of the approval process, assistance in writing and negotiating agreements, contracting, etc. There may also be costs for construction and planning documents, design work, and related needs and development review processes mandated by City ordinances. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 14 Successful Partnerships will take these costs into account and may plan for City recovery of some or all of these costs within the proposal framework. Some of these costs could be considered as construction expenses, reimbursed through a negotiated agreement once operations begin, or covered through some other creative means. 2. Land Use and/or Site Improvements Some proposed partnerships may include facility and/or land use. Necessary site improvements cannot be automatically assumed. Costs and responsibility for these improvements should be considered in any Proposal. Some of the general and usual needs for public facilities that may not be included as City contributions and may need to be negotiated for a project include:  Any facilities or non‐existent infrastructure construction  Outdoor restrooms  Water fountains  Roads or street improvements  Complementary uses of the site  Maintenance to specified standards  Staffing  Parking  Utility improvements (phone, cable, storm drainage, electricity, water, gas, sewer, etc.)  Snow removal  Custodial services  Lighting  Trash removal 3. Need The nature of provision of public services determines that certain activities will have a higher need than others. Some activities serve a relatively small number of users and have a high facility cost. Others serve a large number of users and are widely available from the private sector because they are profitable. The determination of need for facilities and programs is an ongoing discussion in public provision of programs and amenities. The project will be evaluated based on how the project fulfills a public need. 4. Funding Only when a Partnership Proposal demonstrates high unmet needs and high benefits for City citizens, will the City consider contributing resources to a project. The City recommends that Proposing Partners consider sources of potential funding. The more successful partnerships will have funding secured in advance. In most cases, Proposing Partners should consider funding and cash flow for initial capital development, staffing, and ongoing operation and maintenance. The details of approved and pending funding sources should be clearly identified in a proposal. For many partners, especially small private user groups, non‐profit groups, and governmental agencies, cash resources may be a limiting factor in the proposal. It may be a necessity for partners to utilize alternative funding sources for resources to complete a proposed project. Obtaining alternative funding often demands creativity, ingenuity, and persistence, but many forms of funding are available. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 15 Alternative funding can come from many sources, e.g. Sponsorships, Grants, and Donor Programs. A local librarian and/or internet searches can help with foundation and grant resources. Developing a solid leadership team for a partnering organization will help find funding sources. In‐kind contributions can, in some cases, add additional funding. All plans for using alternative funding should be clearly identified. The City has an established Sponsorship Policy, and partnered projects will be expected to adhere to the Policy. This includes the necessity of having an Approved Sponsorship Plan in place prior to procurement of sponsorships for a Partnered Project. C. Selection Criteria In assessing a partnership opportunity to provide facilities and services, the City will consider (as appropriate) the following criteria. The Proposed Partnership Outline Format in Part Two provides a structure to use in creating a proposal. City staff and representatives will make an evaluation by attempting to answer each of the following Guiding Questions.  How does the project align with the City and affected Department’s Mission Statement and Goals?  How does the proposed facility fit into the current City and the affected Department’s Master Plan?  How does the facility/program meet the needs of City residents?  How will the project generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant than the City can provide with its own staff or facilities?  What are the alternatives that currently exist, or have been considered, to serve the users identified in this project?  How much of the existing need is now being met within the City borders and within adjacent cities?  What is the number and demographic profile of participants who will be served?  How can the proposing partner assure the City of the long‐term stability of the proposed partnership, both for operations and for maintenance standards?  How will the partnered project meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements?  How will the organization offer programs at reasonable and competitive costs for participants  What are the overall benefits for both the City and the Proposing Partners? ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 16 D. Additional Assistance The XX Parks and Recreation Department is aware that the partnership process does entail a great deal of background work on the part of the Proposing Partner. The following list of resources may be helpful in preparing a proposal:  Courses are available through local colleges and universities to help organizations develop a business plan and/or operational pro‐formas.  The Chamber of Commerce offers a variety of courses and assistance for business owners and for those contemplating starting new ventures.  There are consultants who specialize in facilitating these types of partnerships. For one example, contact GreenPlay LLC at 303‐439‐8369 or [EMAIL REDACTED].  Reference Librarians at libraries and internet searches can be very helpful in identifying possible funding sources and partners, including grants, foundations, financing, etc.  Relevant information including the City of XX Comprehensive Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, site maps, and other documents are available at the These documents may be copied or reviewed, but may not be taken off‐site.  The XX Parks and Recreation Department Web Site (www.XXXX.com) has additional information.  If additional help or information is needed, please call 000‐000‐0000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 17 Part Two Sample Proposed Partnership Outline Format Please provide as much information as possible in the following outline form. I. Description of Proposing Organization:  Name of Organization  Years in Business  Contact Name, Mailing Address, Physical Address, Phone, Fax, Email  Purpose of Organization  Services Provided/Member/User/Customer Profiles  Accomplishments  Legal Status II. Decision Making Authority Who is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the organization? Who or what group (i.e. Council/Commission/Board) is the final decision maker and can authorize the funding commitment? What is the timeframe for decision making? Summary of Proposal (100 words or less) What is being proposed in terms of capital development, and program needs? III. Benefits to the Partnering Organization Why is your organization interested in partnering with the XX Parks and Recreation Department? Please individually list and discuss the benefits (monetary and non‐monetary) for your organization. IV. Benefits to the Sample Parks and Recreation Department Please individually list and discuss the benefits (monetary and non‐monetary) for the XX Parks and Recreation Department and residents of the City. V. Details (as currently known) The following page lists a series of Guiding Questions to help you address details that can help outline the benefits of a possible partnership. Please try to answer as many as possible with currently known information. Please include what your organization proposes to provide and what is requested of XX Parks and Recreation Department. Please include (as known) initial plans for your concept, operations, projected costs and revenues, staffing, and/or any scheduling or maintenance needs, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Partnership Policy – ©2003, 2008, 2012 GreenPlay LLC Page 18 Guiding Questions Meeting the Needs of our Community:  In your experience, how does the project align with park and recreation goals?  How does the proposed program or facility meet a need for City residents?  Who will be the users? What is the projected number and profile of participants who will be served?  What alternatives currently exist to serve the users identified in this project?  How much of the existing need is now being met? What is the availability of similar programs elsewhere in the community?  Do the programs provide opportunities for entry‐level, intermediate, and/or expert skill levels?  How does this project incorporate environmentally sustainable practices? The Financial Aspect:  Can the project generate more revenue and/or less cost per participant than the City can provide with its own staff or facilities? If not, why should the City partner on this project?  Will your organization offer programs at reasonable and competitive costs for all participants? What are the anticipated prices for participants?  What resources are expected to come from the Parks & Recreation Department?  Will there be a monetary benefit for the City, and if so, how and how much? Logistics:  How much space do you need? What type of space?  What is critical related to location?  What is your proposed timeline?  What are your projected hours of operations?  What are your initial staffing projections?  Are there any mutually‐beneficial cooperative marketing benefits?  What types of insurance will be needed and who will be responsible for acquiring and paying premiums on the policies?  What is your organization's experience in providing this type of facility/program?  How will your organization meet ADA and EEOC requirements? Agreements and Evaluation:  How, by whom, and at what intervals should the project be evaluated?  How can you assure the City of long‐term stability of your organization?  What types and length of agreements should be used for this project?  What types of “exit strategies” should we include?  What should be done if the project does not meet the conditions of the original agreements? ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix H – Pyramid Methodology Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Master Plan 227 ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ---PAGE BREAK--- THE PYRAMID METHODOLOGY: COST RECOVERY AND SUBSIDY ALLOCATION PHILOSOPHY The creation of a cost recovery and subsidy allocation philosophy and policy is a key component to maintaining an agency’s financial control, equitably pricing offerings, and helping to identify core services including programs and facilities. Critical to this philosophical undertaking is the support and buy-in of elected officials and advisory boards, staff, and ultimately, citizens. Whether or not significant changes are called for, the organization should be certain that it philosophically aligns with its constituents. The development of a financial resource allocation philosophy and policy is built upon a very logical foundation, based upon the theory that those who benefit from parks and recreation services ultimately pay for services. The development of a financial resource allocation philosophy can be separated into the following steps: Step 1 – Building on Your Organization’s Values, Vision, and Mission The premise of this process is to align agency services with organizational values, vision, and mission. It is important that organizational values are reflected in the vision and mission. Oftentimes, mission statements are a starting point and further work needs to occur to create a more detailed common understanding of the interpretation of the mission and a vision for the future. This is accomplished by engaging staff and community members in a discussion about a variety of Filters. Step 2 – Understanding the Pyramid Methodology, the Benefits Filter, and Secondary Filters Filters are a series of continuums covering different ways of viewing service provision. Filters influence the final positioning of services as they relate to each other and are summarized below. The Benefits Filter, however; forms the foundation of the Pyramid Model and is used in this discussion to illustrate a cost recovery philosophy and policies for parks and recreation organizations. Filter Definition Benefit Who receives the benefit of the service? (Skill development, education, physical health, mental health, safety) Access/Type of Service Is the service available to everyone equally? Is participation or eligibility restricted by diversity factors age, ability, skill, financial)? Organizational Responsibility Is it the organization’s responsibility or obligation to provide the service based upon mission, legal mandate, or other obligation or requirement? Historical Expectations What have we always done that we cannot change? Anticipated Impacts What is the anticipated impact of the service on existing resources? On other users? On the environment? What is the anticipated impact of not providing the service? Social Value What is the perceived social value of the service by constituents, city staff and leadership, and policy makers? Is it a community builder? ---PAGE BREAK--- THE BENEFITS FILTER The principal foundation of the Pyramid is the Benefits Filter. Conceptually, the base level of the pyramid represents the mainstay of a public parks and recreation system. Services appropriate to higher levels of the pyramid should only be offered when the preceding levels below are comprehensive enough to provide a foundation for the next level. This foundation and upward progression is intended to represent public parks and recreation’s core mission, while also reflecting the growth and maturity of an organization as it enhances its service offerings. It is often easier to integrate the values of the organization with its mission if they can be visualized. An ideal philosophical model for this purpose is the pyramid. In addition to a physical structure, pyramid is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “an immaterial structure built on a broad supporting base and narrowing gradually to an apex.” Parks and recreation programs are built with a broad supporting base of core services, enhanced with more specialized services as resources allow. Envision a pyramid sectioned horizontally into five levels. MOSTLY COMMUNITY Benefit The foundational level of the Pyramid is the largest, and includes those services including programs and facilities which MOSTLY benefit the COMMUNITY as a whole. These services may increase property values, provide safety, address social needs, and enhance quality of life for residents. The community generally pays for these basic services via tax support. These services are generally offered to residents at a minimal charge or with no fee. A large percentage of the agency’s tax support would fund this level of the Pyramid. Examples of these services could include: the existence of the community parks and recreation system; the ability for youngsters to visit facilities on an informal basis; low-income or scholarship programs; park and facility planning and design; park maintenance; or others. NOTE: All examples above are generic – individual agencies vary in their determination of which services belong in the foundation level of the Pyramid based upon agency values, vision, mission, demographics, goals, etc. CONSIDERABLE COMMUNITY Benefit The second and smaller level of the Pyramid represents services which promote individual physical and mental well-being, and may begin to provide skill development. They are generally traditionally expected services and/or beginner instructional levels. These services are typically assigned fees based upon a specified percentage of direct (and may also include indirect) costs. These costs are partially offset by both a tax subsidy to account for CONSIDERABLE COMMUNITY benefit and participant fees to account for the Individual benefit received from the service. Examples of these services could include: the capacity for teens and adults to visit facilities on an informal basis;, ranger led interpretive programs;, beginning level instructional programs and classes; etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- BALANCED INIDIVIDUAL/COMMUNITY Benefit The third and even smaller level of the Pyramid represents services that promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide an intermediate level of skill development. This level provides balanced INDIVIDUAL and COMMUNITY benefit and should be priced accordingly. The individual fee is set to recover a higher percentage of cost than those services that fall within lower Pyramid levels. Examples of these services could include: summer recreational day camp; summer sports leagues; year-round swim team; etc. CONSIDERABLE INDIVIDUAL Benefit The fourth and still smaller Pyramid level represents specialized services generally for specific groups, and those which may have a competitive focus. Services in this level may be priced to recover full cost, including all direct and indirect expenses. Examples of these services could include: specialty classes; golf; and outdoor adventure programs MOSTLY INDIVIDUAL Benefit At the top of the Pyramid, the fifth and smallest level represents services which have profit center potential, may be in an enterprise fund, may be in the same market space as the private sector, or may fall outside the core mission of the agency. In this level, services should be priced to recover full cost in addition to a designated profit percentage Examples of these activities could include: elite diving teams; golf lessons; food concessions; company picnic rentals; and other facility rentals such as for weddings or other services. Step 3 – Developing the Organization’s Categories of Service In order to avoid trying to determine cost recovery or subsidy allocation levels for each individual agency service including every program, facility or property, it is advantageous to categorize agency services into like categories. This step also includes the development of category definitions that detail and define each category; and service inventory “checks and balance” to insure that all agency services belong within a developed category. Examples of Categories of Service could include: Beginner instructional classes; Special events; and Concessions/Vending. ---PAGE BREAK--- Step 4 – Sorting the Categories of Service onto the Pyramid It is critical that this sorting step be done with staff, governing body and citizen representatives involved. This is where ownership is created for the philosophy, while participants discover the current and possibly varied operating histories, cultures, and organizational values, vision and mission. It is the time to develop consensus and get everyone on the same page, the page that is written together. Remember, this effort must reflect the community and must align with the thinking of policy makers. Sample Policy Development Language: XXX community brought together staff from across the department, agency leadership, and citizens to sort existing programs into each level of the Pyramid. The process was facilitated by an objective and impartial facilitator in order to hear all viewpoints. It generated discussion and debate as participants discovered what different people had to say about serving culturally and economically varied segments of the community; about historic versus active-use parks; about the importance of adult versus youth versus senior activities; and other philosophical and values-based discussions. This process gets at both the “what” and “why” with the intention of identifying common ground and consensus. Step 5 – Determining (or Confirming) Current Subsidy/Cost Recovery Levels This step establishes the expectation that the agency will confirm or determine current cost recovery and subsidy allocation levels by service area. This will include consideration of revenues sources and services costs or expenses. Typically, staff may not be cost accounting consistently, and these inconsistencies will become apparent. Results of this step will identify whether staff members know what it costs to provide services to the community; whether staff have the capacity or resources necessary to account for and track costs; Whether accurate cost recovery levels can be identified; and whether cost centers or general ledger line items align with how the agency may want to track these costs in the future. Step 6 – Defining Direct and Indirect Costs The definition of direct and indirect costs can vary from agency to agency. What’s important is that all costs associated with directly running a program or providing a service are identified and consistently applied across the system. Direct costs typically include all the specific, identifiable expenses (fixed and variable) associated with providing a service. These expenses would not exist without the service and may be variable costs. Defining direct costs, along with examples and relative formulas is necessary during this step. Indirect costs typically encompass overhead (fixed and variable) including the administrative costs of the agency. These costs would exist without any specific service but may also be attributed to a specific agency operation (in which case they are direct expenses of that operation). If desired, all or a portion of indirect costs can be allocated, in which case they become a direct cost allocation. Step 7 – Establishing Cost Recovery/Subsidy Goals Subsidy and cost recovery are complementary. If a program is subsidized at 75%, it has a 25% cost recovery, and vice-versa. It is more powerful to work through this exercise thinking about where the tax subsidy is used rather than what is the cost recovery. When it is complete, you can reverse thinking to articulate the cost recovery philosophy, as necessary. The overall subsidy/cost recovery level is comprised of the average of everything in all of the levels together as a whole. This step identifies what the current subsidy level is for the programs sorted into each level. There may be quite a range within each level, and some programs could overlap with other levels of the pyramid. This will be rectified in the final steps. ---PAGE BREAK--- This step must reflect your community and must align with the thinking of policy makers regarding the broad picture financial goals and objectives. Examples Categories in the bottom level of the Pyramid may be completely or mostly subsidized, with the agency having established limited cost recovery to convey the value of the experience to the user. An established 90-100% subsidy articulates the significant community benefit resulting from these categories. The top level of the Pyramid may range from 0% subsidy to 50% excess revenues above all costs, or more. Or, the agency may not have any Categories of Service in the top level. Step 8 – Understanding and Preparing for Influential Factors and Considerations Inherent to sorting programs onto the Pyramid model using the Benefits and other filters is the realization that other factors come into play. This can result in decisions to place services in other levels than might first be thought. These factors also follow a continuum; however, do not necessarily follow the five levels like the Benefits Filter. In other words, a specific continuum may fall completely within the first two levels of the Pyramid. These factors can aid in determining core versus ancillary services. These factors represent a layering effect and should be used to make adjustments to an initial placement on the Pyramid. THE COMMITMENT FACTOR: What is the intensity of the program, what is the commitment of the participant? Drop-In Opportunities Instructional – Basic Instructional – Intermediate Competitive – Not Recreational Specialized THE TRENDS FACTOR: Is the program or service tried and true, or is it a fad? Basic Traditionally Expected Staying Current with Trends Cool, Cutting Edge Far Out THE POLITICAL FILTER: What is out of our control? This filter does not operate on a continuum, but is a reality, and will dictate from time to time where certain programs fit in the pyramid THE MARKETING FACTOR: What is the effect of the program in attracting customers? Loss Leader Popular – High Willingness to Pay THE RELATIVE COST TO PROVIDE FACTOR: What is the cost per participant? Low Cost per Participant Medium Cost per Participant High Cost per Participant ---PAGE BREAK--- THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FACTOR: What are the financial realities of the community? Low Ability to Pay Pay to Play FINANCIAL GOALS FACTOR: Are we targeting a financial goal such as increasing sustainability, decreasing subsidy reliance? 100% Subsidized Generates Excess Revenue over Direct Expenditures Step 9 – Implementation Across the country, ranges in overall cost recovery levels can vary from less than 10% to over 100%. The agency sets their goals based upon values, vision, mission, stakeholder input, funding, and/or other criteria. This process may have been completed to determine present cost recovery levels, or, the agency may have needed to increase cost recovery levels in order to meet budget targets. Sometimes, simply implementing a policy to develop equity is enough without a concerted effort to increase revenues. Upon completion of steps 1-8, the agency is positioned to illustrate and articulate where it has been and where it is heading from a financial perspective. Step 10 – Evaluation The results of this process may be used to:  articulate and illustrate a comprehensive cost recovery and subsidy allocation philosophy  train staff at all levels as to why and how things are priced the way they are  shift subsidy to where is it most appropriately needed  benchmark future financial performance  enhance financial sustainability  recommend service reductions to meet budget subsidy targets, or show how revenues can be increased as an alternative  justifiably price new services This Cost Recovery/Subsidy Allocation Philosophy: The Pyramid Methodology Outline is provided by: GreenPlay, LLC, 211 North Public Road, Suite 225, Lafayette, Colorado 80026 (303) 439-8369; Toll-free: 1-[PHONE REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; www.GreenPlayLLC.com All rights reserved. Please contact GreenPlay for more information. Copyright 2001, 2008, 2009, 2011