The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About30 Park, Recreation, Open Space anmd Greenway GuidelinesA Project of the National Recreation and Park Association and the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines James D . Mertes, Ph.D., CLP andjames R. Hall, C LP PARK, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND GREENWAY GUIDELINES James D. Mertes, Ph.D ., CLP James R. Hall, CLP Co-Task Force Chairs A Project of the National Recreation and Park Association and the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration A Publication of the National Recreation and Park Association DEDICATION This work is dedicated to Mr. Frank Vaydik, Director Emeritus of the Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department. Frank hosted the 1979 Task Force Workshop , from which came the 1983 predecessor publication . Through the leadership of Mr. Vaydik , the American Academy for Park and Recreation was chartered in 1988 . Frank, I hope that the effort put forth in the production of this edition is part of the vision of service to the Park and Recreation Profession you had in mind in your initial charge to the Academy. James D . Mertes , Ph .D ., CLP Charter Member American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration December 1995 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Numerous park and recreation professionals, professionals in allied disciplines, citizens , and support staff have given generously to this effort. First and foremost , I wish to recognize the contribution of my secretaries Mrs . Sharon Pope and Mrs . Sara Stroud who performed yeoman service with the typing and myriad administrative tasks needed to support such an effort. To Mr. Robert Toalson, Executive Secretary of the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration who handled all of the financial record keeping and other support tasks. To Mr. R. Dean Tice, Executive Director of the National Recreation and Park Association who always had a ready ear and a long string of patience to deal with the sometimes snail's pace at which our work seemed to move. To all the professionals and interested citizens who shared their views and materials with us either at the NRPA Congresses or through the mail. To our reviewers who volunteered their time and expertise to the effort. To Texas Tech University for providing the time and resources necessary to undertake this project. To Task Force Co-Chair, James R. Hall , for being a practitioner lightening rod on Level of Service applications , community involvement in the planning process , and from whose efforts in guiding the recently completed and highly successful Boise, Idaho Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan we garnered numerous benefits. To Cathy Cromie, NRPA headquarters staff who helped update the facility standards. To Kevin Asher, AICP, for his groundbreaking work in developing an empirical approach to calculating the Level of Service. To Daniel Yoder, Ph .D . candidate in Leisure Studies at the University of Illinois, Champaign- U rbana . Finally to the technical writing team, particularly Jeff Schoenbauer, Howard Gregg, David Reed , Don Martin, Barry Mangum, and Bob Espeseth, who put in many long hours on key sections of the bulletin . The authors and task force co-chairs are indebted to the editorial work provided by Jonathan Howard of the NRPA headquarters staff. We particularly appreciate a thorough review by Roger A . Lancaster, editor of the 1983 edition. iii James D . Mertes Lubbock, Texas December 1995 RESEARCH AND WRITING TEAM Dr. Robert E. Espeseth (Retired) University of Illinois Champaign, Illinois Dr. Donald Martin (Retired) Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Dr. Barry D . Mangum Rapidan, Virginia Mr. James R. Hall , Director Boise Park System Boise, Idaho Dr. James C. Kozlowski. Ph.D .. J .D . Fairfax Station, Virginia ( iv Dr. David Reed Reed Planning Services Springfield, Oregon Mr. Howard Gregg Chief of Planning and Research Metro Date County PARD Miami, Florida Ms. Linda Lamb Community Development Department Wilmette, Illinois Mr. R. Eric Reickel, Director Lansing Parks & Recreation Department Lansing, Michigan Mr. Jeffrey A. Schoenbauer Park System Planner Brauer & Associates, Ltd Minneapolis, Minnesota AMERICAN ACADEMY FOR PARK AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION TASK FORCE Dr. Joseph Bannon University of Illinois Champaign, Illinois Mr. William Bird Miami, Florida Dr. D. James Brademas University of Illinois Champaign, Illinois Mr. Roger K. Brown Department of Parks & Recreation Greensboro, North Carolina Mr. Donald K. Cochran Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission Silver Spring, Mary land Dr. John Crompton Texas A & M University College Station, Texas Mr. Ralph S . Cryder, Director Department of Parks & Recreation Long Beach, California Mr. David L. Fisher, Director Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Minneapolis, Minnesota Mr. Douglas J . Gaynor Department of Parks & Recreation Los Gatos, California Dr. David E. Gray Long Beach, California Dr. Roger Warren North Carolina State University Raleigh , North Carolina Mr. Theodore J. Wirth Wirth Design Associates Billings, Montana v Mr. John P. Hewitt Frank L. Hewitt Company Silver Spring, Maryland Mr. Ira J. Hutchinson U.S. Department of the Interior Washington. DC Dr. Barry D. Mangum Rapidan, Virginia Jame s D . Mertes, Ph .D., CLP Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas Mr. Patrick J . O'Brien East Bay Regional Park District Oakland, California Mr. Rhodell E . Owens Peoria, Illinois Dr. Charles Pezoldt Metro Dade County PARO Miami , Florida Mr. John C. Potts, Director Peoria Park District Peoria, Illinois Mr. R. Eric Reickel, Director Lansing Parks & Recreation Department Lansing, Michigan Mr. Graham M. Skea, Director Parks , Recreation & Conservation Montgomery, New York Mr. James Truncer, Director Monmouth County Park System Lincroft, New Jersey PARTICIPANTS IN THE JOINT TASK FORCE PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FORUMS 1991 Baltimore, Maryland Dr. Joe Bannon University of Illinois Champaign, Illinois Mr. Don Olson Parks & Recreation Houston, Texas Mr. Bob Doyle East Bay Regional Park District Oakland, California Ms. Delani Wheeler Boulder Open Space Greenbelt Boulder, Colorado Dr. Don Martin Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Mr. William C. Walters National Park Service Seattle, Washington Mr. Howard Gregg Metro Dade County PARD Miami, Florida Ms . Penny Howe Phoenix Park Board Phoenix, Arizona Mr. Uwe Shemrau Ontario Provincial Parks Ontario, Canada Ms. Margaret Thompson Parks & Recreation Thunder Bay , Ontario, Canada viii Mr. Jim Colley Parks & Recreation Phoenix, Arizona Ms . Fran Mainella Division of State Parks Miami, Florida Ms. Lois Finkelman Dallas Park Board Dallas, Texas Mr. Lee Spike Parks & Recreation Bellevue, Washington Mr. Don Schmidt Ontario Provinical Parks Ontario, Canada Mr. John Couch Seattle, Washington Ms. Ann Lusk Greenways International Lowe, Vermont Ms . Kathryn Porter Mendham, New Jersey Mr. Rex Funk Open Space America Albuquerque, New Mexico Ms . Annabelle M. Davis Parks & Recreation Department Jacksonville, Arkansas 1992 Cincinnati, Ohio Mr. Herbert A. Grench Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Los Altos, California Mr. Richard C . Johns Parks & Recreation Department Santa Barbara, California Mr. R. Ted Brown Parks & Recreation Vancouver, Washington Mr. Ken Fiske Conservation Services Woodstock, Illinois Ms . Phyllis Cangemi Whole Access Redwood City, California 1993 San Jose, California Mr. Peter M. Murphy Illinois Association of Parks Districts Springfield, Illinois Mr. Jim Van Fossen Missoula Parks & Recreation Department Missoula, Montana Mr. Robin Goodman Parks & Recreation Department Fountain Hills , Arizona Ms . Joyce Mendez Department of Parks & Recreation Denver, Colorado Mr. Mark I. Ivy Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Dover, Delaware ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication .......................................................................................................................... (i) Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ (iii) Research and Writing Team ............................................................................................ (iv) American Academy For Park and Recreation Administration Task Force ................................................................................ (v) National Recreation and Park Association Task Force .................................................. (vi) Contributing Reviewers .................................................................................................. (vii) Participants In The Joint Task Force Park, Recreation and Open Space Forums .............................................................. (viii) Preface .............................................................................................................................. 1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 1 A Changing Landscape ........................................................................................ 2 Primary Objective ............................................................................................... .4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 Historical Perspective .......................................................................................... 5 Introduction of Space Standards .......................................................................... 6 SECTION 1 -SYSTEMS APPROACH TO PARK, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND GREENWAY PLANNING Overview ............................................................................................................ 11 Trends Influencing the Planning Proce ss ............................................................ 12 Implications of Trends on Park, Open Space and Greenway Planning .......................................................... 15 Systems Approach to Planning ......................................................................... .16 Primary Focus .................................................................................................... 16 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................... 18 Stakeholder Management. ................................................................................... 19 Components of the Systems Planning Model .................................................... 20 Step 1. Identify Customers ................................................................................ 20 Step 2. Obtain Customer Involvement .............................................................. 22 Step 3. Assess Need .......................................................................................... 23 Step 4 . Develop Strategic Plan .......................................................................... 27 Step 5 . Develop System Planning Framework .................................................. 29 Step 6. Develop System Plan ............................................................................ 30 Step 7. Develop Recreation Services Delivery Plan .......................................... 32 Step 8 . Develop Maintenance and Operations Plan .......................................... 34 Step 9. Develop Implementation Plan .............................................................. 34 Step 10. Evaluate Overall Effectiveness of System Plans and Service Delivery .......................................................................................... 36 xi SECTION 2 -FRAMEWORK FOR PARK, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND GREENWAY PLANNING Overview ........................................................................................................... .37 Developing a Sy ste ms Planning Framework ..................................................... .38 Category A: Phy sical Components ................................................................... .38 Municipal/City Boundary ................................................................................. .39 Existing Zoning and Guided Land Uses ........................................................... .39 Transportation Plan ........................................................................................... .40 Urban Services Area ......................................................................................... .40 Existing Parks, Open Space and Greenway s ..................................................... .40 School Di strict Properties .................................................................................. 41 Natural Re so urce Base ....................................................................................... .42 Adjacent Cities' Parks, Open Space and Greenways .......................................... 43 Federal, State , Regional , County and Other Public Land s ................................. .43 Private Re creation-Related Land s and Re sources ............................................. .45 Water Re so urce s Plan s ....................................................................................... .45 Category B: Pl anning Components ................................................................... .45 Uses of Park an d Open Space Lands ................................................................. .46 Accommodating Uses of Park and Open Space Land s Through Planning Guideline s ........................................ 47 Concept of a Planning Guideline ....................................................................... .48 Level of Service Guideline ............................................................................... .49 Park , Open Space and Greenway Clas sification Guidelines .............................. 50 Facility Space Guideline .................................................................................... 51 Facility De sign Guideline .................................................................................. 51 The Need for Flexibility .................................................................................................... .51 Lifecycle of System Components ...................................................................................... 53 Quality Initiative ............................................................................................................... .54 SECTION 3 -LEVEL OF SERVICE GUIDELINE FOR SYSTEM PLANNING Overview ............................................................................................................ 57 Preparation of the Level of Service Standard .................................................... 59 Steps in Calculating the Level of Service Standard ............................................ 60 Developing a Level of Servi ce Standard ............................................................ 61 Guidance from the State Comprehen sive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) .............................................................. 62 The Level of Service Approach .......................................................................... 63 Small Community Planning and the LOS .......................................................... 69 Preparing a LOS for "Greenville USA" .............................................................. 70 Local Policie s Affecting Park and Recreation Space Standard .......................... 79 Application of the LOS in Park and Recreation Space Planning ........................ 81 Dedication, Exaction and Impact Fees : Role of the LOS .................................. 81 Economic Impact Assess ment of the LOS .......................................................... 88 LOS Implications for Growth Management ...................................................... 89 The LOS and The School-Park Concept ............................................................ 90 LOS and Equity Implications .............................................................................. 91 xii SECTION 4-CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND GREENWA YS Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Facilities Classification ............ 93 Mini-Park ............................................................................................................ 95 Neighborhood Park ............................................................................................ 98 School-Park ...................................................................................................... 100 Community Park .............................................................................................. 102 Sports Complex ................................................................................................ 105 Special Use Park .............................................................................................. 107 Private Park/Recreation Facility ...................................................................... 108 Natural Resource Areas/Pre serves .................................................................... 109 Green ways ........................................................................................................ 111 Park Trails ........................................................................................................ 113 Connector Trails ................................................................................................ 115 Bikeways (Bike Routes and Lanes ) .................................................................. 116 All Terrain Bike, Cross-Country Ski , and Equestrian Trail s ............................ 118 SECTION 5-FACILITY SPACE STANDARDS Facility Space Guideline .................................................................................. 121 Impact of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on Facilities Design ...................................................................... 125 Historical Perspective ...................................................................................... 125 Required Actions .............................................................................................. 126 Outdoor Recreational Facilities ........................................................................ 127 Services and Programs ...................................................................................... 128 Time Frame for Compliance ............................................................................ 128 Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 129 Appendice s ...................................................................................................................... 133 National Recreation and Park Association Regional Service Centers ............................ 155 Selected Recreation Organizations .................................................................................. 156 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 159 xiii Preface ~-------------------In 1979, a group of park and recreation professionals met in Kansas City, Missouri, to begin a three year effort to update Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, published by the National Recreation and Park Association. Overview "All birds, even those of the same species are not alike, and it is the same with animals and human beings. The reason WaKantanka does not make two birds or animals alike is because each is placed here by WaKantanka to be independent individuality and to rely on itself." The task force had to grapple not only with the multitude of changes that were impacting the delivery of park and recreation services, but also a myriad of social and economic forces which were emerging on the American landscape. There is no crystal ball with which to see the future and have in place the right information and procedures to deal with changes when they occur and as fast as they occur. SHOOTER (Late 19th Centwy Teton Sioux) Native American Wisdom Copyright 1993 by Running Press It became obvious to many both within and outside the field that our basic approach to determining how we should go about providing parks and recreation needed revision . A decade had passed and many of the methods, practices, situations, and presumptions of the 1980s were recognized as out of step with the events of the 1990s. The National Recreation and Park Association sensed the need to revisit this handbook which had become the most widely used guide for directing the growth of local government park, recreation, and open space systems in the country. In 1991, the National Recreation and Park Association joined forces with the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration to assemble a joint task force of some 60 professionals from communities and academic institutions across the country. From the group, a core technical team of 11 professionals was assigned the task of sorting through volumes of studies What has changed is our entire philosophy of planning for parks, recreation, and open space as well as how we go about providing these resources for future generations. and hours of discussion to take apart the existing document and see where old worn parts had to be replaced. The user who is familiar with the 1983 version will note that some of the basics have endured and were untouched . For example, the size of a tennis court or softball diamond is the same today as it was 10 or 20 years ago . What has changed is our entire philosophy of planning for parks, recreation, and open space as well as how we go about providing these resources for future generations. It was the firm conviction of the revision team that we should provide the best guidance possible for all communities regardless of size so that they may work 'within their own unique social, economic, and institutional structure to provide the park, recreation, and open space system that is best for their community and is within their economic and financial capability. 1 Numerous forces were at work within America during the 1980s that will have a profound affect on the park and recreation profession and how it does business in the 1990s. Some of these changes include: A Cha nging Landscape • The decline of federal and state grant programs which for years provided funding to help cities to purchase park and open space land and to develop this land as they wished. 2 • Explosive growth in some jurisdictions which placed a severe strain on the ability of park agencies to keep up with the cost of buying land on which to construct new parks. • A shift in the political winds from a reliance on federal dollars to solve local problems to an emphasis on the use of state funds and local ini tiatives and resources . For the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a decline in the amount of federal and perhaps state dollars available for local parks and recreation . Many park and recreation systems throughout the county are in critical financial condition . Agencies have been forced to respond to increased demand for park and recreation opportunitie s with decreasing fiscal resources. • The rapid increase in the number of growth impacted communities turning to combined zoning and subdivision codes, now known as development codes, which provide for such infrastructure cost shifting tools as land dedications, exactions, and impact fees for financing the development of park and recreation facilities in the sprawling suburbs. State growth management legislation has begun to require that municipal infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer lines, parks, and schools be available concurrent with new development. The concept of "concurrency" requires the establishment of level of service standards that are both rea sonable and measurable . • The development of a new array of legal tools for planning and development. The park and recreation profession has begun to become more quantitative in response to court and statutory tests such as the rational nexus test or need versus benefit test, and the most recent roughly proportional te st. Policy plans adopted by government boards, councils, and commissions have increasingly been used as evidential material in court cases involving land use and zoning disputes . • Close taxpayer scrutiny of local government spending, forcing providers of public goods and services to demonstrate by some rational standard that what citizens are asked to pay is that which is needed to get the job done and is not so excessive as to be frivolous . • An explosion of interest among citizen groups in preserving community open lands such as wetlands, floodplains, foothills, forests , and prairies for purposes of environmental protection and "green recreation", which is pas sive in nature and requires little in the way of facility development. There has been much interest in community land trusts, particularly in communities where the population is in the higher social-economic strata or is composed of more people who find their outdoor recreation in the less active areas of leisure. People who support open space or open lands initiatives often are competing for the same limited tax dollars which might in the past have been spent on active recreation facilities. • The expansion of service delivery responsibilities, including protecting and programming elements of the community's historical, cultural, and natural heritage. • The growth of public-private partnerships to provide both active park and recreation facilities as well as community open lands. For example, a community floodplain greenbelt program can be justified by its enhancement of the value of adjacent private property. • A significant growth in new state and local government environmental legislation. • A demand from all sectors of the community for equity and uniform quality in the provision of park and recreation resources, facilities, and programs. A rational planning guideline provides a procedure for addressing these concerns . • A shift in planning from the traditional project or comprehensive master plan to the more strategic planning process which provides a wider range of opportunities for citizens to become active stakeholders in their community and more involved in the decision-making process . • A growing recognition that recreation demand is often met by a host of providers ... • A shift away from reliance on an absolute national standard, i.e . the long standing notion of 10 acres/1000 persons, to increasing community self-direction where the number of acres for park and recreation land is based on what the citizens determine is best for themselves . • A greater emphasis on understanding what the customer needs and wants in order to deliver the quality of experience that is expected for the money paid. • A recognition that in many communities there may be more citizen interest in open space preservation and nature-based recreation than in the more traditional menu of activities. • Enactment of The 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act. This major amendment to the 1968 Civil Rights Act is dramatically changing the procedures we must use in the design, renovation , and management of all public park and recreation areas and facilities. 3 ·-----Primary Objective The purpose of this publication is to underscore the most important objective of the park and recreation planning process; to ensure that a community knows how to go about securing enough of the right kind of land to provide the scale of park and open space system the citizens desire. The purpose of this publication is to underscore the most important objective of the park and recreation planning process; to ensure that a community knows how to go about securing enough of the right kind of land to provide the scale of park and open space system the citizens desire. In growth impacted communities, land for parks and recreation is often at a premium and needs to be acquired in a timely fashion before the land is lost forever. The same is true for those elements of the community landscape which should be protected through some kind of community open lands preservation and conservation program. Also, it is hoped that communities large and small will come closer together in the planning for their future park and open space system . If this happens, then a community can approach the problem in an open and informed manner, a manner which can make citizens feel and act as true stakeholders in their park and open space system. Finally, we must realize an open space standard is not so much an exemplary measure to be used in some form of comparison or judgement of adequacy or accomplishment, but is an expression of a community consensus of what constitutes an acceptable level of service. Neither the National Recreation and Park Association nor the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration can state categorically what standard is best for all communities. What can be done, however, is to present a procedure for calculating an empirically sound level of service standard, and provide professional guidance for setting up a diversified and balanced community park, recreation, and open space system. 4 . Introduction ~--- Historical Perspective The American park, recreation, and conservation movement was born in both the teeming inner cities of the late 1800s and in the vast, beautiful, unspoiled wilderness of the West. The need for open space in the cities, the preservation of our natural wonders, and the need for recreation in urban areas led to the development of our first city and national parks . This development was uniquely American and resulted in a national effort to provide recreation and park facilities for the public, as well as conservation of our national wonders . Giants of this three dimensional movement were Frederick Law Olmstead, Joseph Lee, and John Muir. The park, recreation, and conservation programs and areas we enjoy can be credited to these early pioneers. Frederick Law Olmstead and his team of landscape architects created Central Park in New York City in 1850. Central Park became a breathing space and playground for the crowded masses of the city. The success of the country 's first major city park led to the creation of other parks in Boston and Philadelphia. Parks designed by Frederick Law Olmstead set the standards for parks throughout America. Speaking on the development of Central Park , Olmstead said the park was to permanently afford in the densely populated central portion of an immense metropolis, a means of certain kinds of refreshment of the mind and nerves which most city dwellers greatly need and which they are known to derive in large measure from the enjoyment of suitable scenery. About the same time, Joseph Lee was establishing the children's Sand Gardens in Boston, Massachusetts. These inner city playgrounds became the example for other cities in developing urban recreation facilities . Joseph Lee formed the Playground Association of America in 1906. One of this group 's first resolutions was: That while there is no inherent relation between space and childr~n, and the exact amount of space required cannot be determined, it is our belief that the present London requirement of 30 square feet of playground for each child of the schoo l is the minimum with which the proper amount of light, air, and space for play and gymnastics ca n be secured. 5 Introduction of Space Standards The Playground Association of America developed a plan for Washington, D.C., to provide playgrounds, recreation centers, and athletic fields. Every school district was to have at least one acre of land for each 2,000 children . This recommendation of the Playground Association became one of the first recorded recreation space standards. George Butler of the National Recreation Association established recommended space standards for playgrounds in neighborhoods of different populations. Butler reluctantly prepared a standard of 10 acres of park and open space per 1,000 population within each city, plus an equal area in parkways, large parks, forests, and the like, either within or adjacent to the city. His reluctance to suggest a definitive standard arose because he saw that this standard, or any other, was likely to be used indiscriminately regardless of location and other factors that must modify the standard. Naturalist, explorer and writer, John Muir led the forest conservation and national park movements in the United States. His efforts and his friendship with President Theodore Roosevelt led to the setting aside of 148 million acres of forest reserves and, in 1890, the establishment of Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. Muir founded the Sierra Club in 1892. He can truly be called the father of our national parks. Speaking before a gro up of pioneer conservationists, he said: Each year thousands of nerve-shaken, over-civilized people find that going to the mountains, forests, and deserts is sort of like going home. These areas are useful not only as fountains of timber and water but fountains of life. NRPA Involvement For the past 30 years, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has been invo lved in developing recommended guidelines and standards for parks , recreation, and open space. In 1971, NRPA published the National Park, Recreation and Open Space Standards, edited by Robert D. Buechner. This publication guided the park and recreation field during the growth years of the 1970s . During the late '70s, NRPA activated the Standards Revision Task Force. This group met at the 1979 NRPA Congress in New Orleans and continued its work meeting in Kansas City and Phoenix early in 1980 . The task force enlisted the efforts of over 180 individuals, representing all segments of recreation, parks and allied disciplines. The result of this team effort was the publication of the Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines in 1983, written and edited by Roger A. Lancaster, who coordinated the work of a forty-member task force. A recommendation stressed in this publication was that the standards be viewed as a guide that addressed minimum, not maximum goals to be achieved. 6 The purp ose of this p ublicatio n is to provide a mode l for applying a systems approach to the planni ng for parks, recreati9n, open space, and pathways . This approach includes a level of service guideline that is needs based, facilities driven, and land measured. During the past 10 years, this publication served the profession well . The 1980s saw an increase in federal, state, and local funding for parks, recreation, and open space . The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery · Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1990 (ISTEA), the National Trails Act , state open space programs , and the growth of the green ways movement brought renewed funds and public support for acquiring and developing parks, recreation facilities , and open space. The purpose of this new publication is to provide a model for applying a systems approach to the planing for parks, recreation, open space, and pathways . Thi s approach includes a level of service guideline that is needs based , facilities driven, and land measured . The information in thi s revised document is designed to assist communities in establishing their own recreation , park, and open space guidelines. An essential aspect of this process is community involvement , the hallmark of effective planning. The example of "Greenville", typical community USA, provides guidance for community park, recreation, and open space planning . It is hoped that readers will adopt the basic concept that the entire community is a park and that all land uses should result in environmentally harmonious park, recreation, and open space land units. Professor Louis F. Twardzik of Michigan State University wrote in 1984 in an essay about parks and recreation stepping into the future: It is inevitable, and we should not be surprised . After all, we are probably the only professional group in the country that has not significantly changed its perspectives of public service needs during the past century. In fact, it is a wonder that we have lasted as long as we have. The notion that certain tracts of land and water should be designed and managed for aesthetic and recreational purposes for all people was one of the great social service and natural re source management concepts of all time. Imagine, ordinary citizens having lands and waters and trees, grass and flowers and air, for their free personal play. During the 19th century there were good reasons for dealing as we did with limited acreage, scattered about the community, and eventually a rational system was developed for both ease of public acces s and management. Few have seriously fa ul ted our competency in manicuring, protecting , and preserving these areas. Continued public popularity and support over the years attest to that. Unfortunately, un like other organizations, institutions, or professions, we seldom looked beyond improving our management expertise to the higher goals of public aspiration and need. In other words, we did not provide the public with the professional leadership in parks and recreation that it deserved . If we had, we would have moved away from the isolated islands concept and gradually, over time, learned that the benefits people should receive from our special competence sho ul d not be limited to occasional visits for recreation but instead should be designed to provide daily outdoor recreation 7 experiences at home and throughout the community. This means we have never really seriously addressed the idea of making the entire community a park . We became so enamored, almost obsessed with our ability to make those pieces, those jewels, shine, while the rest of the community could go to hell, and in many urban areas thro u ghout the country that is exactly what happened . The kinds of environments in which people lived and worked did not seem to concern us . We drove by those neighborhoods, business areas , alleys, workplaces and libraries with our university educated staff and expensive public vehicles and equipment and confined our public efforts to some very small segments of the community called parks. Besides, concentrating on parks was much easier because they were ours to design, develop, operate, and maintain . In comparison, attempting to operationalize the goal of the community as a park sounded impossible as well as utopian. It is now time to make these goals operational in park, recreation and open space plans of the future . Key Challenges The challenges facing the park and recreation profession in the future will necessitate a revolution of our planning philosophy, concepts, and methodology. How well we identify, analyze , promote, and respond to changes in society will be our principal challenge. At the very heart of our public service is the need to provide adequate and quality park and recreation facilit ies that truly meet the needs of the customers we serve. The leisure needs of these diverse groups reflect the many changes occurring Th e challenges faci ng the park and recreatio n pro fession in the futur e will necess itate a revoluti on of ou r planning philo sop hy, co ncepts, and me thodo logy. in our society. The publication Parks and Recreation in the 21st Century makes the following critical points for planning recreation and park levels of service: 8 • Change is the norm. • There is a strong trend toward greater participation in the dec ision making process by citizens and employees. • Parks and recreation must return to its heritage of serving all the people. • Multicultural diversity will continue to grow rapidly. • Renewed attention must be given to the poor and their impact on recreation and parks. • Parks and recreation must find ways to celebrate the variety of cultures within the community. • Parks and recreation services must facilitate and identify directly with the growing wellness movement . • Parks and recreation organizations must work with other agencies to build partnerships, networks, and coalitions to achieve success . • The future success of parks and recreation will depend on the q uality of service provided to all the people we serve . • The park and recreation profession must take its rightful place as a leader in environmental policy. • Virtually every city and county is actively pursuing an economic development program of which the availability of high quality parks, open spaces, and recreation opportunities play an important role . The park and recreation profession must develop and articulate clearly defined mi ss ion statements , goals, and objectives for the field. As we enter the 21st Century, park, recreation, and natural resource professionals will be able to look back with pride on our accomplishments and ahead to the challenges facing our profession. Park and recreation agencies , in a brief 100-year history, have become one of the most visible and positive public services in government. Imagine our nation and communities without national, state and local parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, recreation and nature centers, hiker, biker and equestrian trails, wilderness areas, public golf courses, tennis courts , historic sites, disabilities-accessible facilities, cultural centers , playing fields, and open spaces. These facilities add to the cultural fabric and quality of life of our society and the community. Parks, recreation, greenways, and open spaces are an essential part of the American good life. Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Guidelines serves as a reference to successful community park, recreation, and open space de velopment. This publication should be used as the starting point to reassess or develop your community 's recreation, park and open space program. One of the greatest challenges in the 21st Century will be to provide adequate, well planned leisure opportunities to socio-economically and culturally changing populations. Adopting the concept that the entire community is a park and that all land should be used harmoniously would be a major first step. 9 Systems Approach To Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Planning As America moves toward the 21st Century, public agencies are being challenged to engage in sounder planning to provide responsive , equitable and high quality park and recreation services. A constantly changing environment, enormous daily pressures, and increasing complexity will continue to influence the decisions that must be made to help create more livable communities. Overview Many of the models for local parks and recreation systems were established at the tum of the century and have provided the guidelines for planning and management decision-making today. But new social mandates and needs are creating a complex environment, requiring a broader view that takes more factors into account in the planning process and the decision equation, and that satisfies a wider range of needs and values. New social mandates and needs are creating a complex environment, requiring a broader view, that takes more factors into account in the planning process and the decision equation, and that satisfies a wider range of needs and values. Yet, planning must produce action, not just plans. To achieve results, planning practice must shift toward more collaborative and strategic approaches. The benefits of such approaches are manifold, and include the following. Building Bridges Among Stakeholders: Directly involving those affected by plans , and those who can influence implementation of the plan. Mobilizing Support for Action: Mobilizing support should start at the beginning of the process, with less emphasis on collecting and manipulation of data and more opportunity to be action -and results -oriented. Identifying Critical Issues: Allowing key issues to surface early, including both opportunities and threats. Considering New Initiatives: Allowing organizations to update missions and consider new and emerging roles. Integrating Decision-Makers: Providing opportunities to promote networking, facilitate bargaining and negotiation, and develop relationships . 11 The systems approach to comprehensive recreation planning places importance on locally determined values, needs , and expectations, which , in tum, more directly influence the process of developing and applying guidelines . While the process is more involved and less dependent on past formulas , it is far more responsive to local needs and action. National standards become important as guidelines, and less a crutch for planners to rely on in the absence of community-specific information. As a result of reduced financial capacity, recreation and open space planning is shifting more to implementation strategies that are incorporated into the community land use guidance system and development impact fee structure. This shift requires greater understanding of land use laws, knowledge of prescriptive planning, improved accounting systems, and more interaction with development decision-makers . As a result, the more viable park, recreation , open space, and pathway systems are fully integrated into the most current practice of growth management, land use controls, and land-conserving development tools . This places an increased responsibility on recreation planners and man agers to work with urban planners and others to provide a common vision for the community, and a framework for the actions of individuals, businesses and institutions. In this context , the planning program represents a decision-making process, and not just a physical p lan that may not precipitate actions . Park and recreation services will help set the tone and example in the shifting post industrial age, with park and recreation professionals functioning as major participants in the transition. To provide pathfinding leadership through this Trends Influencing the Planning Process era of uncertainty, ambiguity and change, constant monitoring will be required to develop a keen awareness of the global and local trends that are shaping our world and our communities . In every realm of society -social, economic, political and environmental -dramatic change will continue to demand public responses that are sensitive and appropriate. Listed here are some of the trends that will influence the park and recreation planning process of the future, and help serve as the basis for the development and application of community- specific guidelines.*1 The magnitude of these changes underscores the need to shift planning practices from a formula-driven to a systems approach that responds to changing conditions that will shape communities in the future. * These trends have been compiled using a number of sources, including the following : Bannon, Joseph, ed . Current Is sue s in Leisure Services : Looking Ahead in a Time of Transition. Washington, D.C. International City Management As sociation . 1987 ; Cassale, Anthony M. USA Today : Tracking Tomorrows Trends . New York: Andrews, McMeel & Parker. 1986; Godbey, Geoffrey. The Future of Leisure Services: Thriving on Change . State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 1989; Gray, David . "Managi ng Our Way to a Preferred Future ." Parks and Recreation. Volume 19 (5 ). 1984; Kelly , John R. Recreation Trends Towards the Year 2000. University of Illinois: Management Learning Laboratories . 1987; J .P. Tindell . Leisure Watch. Volumes 4-7 . San Jose, CA: Future Focus . 1989-1992; Ken Balmer. Leisure Watch Canada. Gloucester, ON: Canadian Parks/Recreation Associatio n and Rethink Group. Volumes 2-3 . 1993-1994 ; Naisbin, John . Megatrends. New York : Warner Books. 1982 . 12 Environmental Trends : • Disappearing resources -significant open spaces and natural habitats, original landscapes, wetlands and natural drainages, ancient forests, water and energy resources, remnant landscapes. • Environmental cleanup -contaminated soil and water, frequently on public lands previously considered "wasteland." • Reduction of pollution and waste -recycling. • Environmentally sensitive lifestyles -low impact, nonconsumptive use (walking, bicycling) and increased aesthetic appreciation. • More environmentally sound practices and habits -reduced and modified use of pesticides and herbicides. • NIMBY and no growth attitudes -"not in my back yard" resistance to change, growth, development. • Natural areas management -maintaining and reclaiming natural values and open spaces . • The Greenhouse effect -may disrupt some regional economies within 10 to 20 years. • Reduction in number of vehicle trips -states and communities set targets . • Federal water quality mandates -natural drainage systems become more important as urban waterways and wetlands are protected. • State land use planning mandates -in response to growth and need for growth management. • Natural disasters -floods, earthquakes, fires. Social Trends: • Coping with poverty -homelessness, destitution, malnutrition, unemployment, poverty as a lifestyle. • Increased crime and violence -domestic violence, gangs, violence in schools and other public places, drugs, vandalism, racial tension. • Increased numbers of children at risk -child abuse, neglect, teen pregnancies, suicides, family instability, loneliness, alienation, rebelliousness, substance abuse. • Change-related stress -economic, social and technological change continues in 21st Century, at rates creating stress. • People empowerment -opportunities for building community and social bonding, neighborhood watch, community policing. • Citizen participation -involvement of "stakeholders" in public planning and decision- making; planning with, not for people. • Social service networking -organizing community resources to attack complex social problems. • Increasing concerns for personal and family safety. • Major public health issue -continuing AIDS epidemic, STDs, etc. • Increasing importance of wellness activities. • Increased inclusiveness -laws and public policies addressing discrimination, equal rights, accessibility of public facilities and services. • Desire to preserve and maintain cultural heritages. • Volunteerism -making more effective and efficient use of volunteers. 13 Economic Trends; • Reduced discretionary or leisure spending. • Increasing public costs -associated with health, social services, environmental protection and clean-up, aging infrastructure. • Increasing labor and energy costs -consuming higher percent of budgets. • Tax limitation measures -reduction in and/or caps on revenue traditionally use to support public programs (education, recreation, etc .). • Increase in national poverty rate. • Leisure services provided by multiple providers -private and non-private sectors. • More partnerships -doing more with less in conjunction with others. • Economic re-structuring of communities -transition from single to diverse economies. • Growing importance of eco-tourism and travel. • Recognition of economic value of parks, open spaces, and amenity in infrastructure. • Declining regional economies. Demograohic Trends; • Aging of society -by 2030 baby boomers will be senior citizens (1/3 of the population). • Proportion of middle-aged Americans -sharp increase in the 1990s. • Fewer "traditional" family households . • More emphasis on both eldercare and childcare. • Declining divorce rate -more emphasis on families and family values . • Increasing cultural diversity. • Growth of urban minority under class. • Greater number of small households. • Changing housing patterns -declining home ownership, more high density residential units, smaller houses on smaller lots, congregate retirement centers, homeless shelters, shared living spaces. Technological Trends; 14 • Technological change -rapid pace will continue. • Easing of the effects of aging. • Advances in information technology -making products, services an d information more accessible and targeted . • Increased contact with computers -in some urban areas virtually every person will use computers in the home or workplace . • Information technology will blur distinction between work and home. • Increased media maladies -information overload, privacy, objectionable material, distorted reality. • More public meetings aired on public/access cable television -more education on issues and services. • Greater energy costs shaping technology -smaller cars and multi-modal transportation systems, more efficient buildings . Trends in Urban Patterns; • Increased urban sprawl -located primarily along major transportation corridors and mass transit routes . • Greater "in-fill" development -lands considered marginal will be upgraded for new development, increasing density in the urban core. • Revitalizing and retrofitting downtowns, industrial plants and commercial centers - amenities included to make them more marketable -mixed use development. • Increasing importance of amenities -recognized as essential for maintaining competitiveness . • Historic preservation -valuing heritage resources as treasures. • Continued gentrification -caused by increasing land values in central city areas. • New ethnic centers -residents retain cultural traditions, values and customs. • Affordable housing -community mandates and improved technology. • Increased traffic congestion -placing more emphasis on mass transit and transportation options using existing open space. • Municipal boundaries blurred by sprawl -economic potential of regionalization recognized. • More political pressure for urban growth management -balancing sustainable future. • Growth of partnerships -public and private partnering to address complex urban needs . • Mobility of residents -residence by choice with diminished emotional/social attachment to service providers. Implications of Trends on Park, Open Space, and Greenway Planning The implications of these trends on public parks and recreation will be profound, affecting every facet of systems planning and the delivery of services. The following defines some of these impacts: • Greater focus on benefits-driven needs assessments which link planning decisions more directly to community values and goals . • Greater emphasis on comprehensive open space planning and preservation, including broader definitions of open space and green space. • More greenway planning along urban waterways and other corridors, supporting flood plain management, fish and wildlife habitat protection, water quality enhancement, off-street bikeways and pathways, aesthetic amenities and passive recreation. • More emphasis on biofiltration of storm water run-off using natural drainage systems . • More protective measures for wetlands, waterways and uplands in natural resource planning. • More emphasis on historic and cultural resource planning . • Increasing importance of recreation and open space contributing to more walkable, livable and sustainable communities. • Merging of recreation, open space and transportation goals, especially in multi-modal systems. • More stakeholder involvement, as in adopt-a-park projects, park stewardship committees, friends-of-the-park groups, park watch and other forms of community volunteering. • The legitimization of parks and open spaces as part of the urban land use planning and development process. • Greenspaces contributing to downtown and neighborhood revitalization . 15 • More collaboration between parks and schools through joint acquisition, development and use of lands, and joint construction and use of facilities. • Preventive recreation -recreation, parks and open spaces as antidote for social problems. • Joint use of utilities for linear connectors, pathways and bikeways. • Emphasis on groups limited by income, mobility, language and/or cultural barriers including the elderly, disabled, ethnic communities and low income residents. • Collaboration among providers -partnering and cooperation between public, private and nonprofit sectors in leisure delivery, especially social service agencies. • Family-oriented recreation centers, with facilities geared to "one-stop-shopping" for each member of the family. • Pressure to increase capacity and infrastructure of existing parks and facilities; concern for adequate maintenance. Systems Approach to Planning The systems planning approach focuses on creating a comprehensive and interrelated system of parks, recreation, open spaces, and pathways that: • Respond to locally-based needs, values, and conditions. • Provide an appealing and harmonious environment. • Protect the integrity and quality of the surrounding natural systems. The systems planning approach is defined as the process of assessing the park, recreation, open space needs of a community and translating that information into a framework for meeting the physical, spatial and facility requirements to satisfy those needs . In this context, systems planning must respond to the fundamental mission and objectives of the park and recreation agency, and should be based on an on-going assessment of the leisure needs and interests of the community. Equally important, the systems plan for parks, recreation, open space, and pathway facilities should be a component of the community comprehensive land use plan, reflect current goals and policies, and be an integral part of the land use guidance system. As a functional element of the total plan, the systems plan is integrated into planning decisions, standards and strategies which include housing, transportation, drainage, schools, utilities, environmental management, industry, and commerce. Primary Focus The primary focus of the systems approach to planning is on fostering an on-going planning process within a community. By design, the process is dynamic, with an in-born flexibility to respond to the ever-changing needs, opportunities, and constraints that will face communities in the future. For public parks and recreation to remain a viable force in improving the quality of life in our communities, the process must allow for continuous monitoring and evaluation to ensure it is achieving desirable ends. Key outcomes of the systems approach to planning are: • It provides an opportunity to view system components within an overall context. • It focuses all activities on providing services that benefit the public .. • It evaluates needs in a comprehensive and comparative manner. • It allocates limited resources to highest and best uses. • It allows for incremental and orderly improvements to the park and recreation system. • It builds community trust, support and cooperation. 16 Figure 1.1 -Systems Planning Model illustrates the key components of the systems approach to planning . A key aspect of this model is its cyclic, dynamic nature, with constant feedback from stakeholders through all major steps. Figure 1.1 System Planning Model Key outcomes of the System Planning Model: 1) Provides an opportunity to view system components ,, within an overall context. 2) Focuses all activiites on providing services that benefit Step 1 the customer. Identify Customers 3) Allows for needs to be evaluated in a comprehensive and comparative manner. 4) Allows for the allocation of limited resources to their Step 2 highest and best uses . Obtain Customer Involvement 5) Allows for incremental and orderly improvements to and Develop Relationships the park system . Step 3 Adapt National Planning Guidelines Assess Need defined in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 National Planning as appropriate to address Guidelines adapt to reflect local circumstances a local system plan I I Step 4 .. Step 5 ~ Step 6 ...... Develop Strategic Plan Develop System Framework Develop System Plan Step 7 -Develop Recreation Services ,__ Delivery Plan Step 8 --Develop Maintenance - and Operations Plan Step 9 --Develop an - Step 10 Implementation Plan -Evaluate Overall Effectiveness ~ of Systems Plans and - Service Delivery I Accomplished through integrated communication tools (with Step 2) Source : Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 17 Stakeholder Involvement Regardless of how parks and recreation agencies define their target publics, the -systems planning model emphasizes an interactive and integrative process of citizen involvement as the basis for making decisions. The systems planning model is an approach more responsive to understanding the needs, desires, preferences and values of people than traditional physical planning of the past (see Figure 1.2: Traditional and Strategic Planning Models). The "reinventing government" movement now defines recipients of public services as "customers", stressing the importance of accountability to their needs. It is not uncommon for public agencies to refer to their publics as stakeholders, patrons and guests, which reflects more sensitivity to how providers view and treat their users. Figure 1.2: Traditional and Strategic Planning Models 18 GOALS DIAGNOSIS PUBLIC HEARING~ ALTE~tTIVES i---• APPROVED INFORMATION PLANS PUBLIC HEARING~ TRADITIONAL PLANNING MODEL NEEDS AND i----f GOALS NEEDS AND GOALS NEEDS AND t----1 GOALS NEEDS AND GOALS ALTERNATIVE PLANS NEEDS t----t AND GOALS STRATEGIC PLANNING/ STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT MODEL Regardless of how parks and recreation agencies define their target publics -stakeholders or customers, guests or patrons, users or nonusers -the systems planning model emphasizes an interactive and integrative process of citizen involvement as the basis for making decisions regarding physical space, land and facilities. This approach thus becomes a strategic effort to harness the human resources potential and vision of the community. Citizens become empowered in a way that breathes life into planning documents . While on the one hand, this entails strategic marketing which focuses on identifying publics and their needs and preferences, it continues throughout the planning process by engaging publics to the degree that it directly influences successful plan implementation. In this way, public agencies are planning with, not for people. This is not to say that public agencies can respond to all that the public wants -obviously, that would be fiscally irresponsible. Rather, it requires a solid grasp of community needs and values, which in tum define the agency's strategic mission and purpose. In this way, public providers can provide themselves with a sound basis for rationally allocating scarce resources and maximizing the benefits of recreation. Stakeholder Management For a successful planning process, it is important to structure, manage and control stakeholder involvement For a successful planning process, it is important to structure, manage and control stakeholder involvement. Figure 1.3 Balancing Perceptions and Realities outlines an approach which helps manage the process, by achieving integration of information derived from various sources -publics, staff, surveys, statistics and secondary research. Staff Perception 1--~~~~~~~~ Meas urea hie Public Perception Reality Figure 1.3 Balancing Perceptions and Realities In this model, perceptions are obtained from stakeholders, including both staff and the general public. Perceptions can range from identifying critical issues in park and recreation delivery, to a vision of the ideal park, open space, recreation and pathway system that is preferred for the community. This information can then be weighed against measurable reality, that is, information that is factual. For example, a random sample of residents can produce statistically valid information on preferences and interests of residents for various recreation activities. 19 This integration and "balancing" process is valuable because all information is treated as valid -even perceptions of citizens that may appear to be nonrational. The challenge is to distill stakeholder information to a manageable form. In this way, conclusions , themes and common threads can be drawn from each of these sources, and thereby assist those who must make decisions at critical milestones in the planning process. In particular, this approach gives policy makers a clear understanding of how information was generated, and a solid basis for vision statements , policy goals and objectives as a framework for development of the system plan . Components of the Systems Planning Model The following provides an overview of each of the components of the systems planning model, and illustrates the point at which the revised Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Pathway Guidelines are included. It is emphasized that the guidelines presented in this document are only part of a comprehensive planning effort that relies more on locally-based planning processes rather than simple application of national standards. There are no shortcuts to effective systems planning. Each community must develop a legitimate planning process that is based on local concerns and considerations to be successful in meeting the needs of customers . This precept cannot be taken lightly if there is to be a customer-sensitive service delivery program . The procedure presented in this document is a planning-driven process that relies on sound data and information generated through community input processes. It is only in this fashion that the planning effort can be responsive to resource, facility, and service deficiencies that are unique to each community, and respond to special strengths, values, and opportunities . Identify Customers Step 1 Public park and recreation agencies face a major challenge defining who their customers are, what the customers' needs are, and how they can best service those needs. Public park and recreation agencies face a major challenge defining who their customers are, what the customers' needs are, and how they can best service those needs. Much like any business, ultimate success (or failure) will depend on effectiveness in servicing ever-changing customer needs . As the model illustrates, the systems approach to planning places significant emphasis on the need to accurately identify customers and clearly define their specific needs. In this context, the "customer" is broadly defined and includes: 20 •Participant User -individuals that use the system in a definable and structured manner - e.g., participants in youth sports , adult leagues, etc. •Direct User -individuals that use the system in an unstructured manner -e.g. hiking, picnicking, family outings, sight-seeing, etc . •Non-Users -individuals that do not use the system directly and may or may not recognize the personal, social, and environmental benefits that the system brings to a community. Applying this broad definition of customer, these are specific ways of further identifying who customers are in the community: • Demographic Profiles: Demographic profiles are invaluable planning tools in that they allow for a table-top analysis of a community's population, how it has changed, and how it may continue to change. These profiles and forecasts allow basic understanding of publics to whom the agency is or should be directing services -i.e. the target market. Key demographic variables include age, race, ethnicity, income, education, sex, marital status, household size and makeup (traditional/non-traditional), and population densities. Although age, race, ethnicity, and income are critical determinants of need, each of these variables must be considered to truly understand the target market. • Identifiable User Groups: These are groups or individuals (organized and non-organized) that already use -or would like to use -park and recreation services in some capacity. Examples of these publics might include youth and adult sports, groups, seniors, families, children, and persons with disabilities . • Nonusers -Individuals who may not directly use or choose to use services such as those unserved, underserved, disenfranchised, unable or unwilling to participate. These non- users may be constrained by obstacles or barriers under the control of the agency (safety, security, convenient access), or by factors beyond an agency's control (limited leisure time). Nonusers may also represent latent demand. The demographic profile of the community allows an up-front and comprehensive understanding of the potential customer base. Without this understanding, it becomes exceedingly difficult to develop a system plan that meets needs of those who will be served. It also makes it difficult to reach those that are currently indirect or non-users (as previously defined). These individuals may not actively engage in public parks and recreational services because their specific needs are not met, or they may use the system informally or in ways unknown to the agency. Some individuals may simply benefit from the intangibles of park and recreation services such as open space, a liveable environment, and improved property values. What is clear, is that these individuals must first be identified before their needs can be understood and met. It is only in this manner that they will become interested in the agency as stakeholders and active supporters. As important as it is to engage them in the process, indirect and non-users are the most difficult groups to define and understand. But these same groups also have a significant impact on how successful a community will be at maintaining the vitality of the parks and recreation services being offered. Software systems and statistical modeling allow for unprecedented access to this type of information. In addition to identifying customer publics, if it has not already done so, the agency should organize its service delivery area into planning districts to help organize, manage, and analyze planning data. These districts should address cohesive neighborhoods, represent logical boundaries, and ideally be consistent with other information systems such as census tracts. 21 Obtain Customer Involvement and Build Relationships Step2 Once the customers have been identified, the next step is to develop a means for measuring and monitoring needs and creating and maintaining a relationship with them as stakeholders. Once the customers have been identified, the next step is to develop a means for measuring and monitoring needs and creating and maintaining a relationship with them as stakeholders . Measuring and monitoring needs can take many forms. Contemporary marketing and opinion research, group process methods and communication theory provide a wide variety of techniques for determining recreation needs, interests, preferences and use patterns of demographic groups. Given the complex nature of identifying leisure needs and the varying characteristics and financial capabilities of communities, it has become apparent that a triangulation of methods achieves a well- rounded indicator of community needs . With this approach, methods chosen might include a combination of focus group workshops with scientifically drawn samples of both users and nonusers; well-publicized "unstructured" neighborhood meetings to generate themes and issues in a non-threatening, informal setting; and a scientific s urvey involving interviews of a random sample of citizens by te lephone or mail. Front-end focus group meetings are helpful to obtain a quick pulse of the community, as well as citizen views and values as a basis for structuring an appropriate needs assessment strategy.· It is important, however, that both a combination of informal assessment methods and scientific research be used in this process to meet goals of an open public process , grass-roots participation , and validation through random surveys. Equally important, agencies should provide leadership in developing new and innovative approaches to the public participation process that allow a greater understanding of a diverse customer base . It is of great importance that the process of community involvement be viewed as vital to a successful planning product, rather than simply fulfilling a requirement. Only through understanding the customer can there be assurance that services provided are wanted . While it is fu ndamental to measure and monitor customer needs, it is also essential to create and maintain a direct and on-going relationship with customers as stakeholders. This focuses more on who the publics are rather than on a statistical and quantitative profile, even though it is intrinsically more difficult to achieve . Difficult or not, it remains a vital part of being able to understand customers well enough to provide the services that they most desire. An example of this type of interaction is on-site interviews , where users often reveal valuable information about customer likes and dislikes , as well as perceptions about parks and facilities. No organization, public or private, can continue to be successful if it has not been effective in understand ing its customers . Open and ongoing communication with the public -where ideas and viewpoints are freely exchanged -is the way to gain a comprehensive understanding of what the public wants and needs. Only after the agency has proven it can consistently anticipate and then accommodate customer needs, will the value of service be demonstrated. 22 This places the agency in a proactive (offensive strategy) versus a reactive (defensive strategy) mode which ultimately leads to a committed customer. Gaining customer commitment can only be accomplished if on-going processes and communications allow for: • Collection of actionable data -obtaining data that clearly illustrates preference and need, and which can be readily applied in the planning process. This data reveals strength of emotion behind the statistics to understand what a customer holds dearest and desires the most. • Relationship b uilding -achieving an on-going dialogue as the proactive means to communicate ideas between the customer and the organization . • Evaluation of effectiveness -evaluating performance as vital to improvement. • Defining areas needing improvement -to avoid ambiguity by clearly defining what the business of the organization should be. • Informing the customer -informing the customer (and staff) of new opportunities - working with customers so they understand the big picture, including limitations and constraints of the organization. Assess Need Step3 Assessing needs all ows an und erstanding of issues and co ncerns that are confr on ting the co mmu nity an d agency within the co nte xt of a pla nn ing framew ork. A needs assessment is a natural outgrowth of identifying publics and measuring and monitoring their needs. Assessing needs allows an understanding of issues and concerns that are confronting the community and agency within the context of a planning framework. In other words, assessment of need begins to relate issues and concerns into a more tangible, results oriented framework. In conjunction with information derived from the customer input process, the following identifies a number of other factors that should be examined as part of the assessment of need. These factors, taken together, provide insight and direction necessary to prepare a plan that will guide the development of the park, open space, and pathway system . Trends Report: The purpose of the Trends Report is to conduct a situational analysis of recreation in the community by means of an "environmental" scan . The purpose of the scan is to identify early in the process the internal strengths and weaknesses of the providing agency, as well as opportunities and threats which are external to the agency. This analysis provides an opportunity to identify strategic issues, which results in focus for the remainder of the project. This report has three other important benefits : • There is no need to collect new data, because in preparing the report only existing information is used . (If none exists, rely on best instincts and "known" information .) • It serves as a catalyst for provoking public interest and fostering team building among staff, planning steering committee, citizens and policy makers . • It is a quickly produced document that can serve as an interim planning and decision- making tool. Because preliminary conclusions are drawn about current conditions and trends impacting the delivery system, management is not in a holding pattern until preparation, completion and adoption of the plan some time later. 23 Resource Inventory and Evaluation: This identifies the location, distribution, size and significance of parks, open spaces, pathways, and related facilities in the community. Natural areas and open space resources should be identified and mapped, including both environmentally sensitive areas and utilitarian open spaces such as abandoned rail rights-of- way, utility corridors and vacant areas . Once identified and mapped, assessments are made as to their significance, connectivity, existing conditions and protection measures, and how they might meet corridor, utilitarian and greenspace open space requirements . Proposals for pathway networks, trail heads and greenway designations are mapped. Non-park resources are inventoried and evaluated including school lands, vacant public lands, and private and non-profit recreation developments. A systems analysis is made to determine if the existing parks and open spaces are cohesive, comprehensive, equitably distributed, accessible and representative of the community's landscape qualities . Physical barriers and geographical deficiencies are identified. Proposals to respond to deficiencies and gaps are mapped. Condition Assessment of Parks, Open Spaces, Pathways, and Related Facilities : An inventory and systematic assessment is made of physical conditions and qualities of parks and recreation facilities using specific performance rating criteria. A condition assessment requires examination of park components, recreation equipment and infrastructure found in existing parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities, and the like . Each park facility and recreation building should be inspected for state of repair, safety, ADA accessibility, site impact, and the need for immediate maintenance, removal, and/or replacement. There should be a photographic record made of each item, which will be used in the preparation of cost estimates to meet the new level of service delivery program. This results in assessment of the effective suitability and capability of the existing system, and avoids the pitfall of determining recreation needs based on the mere presence of parks and facilities . By using performance criteria, objectivity is maintained and priorities are easily determined. Using this information, conclusions and recommendations can be developed which form the basis for rehabilitation plans and/or capital improvement programs. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 are examples of park and facility assessment criteria . 24 Figure 1.4 EXAMPLE OF PARK ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Category 1: TURF N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 1 -Turf is in good condition with some bare areas 2 -Turf has a few problems that need some work ; e.g . aeration and over-seeding 3 -Turf is in poor condition and needs renovation 4 -Turf is in very poor condition and should be completely redone Category 2: IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 0 -No problems 1 -Sy stem is in good condition with minor adjustment problems 2 -System is in fair condition, needs frequent work 3 -System doesn 't do the job and needs to be expanded (poor coverage) 4 -System is in very poor condition or no system at all Category 3: PLANTINGS AND TREES 0 -No problems 1 -Plantings/trees are in good condition with few minor problems 2 -Some bare areas that needs additional plant material 3 -Several areas have problems that need work 4 -Plantings/trees are in very poor condition and should be completely renovated 5 -Condition of trees presents dangerous safety situation Category 4: DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 0 -No problems 2 -Some saturation/standing water --minor improvements are needed 4 -Very poor drainage --system needs renovation 5 -Dangerous system/conditions exist Category 5: ACCESSIBILITY 0 -Entire park is accessible to handicapped 2 -Portions of the park are accessible to handicapped 4 -None of the park is accessible to the handicapped Category 6: PARKING N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 1 -Good condition -needs regular routine maintenance 2 -Surface in fair condition -spot repairs are necessary 3 -Surface in poor condition, several areas need major repairs 4 -Very poor condition, parking area needs complete renovation 5 -Dangerous conditions exist Category 7: PARKING AVAILABILITY N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 2 -Not enough parking mainly during peak-use periods or only occasionally 4 -Not enough parking most of the time Category 8: SIDEW ALKS/P ATHS{I'RAILS N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 2 -Sidewalks/paths/trails are in fair condition and require minor repairs 4 -Sidewalks/paths/trails are in poor condition and require extensive repair or renovation 5 -Dangerous conditions exist Category 9: COURTS, BASKETBALL N -Not Applicable 0 -No problems l -Good condition, need minor routine maintenance --patching or striping 2 -Fair condition, need minor repairs 3 -Poor conditions--need major repairs but still can be used 4 -Very poor conditions--potholes, cracks ; need extensive repair/resurfacing 5 -Dangerous surface conditions exist --holes, large cracks, etc . Category 10: EQUIPMENT, BASKETBALL N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 1 -Equipment is old but can still be used 2 -Equipment requires regular routine maintenance 3 -Equipment is in poor condition and requires major repair or renovation 4 -Equipment is in very poor condition and should be replaced 5 -Dangerous condition exists Category 11: COURTS, TENNIS N -Not applicable 0 -No problems 1 -Good condition, need minor routine maintenance --patching and striping 2 -Fair condition, needs minor repairs 3 -Poor conditions --needs major repairs but still can be used 4 -Very poor conditions --potholes , cracks; needs extensive repair/resurfacing 5 -Dangerous surface conditions exist --holes, large cracks , etc . 25 Figure 1.5 EXAMPLE OF FACILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Category 1: FACILITY CONDITION 0 -Building is in good condition I -Building has a few minor problems -- no effect on programs 2 -Building has mapy minor problems -- some effect on programs 3 -Building has a few major problems -- some effect on programs 4 -Building has many major problems -- significant effect on programs 5 -Portions of the building are unsafe and a safety or liability problem Category 2: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 0 -Mechanical equipment is in good condition 2 -Some of the mechanical equipment is in poor condition and should be replaced or repaired -- no effect on programs 3 -Mechanica l equipment ha s so me major problems and affect programs 4 -Mechanical equipment is in very poor condition or is insufficient to meet current demands -- significant effect on programs Category 3: VANDALISM 0 -No problem with vandalism 1 -Once in a while --a variety of minor maintenance due to vandalism 2 -Occasionally --a variety of maintenance because of vandalism 3 -Very Often --minor items need to be replaced 4 -Very often -major items need to be replaced or fixed. Category 4: PARKING 0 -Good access and parking 2 -Parking is inadequate mainly during peak-use periods 4 -Parking is inadequate at all time s Category S: ACCESSIBILITY 0 -Entire facility is accessible to handicapped 2 -Portions of the facility are accessible to handicapped 4 -None of the facility is accessible to the handicapped Category 6: ADEQUACY OF SPACE 0 -Entire facility is adequate for program needs 2 -Facility is s lightly inadequate in space and/or has no effect on programs 3 -Facility has shortage of space in some areas and/or has some effect on programs 4 -Facility has extreme shortage of space in all areas and/or has a significant effect on programs Category 7: SECURITY 0 -Security is satisfactory 2 -Security is weak only in certain areas 3 -Security is poor in many areas around the facility 4 -Security is very poor around all parts of the facility 26 Category 8: OFFICE 0 -Good condition 1 -Office has a few cosmetic items in need of repair 2 -Office is in fair condition with a variety of cosmetic or structural problems 3 -Office is in very poor shape and affects staff efficiency 4 -Office location is bad and seriously limits efficiency or security of fac ility Category 9: GYMNASIUM 0 -Good condition 1 -Gym has a few cosmetic problems 2 -Gym is in fair condition with a variety of problems (such as inadequate seating) that have some effect on programs 4 -Gym is in very poor condition and seriously affects programs Category 10: KITCHEN 0 -Good condition 1 -Auditorium has some cosmetic or minor utility problems but no effect on programs 2 -Kitchen has variety of problems (lack of storage or inadequate appliances) that have some effect on programs 4 -Kitchen has many deficiences and seriously affects its use for programs Category 11: AUDITORIUM 0 -Good condition 1 -Auditorium has some cosmetic or minor problems but no effect on programs 2 -Auditorium has variety of problems that have some effect on programs 4 -Auditorium has many defic iences and seriously affects its use for programs Category 12: CLASS ROOMS 0 -Good condition 1 -Classrooms have some cosmetic or minor problems but no effect on programs 2 -Classrooms have variety of problems (lack of storage or inadequate s pace) that have some effect on programs 4 -Classrooms have many deficiences and seriously affects its use for programs Category 13: STORAGE AREA 0 -Good condition I -Storage is inadequate in some areas 3 -Storage is inadequate in many areas of the facility 4 -Storage is seriously inadequate and affects programs significantly Category 14: INTERIOR LIGHTING 0 -Good condition 1 -Lighting is in good condition with minor adjustment problems 2 -Lighting system is inadequate in some areas 3 -Lighting is inadequate or does not meet existing building code in some areas 4 -Lighting system is inadequate for entire facility Participation Rates and Use Patterns: An examination of participation rates and use patterns coupled with demographic profiles and community input provide the basis for projecting future demand for facilities . This examination starts to bring into focus the magnitude of demand for land and facilities needed to meet the needs of the community. In a later section, the procedure is presented for determining participation rates and use patterns in conjunction with the level of service guideline. Planning Unit Profiles: Depending on the size of the community, profiles can be developed for a given planning unit. A planning unit is typically defined according to demographic profiles and geographic areas . In larger cities, planning units are often used to guide more specific allocation of resources, with priorities outlined according to socio-demographic characteristics and recreation needs as determined by the leisure surveys, citizen participation, user surveys and resource inventories. Relationship to Other Plans: It is important to avoid preparing the parks and recreation plan in a vacuum. Reviewing related plans of other providers and agencies provides context, direction and focus . This review may also require dialogue with others to further refine preferred roles, and lead to partnering and other cooperative avenues . Literature and Secondary Research: A substantial amount of written material and research data is produced every year that offers different insights as to what the future holds for recreation and lei sure activities. Some of this material is insightful while some is speculative. The point is that valuable information and perspectives can often be gained through these resources which could prove valuable in understanding or anticipating changes in recreation demand at the local level. (See Geoffrey Godbey's Future of leisure Services: Thriving on Change, Venture Publishing 1989; also Ken Balmer's leisure Watch Canada, published six times annually by the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association, Gloucester, ON). Develop Strategic Plan Step4 The strategic plan is the benchmark policy document for the organization's service delivery. It is intended to provide a consistent and justifiable continuum of ideas, beliefs, and values which define the mission and vision of the park and recreation system. The needs assessment clarifies the pertinent issues confronting the development of the parks and recreation system. These issues must be transformed into a mission and a set of goals which reflect the desires of the community and provide the impetus for action. Sometimes referred to as a comprehensive plan or business plan, the strategic plan is the benchmark policy document for the organization's service delivery. It is intended to provide a consistent and justifiable continuum of ideas, beliefs, and values which define the mission and vision of the park and recreation system. It is the blueprint for decision- making because it determines the fundamental services to be provided, and commits the agency to specific strategies for allocating resources. (Figure 1.6: Strategic Planning Process). It is by nature interactive, involving internal and external stakeholders, including those responsible 27 for implementation -line managers. field supervisors , and top decision-makers, including policymakers. Strategic plans are proactive, focused on critical trends and strategic issues that require action. (For excellent guides to strategic planning, see David Gray's "Managing Our Way to a Preferred Future", Parks and Recreation , 1984; "The Language of Strategic Planning", Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Miller and Matter, 1988; and Strategic Planning in Local Government: A Casebook, American Planning Association, 1992). 28 I I I ~~o ,,.-----------+ v• i IL J _________________________________ _ I I Ul ~ z "' :II ~-------------"" I I I I , ____________ .,. Figure 1.6 0 a ,,, ~~ ..... -,,, .... !Z cw z:::ll a: z wO !Z ~ -z w STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS ~ cc .l!! ~ ~ "0 cc g ]! ... cc :c ...... (Sources : Bryson, Freeman, and Roering 1986; Bryson, Van de Ven, and Roering 1987) • z 0 !i ~ w :II w .... Q. ! The purpose of the strategic plan is not only to establish a preferred course of action, but to position the agency more solidly in the complex environment within which it operates. Strategic plans are cyclic and address both long-term and short-term needs. Long-term plans require substantial effort and resources, and provide a policy framework since they specify a preferred visi on and future for the organization . Short-term plans are less involved and address more specific and current issues. Short-term plans generally result in annual goals and objectives, are often tied to the annual budget process, and produce an action plan designed to achieve longer range goals and objectives. The strategic plan often includes goals, objectives , and policies for the following "sub-plans" (in no particular order): • Leadership Plan (Mission, Goals , Policies) • Finance Plan. • Comprehensive Park, Recreation , and Pathway Plan. • Human Resources Plan . • Recreation Services Delivery Plan. • Acquisition Plan. • Maintenance and Operations Plan . • Natural Resource Preservation Plan. • Capital Improvement Plan. • Marketing and Public Relations Plan . It is important to remember that the strategic plan cannot be developed in a vacuum. To be acceptable and successful, the plan must be developed to coincide with the overall development of the community. Given this, there should be a high degree of overlap between park, open space and pathway system planning with that of community planning on a broader scale. Given this overlap, it is both necessary and desirable to solicit input from other public agencies involved in community planning and the delivery of community services. Develop System Planning Framework Step 5 A park system planning framework is best described as the parameters and guidelines for establishing a park, open space, and pathway system within a city or town. A park system planning framework is best described as the parameters and guidelines for establishing a park, recreation, open space, and pathway system within a city or town. Key factors are defined which affect development of a systems plan, and a planning methodology is established by which a comprehensive and interrelated plan will evolve . The framework places the physical planning process into an overall planning perspective and provides a basis for community planning efforts. It is at this point in the process where the systems planning model and the parks, open space, and pathway guidelines are interfaced with conditions unique to each community. Within this context, the suggested planning procedures, classification system, and facility space and design guidelines should be considered within the framework for systems planning. These considerations provide a starting point for the process 29 of examining the park, recreation, and open space resources, facilities, and services from a comprehensive, community-wide perspective. A systematic procedure can be established to assess the policy planning, programming, and budgeting issues relevant to the delivery of park, recreational , and open space resources and opportunities within the operational mode of a particular community. The outcome is a rational and internally consistent framework for planning purpose~. The planning framework established in following sections of this document should be considered and adopted as appropriate to address local circumstances. The basic features of all systems are defined and the parameters and guidelines are outlined. These guidelines provide a consistent and justifiable framework for planning purposes and reflect planning practices born of successful systems across the country. A common terminology is also established, as well as an accepted benchmark guideline for systems planning . Although these procedures and methods have evolved over many years of research and practical application under diverse circumstances, they should not be viewed as absolute . Given the diversity, complexity, and changing nature of communities across the country, the parameters set forth in this document must be tailored to address conditions unique to each community. No two communities are alike; nor will their park systems be alike. Section 2 -Framework for Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Planning provides the overall planning framework for the physical, spatial and facility aspects of systems planning. Subsequent sections consider framework components in more detail. Develop System Plan Step 6 The sys tem plan is the po licy do cum ent and strategic management tool fo r rationally organ izin g and st ru cturi ng the parks, recreation faci li ties, open space and pathways for th e community. The system plan is a direct outgrowth of the previous planning model steps, systems framework, and application of procedures and guidelines defined in this document. The physical system p lan is based on the outcome of previous steps in the process, which includes: • Identifying the customer (Step 1). • Involving customers in the planning process (Step 2). • Assessing the needs of the community (Step 3). • Establishing a mission and set of goals, objectives, and policies for the delivery of services (Step 4). • Establishing a planning framework that becomes the bridge between information and a systems plan (Step 5). The system plan is the policy document and strategic management tool for rationally organizing and structuring the parks, recreation facilities , open space and pathways system for the community. It is important to recognize that a park system is more than simply a collection of its individual elements. It represents a comprehensive and interrelated package of parks, open spaces, and pathways that give those living in the community an opportunity for a complete recreational experience and a desirable environment in which to live. Each park, open space area, or pathway segment must be viewed within the context of the whole park system to ensure that it funct ions properly in providing a balance of recreational opportunities. 30 The plan typically consists of the following components : • Community parks, open space, and recreational facilities . • Community pathway facilities . • Significant natural resources, unique areas. • Regional, open space and recreational facilities. • Regional pathway facilities . • School sites and facilities. • Other public lands (cemeteries, floodplains, wetlands, historic areas, amenities functioning as open space, etc.) • Public-private and inter-agency facilities. • Private, non-profit and commercial recreation facilities. Parks, Open Space, and Greenway System Plan: The system plan outlines the preferred vision, character and direction of the park and recreation system. The plan identifies the existing and proposed location and classification of all parks , open spaces, and pathways within the jurisdiction. The plan also illustrates the interrelationship of the system components with other public infrastructure elements (as established in Step 5 -System Planning Framework). It is at this point in which the classification guidelines -as defined in Section 4 -Classifications System for Parks , Open Space, and Pathways and modified for local conditions under Step 5 - are applied and reflected in the system plan . The system plan should include all parks, open space, and pathway components. An accompanying legend should be provided to identify each park by name, classification, whether it is existing or proposed, and acreage (developed and undeveloped). The legend should also provide an acreage tally of parks and open spaces by classification (existing and proposed), total acreage of parks and open spaces provided by the city, and total park acreage provided through other means (i.e. regional, state, federal, and joint-use partnerships). General Program Information for Individual Park Sites: This part of the plan brings the system framework concepts down to the individual park level. It is at this point where the outcomes of all previous tasks are reflected in a general development program for each park. Parameters should be developed for each park to guide site design and development once a detailed plan is prepared. Keep in mind that these parameters are intended to be location, program, and issue-based rather than dictate a specific design for a given park. The intent is to place each park within the context of the entire system, rather than predetermine its exact design. This process is not intended to impede or supersede the public input and design process at the site plan development stage. At that point, the public should be invited to participate in its actual design . Information for each park might include the following (depending on scope of this task given the size of the agency): • Purpose and mission statement for the park . • A graphic illustration of the boundary, site features and amenities, and natural characteristics. • Park name, classification, address, acquisition and development status, and size. 31 • A description of existing facilities, features, amenities, and utilities . • A description of natural features , site and facility conditions, interpretive and recreational opportunities. • A description of surrounding land uses, potential land uses and basis for park need (i.e. residential neighborhood with a population of 3,000 with a service radius of one-half mile, etc.) • A description of future development issues . • A description of the future development program, including a direct reference to the needs assessment findings. • A description of issues affecting management concerns, such as the Parks Maintenance Management and Water Quality Management Plans, as appropriate . • A description of potential expansion and connection opportunities. • Preparation of a Level I environmental hazards assessment of the site. • A description of potential environmental hazards in proximity to the site. General Program Information for Pathway Facilities: This part of the system plan specifies existing and proposed pathway facilities . It is where the outcomes of all previous tasks are actually reflected in the general development program for each pathway classification. The description of each pathway facility might include the following: • Identification number that ties each pathway facility to the overall system plan map . • Identification of pathway classification, type, and intended uses. • Relation to existing and proposed greenways. • Approximate length . • Description of preferred strategy for acquisition -exaction, purchase, easement, etc . • Description of development schedule and strategy. • General description of the facility. • Description of future development issues and constraints, impacts to surrounding land uses, and other considerations impacting development. • Description of its interconnection to adjacent communities, or regional systems. Develop Recreation Services Delivery Plan The companion to a physical systems plan (the previous step) is the leisure services delivery plan, which identifies the mix of recreation programs an agency will offer, the customers that will be served, and strategies for providing services. Advancements in market-oriented planning and trends toward a benefits- based approach to recreation planning provide a more systematic and strategic approach to planning leisure services, such as types of programs to be offered, fee and pricing, strategies, and promotional efforts. Step 7 Identifies the mix of recreation programs an agency will off er, the customers that will be served, and strategies for providing services. The context for the recreation services delivery plan is the agency's strategic planning effort (Step 4), responding to the agency 's mission, vision, community values and needs , and input of stakeholders. Both the systems plan and the recreation services delivery plan draw from each other, since they are interdependent. 32 An assessment should be made of present and future demand for recreation programs, based on information from the needs assessment. A participant and program evaluation can establish whether existing programs are meeting the expectations of users. Consideration must also be given to the importance of socioeconomic factors that affect program participation . Mobility, social/cultural factors, time and money, propensity to volunteer for coaching, officiating, etc. are all factors that affect one's desire and ability to participate in programmed activities. Target users (strategic areas of focus) should be identified including potential users not currently served. Current and future service providers (including the private and nonprofit sectors) and their potential impact on and/or relationship with the agency should be determined. Partnership and other cooperative opportunities should be identified . A long range recreation facility plan should be a major part of this effort, addressing sports and athletic fields , swimming pools, senior centers, recreation centers, and other major facilities. This undertaking provides an opportunity to consider new facility needs created by the trend toward consolidation of social service agencies into one community/human services agency, offering a wide array of new programs and services. Parks and recreation facility planning must also be responsive to the demands for after-school care recreation programs and a redefinition of the school as the center of neighborhood and community activity. These trends are reinforcing efforts to develop joint development and use of school buildings and grounds and affect the application of guidelines. Figure 1.7 -Benefits-Based Approach is an example of emerging approaches to recreation delivery, based on the benefits derived by the individual and society. Incorporating these concepts into a recreation system plan is an effective way to establish recreation services as essential to society. BENEFITS-BASED APPROACH TO PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES The following provides an overview of four benefit categorie s related to parks and recreation services . It is through the articulation of the se benefits by professionals in the field that society will gain a greater appreciation of what parks and recreation services have to offer . Personul Bem:fits Full and meaningful life Health insurance Stres s management Self esteem Positive self image Balanced life Acheive full potential Gain life satisfaction Human development Positive lifestyles choices Improve quality of life Economic Benefits Preventive health service A productive work force Big economic returns on small investments Business relocation and expansion Reduce the high cost of vandalism and criminal activity Catalyst for tourism Environmental investments pay fur themselves Figure 1.7 -Benefits-Based Approach Social Benefits Build strong communities Reduce , alienation, loneliness and anti-social behavior Promote ethic and cultural harmony Build strong families Opportunity for community involvement, shared management, and ownership of resources Provide foundation for community pride Environmental Benefits Environmental health Environmental protection and rehabilatation Environmental investment increases property values Insurance for a new env ironmental future Source: The Benefi1S or R~reation : An Es!>entiol Service The P11rks and Recre ati on Federation ot'Ontwio-1992 33 Develop Maintenance and Operations Plan Step 8 Operations and maintenance of the park, recreation and open space system cannot be undertaken in isolation from the process which produces the planning and the programming. Operations and maintenance of the park, recreation and open space system cannot be undertaken in isolation from the process which produces the planning and the programming. Systematic processes and software programs are now available to plan, organize, schedule and control maintenance activities, establish preferred levels of service, and develop performance-based standards. Especially with a trend toward broader definitions of open space and new criteria for managing some types of open space, it will be even more important to integrate maintenance functions into the planning and decision-making process. Operati?ns and maintenance issues, preferred types and levels of maintenance, and financial impacts of additions to the system are all important factors which should be considered as integral parts of the systems approach to planning. Adopting maintenance and operations practices that ensure optimal outdoor space and facility quality include: • Developing level of service and maintenance standards for each type of outdoor s pace and facility that achieve desirable maintenance outcomes. • Updating facilities and equipment inventories, determining gaps, analyzing personnel and equipment requirements . • Allocating limited resources to their best and most efficient use in consideration of all system components. • Implementing programs on a site-by-site basis in consideration of the intensity of facility use . • Developing policies and practices supporting an environmental ethic. • Examining cost implications associated with maintenance and operations practices on a system-wide basis. • Developing unit management plans for unique, environmentally sensitive or complex areas requiring short and long term management strategies. Develop Implementation Plan The implementation plan clearly outlines the actions that are required to fulfill goals, policies and objectives of the systems plan. The success of the system plan is dependent on the commitment of the organization to specific strategies and actions that will implement the plan. Generally the major elements of an implementation plan include specific tasks, assignment of responsibilities, and a schedule outlining preferred target dates for completion. Step 9 The implementation plan clearly outlines the actions that are required to fulfill goals, policies and objectives of the systems plan. 34 The implementation plan may also be organized in a way that facilitates actions required to operationalize major components of the plan. For example, action plans for a Recreation Facilities Plan, a Park Acquisition Plan, and a Park, Open Space and Pathways Plan might be prepared, specifying specific project priorities, estimated costs and a schedule for completion. Action plans can also become the basis for other formal plans, such as a five-year capital improvement plan, a rehabilitation plan, and a maintenance and operations plan. Frequently action plans are incorporated into an annual agency goals and budgeting process to assure integration with major priorities and processes of the organization. While the implementation plan should address projects and priorities, it is essential that major strategies are included which are required to carry out policies and objectives of the system plan. For example, new legislative authority may be required to implement land use policies and actions . Cooperative agreements may need to be negotiated to establish new partnerships with others. While the system implementation plan may not take the place of a long range financial plan, this is an excellent opportunity to identify current funding sources and balances, and to recommend funding strategies for recreation programs, lands and physical facilities, and maintenance and operations requirements . Figure 1.8 outlines a process for developing an implementation plan. Figure 1.8 Implementation Process Step 1 Determine Needs Through System Planning Process Step2 Develop Evaluation Criteria for Prioritizing Step 3 Determine Priority Ranking Step 4 Undertake Cost Analysis for Highest Priorities ~ Evaluate Funding Sources and Availability ~ Develop Implementation Plan and Phasing Program Step 7 Incorporate Implementation Plan into Capital Improvement Program Implementation Process for Acquisition, Development and Rehabilitation 35 Evaluate Overall Effectiveness of System Plans and Service Delivery Step 10 To be successful in the delivery of services, public agencies must allow their customers to routinely evaluate the overall effectiveness of the services they offer. A basic principle inherent in the systems approach to planning is that of stakeholder involvement in the planning process . A rapidly changing world demands a frequent systematic assessment of the effectiveness of planning outcomes and the ~iabi lity of the information base that drives planning decisions and level of service formulas. To maintain a current and reliable information base, it is necessary to create long-term relationships with the customer and to interact with the customer through survey and interview tools. To be successful in the delivery of services, public agencies must allow their customers to routinely evaluate the overall effectiveness of the services they offer, and how well they are performing. It is important to recognize that the systems plan is not completed until it has been reviewed, explained, understood, and adopted by the customer. Poster contests, distribution of summary brochures, multi-media presentations, media coverage, and celebratory events are a few of the avenues that should be explored to mark the final step of the process, and to create the degree of awareness required for successful adoption of the plan. One or two "first wins" representing tangible commitments to some aspect of the plan can create added community interest and excitement, and demonstrate the viability of the plan . 36 Framework for Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Planning As discussed in the previous section, the systems approach to planning is defined as the process of assessing the park, recreation, open space, and greenway needs of a community and translating that information into a framework for meeting the physical, spatial and facility requirements to satisfy those needs. The framework define s the key factors affecting development of a systems plan and establishes a planning methodology by which a comprehensive and interrelated plan will evolve. The framework puts the physical planning process into an overall perspective and provides a basis for comm unity planning efforts. As stated in the previous section, it is at this juncture in the system approach to planning that the planning process, service delivery standards, open space conservation guidelines and recreation facility space and desi gn guidelines are taken into consideration and adapted as appropriate to address local circumstances. Overview The systems approach to planning is defined as the process of assessing the park, recreation, open space, and greenway needs of a community and translating that information into a framework for meeting the physical, spatial and facility requirements to satisfy those needs. The procedures recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association provide a framework for park, recreation and open space planning in a rational, internally consistent and justifiable process for defining and addressing all components of the system. They are intended to provide the parameters an d guidelines that are necessary for any planning effort, and to establish a common terminology for systems planning. The procedures in this publication have been developed over many years of research and "There are no two fingerprints alike, no two snowflakes alike, and likewise no two communities alike ." T. Wirth (7994) experience. They have withstood the test of legislative and judicial scrutiny in several jurisdictions. They reflect the state- of-the-art park and recreation planning practices and are consistent with the larger practice of urban and regional planning. These materials were gleaned from successful programs across the country and embrace the commonly accepted lexicon of comprehensive park, recreation and open space planning systems. 37 This section discusses the overall framework for the physical, spatial and facility requirements of systems planning. The objective is a framework for system planning which is fully integrated with the comprehensive planning program for the city, whatever form that may take. Subsequent sections consider framework components presented in this section in more detail. Developing a Systems Planning Framework The planning framework consists of two planning modules, as follows: • Category A -Physical Components: This module is a descriptive analysis of the community 's infrastructure, including current park, recreation, open space, and pathways system components ; amenity infrastructures; natural resource characteristics; regional/state/federal parks and lands; school district properties; private recreation-related lands ; water resources management plan; and environmental protection/enhancement plan . The planning framework consists of two planning modules . Taken together, they provide the basis by which the park, recreation, open space, and greenways system is built in any given community. • Category B -Planning Components: This module is the various guidelines and planning considerations that give basis to the planning framework. The module consists of level of service guidelines, park, recreation, and open space classification, greenways, park system elements, and facility design guidelines. Taken together, the physical component module and planning component module provide the basis by which the park, open space, and greenway system is built in any given community. The following describes each of the modules and their impact on planning. Physical Components Category A The process of developing a parks, open space, and pathways plan begins by developing an understanding of the physical infrastructure and characteristics of a community. The process of developing a parks, open space, and pathways plan begins by developing an understanding of the physical infrastructure and characteristics of a community. The community infrastructure is largely a result of the comprehensive plan for a given community. To be clear, the park, open space, and light traffic systems plan should be an integral element of the comprehensive plan. Critical to the success of the systems plan is its power to influence the structuring of urban and regional land use patterns in a way that moves the community into a development mind-set that embraces the fundamental proposition that the entire community is in fact a park . Within this park, all human needs such as housing , employment, commerce, education, transportation, preservation, conservation and recreation occur in rational and harmonious patterns which lay gently upon the landscape. This supports quality of life, community sustainability and complementary property relationships which enhance individual and community wealth and prosperity. 38 In general terms, the city infrastructure includes the following physical components: •Municipal/City Boundary. •Zoning and Guided Land Uses. • Transportation Plan. •Urban Services Area. • Current Park, Open Space, and Light Traffic System Components. •Natural Resource Characteristics . • Regional, State, and Federal Parks and Lands. • School District Properties. •Private Recreation-Related Lands and Resources. • Water Resources and Environmental Protection/Enhancement Plans. • Historic Districts and Landmarks •Amenity Infrastructures. Each of these components play a part in establishing the physical characteristics of the community and affect the basic parameters surrounding the development of a systems plan. To be successful, these components must be integrated into the plan so they become part of the system itself. Thus, the concept of the city-park comes to life. The following describes each of these components in more detail. Municipal/ City Boundary Establishes the corporate boundaries of the govermental jusrisdiction in which the planning is to take place. This establishes the corporate boundaries of the governmental jurisdiction in which the planning is to take place . It is important in a number of regions for planners to take a close look at what is happening on the community fringe. In some states, the local government planning law permits a municipality to extend some of its land development codes like the subdivision ordinance into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). An example of this is Texas counties, which have no land management authority. In this case, the legislature permits municipalities to extend their subdivision codes into the ETJ. As part of the review process the municipality can act to see that appropriate parcels and connectors or recreation land are preserved to the guidelines and criteria of the municipality before the land is actually annexed. Municipalities must be able to reach out to embrace land in the path of growth which has park, open space, and light traffic potential and utility. If this is not done in a timely fashion, many desirable parcels will be lost forever. Existing Zoning and Guided Land Uses Give the city a certain developmental structure that has a major influence on the development of the park system. Existing land uses (i.e . residential, commercial, industrial, business, etc .) give the city a certain developmental structure that has a major influence.on the development of the park system. Likewise, the city's Land Use Guide Plan, which defines the type of development guided (i.e., proposed) for all areas of the city, will also have a major influence on the development of the park system. Since the extent of the park system is intrinsically tied to the extent and density of residential development within the city, the areas guided for 39 residential development will be one of the primary factors in shaping and defining the extent of the park sys tem plan . It should be recognized that if (or perhaps when) the area guided for residential development changes in the future, the park system plan will have to respond accordingly. Transportation Plan Pro vide s necessary access, as we// as ph ysical barriers, to system co mpo ne nts. Existing and proposed thoroughfares play a significant role in the development of the park system by providing necessary access, as well as physical barriers, to system components. With greater emphasis on inter- modal forms of transportation, the transportation plan has broadened its focus to include alternative forms of transportation, most notably bicycles . Given this, trail system planning (which includes planning for on-road bikeways) must become an integral part of a community's transportation planning effort. Only in this way will the goals of inter-modal transportati on have any chance of being realized . Similarly, implementation of the transportation plan should be integrated with the park and open space system plan. Park or open space land should not be taken for development of transportation facilities. Urban Services Area Con trols urban sprawl and unn ecessary encroa hment on natural resources within a city or town. Controlled expansion of urban services (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, etc.) is an important tool in controlling urban sprawl and unnecessary encroachment on natural resources within a city or town. Development or expansion of the sewer system provides an opportunity for the installation of hike-bike trails on top of the sewer right-of-way. Naturally, the extent of urban services will greatly influence the location and density of development in a city or town, and therefore the development of the park system. It is important to note that the urban services boundary will likely change over time as demand and policy dictates. The potential for this change should be considered in any system planning effort, so that "likely"· planned expansions are considered during the planning process . Existing Parks, Open Space, and Greenways To varying degrees, each community may have a current park, recreation, open space, and pathways system plan in place. A previous section ( Step 3 - Assess Need in Section 1: Systems Approach to Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenways Planning) considered these components from an assessment perspective, whereby their appropriateness and effectiveness were evaluated. At this point that assessment begins to be considered within the context of a broader planning framework as described in this section . All existing system components should be considered as part of the infrastructure of the community. Independent school districts or other governmental entities responsible for providing public education usually prepare growth plans, particularly in growth impacted communities. School administrators have specific formulas for calculating pupil load based on residential density and demographic profiles. Typically each level of school, such as the elementary school, has a 4 0 defined attendance zone. These data determine the design capacity of the school building, which when incorporating the needed outside space for playgrounds, parking lots and the like, determines the size of parcel of land that is needed. School District Properties Th e lo cal sch ool district has b ecome a mechanism for constructive plannin g dia log and land acquistion disc us sions between the local school ad mini stration and local park age ncy. The concept of placing a school in a central location in a neighborhood, providing ease of safe access, and an attractive facility basically applies to the location and sizing criteria of neighborhood and community parks, as well. As a result, the concept of the park- school site is often very functional and appropriate within the context of the larger park system. As such , a great deal of emphasis is put on this concept in this publication. In many cases, the local school system plan has become a mechanism for constructive planning dialog and land acquisition discussions between the local school administration and local park agency. An example of this interaction is in Boise, Idaho, where the local school board is designing restrooms on the outside of the building so that they can be used by park customers. These facilities are maintained by the local park agency. Other creative recreational uses of school facilities can contribute to many urgently needed community initiatives that address vital social problems plaguing our cities, especially those related to young people. For example, if an elementary school-park was located adjacent to a part of a community greenway system, perhaps other schools, parks and neighborhoods could be connected along that greenway. This would also provide a marvelous opportunity for teachers and students to engage in environmental studies in a natural outdoor classroom. The opportunities are quite limitless and need to be given more consideration. When using the school-park concept, the following factors should be considered: •A separate entrance for the park and separate parking should be provided. • The higher than normal use of the site from the joint use could result in higher operating and capital costs. The natural resource base of a community plays a large role in the ultimate character of the park system. Communities rich in natural resources -lakes, wetlands, deserts, coastal areas, mountain foothills, ridge lines, gorges, valleys, forested tracts, stream beds -will have a decidedly different intrinsic character than those that are highly urbanized or lacking in natural resource base. The critical factor is the need to clearly define the extent of the natural resource base in a community to determine its potential as a part of the park system. Greater emphasis is being placed on the city- as-a-park concept of community development, in which the natural resource-based open lands and park areas serve to structure and provide form to the community. Add to this the pathways, a pattern emerges that fosters a park like setting that all other land uses would respond to and interact with . This approach provides a way to use the concepts of enviroi:imental planning to aid city p lanners in discovering the appropriate setting for housing, education, commerce, industry, recreation, health, transportation, and other urban needs and services. 41 Natural Resource Base The natural resource base of a commuity plays a large role in the ultimate character of the park system. Natural resources (also defined as open space or open lands) are those land and water areas primarily in their natural state, void of any man-made development. Although they may have some limited passive recreation use potential, the emphasis is clearly on conservation and preservation. These lands represent major features of the local and regional landscape. There are now available funds and technical assistance from several federal agencies, namely the USDA Forest Service, the National Resources Conservation Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide assistance to communities wishing to develop an ecological systems approach to the management of their park, recreati on and open space land. In many communities people are clamoring for the restoration of natural areas such as wetlands and forests on open parcels of urban park land or on blighted and orphan urban lands which, through the establishment of a natural area linked to a larger natural systems network, can become the catalyst for positive redevelopment and additional tax base enhancement. Preservation of these lands often protects vital ecological process, and landscapes such as flood plains, wetlands, steep hillsides, meadows, community forests, aquifer recharge areas, wildlife or plant habitat, archaeological, cultural, historical landscapes and sites, and agricultural landscapes. Many categories of natural resource areas are extremely fragile and are best suited for conservation purposes and perhaps minimal passive, low impact "eco-recreation activities". It is important for a park agency, which often includes urban forestry and environmental resource management, to develop habitat conservation and management lands. One important lesson learned over the past decade is that no landscape, no matter how natural or attractive, is frozen in time . We must seek to keep natural processes protected from external influences and in a state of ecological health and vigor. The comprehensive system plan can also serve as a primer on ecology, clearly demonstrating the relationship of natural processes to the quality of life, to savings of public infrastructure dollars that otherwise would be spent on expensive flood control or public works projects, and to the enhancement of property values and of the tax base that open space achieves in the urban land market. Each community needs a system of natural resource lands that form a framework for protecting environmental resources, providing (when applicable) limited recreation opportunities that do not end at the park's edge but are a significant part of the mosaic of land use within a community and region. Natural resource area gu idelines can be used to assist park and recreation professionals to determine if a community has identified all possible open lands within its boundaries and assessed the recreational potential of these lands. Critical to natural resources make-up are those land and water resources that should be designated as conservation lands to preserve and protect natural features that are unique to each community. Conservation Lands: Conservation in this context implies resource protect ion strategies for those lands with limited recreational potential, but are of significant ecological, aesthetic, recreational , geological, archaeological, and/or historical value. Within natural area open space 42 Adjacent Cities' Parks, Open Space, and Green ways Provides the opportunity for a city to significantly expand the size, capacity, and recreational offerings of its own system. may be found rare or threatened species. In many in stances , the species is so delicate that the habitat and species restoration program precludes the threatening presence of humans . When consistent with the restoration and protection goals for the species , human viewing or some level of proximity is determined acceptable this can provide a rich and enduring recreation and education. Interlinking local systems plans with those of adjacent cities provides the opportunity for a city to significantly expand the size, capacity, and recreational offerings of its own system. Through interactions and partnership agreements, local park planning agencies can achieve a number of important objectives: • Maximize recreational opportunities available to local citizens . • Create continuous city-as-a-park environment that transcends municipal or jurisdictional boundaries . • Create cost efficiency by providing facilities and services that benefit citizens of several cities . As an example, a number of local planning agencies may find it advantageous to form a partnership to develop a regional athletic complex that serves several cities. Potential partnership opportunities should be identified and documented early in the planning process so that their potential impact on the lo cal system plan can be asse ssed . Agreed upon partnerships should then become part of the planning framework. Federal, State, Regional, County, and Other Public Lands To varying degrees across the county, a variety of public lands provide opportunities for a city to significantly expand the size , capacity, and recreational offerings of their local park system. In many cases, these lands provide lei s ure opportunities that greatly exceed the capacity of the local park agency to provide on its own. These lands should be identified and documented early in the planning process so that their potential impact on the local system plan can be assessed. Once the potential opportunities are defined, the challenge is to fashion strategies for connecting these diverse lands into a more cohesive and organized system of potential local recreation opportunities. In many cases, it is through the comprehensive planning process that opportuniti~s to build partnerships with public land holding entities as well as private landowners ( e .g ., when necessary to provide linkages and wildlife corridors between large, son:ietimes isolated parcels) arises . In an environment of limited local resources, these partnerships often become key components of the local systems plan. 43 The follow ing is a sampling of public land entities that may impact local sys tem planning efforts: • National Parks • National Military Parks • National Recreation Areas • National Seashores and Lakeshores • National Wildlife Refuges • National Forest Lands • U.S . Army Corps of Engineers Lands • Department of Defense Military Base Lands • State Park and Forest Lands • Special District Conservancy Lands • Private Wild Animal Parks • Zoos • County Beach Parks • Scenic and Recreational Rivers At the local level , one of the most common interrelationships consists of integrating the local system with that of a regionally-based parks, recreation areas, open space and pathways system. In most cas es, the Regional Park System consists of a number of resource units that service regional park and recreation needs. They are typically administered by regional agencies and governed by state legislation . The region al park system typically consists of three park classifications: • Regional Park • Regional Park Reserve • Regional Special Use Facility Regional Park: An area selected for its natural and ornamental quality and its suitability for regionally-based recreational activities. Typically, a regional park is 200 to 500 acres in size, although a site as small as I 00 acres is acceptable if the quality of the resource provides adequate justification. Its size is based on its capacity to accommodate a variety of activities, preserve its natural character, and provide adequate buffering between activity areas. Access to water bodies suitable for recreational uses is of particular importance during site selection. Recreational activities include swimming, picnicking, camping, boating, fishing, and a variety of trail uses. Regional Park Reserve: Similar to a regional park in that it is selected for its natural and ornamental quality and its suitability for regionally-based recreational activi ties. The distinguishing difference between the two lies in its greater emphasis on preserving and protecting representative landscape types of the region. To contain a diversity of natural resources, a regional park reserve should be large enough to protect the resource. Regional Special Use Facility: Region-wide recreational facilities not typically found in either a park or park reserve. Examples include zoos, large gardens, and large arboretums. 44 Private Recreation-Related lands and Resources are important because they reduce demand for public resources. Even such lands as office parks, medical Private Recreation-Related Lands and Resources parks and research parks have some recreation and open space potentials. In England a good deal of the national park lands are actually in private ownership . Th~se lands are managed by the owners under certain kinds of management or stewardship agreements. Often the use of these lands involves only trails or bicycle paths , many which are ancient ways across the countryside that date back to medieval times . Through the comprehensive planning process and the stakeholder and empowerment techniques recommended in this document, we have identified some challenging opportunities to create public parks and scenic preserves on private lands within the midst of our public properties . This identification also challenges land owners to consider the future disposition of their lands. Witness the phenomenal growth of community land trusts across the nation. A comprehensive park and recreation land ethic should embrace all lands and landowners. All private landowners should be draw n into a partnership and stewardship union with our park and recreation providers. In addition to including water resources and associated natural areas as components of park system plans based on their recreational benefits, there is also the opportunity to increase the amount of these lands within the park system through water resources and environmental protection/enhancement plans . These plans relate to water quality and environmental protection issues affecting all cities . Although not the Water Resources Plans only issue, control of storm water runoff is a principal concern of many of these plans. In an attempt to control the degradation of water quality, public planning agencies are looking for new ways to handle storm ru noff. In many cases, these new approaches include surface drainage and ponding areas used as a means to remove impurities prior to reaching larger water bodies. Through cooperative planning , drainageways and ponding areas created by these plans can and should become integral components of the park and open space system plan. In many cases, this "dual approach" to planning can add justification for the preservation of specific parcels of property within a city. Planning Components Category 8 The planning framework presented in this document charts the course for preparing a comprehensive park, recreation, open space, and pathways system. This framework provides the essential link between the input from customers, assessment of need , and strategic planning steps to the development of a system plan . The information derived from these steps provides the basis for determining the : • Level of service (LOS) guideline -which is an expression of the land, facilit ies and programs needed to meet the real time recreation demand for quality park and recreation opportunities desired by the citizens . • Park system components that will be necessary to achieve desirable ends. 45 The planning framework also provides some time tested policies and strategies for siting parks, open space, recreation areas, and pathway and the arrangement of amenities and facilities within a given outdoor space. The following defines the key components of the planning framework. Each of these components will be further considered in subsequent sections of this publication. Perhaps the best place to start in establishing a planning framework is to consider how park and open space land is used. Once this is understood, it becomes reasonable to create a planning framework that ensures that each type of use is appropriately accommodated within the park, open space, and light traffic system. Uses of Park and Open Space Lands Park land can accommodate several specific functions . The space requirements for each function is determined in part by the guidelines adopted in the park, recreation, open space, and pathways plan of a given community. Review of numerous park and open space plans revealed a wide range of variants or hybrids of the national guideline concept. Some plans have adopted an acre per number of population as a community guideline . This is usually based on the current park acreage divided by the existing population. Other plans merely include a figure selected by the park and recreation agencies or the elected officials. Most plans have a nomenclature for various sizes and types of parks, usually with either a recommended minimum size, or a range of acreage, which would be considered acceptable for a particular type of park. Guidelines for the most part consider areas to be used for active recreation facilities, even though natural open space may be part of the site. The following describes the specific functions usually ascribed to land and water resources designated for park and open space purposes . Recreation: The most obvious function is to provide space and facilities fo r people to engage in active and passive recreation activities. While the degree of interest in various activities will vary from place to place, the amount of space necessary for various facilities is constant. For example, a baseball field is a standard size; the number of fields required de pends upon demand . Natural Resource Preservation/Conservation: In addition to providing space and facilities for leisure activity, park systems often include preservation/conservation land. There are no specific standards for how much conservation land a community ought to have. Instead, it is dependent on the number and quality of natural and historical resources in the area, public desire to preserve these valuable sites, and the willingness of the elected body to provide funds for their preservation. Examples of conservation space would include stream beds and flood plains, steep slopes, forest land, etc. Including conservation land in the public park system provides space for extensive, dispersed recreation use (i.e., trails) while protecting the natural function that those natural resources serve (i.e., floodwater storage or erosion control). In addition, conservation land often provides habitat for wildlife while reserving a portion of the natural landscape for environmental education purposes. These corridors also serve as valuable pedestrian linkages between developed park sites as well as between parks and residential areas. 46 Greenways and Transportation Corridors: One of the evolving areas of park and recreation system planning focuses on incorporation of corridors for light traffic (i.e. alternative or non-motorized forms of transportation). Although Accommodating Uses of Park and Open Space Lands Through Planning Guidelines these offer benefits such as recreation , nature viewing, and so forth, their focus in this context is also on the provision of light traffic facilities for alternative modes of transportation. Through the use of planning guidelines, the various uses of park and open space lands can be appropriately addressed and accommodated in a system plan for any given community. Organizational Areas: The park and recreation system itself needs its own space. Each system uses land for maintenance buildings and offices (both central and field). In addition, the system needs space for its own plant materials nursery, propagation area for annual flowers, and other operational support functions . Through the use of planning guidelines, the various uses of park and open space lands can be appropriately addressed and accommodated in a physical system plan for any given community. It is through the use of these guidelines that you can achieve: •A level of service that is desired by the citizens (customers). •An equitable distribution of parks, open space, and light traffic facilities throughout the community. For park, open space, and light traffic planning purposes, a number of types of guidelines have been established. Figure 2.1 -Interrelationship of Planning Guidelines illustrates the relationship between each of these. Figure 2.1 Overview of Planning Guidelines The following provides a brief overview of the planning guideline s presented in thi s document. Each of these will be defined in greater detail in subsequent sections . Level of Service Guideline Is a ratio expressed as acres/ I 000 population which represents the minimum amount of ground space needed to provide the level of quality of park and recreation services desired hy the community. Park. Recreation. Open Space and Greenway Classifications ls an express ion of the amount of land a community determines should constitute the minimum acreage and development criteria for different classifications of parks . open space, and pathways. Facility Space Guidelines Is an expression of the amount of space required for a specific recreation facility . 47 Concept of a Planning Guideline The following provides a brief definition of the concept of a planning guideline in a general sense followed by a brief definition of each type of guideline identified in the previous figure. In the con text of this publicati on, a guideline is an ac ceptable measu re In the context of this publication, a guideline is an of deliver y for a spe cific public servi ce. acceptable measure of delivery for a specific public service. "Acceptable," in this sense, means that the measure has been applied and the results demonstrate that the guideline has accomplished the planning objectives for which it was prepared. For example, if it is determined that the acceptable amount of space for a four tennis court layout is x square feet, including y number of off-street parking spaces, this represents a design and space guideline which has been promulgated by the NRPA and is consistent with national consensus within the profession. Similar guidelines are available for all types of commercial developments from restaurants to major sports stadiums. These guidelines are published in handbooks available in many professions, many of which are incorporated in local development codes and ordinances. There are many Levels of Service (LOSs) which are used in community infrastructure design and construction . Parks and recreation represent an essential infrastructure element, so therefore it is reasonable that a procedure for calculating that minimum LOS is available for use by the profession. Recall the previous discussion of school district design and spatial guidelines based on projected pupil load. A similar logic is used to develop a community park and recreat ion LOS . The effectiveness of the community service delivery system can be measured by the guidelines judged by professional organizat ions to be the acceptable minimums. For example, a national guideline of five minutes ' response time for police to answer a domestic call would suggest a deficiency in a community in which the average response time is 13 minutes. It is essential that realistic and justifiable guidelines for all community services, including parks and recreation, be prepared and used as essential tools in the plan implementation process and in evaluating the results of p lan implementation strategies. Park and recreation services are community services in every respect. Therefore, it is not unrealistic to suggest a national guideline which can serve as an expression of reasonableness and adequacy with respect to quality service delivery. Such a guideline obviously differs from a street or drainage standard in terms of quantitative preciseness. Runoff or traffic movement or water pressure is universal. School administrators have used universal standards, with the qualification that the amount of land needed and building configuration can and frequently are adjusted in response to local situations . The same is true with categorically stating an inflexible absolute park and recreation guideline. Ideally, such a guideline should be the norm in every community. However, in reality, no two communities are the same. Therefore, in deference to this uniqueness, due to differing geographical, cultural, social, economic, and environmental characteristics, each community must select a level of service guideline which they can live with in terms of their community setting. 48 It is important to understand that the selection of a numerical guideline can be intuitively arbitrary or as mathematically precise as is possible, or somewhere in between . Keep in mind the following distinctions as to how we approach the guidelines. Level of Service Guideline The level of service guideline is a ratio expressed as acres/1000 population which represents the minimum amount of space needed The level of service guideline is a ratio expressed as acres/1000 population which represents the minimum amount of ground space needed to meet real time recreation demands of the citizens of a community. Thi s is calculated according to the procedure presented in Se ction 3 -Level Of Service Guideline for Sy stem Planning. to meet the recreation services desired by the citizens. The Level of Service (LOS) is an expres sion of the essential ingredients needed to provide the level of park and recreation services desired by the customers in a community. The LOS can be likened to a level of customer service established by a retailer, a hotel provider, or a highway provider. In parks and recreation, as in each of the examples just mentioned, it is assumed that the needs of the customer will be satisfied within a well designed, safe park and recreation setting . The LOS should: l) Be practicable and achievable . A spirational targets mu st alway s be tempered with a dose of reality. 2) Provide for an equitable allocation of park and recreation re sources throughout a community. There must be equal opportunity access for all citizens . 3) Reflect the real time demand of the citizens for park and recreation opportunitie s . Open Space within the LOS Concept: In addition to the calculated park and recreation guidelines, a community is encouraged to work with citizens to acquire and appropriately protect and manage a complementary open space system. The open space system cannot and should not be equated with a numerical standard of any kind. This approach is both impractical and counterproductive. There is no number of acres of floodplain or wetlands that every community should have in order to meet a national standard. Rather a community should, through the strategic planning process , develop open space policies which reflect the unique resources of the community and could be the basis for the open space system. This kind of system respond s to landscape as well as the desires of its citizens . If, for example, the community is rich in forest land laced with creeks and streams, then these lands provide a unique setting for outdoor recreation opportunities not found , for example, in a dry desert climate. Natural or open lands with environmental significance cannot be included . in a land based standard because these lands have limited capability for recreational use beyond desirable and limited passive recreation and interpretation and environmental education . But they should not be perceived as surplus or reserve lands that can be encroached upon and pressed into service when decision-makers feel the pinch of land cost escalation, coupled with an unwillingness to reach into the public purse to acquire suitable and well located lands to meet pressing recreational need s. 49 Because these lands are not preserved and managed for specific open space uses, they should not be included in the land inventory to be used in the calculation of the guideline. Because these lands appear as components of the biophysical landscape system, and may be naturally functioning ecosystems, they are not capable of being defined by a space standard . By their very character, environmental lands are those which occur in nature on the community landscape. It is recommended that a community inventory its land and water resource base, determine the pattern of these resources, their complexity and suitability for various levels of passive or ecological based leisure pursuits, then address the preservation and protection of such open lands from an environmental as well as recreation policy driven program. It is impossible to say a community should limit its open lands program by relying on a predetermined minimum standard. For example, we cannot categorically state the number of flood plain or wetland acres per 1000 population that is adequate. This is best left to local determination. It is only for us to describe these lands and provide guidelines as to how they form a diverse community landscape mosaic. Consider, for example, the growth of community greenbelts, open land, beaches, forest, and other landscape features which are being acquired or otherwise protected by communities each according to their own values, perceptions, policies, and ambitions . A rigid standard could serve to chill the creativity and ingenuity of local citizens, and even thwart creative ventures with other land uses which could enhance the community park and open space estate. Park, Open Space, and Greenway Classifiction Guidelines Expressions of the amount of land a community determines should constitute the minimum acreage and development criteria for different classifications or types of parks, open space, and greenways. Park, Recreation and Greenways Classification Guidelines are expressions of the amount of land a community determines should constitute the minimum acreage and development criteria for different classifications or types of parks, open space, and greenways . Classifications for parks and open space used in this document include: • Mini-Park • Neighborhood Park • School-Park • Community Park • Large Urban Park • Athletic Field • Special Use • Private Park/Recreation Facility • Natural Resource Area/Preserve • Greenway Typical classifications for pathway facilities include: • Park Trail • Connector Trail (micro-path/link) • Bikeway • AU-Terrain Bike Trail • Jogging Trail • Cross-Country Ski Trail • Equestrian Trail • Snowmobile Trail 50 Facility Space Guideline Is an expression of the amount of space required for a specific recrea tion facility . Section 4 -Classifications for Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenways defines the basic parameters and guidelines for each type of park and light traffic facility within a typical system. These classifications are important in that they provide a common, consistent, and justifiable framework for planning purposes, thus allowing for an orderly development of the park system that ensures all community needs are fulfilled . They reflect contemporary planning practices born of successful systems across the country, and establish a common terminology and an accepted benchmark standard for systems planning. A facility space guideline is an expression of the amount of space required for a specific recreation facility, such as a children 's playground, a picnic area, or a softball diamond. The numbers of facilities and their distribution throughout the system is driven by the needs/demand analysis. The package or development envelope is the park classification, i.e. what grouping of facilities is best fit into a particular type of park. This policy determination then drives the park size outward to provide adequate and safe spatial configuration within a park. Off-street parking, landscaping, and restrooms, for example, must be considered when designing the park. In the predecessor publication, there were standards that set out the number of facilities/number of people. This is being dropped in favor of a community determined satisfactory mix of facilities. This reflects a trend of communities responding to real time demand and latent demand rather than to a "national number" such as one tennis court per 1000 persons, which may not be responsive to local conditions. This is particularly the case in the 1990s where in many communities the private sector is assuming a larger role as a recreation and leisure service provider. Fa cility Design G uideline The facility design g uideline expresses the exact spatial and dimensional requirements for a specific recreation area or facility . Section 5 -Facility Space Standards provides a more in-depth review of the design guidelines for specific facilities . The Need for Fle xibilit y Building flexibility into a system plan is essential in order to accommodate the unique circumstances and situations that can and do arise in every community. Park, open space, and light traffic systems planning -like any other type of planning -must be able to respond to unforeseeable events and windows of opportunity that can occur at any moment. A city cannot rigidly adhere to a plan based upon a theoretical principle when the situation at hand suggests that following the "master" plan will result in missed opportunities or misguided directions . This is not to negate the value of time-proven principles and procedures, but only to recognize that we must put every component of the plan and the various guidelines we have available into the appropriate local context. From an acquisition perspective, park system planning is limited by the opportunity to acquire the land before it is used for other purposes. Once the community is developed, acquiring land for park, recreation , open space, and pathway purposes is difficult and expensive . Given 51 this, setting aside adequate land for comprehensive system is perhaps the most difficult part of the planning effort. But it is also the most important element of building flexibility into the system. Having adequate land within a system is the key to long-term flexibility . Without it , a park agency 's ability to respond to changing needs becomes limited. As an example, a neighborhood park or athletic complex planned for during the early days of a city 's comprehensive planning effort will still be a neighborhood park or athletic complex in 15 or 20 years . But the way these parks are used is going to be directly related to the type of users that live in the community and/or the recreational trends of the time . The success or failure of these will be based on whether or not the agency meets the needs of the current user groups. That is why the focus of the comprehensive system plan lies with identifying specific parcels of land to meet current and anticipated future community needs. Meeting current needs is a matter of understanding your current customer. Anticipating future needs requires vision and a sound, on-going approach to systems planning that allows one to react to opportunities as they arise. The window for acquiring land for parks , open space , and pathways is small and is largely dictated by the pace of community development. As such, the system plan must be continually updated to ensure that a public park and recreation agency is in the best position to respond to the opportunities at hand. Again we stre ss the need to be extremely flexible and deferential to local conditions. For years, park and recreation profes s ionals have staunchly advocated ad van ce acquisition of key parcels of land to take advantage of reasonable land prices and the ability to achieve optimum location advantage . In the case of open lands , this allows the ability to protect vital elements of the community and regional ecosystem from inappropriate development. Unfortunately, due to fiscal constraints and other agendas, such advance acquisition is often opposed by many local governments. When the actual need arrives for the park land and open space, the opportunity to acquire it has often passed. Thus, comprehensive system planning must become a mainstay of a park agency's activities. It is through the use of a systems approach to planning that an agency has a chance to adequately plan to meet the changing needs of their community. Constant reassessment of needs and modification of the systems plan based on those reassessments becomes vital to achieving desirable ends. In parks and recreation we must se ize the day. From the perspective of facility planning, it is also important to build flexibility into the system through facility-use policies . This is the use of policies to control the ebb and flow of demand for facilitie s . Through these policies, a community can avoid over-building facilities if they expect demand for them to fall off over time. In such a case, accommodating short term facility needs through facility-use policy decisions -rather than building expensive facilities that go under-used after a short period of time -can be beneficial. Figure 2.2 · System Flexibility illustrates an example of this principle. 52 Figure 2.2 System Flexibility The following provides an example of how flexibility can be built into the system through highly- controlled flexible-use policies . Although neighborhood park and sports complex classifications are used as an example, flexible-use policies can apply to other classifications as well . Neii:hborhood Park Typical Use "Infonnal" playfield for neighborhood use . Some limited younger youth practices I games . Flexible Use Heavier youth programming on interim basis to accomodate short-tenn demand . Precautionary Note Avoid the tendency to excessively program neightborhood parks as a means to avoid developing a legitimate system capable of meeting the community 's long-tenn needs . Sports Complex Typical Use Heavily programmed for adult and older youth activities . Flexible Use More progr.unming for younger youth wheri facility time is available. Use facility to take additional programming pressure off of neighborhood parks when possible. Precautionary Note Developing athletic complexes without clearly defined need shou ld be avoided. It wastes precious resources better used elsewhere. A word of caution about flexible-use policies is that they should not be used as a means to avoid developing a legitimate system capable of meeting the comm unity 's long term needs. For example, a community should not use a neighborhood park for activities that are intended to be accommodated in an athletic complex. Granted, a neighborhood park may have to be used at a higher-than-desirable level until appropriate facilities can be built. But this type of use should not be considered acceptable on a long term basis. The key point is that the rate of demographic change in the community directly affects how extensive certain aspects of the park system will need to be to keep pace. In addition, changes in recreational trends will also affect the demand for certain types of facilities. As you might expect, these variable make it quite difficult to determine exactly what facilities will be needed in the long-term. But to be successful, the planning process itself must be structured to respond to inevitable changes in demand . Lifecyc/e of System Components An important consideration in system planning is the expected lifecycle of system components. The lifecycle of a park or other system component is the time between when it is first purchased and developed until it is rebuilt/refurbished to serve evolving customer needs. In most cases, parks have a lifecycle of 15 to 20 years, although this will vary substantially depending on the specifics of the park in question. Given this, the design for any system component must take into consideration who the customers are likely to be throughout its lifecycle. In the case of a ne igh borhood, amenities that appeal to people living nearby today may not be as highly regarded as people grow older. These factors must be considered and adjusted for prior to the initial development of the park. 53 As you might expect, determining how a park's lifecycle will affect its initial design and development can be difficult. This is especially true in cities where the demographics of a community are changing faster that the lifecycle of system components. Thus the importance of systematically evaluating the changing demographics of the city, projecting future changes in recreation trends, and staying in close contact with your customer to determine changing use patterns and needs. Suppose current demand calls for soccer fields, but long-term projections call for softball fields in a certain location. Given that current demand is for soccer fields, the design for the park should accommodate that use. But anticipating that a rapid change in the population will result in different facility needs, the design for the current facility should be such that it can reasonably accommodate the new demand once it manifests itself. This should not be construed as compromising the design to suit some yet-to-be-defined future use . What it means is that the design for th e site should be done with enough foresight as to not impede anticipated future uses. Quality Ini tiative A basic goal of the system approach to planning is to provide and maintain a high level of quality throughout a park, open space, and light traffic system in order to meet customer expectations. Whether discretionary leisure time is increasing or decreasing, citizens are placing ever-increasing emphasis on the quality of their leisure experiences . As Professor Geoffrey Godbey (1993), who has written extensively on recreation and leisure issues, states ... "first and foremost, Ame ricans believe that recreation and leisure are a part of their lives which is of critical importance." And he goes on to say: "Ironically, thinking that recreation and leisure are important may be negatively related to supporting public recreation and park agencies, which may sometimes be viewed as providing trivial, irrele vant, or second- rate services." Without the perception of quality, use of the park system and related programs will always fall far short of their potential. In the context of recreation and leisure , quality is important, in the word s of Geoffrey Godbey ... "because our population is getting older. and older people are much more sensitive to aesthetics of the environment, cleanliness, natural beauty, safety, and other quality control issues. It is important because it helps teach the young that one's immediate environment is of great consequence and, therefor so are the individuals in it. It is important because our society is acquiring more formal education, and individuals with formal education have higher expectations concerning quality of environment; particularly leisure environments." And as he goes on to say, "the condition and qualities of the leisure environment are often a critical factor in their (an individual's) decision to use or not use a given leisure area or facility.", or even decide whether or not to live in an area . Another important consideration in this regard is the pronounced trend toward specialization in recreation and leisure activities. As individuals become more selective and skilled in their pursuits, they demand higher quality facilities and surroundings. In addition, people more than 54 ever define their experiences within the context of the whole environment that surrounds them during the activity. This holds true for virtually all recreational and leisure activities, whether active or passive in nature. The point is that no longer can any provider of recreation and leisure systems (public or private) avoid addressing the issue of quality if they are to remain competitive. A "good enough" attitude in today's marketplace usually means not good enough and is a prescription for failure . Further, if the parks, open space, and light traffic system is expected by the citizens to be a primary determinant in the quality of life in a jurisdiction, then the public park agency will only be successful by doing what it takes to achieve that end. This holds true for the physical aspects of the park system as well as its programming and management. 55 Level of Service Guideline for System Planning Following this, as other components of what we commonly refer to as infrastructure were developed and refined, there came into existence what are known as development codes. These codes now embrace basic public services such as water, sewer, storm drainage, erosion control, curbs, gutters, streets, and electric utilities . Inherent in these services is the concept of adequacy of capacity, that is the ability to provide a specified level of service for residents. Eventually standards were developed for police, fire, and emergency medical service locations to provide adequate response time and security coverage. School districts developed the means to relate housing capacity to number of pupils per family to arrive at a method for establishing the pupil capacity of various school buildings which were to serve a specific geographic area. This led to the concept of the attendance zone or service area, a Overview The preparation of technical standards to guide the provision of pub lic infrastructure began in the 1850s with the Sanitary Reform Movement This gave rise to the initial codification of plumbing standards for municipal potable water and waste water distribution systems . concept that would be embraced as a level of service standard by the park and recreation profession. All of the previously noted elements of infrastructure reflected either a volume , spatial or location type of standard. The spatial standard could be translated from square feet/person to a measure of space, i.e. land required for the facility. Thus schools required not only a minimum space for the building pad but also parking lots and surrounding grounds for landscaping, sports facilities, and accessory buildings. As parks began to merge into more defined units characterized by function, landscape features, and location, it became evident that sometimes school sites and park sites could be joined, thus providing complementary resources for a given geographic area, i.e. the service area. This also could yield more open space and the opportunity for additional joint ventures such as outdoor education and linkages to community trail systems. In the early years of the park and recreation profession, a basic spatial standard of 10 acres of park land per 1000 persons distributed throughout a community was proposed as meeting the 57 recreational needs of citizens . Many grasped on to this because there were no other numbers out there. This basic standard was further refined to reflect the different types of parks and recreation facilities which should be included in each type of park. These were defined in spatial terms as minimums . Standards for determining the number of facilities per unit of population were developed . Questions have arisen as to whether these standards are too absolute. By the dawn of the 1980s, several events began to change the way communities approached the planning and development of the ir park and recreation systems. The notion of a system began to expand to include a wide range of land, water, historical, and cultural resources which were placed under the stewardship of the park and recreation agency. While this provided new challenges to planners and managers, it also opened many new opportunities for passive recreation, frequently referred to as eco-tourism, as well as partnerships with schools and non- profit organizations for new forms of environmental education. Under the umbrella of open space or open lands, vast acreage of flood plains, wetlands, foothills, and forests were added to community park and recreation systems . Research in leisure studies provided planners with better tools to measure participation rates and patterns, needs and preferences, quality of a recreation experience, economic benefits of recreation, and desire or demand for certain types of resources and facilities within a certain distance from the home. Changing social, economic, and demographic patterns revealed new and diverse trends in the distribution of leisure time as well as how people were using park and recreation services. Delivery of quality recreation and park services replaced the practice of providing just park space with recreation facilities and equipment. With the advent of growth management legislation and the widespread use of dedications and exactions, parks and recreation were elevated to equal status with other statu torily required public infrastructure. This infrastructure was to be provided by a developer at his expense as a condition of subdivision plat approval. The new "rational nexus" test when combined with a valid needs/benefits assessment required park and recreation professionals to justify the amount of park land and facilities to be exacted or financed through impact fees. Professional judgment had to become more quantitative in a manner similar to that used to support the need for other public infrastructure facilities such as roads and storm sewers. Along with the provision of new park and recreation areas and facilities, an equity consciousness led communities to seek balance throughout all sectors with respect to land, facilities, equipment, and programs. Park and recreation professionals were delivering services at a level adequate to meet community needs as determined by a variety of market assessment procedures. It was natural that service delivery could be expressed as the level of service standard (LOS) for parks and recreation . The LOS is merely a quantification of the park and recreation delivery philosophy and policy of a community. 58 Its basic utility is in meeting a legal/economic requirement of quality service delivery and equity. It does not embrace passive recreational lands with high environmental, scenic, historical or archaeological values . It has emerged out of proven concepts of marketing and social science research as a way to be more customer responsive in an era of limited funds and rapidly changing consumer tastes and preferences. It also has basic utility in responding to legal mandates and business driven analytical paradigms which reflect the backgrounds of a growing number of locally elected officials who began appearing on the political landscape during the 1980s . The LOS provides a way to accurately calculate the minimum amount of land required to provide all of the recreation activities and the requisite facilities to support the activities by expressing this in the context of acres/population. The LOS is a needs driven, facility based and land measured formula. Old assumptions about adequacy and minimum number of facilities can now be replaced by a better understanding of how to determine recreation needs and preferences, measure participation in recreation activities, monitor quality of the service and expand and enhance on-site and off-site benefits . Development of the LOS in parks and recreation occurred concurrently during the 1980s with the development of LOSs for other basic infrastructure facilities such as water, sewer, storm water drainage and transportation. The 1990s ushered in a new paradigm for approaching park, recreation and open space service standards and policy guidelines. Preparation of the Level of Service The allocation of space for a variety of recreational activities within a community is usually determined by some form of space standards . A standard as used in this publication is anything taken by general consent to serve as a basis for comparison. A standard is a minimum acceptable spatial allocation measure. "Acceptable" means that the measure has been applied and the results demonstrate that the standard has accomplished the planning objectives for which it was prepared. For example , consider the development of an indoor ice rink in a community park serving several neighborhoods . The need for ice skating determines the facility base. The facility base should be a facility standard which includes adequate space for parking. This then determines the amount of land required for that facility . The amount of land required for all facilities , including space for nonprogrammed needs, equals the minimum space that will adequately meet customer needs and preferences. Just as a community may wish to oversize water mains by two inches to insure adequate future capacity, they may add more acreage to any park category they choose to adopt. Over the past 30 years, it has been the accepted practice within the park .and recreation profession to adopt a uniform national land standard such as 10 acres per 1000 population. This was held to be the goal every community should strive for to have an exemplary park and recreation system . For many communities, achieving such a standard was impossible. Too often such a published standard was adopted as a policy upon which funding decisions and state mandated directives were based. A standard for parks and recreation cannot be universal, nor can one city be compared with another even though they are similar in many respects . The national facility standards found in the Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and 59 Guidelines (1983, NRPA) reflected professional judgment, rather than an assessment of community needs. Research has shown that these standards have been used to justify the cost of existing fa cilities, to justify the cost of providing new facilities when a community was below standard, or were ignored when a community was pushing for funding to develop recreational facilities which were in excess of the standard (Martin, 1993). This approach caused a great deal of frus tration among planners, administrators, consultants, citizen boards, commissions, and elected officials. The revised approach toward a park and recreation standard is similar to the development of engineering and construction standards ; that is to work from units of space and volume, which, when applied to a particular service, produce predictable results. The basis of the revised approach to park and recreation standards is a level of service as defined by the customers' needs rather than an arbitrary standard such as the number of tennis courts per 50,000 people. There are eight steps to calculating the LOS . Steps in Calculating the Level of Service Standard 1. Determine the Park Classifications for which the LOS will apply. 2. Determine the Recreation Activity Menu for each park classification. The Recreation Activity Menu (RAM) is the list of all recreation facilities, i.e. tennis courts, tot lots, picnic units, etc ., which go into each park classification and for which a specific amount of space will be needed . The RAM determines the facilities space requirement of the LOS formula. 3. Determine Open Space Size Standards for each park classification for which LOS standards will apply. 4. Determine the Present Supply of these recreation activity choices . 5. Determine total Expressed Demand for these recreation activity choices . 6 . Determine the Minimum Population Service Requirements for these recreation activity choices. 7. Determine the individual LOS/or Each Park Class. 8. Determine the collective LOS for the Entire Park and Recreation System. As will be shown , needs can be converted to facilities which can then be converted to spatial requirements . This still leaves room for community specific facility policies. Park and recreation space can then be measured in terms of capacity or availability. In this manner, citizens of each community can articulate a menu of specific recreation activities and uses, for which the number of facilities and units of space per person can be determined. From this compilation, the minimum amount of space required to meet these articulated needs can be calculated. Certain groups of facilities (such as playgrounds and picnic tables) can be combined into spatial units which will be referred to as different kinds of parks (such as neighborhood or community parks). In some instances, specialized recreation facilities such as a tennis or softball complexes are developed either in response to a known need or a desire to encourage higher 60 level s of participation. Each community can then work with these suggested classifications and guidelines to develop the types of park and recreation facilities which best meet their needs and fit with in their financial capabilities . When a community follows this approach, they have adopted a level of service standard for parks and recreation. Developing a Level of Service Standard The procedures used in the past two decades to establish park and recreation space standards were based upon certain assumptions created by conditions of the 50s and 60s; for instance, that there would be ever-increasing leisure time, disposable income, mobility, population, suburbanization, and equipment sophistication. The realities of the 90s refute some of these assumptions . However, many basic concepts of park and recreation planning remain acceptable in the contemporary practice of urban and regional planning . The National Recreation and Park Association recognizes the importance of the level of service as: • An expression of minimum acceptable facilities for citizens of.every community. • A guideline to determine land requirements for various kinds of park and recreation areas and facilities. • A basis for relating recreational needs to spatial analysis within a community-wide system of parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. As resident and tourist populations escalate, so does the need for providing additional outdoor recreational opportunities in our communities . Governmental agencies, which usually assume the lead role in providing most forms of public outdoor recreation, are frequently required to determine the levels of outdoor recreation opportunities that are available and what additional resources are needed or will be needed at some point in the future. When making these determinations, agencies need to have established criteria which can be used in relation to other planning standards and guidelines . For example, population projections, outdoor recreation participation rates, budget needs and projections, and even infrastructure needs, to name a few, must all be placed into some functional relationship before sound recreation planning estimates can be made. Three types of planning guidelines are commonly used in outdoor recreation planning. The first type, use guidelines, are employed as a means of stating the amount of use a resource or facility can accommodate under certain conditions. The second type, population guidelines, are used in determining the amount of resources and facilities required to serve a given population . The third type, site guidelines, are used primarily for estimating acreage needs for local parks and recreation areas . Because of the variations in outdoor recreation environments throughout the country, as well as the multiplicity of planning procedures that exist, no single type of resource and facility guideline can adequately meet all outdoor recreation planning needs simultaneously. Each outdoor recreation provider should, therefore, select the guidelines that best serve its specific planning needs . 61 As a park and recreation department begins to lay the philosophical and policy framework for calc ulating their LOS, several factors must be considered. These are: • The existing inventory of land and water resources and their distance from neighborhoods. • The condition of areas and facilities . • The level of public support and the extent to which true stakeholder relationships exist. • A trends analysis of community lifestyles and other indicators of what the community considers its predominant focus in terms of recreation and leisure . • Maintenance budgets, policies and practices. • Land resource carrying capacities and capabilities for all lands wi thin the system. • Influences and impacts of neighboring communities on park and recreation resources. • Park , recreation and open space policies and criteria developed by regional and state planning agencies . Several elements of a state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (SCORP) are developed to guide outdoor recreation planning for both public and private agencies . The SCORP is intended to recognize key issues, estimate and project outdoor Guidan ce from the State Comprehensive Outdoor Re cr ea tio n Plan (SCORP) recreation resource and facility needs at regional and statewide levels, identify agency roles and responsibilities, and, based on all of these and other elements, establish priority goals and recommendations for all recreation providers . This statewide/regional approach promotes a synergistic effort by guiding the planning and implementation efforts of all agencies in order to meet the established regional and statewide needs, goals, and recommendations. When establishing these, however, there must be some common denominators which can be used to maintain consistency among the various agencies . As mentioned earlier, these usually take the form of outdoor recreation use standards, but at the statewide or regional level. Thus, when local agencies begin to establish or revise their own outdoor recreation use standards, the SCORP can be used to identify the region's standard or average uses concomitantly with the regional and statewide needs, goals, and recommendations . For example, the 1994 Minnesota SCORP addresses comprehensive outdoor planning products in terms of: 62 • The Planning Process . • Societal Trends in Minnesota . • Population Dynamics and Implications for Parks and Recreation. • Community Settlement (Growth) Patterns . • Minnesota Hou seholds Composition . • Economic Changes and Implications for Parks and Recreation. • Work and Leisure Time . • Leisure Ethic and Implications for the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Business in Minnesota. • Trend Applications and Implications for Anticipating Consumer Behavior. • Key Issues Influencing Participation in Recreation and Leisure Ac tivities. This information should be used by local communities to establish their relative position within the context of the region and the state. It also serves as a point of departure for networking and connecting with other planning agencies and park and recreation providers . The Level of Service (LOS) Approach The LOS approach links the systems approach to the planning model presented in Section l. The methodology for determining the LOS is needs-based, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ facilities-driven, and land-measured. In its basic form the approach presents the LOS as a function of current, real demand for park and recreation opportunities. In a broader sense, it presents the LOS as an amalgam of all relevant facilities and park classifications. The LOS is intended to measure general or area-wide conditions. Its applicability to site-specific , short-term decision-making may be limited. The LOS methodology is the outcome of a strategic planning process . In its basic form the LOS is a function of design capacity to accommodate a specific level of use on a set number of facilities and park space within a park site. The minimum size of the park site is ddetermined by the number of facilities needed to satisfy the recreation demand within the service area of the park . The recreation demand is determined through needs analysis, using whatever methodology best fits the conditions, capabilities and resources of a community. Although the LOS is measured in acres per l 000 people, it is based on the premise that park land alone cannot meet the full range of recreation needs. Rather, the LOS is an expression of the instances of use of activity areas, and the facilities that are necessary to actually satisfy demand . The LOS is derived by identifying the spaces and facilities required to meet the community real time recreation demand, and the minimum amount of pa'rk land needed to accommodate not only the specific facilities but also the space needed for the unprogrammed recreation activities. This is both a subjective and objective determination which is based on first-hand knowledge of the community and how community residents use the parks. Recreation demand is calculated by ascertaining recreation participation through use of a "menu" or "array" of recreation activities , facilities and park areas . The menu is a list of activities, programs and facilities which are being used in a community or are needed to satisfy the current needs, as determined through the market surveys. Using this menu of recreation choices for determining the LOS is the foundation of this methodology. This foundation concsists of three steps: 1. Determining the types of parks , or Park Classifications, within the park system to which the LOS will apply; 2. Determining the typical Recreation Activity Menus for each park classification to which the LOS will apply. 3. Determine Open Space Size Standards for each classification for which LOS standards will apply. Open space size standards are, simply, the minimum acreage needed for facilities supporting the activity menus for each park classification. These standards represent not only the acreage requirements for speCific areas and facilities, but should also reflect sufficient acreage in passive and undeveloped open space for quality park and recreation area design. Each community must decide what type of parks to include, what facilities and spaces commonly comprise these parks, and what is the appropriate balance between active and passive areas in these parks. 63 Having laid the foundation using these three steps, the LOS is then calculated by five additional steps: 4. Determine the present supply of these recreation activity choices. 5. Determine expressed demand for these recreation activity choices . 6. Determine the minimum population service requirements for these recreation activity choices. 7. Determine the individual LOS for each park class . 8. Determine the total LOS for the entire park and recreation system . The result is a needs-based, facilities-driven, and land-measured LOS that describes the minimum park and recreation acres needed to meet current recreation and park demand per 1,000 people . Recreation Facility Supply: The purpose of determining the present supply of recreation activity choices is to measure facility use as it occurs. Recreation supply can be thought of as the inventory of all park land and recreation facilities that provide recreation activity choices. This measure expresses the amount of recreation demand, measured in "visits" per year, that are provided by a typical unit of supply, i.e . a tot lot, a tennis court, a swimming pool, an open field, etc. The bottom line is how many visits per year does each park area and facility accommodate? Supply Formula : EUxA=RFS Where: EU =Expected Use (#Visits/Day/Unit) A= Availability (#Days/Year/Unit) RFS =Recreation Facility Supply (#Visits Available/Year/Unit) Consider the following example problem : EU (10 Visits/Day/Tennis Court) x A (365 days/Yr./Tennis Court) = RPS (3650 Visits Available/Yr./Tennis Court) Expected Use (EU) is typically a combination of average daily use and peak use. Determination of these levels of use can be done through attendance records or observation. Regardless of how they are determined, it is important that the average number of visits per day reflect actual use, not an unrealistic or optional use. For example, a neighborhood tennis court may accommodate an average daily use of 10 people 60% of the time and a peak use of 15 people 40% of the time. EU is calcu lated using the following formula: Where: 64 [ADU x ADU%Time] +[PU x (1 -ADU%Time)] = EU ADU= Average Daily Use (#Visits/Average Use Day/Unit) PU = Peak Use (#Visits/Peak Use Day/Unit) ADU%Time =%ADU Time/Unit (expressed as a decimal) EU = Expected Use (#Visits/Day/Unit) Using the neighborhood park tennis court example, the calculation of the Expected Use (EU) would be as follows : Where: ADU = 10 Visits/Day/Tennis Court ADU%Time = 60%, or .60 PU= 15 Visits/Day/Tennis Court [10 Visits/Day x .60] + [15 Visits/Day x (1 -.60)] = 12 Visits/Day/Tennis Court Availability (A) is simply the average number of days per year that the facility is open or "available" for public use. A park area or facility may be closed or not available for use by the public a number of days per year for a variety of reasons, e .g. bad weather, preventive maintenance, holidays, etc. Using the neighborhood tennis court example, if then EU= 12.0 Visits/Day/Tennis Court A = 350 Days/Year/Tennis Court RFS = 12 Visits/Day x 350 Days/Year RFS = 4,200 Visits/Year Recreation Facility Supply (RFS) is also referred to as "facility capac ity." Park area and recreation facility capacity typically measures use as it currently occurs; however, special capacity guidelines are sometimes established, often to mitigate for overuse or for public safety. For example, a park and recreation agency may determine that the existing Recreation Facility Supply, or capacity, of a soccer field is 15,000 visits/year. The agency believes that this level of use is too high to maintain acceptable field conditions. In this instance, the agency may decide to set a lower "capacity guideline" of 12,000 visits/year to allow for field maintenance and rest. Whether the term "supply" or "capacity" is used, the measure determines the availability of the park area or facility to meet demand under reasonable circumstances. Recreation Facility Demand: Recreation Facility Demand is determined by assessing the number of times someone actually participates in a recreation activity. Actual recreation participation is referred to as "expressed demand," i.e. that which actually takes place. "Latent demand," which is an expression of what additional participation would likely occur if more facilities or time, etc. were available, can also be factored into recreation demand, but it is more difficult to determine. This LOS approach suggests that a household survey be used, randomly selecting households to ask about occupants' use and non-use of park and recreation areas and facilities. The survey can also obtain information on "latent demand" for participation. Other methods of soliciting this kind of customer information include focus groups, workshops, park visitor surveys, and questionnaires placed in utility bills. The bottom line in calculating Recreation Facility Demand is simply how many people participate and how often they participate in each park area and recreation facility. These figures are then adjusted to reflect "per capita" demand for the entire population . 65 A number of considerations must go into determining Recreation Facility Demand. First, it is important to understand who is using park and recreation facilities, specifically for each park and recreation area within the system. Is the demand generated by residen ts or are non-residents also using parks and recreation facilities? Second, how do you obtain accurate participation frequency information? Finally, is latent demand an important factor in calculating total recreation demand? The Recreation Facility Demand formula is as follows: RFD= RP x PF SS Where: RP= Recreation Participation (#Participants/Year/Unit) PF= Participation Frequency (#Visits/Year/Unit) SS = Sample Size (total number of occupants living in sampled households) RFD= Recreation Facility Demand (#Visits Required/Person/Year/Unit) Although there are different ways to measure Recreation Participation and Participation Frequency, a common method is to classify park and recreation customers as light users (Minimum 1 Visit/Year), as medium users (Minimum] Visit/Month or 12 Visits/Year}, or as heavy users (1 visit/week or 52 visits/year). These classifications represent minimum levels of use rather than exact levels of use . This approach is often used because it is easier and more accurate for the public to describe minimum levels of participation than actual visit occasions. The formula for this approach is as follows: (#Light Users x 1) +(#Medium users x 12) +(#Heavy Users x 52) Sample Size = Recreation Facility Demand Again, using the example of the tennis court in the neighborhood park, Where : #Light Users= 419 Participants #Medium Users= 283 Participants #Heavy Users= 178 Participants SS = 4500 People (419 x 1) + (283 x 12) + (178 x 52) =RFD 4,500 2.90 Visits Required/Person/Year/Tennis Court = RFD Minimum Population Service Requirement: The minimum populatinn service requirements represent the minimum number of people served per year for each park and facility sup ply unit, i.e . tot lot , tennis court, swimming pool, etc . These population service requirements are derived from the calculated Recreation Facility Supply and Demand numbers, 66 the formula for which is as follows: Where: RFS -:-RFD = MPSR RFS =Recreation Facility Supply (#Visits Available/Year/Unit) RFD= Recreation Facility Demand(# Visits Required/Person/Year/Unit) MPSR = Minimum Population Service Requirements (Minimum # Persons Served/Year/Unit) Using the Recreation Facility Supply (RFS) and Recreation Demand (RFD) figures previously calculated for the neighborhood tennis court, if then RFS = 4,200 Visits Available/Year/Tennis Court RFD= 2.9 Visits Required/Person/Year/Tennis Court MPSR = 4,200 Visits Available/Year~ 2.9 Visits Required/Person/Year MPSR = 1,448 Minimum Persons Served/Year/Tennis Court Level Of Service By Park Classification: The determination of the LOS for each park classification requires that Minimum Population Service Requirements be calculated for each activity on the Recreation Activity Menu for each park classification . The sum total of people served by each activity in the park is the total population served by that park classification . The total population served divided by 1,000 (The LOS is expressed as# acres/1,000 people), divided by the park size standard (minimum park size in acres, see Park Classifications, Section 4) yields the LOS in acres/1 ,000 people . Level Of Service By Park Classification Formula: Park Acres/Classification Total Population Served 1,000 people = Level of Service By Classification Total Park and Recreation System Level of Service: The Total Park and Recreation System Level of Service is the sum of the LOS by Park Classification for each park classification. It is the LOS for the entire park system . Total Park and Recreation System LOS Formula : LOS Class 1 + LOS Class 2 + LOS Class 3 + LOS Class 4 = Total Level of Service LOS and SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS A comparison of LOS as measured demand, such as discussed above , arid LOS as currently available inventory provides the most basic analysis of park land surplus or deficiency. This type of analysis should be done for the entire park and recreation system, i.e. city, county or region, as well as for smaller sub-areas such as neighborhoods, city council districts, park board member districts, etc. While the amount of park land in the whole park and recreation system may be adequate, park land may not be properly distributed. Some neighborhoods may have more park land than others, creating inequitable distribution. 67 The LOS can also be calculated for each park classification. It is possible to analyze the surplus/deficiency of each class for the park and recreation system, as well as for each sub-area. Such analysis begins to identify those deficiencies which contribute to an unbalanced system. This type of analysis was done by the Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department (Table "A") and reveals significant surpluses in neighborhood parks with deficiencies in community and district parks. Seeking to provide a more balanced park system across all Dade County communities, the park and recreation department adopted a policy of purchasing tracts of land 30 acrea and larger as priority over purchasing small tracts . TABLE "A" Unincorporated Dade County Distribution of Local Recreation Open Space Acreage by Minor Statistical Areas Minor Neighborhood Open Spaces Community Open Spaces District Open Spaces Statistical 1995 Required Surplus Required Surplus Required Surplus Area Population Existinl! (2) Deficiencv Exist inf! (2) Deficiency Existing (2) Deficiency I.JO 12 ,855 .00 27 .33 11.96 15 .37 10.78 -10.78 11.78 -11.78 J.30 206.00 0 .00 0 .19 -0.19 0 .17 -0.17 0 .19 -0 .19 2.10 57 ,726 .00 109.49 53 .70 55 .79 63 .26 48 .39 14.87 52 .91 -52 .91 2.20 43 ,626 .00 73 .91 40 .58 33 .33 1.27 36.57 -35.30 39 .99 -39 .99 2.30 81 ,324 .00 133 .17 75 .65 57 .52 94.10 68 .18 25 .92 74.54 -74 .54 2.40 49,410 .00 64 .76 45 .96 18 .80 16.11 41.42 -25.31 515 .00 45 .29 469.71 3.10 60,157 .00 183 .41 55 .9 6 127 .45 63 .27 50.43 12 .84 55 .14 -55.14 3.20 82,781.00 87.30 77.01 10 .29 95 .20 69 .40 25 .80 75 .87 -75.87 4.10 23,499 .00 34 .49 21.86 12 .63 2.90 19 .70 -16 .80 21.54 -21.54 4.20 58,121.00 71.66 54 .07 17.59 64.69 48 .73 15 .96 53 .27 -53 .27 4.30 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 4.40 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 4.SO 102 .00 0 .00 0 .09 -0 .09 0 .09 -0.09 0 .09 -0 .09 4.60 4 ,058 .00 4 .02 3 .77 0 .2 5 3.40 -3 .40 3.72 -3 .72 4.70 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 S.10 116.00 0.00 0.1 I -0.11 0 .10 -0 .10 0.1 I -0.11 S.20 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 S30 33,922.00 28.20 31.56 -3.36 60 .40 28 .44 31.96 31.09 -31.09 $AO 99,628 .00 132.16 92 .68 39.48 24 .40 83 .52 -59 .12 515 .86 91.31 424.55 5.SO 77 ,257.00 126 .13 71.87 54.26 159 .83 64 .77 95 .06 70.81 -70 .81 5.60 22,694 .00 34 .60 21.11 13 .49 17 .84 19 .03 -1.19 20.80 -20 .80 s.10 23 ,843 .00 28 .40 22 .18 6 .22 52 .76 19 .99 32 .77 21.85 -21.85 5.80 34,788.00 48.85 32.36 16.49 28 .56 29.16 -0.60 31.88 -31.88 6.10 238 .00 125.43 112 .57 62 .53 113 .04 -50 .51 123 .59 -123 .59 -6.20 86,610.00 264.16 80 .57 183 .59 43 .03 72 .61 -29.58 79.38 -79.38 7.10 35,318 .00 84.57 32 .91 51.66 109 .82 29 .66 80.16 32.43 -3 2 .43 7.20 39 ,195 .00 80.80 36.46 44 .34 16.10 32 .86 -16 .76 35 .92 -35 .92 7.30 8,054 .00 34.52 7 .49 27 .03 8.61 6 .75 1.86 7.38 -7.38 7.40 46,666.00 78 .99 43.41 35 .58 30 .58 39.12 -8.54 42 .77 -42.77 7.SO 5,377.00 0 .60 5 .00 -4 .40 4 .51 -4.51 4 .93 -4.93 7.60 5,095 .00 5 .00 4 .74 0 .2 6 10.00 4.27 5.73 4 .67 -4 .67 Note: l. Local Recreation Open Space include unincorporated area parks, schools and private areas . 2 . Required Level of Service for each different type of open spaces includes : (a) Neighborhood LOS= 0 .93 Ac/1000 Population (b) Community LOS= 0.84 Ac/1000 Population (c) District LOS= 0 .92 Ac/1000 Population 68 Surplus/deficiency analyses can show whether park and recreation resources and facilities are being delivered to the community in an equitable and efficient manner. Once deficiencies are identified, it is up to the planners and policy makers to devise methods to remedy the deficiencies. Where a surplus exists, they must determine if some land could be reprogrammed or even sold and the resulting funds used to purchase the class of park land where a deficiency exists. This makes the LOS an important measure of how efficiently the existing parks system is delivering services. If a community is to achieve a balance within its park and recreation system, then it is necessary to remedy deficiencies within that system. Through the surplus/deficiency analysis the community can begin to identify available options to provide additional park space to meet real time recreation demand for facilities and activities which should take place within each park classification . The LOS reflects the minimum amount of park land and recreation facilities needed to meet recreation demand as determined by the needs assessment. Although the LOS is measured in acres per 1,000 people, it is based on the premise that land alone does not meet the demand; rather, the LOS is the sum of the instances of use activity areas and facilities required to meet recreation demand and to determine the minimum land necessary to provide those same recreation spaces and facilities . Small Community Planning and the LOS How can the LOS standard be used by small communities with limited resources? At first glance, the previously described procedure may appear extremely complicated and expensive. In reality, it is neither. As will be shown in this section, the LOS standard methodology can be scaled down to fit the needs and capabilities of the smallest community that chooses to develop their LOS standard in this manner. Before discussing the procedure, it will be beneficial to revisit the standards concept. A standard is nothing more than a benchmark or acceptable measure of performance or delivery that has been agreed upon by a profession, a professional organization, required by policy or as a matter of Jaw by a state or local government entity. For example, we have alluded to national codes for infrastructure such as the construction specifications for municipal streets, water and sewer lines, and storm water drainages. Another illustration is the space and building size and configuration standards developed by professional educators for use by school agencies when preparing plans for construction of new school facilities . The park and recreation space, development, and facility standards recommended in this document are an example of such national standards . Standards such as those just mentioned are the product of research, professional judgment, and intuition of people having some experience with the subject. Unless a particular standard is mandated by law, there is no absolute requirement that it be used as anything more than a guideline. This is precisely how most national standards or codes are used. As a practical matter, local communities have several options available which include: adoption verbatim of a published national standard; adoption of a standard prepared by a state agency; adoption of a standard 69 prepared by a state or national professional organization or trade association; or, simply cut and paste together a standard wruch they believe will best meet their local needs and conditions. So it is with park and recreation standards. While certainly there may have. been advantages in knowing that a community's park and recreation standards accorded with those published by NRPA, there is no law requiring a community to do so. If, however, a community wishes to eval uate its present system, as is usually the case when a community moves from an unplanned system to the first comprehensive park, recreation, and open space plan, then it is helpful to see how the existing system stacks up. Consider why a small community might need to formally adopt a park and recreation LOS standard. Perhaps the community senses that the growth of its park and recreation system has not kept up with the growth and changing demographic patterns of the community. If more land and facilities are to be added to the system, then how much land and what kind of facilities? Consider a small community that senses it is about to experience a major growth surge. In today's public sector fiscal climate, the community leaders realize that they do not have the resources to buy land in advance and begin to develop the new parks they know they will need. The community wishes to begin planning for this rather than wait until it is too late. Every community has an opportunity to avail itself of state enabling legislation which allows it to require the mandatory dedication of park land, exact fees -in-lieu of land or use an impact fee to shift most, if not all, of the cost of new growth to future residents . In order to use these legal tools, the law requires a space and facility standard which is reasonably related to the need for the new facilities that the future residents will generate. In this latter instance or in any situation where there is a requirement or request for some widely accepted means for j ustifying the amount of land requested as well as the funds to develop the requested facilities, the LOS standard becomes an almost indispensable tool. There are several ways a community may go about arriving at an acceptable park and recreation space standard. For purposes of illustration, consider a hypothetical community called "Greenville USA." Preparing a LOS for ;;Greenville USA " Greenville is a community of 20,000 people. It is located in an agricultural and fores ted region about 15 miles from the entrance to a national parkway. A fairly wide river with a low, wet floodplain flows through the community. A part of the shoreline of a 500 acre lake is within the community. There are expensive lake front retirement homes located around the lake shoreline. The town has a large saw mill, a major flour mill , and the usual mix of commercial/retail and professional business. This is a delightful area in wruch to live and work. It has the quality of life that many high-tech companies are seeking for relocation and expansion sites. The town has 14 mini-parks located on l acre parcels in various neighborhoods, some with apartment complexes . Two other residential neighborhoods have neighborhood parks on 5 acre tracts. The town center neighborhood has a 15 acre community park, and an outlying, sparsely populated area has a 40 acre athletic complex. The flood plain of a stream flowing through town has bee n acquired over time and has been developed as a community greenway park which 70 provides several light traffic transportation alternatives, consistent with the flood plain hydraulics and environmental constraints. This floodplain is a major natural resource feature element within the community. There are large patches of upland forest within the community which drain through small creeks and streams . Together these features provide the major natural resource structuring elements within the community landscape. The parks receive reasonably heavy use ; however, the residents have begun to complain about all the tourists that use the town center park on the weekend. The town manager gets frequent calls from a resident complaining that the tennis courts seem to be constantly busy, which means many people don't have a chance to play. To further complicate matters, rumor has it that a major corporation is looking at several thousand acres adjacent to the city as the site for a new high-tech research park, electronic assembly plant, and housing development. Other developers have heard this and are shopping for available parcels to begin platting new subdivisions. The town is ready for a major growth surge . Greenville has never had an official comprehensive park and recreation plan. The existing sites were purchased by the town council as needed. These parks appeared to .be doing the job, so there was never a need to worry about justifying the expenditure of tax funds for the facilities . In the past, some state and federal grant money was used to add new playground equipment, lighting, a few new ball diamonds, and an athletic field. The town manager just did as he was instructed by the town council or as he intuited. Under current conditions, Greenville's Level of Service (LOS) is 79 acres per 20,000 people, or 3.95 acres per l,000 people. This LOS seems deficient when compared to the common "standard" of 10 acres per 1,000 people. But is it? Aside from the tennis court complaints, Greenville residents seem to be well served by their park, recreation and open space system. The larger question at this point is whether it is practical and economically feasible to maintain a higher standard in the future. What is a reasonable amount of land needed to provide an acceptable LOS within the fiscal and public policy paradigm of the future?. The problem is that while 3.95 acres per 1,000 people is below the "standard" of 10 acres per 1,000 people.there is no empirical base from which to link either LOS to needed facilities and areas. Each LOS carries with it social and economic costs . If, in the minds of the community, this amount of park land is doing the job, the standard in this context is adequate and imposes no economic or political burden on the community. If, on the other hand, the community is beginning to voice concern about frequent overcrowding and tum-aways at facilities, then ~erhaps the time has come to make some changes in the system . At this point, the town council could take several avenues to define what an acceptable future LOS for parks and recreation should be and what is the most effective and efficient way to deliver that service. They could intuitively decide that they would like the system-wide LOS to be 6 acres/I 000 population, because they believe this could deliver enough land on which to build their recreation facilities and offer their recreation programs . Another approach would be to seek assistance from the state outdoor recreation planner. This could result in a suggestion that similar communities throughout the state were able to deliver an acceptable level of park and recreation services with 3 acres/1000 people . Which is correct? 71 The answer is that LOS which best meets the needs of the present and future residents of Greenville and is achievable under the conditions which exist in the community now, and that can be reasonably expected to occur in the future. While we need visionary long-range planning, particularly to protect valuable natural and historical resources, we must also bear in mind that in highly dynamic communities the life cycle of a plan can be very short. There must be the ability to r~vise and redirect investments in resources, products and services on short notice in response to a calamity or window of opportunity. If the town council decides to look ahead at the potential new growth and put in place a planning system to deal with this growth, then the time has come to undertake a comprehensive park, recreation, and open space planning study. The park and recreation planner or consultant for Greenville could use the following procedure to calculate the LOS. The procedure uses simple numbers which can be obtained using the directions provided. This will generate reliable data for defining community needs and defending the costs to be incurred in implementing the LOS. The first task is to make an inventory of the existing recreation supply. This inventory should include all lands, waters and facilities which provide any kind of recreation. opportunity, and that are to be considered in the ultimate community LOS. Recreation demand for a small community like Greenville is calculated by ascertaining recreation use or activity participation through of a "menu" of park areas and facilities. Using the Recreation Activity Menu is the foundation upon which the subsequent steps are built. The LOS is derived in the following steps: 72 1. Determine the type of parks or Park Classifications for which LOS standards will apply. For example: Greenville Park Classifications Park Classifications Mini-Parks Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Athletic Complexes Natural Areas Preserves Historic District Parks Green ways Ornamental Features LOS will apply x x x x LOS will not apply x x x x 2. Determine typical Recreation Activity Menus for each park classification for which the LOS will apply. For example: Greenville Recreation Activity Menus By Park Classifications Activity Mini Neighborhood Community Athletic Tot Lot l 1 1+ Family Picnic 2 tables 5 tables 10 tables NIA Open Space 1/2 acre 3 acres 10 acres NIA Group picnic NIA NIA 2 shelters 5 shelters Outdoor Basketball NIA 1 court 2 courts 4 courts Outdoor Tennis NIA l court 4 courts 8 court complex Athletic Fields NIA NIA 2 baseball/football 5 softball Walking/Jogging NIA 1/4 mile 1 1/2 miles 2 miles Indoor Basketball NIA NIA 1 court 2 courts Indoor Crafts NIA NIA 2 rooms 4 rooms Indoor Fitness NIA NIA 2 rooms 3 rooms Auditorium NIA NIA NIA 1 Meeting Rooms NIA NIA 1 room l room Concessions NIA NIA NIA l+ Swimming Pool NIA NIA 1 community l olympic Maintenance Yard NIA NIA NIA 1 Parking NIA 5 spaces 150 spaces 400 spaces 3. Determine the Park Size Standards for each park classification for which the LOS will apply. For example, using our Greenville Park Classification, the park size standards are: Greenville Park Size Standards Park Classification Vest Pocket Parks Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Athletic Complexes Minimum Size 1 acre 5 acres 25 acres 40-80 acres 4. Determine the present Supply of each recreation activity. Expected Use (#Visits/Day/Unit) x Availability (#Days/Year/Unit) Recreation Facility Supply = (#Visits Available/Year/Unit) Example: Neighborhood Park Tot Lot 73 After reviewing attendance records, talking to park and recreation managers , and observing actual tot Jot use, it was determined that the expected use of a typical neighborhood tot Jot in Greenville is 49 visits per day . It was also determined through the same means that the availability of the tot Jot was 340 days per year. This means that the tot Jot was not available for 25 days duri ng the year due to bad weather and periodic preventive mainten ance . Therefore, recreation facility supply for the neighborhood tot Jot is : Expected Use= 49 Visits /Day/Tot Lot Av ailability = 340 Days/Year/Tot Lot 49 Vi s its/Day/Tot Lot x 340 Days/Year/Tot Lot= 16,660 Vi sits Available/Year/Tot Lot S. Determine the Demand for each recreation activity choice. Demand Formula: Recreation Participation (#Participants /Year/Unit ) x Participation Frequency (#Visits/Year/Unit) Sample Size = Recreation Facility Demand (#Vis it s Required/Person/Year/Unit) Example: N e ighborhood Park Tot Lot Greenville conducted a telephone survey interviewing 1,200 households containing 4,500 people. Ques tion s were as ked about activity participation and participation frequency in the menu of recreation choices for each person in the household . The survey used standard techniques appropriate for telephone sampling of a stratified random group. Based on the survey 's finding , 2,353 people enjoyed the use of neighborhood park tot lots during the year, averaging 15 v isits per year. Recreation facility demand for the neighborhood tot Jot i.s calculated as follows : 74 Recreation participation = 2,353 People/Year Participation Frequency = 15 Visits/Person/Year 2,353 People/Year x 15 People/Visits/Year = 4,500 People in Survey 7.84 Visits Required/Person/Year/Tot Lot 6. Determine the Minimum Population Service Requirement for each recreation activity choice. Minimum Population Servic e Formula : Recreation Facility Supply (#Visits Available/Yr/Unit) Recreation Facility Demand (#Visits Required/Person/Yr/Unit) = Minimum Population Service Requirements (Minimum Persons Served/Yr/Unit) Example: Neighborhood Park Tot Lot From our previous example, it was determined that Recreation Facility Supply= 16,660 visits available/year. It was also determined that Recreation Demand= 7 .84 visits required/person/year. Minimum Populations Service Requirement for the neighborhood park tot lot example is calculated as follow s: Recreation Facility Supply = 16,660 Visits Available/Year!Tot Lot Recreation Facility Demand = 7.84 Visits Req 'd/Person/Yr!Tot Lot 16,660 7 7.84 = 2,125 People Served/Year!Tot Lot 7. Determine the LOS for each Park Classification. Level of Service By Park Classification Formula: Park Acres/Classification 7 Total Population Served = LOS by Classification 1,000 People Example: Level of Service for Neighborhood Park The Recreation Activity Menu for a neighborhood park in Greenville includes a tot lot, family picnicking, open space, basketball court, and a walking/jogging path. The minimum population served for each of these activities are: Greenville Neighborhood Park Population Served Activity Tot Lot Family Picnic Basketball Court Walking/Jogging Path TOTAL SERVED Population Served 2,125 1,300 900 1,574 5,899 75 We have previously determined that the minimum size for a neighborhood park is 5 acres . The level of service for a neighborhood park is calculated as follows: Park acres/Classification = 5 acres Total Population Served = 5,889 people 5 acres .;. 5,899 People = 0 .85 acres/1 ,000 people 1,000 People 8. Determine the Total LOS for the entire Greenville Park and Recreation System. Total Park and Recreation System Level of Service Formula: LOS Class 1 + LOS Class 2 + LOS Class 3 + LOS Class 4 = Total Level of Service Example: Total Level of Service for Greenville. The LOS for each park class is calculated as follows: Greenville Park System Total Level of Service Park Class Mini + Neighborhood + Community + Athletic Complex TOTAL LOS LOS .52 acres/1000 people .85 acres/l 000 people .93 acres/1000 people .89 acres/1000 people = 3.19 acres/1000 people Having calculated a LOS of 3.19 acres/I 000 people based on actual demand for recreation activity in Greenville, it seems as though the city has , historically, provided slightly more park land than required at 3 .95 acres/1000 people. However, two points should be considered before decision-makers can determine the adequacy of the existing park and recreation system. First, the methodology used to calculate LOS is based on the minimum amount of land required to meet demand. Obviously Greenville could increase its LOS if it chooses to do so. Second, further analysis is needed to assess surplus and deficiency at the sub-area and park class levels . Using City Council Districts as hypothetical sub-areas, Table "B" illustrates how such an analysis can be simply done . Table "C" provides a comparison of LOS by Council Districts. 76 TABLE"B" Distribution of Park Acreage By Council District and Park Class Park Classifications Mini Park Neighborhood Park Community Park Athletic Complex Acreage Total Council Swplus/ Swplus Surplus/ Swplus/ Swplus/ District Population Exi sting Requiredl Deficiency Existing Required I Deficiency Exi sting Required I Deficiency Existing Requiredl Deficiency Exi sting Required I Deficiency (1) 6,000 8.00 3 .12 +4.88 5 .00 5 .10 -0.10 5.58 -5 .58 5.34 -5.34 13.00 19.14 -6 .14 (2) 4,500 2.34 -2.34 5 .00 3.82 +l.18 4.18 -4 .18 4.00 -4 .00 5.00 14.35 -9.35 (3) 5,000 4.00 2.60 +l.40 4 .25 -4 .25 15 .00 4 .65 +10.38 4.45 -4.45 19.00 15.95 +3.05 (4) 3,500 2.00 1.82 +0.18 2.97 -2 .97 3.25 -3.25 3.11 -3 .11 2.00 11.16 -9 .16 (5) 1,000 0.52 -0.52 0.85 -0 .85 0.93 -0.93 40.00 0.89 +39.11 40.00 3.16 +36 .84 TOTAL 20.000 14.00 10.40 +3.60 10.00 17.00 -7.00 15.00 18.60 -3.60 40.00 17.80 +22.20 79.00 63.80 +15.20 1 LOS MINI PARK = 0.52 ACRES/1000 people LOS Neighborhood Park = 0 .85 acres/1000 people LOS Commuity Park = 0 .93 acres/1000 people WS Athletic Complex = 0 .89 acres/1000 people LOS Total Park System = 3.19 acres/I 000 people TABLE "C" LOS By Council District L 0 S l Council District Existing Required (1) 2.16 ac/1000 people 3 .19 ac/1000 people (2) 1.11 ac/1000 people 3 .19 ac/1000 people (3 ) 3 .80 ac/1000 people 3 .19 ac/1000 people (4) 0.57 ac/1000 people 3 .19 ac/1000 people (5) 40.0 ac/1000 people 3.19 ac/1000 people ILOS Total Park System= 3.19 ac 1000/people Comparing the information presented in Table "B" and Table "C", a number of conclusions can be made : •As a whole, the Greenville community seems well served by its park and recreation system. • A disparity in the amount of park and recreation areas and facilitie s exists between Council Districts . A more balanced system would have better pari ty, at least meeting the m inimum LOS of 3 .19 acres/ 1000 population. Some consideration for additional open space opportunities should be made for Council Districts 1, 2, and 4. • There could be a better balance in the mix of park classifications serving the Council Districts. Each park class plays a distinct role in meeting recreation demand in Greenville; therefore, there should be some consideration of improving access to all park classifications within Council Districts. • Reviewing the surplus/deficiency of each park classification highlights four points. First, mini-parks are in surplus and may provide some opportunity for sale. Second, neighborhood parks are clearly in deficiency. Since our standard neighborhood park is five acres, at least one more park should be considered for acquisition; however, the distribution of these parks is important and may require more than one additional site to properly service all neighborhoods. Third, Greenville is slightly deficient in community park acreage. While this deficiency is not very large , the classifications's size standard for a community park is 25 acres . Assuming 25 acres is truly the proper size to adequately support the park's recreation activity menu, then an addition to the park should be considered. Finally, the surplus acreage in the Athletic Complex classification should not be of concern, because the minimum size specified for an Athletic Complex is 40 acres. Anything less would compromise the integrity of design, the quality of the recreation experience, and user safety. Greenville USA serves to illustrate how a community can Calculate LOS and analyze its park and recreation system 's surpluses and deficiencies. Going through this exercise has a number of very beneficial outcomes. 78 1. Defining the park and recreation system and its component parts . 2. Identifying minimum acreage required to adequately serve existing demand, which becomes a foundation for system growth and development. 3. Understanding supply and demand as it actually occurs . 4. Identifying current surpluses and deficiencies for the total park system, as well as for sub-areas such as neighborhoods and political districts , and for each park class . 5 . Identifying future surpluses and deficiencies using population projections . 6 . A better understanding of equity and efficiency in service delivery. Local Policies Affecting Park and Recreation Space Standard In addition to the minimum LOS, there may be a host of other community considerations which, although not easily quantifiable, are nonetheless important in planning the park and open space system of a community. These policy issues are unique to each community and must be considered in the light of local attitudes, values, economic conditions and historical precedents. After considering these issues the calculated LOS may be changed in order to more accurately reflect a LOS which community leaders can commit to. These examples of potential issues are presented as questions for consideration when taking a final look at the LOS for park and recreation land. • Will the park and recreation agencies be able to use public and private school property? Should the standard include this property? If school property is not available for open public use, the land should not be included in the park land inventory. • Will the inventory include public and private golf courses and country clubs? • Will the inventory include private recreational space within apartment complexes, planned units, cluster developments, and Planned Unit Developments? Will it include other innovative land developments, such as planned communities and new towns, where a substantial amount of the open space and recreation land is provided by the developer, to eventually be owned and operated by either a homeowners' association or the host community? • Will the inventory include private or voluntary agency lands, nature conservancies, environmental education facilities, boys and girls clubs, church groups, and similar resources? • Will the inventory include open space areas such as parkways, boulevards, plazas, cemeteries, municipal water supply reservoir lands and facilities, utility easements, botanical gardens, zoological gardens, historic sites, archaeological sites , etc .? • Will the inventory include land that is vacant but undeveloped, and which may or may not be used for recreation activities? • Will the inventory include public acreage outside the corporate boundary of the community that is managed and/or developed for conservation purposes and compatible active recreation? • Will the inventory express the perceptions, needs, and desires of citizens as gathered from a variety of public involvement forums? • Will the standard methodology provide for inventory and condition analysis of all existing parks and recreation facilities? • Will the standard methodology consider the travel-time to each park from the designated service area? • Will the standard consider demographic, social, cultural, ethnic , and economic profiles of the community by neighborhood or planning sector? • Will the standard consider local attitudes, traditions, customs, and participation characteristics? 79 • Will the standard recognize geographic location, including elevation and climatic considerations? • Will the inventory consider space within the boundary of parks that is undevelopable due to limited access, severe topography, or some other physical limitation? • Will the standard recognize new trends , patterns , and activities in recreation and leisure service pro_grams? • Will the standard consider the availability of public and private resources to support the park and recreation program? • Will the standard consider the distance and travel cost to regional, state, or national park and recreation areas that may have accommodated a substantial amount of local participation? • Will the standard consider the extent to which local facilities are used by non-local residents (tourists)? • Will the standard consider the extent to which non-neighborhood parks and recreation facilities are served by public transportation, particularly on the weekends and holidays? • Will the space standard consider optimum park design which is expressed as a ratio of facility space to support space for parking, pedestrian circulation, and comfort stations? The park and recreation planner should use these questions to focus information gathering about the community park and recreation space situation. The answers will clarify the scope of the area to be considered when developing the LOS standard. Inclusion or exclusion of certain categories of park and/or open space lands from the base line will have a significant effect on the data used in calculating the standard. In summary, the park and recreation professional should consider the following points: 1. Insure a credible base of participation data . Known deficiencies can often be mitigated by gathering information on related interests . Moreover, the broad categorical breakdown of activities, although necessary at the national level, should be focused more directly on variable activity experiences at the local level. 2. Identify all natural resources and features of the built environment that are considered recreation opportunities. 3. Analyze demographic factors. The impact of inflation, the growing number of two-income families , and the increase of single parent families must be included in a consideration of time and disposable family income available for leisure activities. 80 • The number of unemployed persons should be included when computing available leisure time. The leisure time of those employed is considerably different from the leisure time available to retired persons . • Age can no longer be presented as a community average. It is, to a large degree, determinant of activities , participation rates, and program/facility needs . Data on preschoolers, primary and secondary school children, young adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly persons are essential to any estimation methodology. Application of the LOS in Park and Recreation Space Planning The LOS represents the best empirically sound assessment of the minimum amount of land per 1000 population required to meet the park and recreation needs of a given population. Its primary utility is for calculating the amount of land and facilities a community needs to acquire and develop in order to avoid under-serving its residents . The LOS standard allows planners, budget and policy analysts, lenders, and others to evaluate the cost of providing new park land and recreation facilities. The LOS standard should not be used to compare one community with another, since even subtle differences can skew certain aspects of the participation and needs analysis . The LOS standard deals only with basic recreation and park space as related to population. Other factors such as park location, service area, size, accessibility, and facility mix must be left to local policy. If there is no need to justify the professional and public determination of what should constitute an appropriate amount of usable park land for a community, a standard or policy to guide the acquisition of land and development of facilities is not needed. There is no law that prohibits the elected body of a community from embarking on however ambitious a park, recreation, and open space program they choose. Many communities in the 1990s are experiencing an environmental renaissance and are voting large bond packages to purchase impressive amounts of park and open space lands. Future questions of development and maintenance cost as well as perceived under-utilization can focus attention on the need for a rational rather than intuitive standard. In those states where communities are permitted to use exactions or impact fees to shift forward the cost of new growth , the law requires that there be a rational nexus or relationship between the park and recreation needs generated and the cost of acquiring and developing the needed facilities . From the perspective of legislatures, courts, and developers, there is an interest in empirical as opposed to arbitrary derivations. Since the early 80s, the LOS standard has come into more widespread use as an integral part of local government exaction ordinances. Dedication, Exaction, and Impact Fees: Role of the LOS The local government fiscal crunch of the 1980s has changed the way most communities approach the financing of infrastructure for new development. The change is toward the use of mandatory dedication of park land, exaction of land or cash from the developer, or the imposition of a park and recreation impact fee. All of these approaches to financing the acquisition and development of new parks and recreation facilities have been upheld by the courts as being within the scope of the police power of local government. Each of these procedures represent a form of growth management, which is a means of introducing a high level of comprehensive systems management into the local government process. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, mandatory dedication of land for public parks, recreation and open space must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the required dedications and the impact of proposed development. Specifically, to avoid an 81 unconstitutional taking of private property, the Supreme Court has held that public entities are required to demonstrate a "roughly proportional" quantitative relationship between dedication requirements imposed on the individual property owner and the increased demands of the proposed development on the existing infrastructure (e.g ., traffic control, flood control, open space requirements.) See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994) As noted by the Supreme Court in Dolan, one of the principal purposes of the "Takings Clause" in the Constitution is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." In so doing, however, the Court acknowledged that "the authority of state and local governments to engage in land use planning has been sustained against constitutional challenge as long ago as our decision in Euclid v. Amble r Realty Co., 272 U.S . 365 (1956)." To withstand a constitutional challenge an "essential nexus," or connection, must exist between a legitimate state interest (such as adequate public parks , recreation, and open space for subdivisions) and the mandatory dedication requirements imposed by local government. Accordingly, when dedications , exactions and impact fees are challenged, courts will "determine whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the government's mandatory dedication requirements bear the required relation ship to the projected impact of the proposed development." As enunciated by the U. S. Supreme Court in Dolan, "a term such as 'rough proportionality' best encaps ulates what we hold to be the requirement of the Fifth Amendment." No precise mathematical calculation is required , but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development... The distinction, therefore , which must be made between an appropriate exercise of the public power and an improper exercise of eminent domain is whether the requirement has some reasonable relationship or nexus tot he use to which the property is being made or is merely being used as an excuse for taking property simply because at that particular moment the landowner is asking the city for some license or permit. [A] city may not require a property owner to dedicate private property for some future public use as a condition of obtaining a building permit when such future use is not occasioned by the construction sought to be permitted ... Some form of the reasonable relationship test has been adopted in many other jurisdictions ... requiring a showing of a reasonable relationship between the planned subdivision and the municipality's need for land ... Despite any semantical differences , general agreement exists among the courts that the dedication should have some reasonable relationship to the needs created by the development. In Dolan, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the city had not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle trips generated by the Dolan 's development reasonably related to the city 'requirement for a dedication of the pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement. As characterized by the Court, the City of Tigard had simply found that the creation of the pathway "could offset some of the traffic demand ... and lessen the increase in traffic congestion." 82 The findings of fact that the bicycle pathway system "could offset some of the traffic demand" is a far cry from a finding that the bicycle pathway system will, or is likely to, offset some of the traffic demand. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some effort to quantify its findin~s in support of the dedication for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway beyond the conclusory statement that it could offset some of the traffic demand generated. Cities have long engaged in the commendable task of land use planning, made necessary by increasing urbanization particularly in metropolitan areas such as Portland. The city's goals ofreducing flooding hazards and traffic congestion, and providing for public greenways, are laudable, but there are outer limits to how this may be done. A strong public desire to improve the public condition will not warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change. In adopting a "rough proportionality" standard , the U. S. Supreme Court, in Dolan, analyzed a number of state court decisions which had considered the constitutionality of various mandatory dedication schemes. In so doing, the Dolan Court found that "some form of this 'reasonable relationship ' test had been adopted by a majority of the state courts." It is not the purpose of this document to present a detailed treatise on procedures for establishing a "reasonable relationship". Rather, the following will explain the importance of the Level of Service standard in this process. The prevailing court test to uphold the use of these procedures is the rational nexus test. This is a two part test which says that, first, there must be a reasonable connection between growth in the community and the requirement or need for additional park and recreation facilities to serve the projected new growth; and second, there must be a connection between the expenditure of the fees (including the use of dedicated land) collected from the new development and the park and recreation benefits this development will enjoy. Impact fees, which are a form of exaction, must satisfy three legal tests in order to be used. (1) Procedural due process-the procedure for establishing the fee must be satisfied in four ways : a. There must be explicit state enabling legislation which in clear language gives local governments the authority to establish an impact fee program. b. There should be home rule powers to cities, counties, townships, and villages which provide broad authority to local govenrments to set fees and charges for local services. c. A local government is given the police power by the state, which requires that it take appropriate measures to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. The requirement that new development pay for a fee to share in the cost of new public facilities is a responsibility under the police power. d. Authority is granted by the state legislature to set utility rates for servcies such as water, sewer, and storm water drainage . (2) Equal protection-the land development and growth managem·ent codes of local governments are required to treat similarily situated persons equally. With impact fees, this means that the fees must be applied to all parties in the same manner. To meet the equal protection requirement two common features are necessary: 83 a. The impact fee must not be applied in an arbitrary manner. That means one class of future homebuyers cannot be singled out for higher impact fees than another similarly situated group of developers. The impact fee cannot be arbitrairly applied to one class of development and not other similar classes of development. The federal government, state or even local governments can exempt certain classes of new housing such as that defined as "affordable housing". b. There must be a nexus between the impact fee and a valid public purpose. If the legislature or a court determines that the provision of parks, recreation and open space is a valid public purpose, then the rationally related requirement of the equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment has been satisfied. (3) The "taking" test-the Fourth Amendment dictates that private property will not be taken by the government without affording the property owner just compensation . An impact fee could become so onerous so as to constitute a regulatory taking, if the exaction requirement leaves the landowner with no way to economically develop the property from which the impact fee was exacted. Unlike dedications or exactions, impact fees require no land, only a prescribed fee per dwelling unit or development lot. Essentially it is up to the property owner to determine that a "reasonable" impact fee for parks and recreation, just as with sewers or roads , is so unreasonable as to financially doom the property. [Nelson, Urban Lawyer Vol. 26 No. 3, Summer 1994] The comprehensive park, recreation, and open space plan is required to show that projected community growth will result in the asserted need for new or expanded facil ities that any one or a combination of the approved exactions will finance . The most important factor in attributing park and recreation improvement costs to new development is the facility or service standard to be used, and the determination of the proportionate cost of the construction of these facilities. The comprehensive plan also should show that the prospective new residents will use many other community-wide park and recreation resources and facilities, thereby creating impacts which in the aggregate represent overcrowding and loss of recreational opportunities. Therefore, the rational nexus test for parks and recreation can be expanded beyond the neighborhood park to community and regional parks where additional user pressures will occur and additional park and recreation capacity will be needed. The key variable in this equation is the LOS. Implicit in the concept of qual ity service to be delivered for the fees paid is that there is an amount of land distributed through the new development and the host community according to a rational plan . Within each category of park, there will be a certain number of facilities needed to satisfy the recreational needs of the new and existing residents. The community, through a comprehensive planning process, should establish an explicit Level of Service (LOS) for the entire system. As presented in the methodology, this LOS is expressed in terms of acres per 1000 residents . The park and recreation planners can then use this standard to determine future park land requirements and facilities in proportion to the forecast future population, at a desired level of quality. 84 For example, if the LOS is five acres per 1000 population and the community is projected to increase in population by 40,000 people over the next 10 years, the cornn1unity would have to add an additional 200 acres of park land, or 20 acres per year, and the full complement of facilities needed to provide the stated level of service. The community may decide to pass all or only a portion of the cost of this required addition to the park and recreation system on to the new development. Keep in mind the decision as to how the needed land and facilities is to be paid for is a capital improvement policy decision to be made by the governing body of the community. What happens if after the community adopts a new park land standard it is determined that it falls short of meeting this standard across the community? Can the community rely on exactions and impact fees to resolve this deficiency? The answer is no. The new park land standard can be applied prospectively to new development. The community will have to rely on its general fund, general obligation bonds, economic development special sales tax funds and state and federal grants to remedy any spatial and recreation facility deficiencies that result in any developed areas of the community. The key is to show how these deficiencies will be eliminated without imposing any of the remedial cost on the new development. If all existing development is assessed at the same rate for the same purpose, then following the correct procedure for computing the fee or exaction, the new development will be held accountable only for the needed park land and recreation facilities attributable to it. The next task is to determine how much the facilities for each type of park are expected to cost. This can be done be going to the menu of facilities for each type of park. From this the planners can list the basic components of each park to determine the cost of constructing the park in the base year (the first year the exaction or impact fee goes into effect). Ideally the development cost should include the land cost, unless the community does not choose to pass the development cost forward . If the development cost includes the park land, then this cost is divided by the projected population to get the per capita cost. This figure can be multiplied by the average household size for the community to get the exaction for a proposed development. This figure can be adjusted based on the housing styles and densities so that, for example, in a development of large homes with more bedrooms the fee can be calculated to reflect the actual population density. The formula can include provisions for credits for developer contributions, provided these contributions meet the land and facility standards in the plan. When calculating exactions and impact fees, new development must be credited for any tax revenues it will generate in the future as well as for tax payments, such as property taxes, that have been paid on the vacant property in the past. This approach to calculating the exaction connects the primary need and impact to the neighborhood park; that is, the park that will most likely be used by the new residents. If the user survey can show how park use is distributed throughout the community, and that a sizable amount of future use will take part in other areas, then it is possible to build into the fee a proportional per capita cost to help the community expand and improve its community and metropolitan parks. This fee may be only for facility improvement, with the funds for land acquisition corning from non-fee funds. 85 The economic and legal requirements for using exaction and impact fees are extremely technical. For a community having no prior experience with these procedures, it is advisable to seek the assistance of a qualified consultant to develop the formulas , the manual, and the ordinances needed to comply with state enabling statutes or with court-established rules or procedures which need to be used in a specific jurisdiction. The most important consideration in the analysis of an exaction or impact fee policy is to be sure that it will cover the new development'sfair share of the cost of new park land and development. In order to be on solid ground when drawing up such a policy and cost shifting program, it is absolutely imperative that the community have a current state-of-the-art comprehensive park, recreation and open space systems plan. This plan will set forth the rationale for documenting current recreation trends, citizen-expressed needs, user pressure on existing recreation capacity, quality of the existing land and facilities, and the best menu of facilities for each type of park within the system. Policies dealing with the 'best type of site for the different kinds of parks, the service area for each type of park, if the neighborhood or other type of park should be developed in conjunction with the neighborhood or even a middle school site, and the facility mix for the different kinds of parks, should be set forth in the plan. Since the late 1980s there has been an intense national debate over the use o f impact fees for all kinds of in frastructure cost shifting in public finance . Impact fees, exactions, and mandatory dedication are only part of the infrastructure financing pie. One alternative is referred to as the pay-as-you-go approach. Rather than impose the entire cost up front on the developer or new homebuyer, the local government uses a form of taxing to spread that cost over many years. Also, many communities have recently increased the sales tax where many of the taxpayers are nonresidents and used the new tax money to lower the property tax rate. Some of the more frequantly mentioned pay-as-you-go approaches to infrastructure funding are : 86 1. Special Assessment or Special Use Districts. These districts can be established individually or under a generic state enabling statute. Once established, the district levies a tax which begins the flow of revenue. Bonds can then be sold based on the future appreciation of the property tax base within the district. The district boundaries are determined by the development area and do not have to conform to muinicipal , county, township or village boundaries . The only problem is that the funds roll in slowly and, unless the community can sell bonds or borrow money from commerc ial institutions, the prospect of not having the funds to pay for park land and recreation improvements can actually deter provision of the resource . 2. User Fees . Traditionally, park and recreation user fees were used to pay a portion of the cost of recreation programs and services. Typically the fees and charges were based on an agency or city commission promulgated cost recovery policy. While·this method is said to equalize the costs and benefits, it cannot generate the funds needed for large capital projects . 3. Reserves. Reserves are those surplus funds in a local government coffer that are either intentionally built up for the so called "rainy day", or accrue because the budget requirements were less than the revenues collected. By having sufficient reserves, a community does not have to try to sell bonds or borrow capital improvement funds . Reserves are difficult to project and even more difficult to protect from the rapidly growing army of "Taxpayer Watchdog" groups . One way to overcome this may be for the local town council to explain to the citizens that capital reserves can work to keep future tax increases to a minimum, while at the same time providng the park and recreation resources necessary to meet the LOS adopted by the community. 4. Advance Acquisition of Park and Open Space Land. In this approach a community maps out its future park, recreation and open space land through the comprehensive planning process . It then goes about negotiating with landowners to purchase the property at a fair price, ideally before land boom prices begin to rise. This approach can work to the advantage of developers and new residents by assuring that the parks and greenways will be there to increase property valuesand make new subdivisions more attractive to homebuyers. 5. Debt Financing . This method essentially requires a community to sell bonds or otherwise borrow money to be repaid from an annual automatic lien on the general fund. Or a community can pay for its infrastructure in the same way a person borrows the money to purchase a new home. In both instances the capital need is immediate and high, the equity appreciation reasonably assured, and the monthly or annual principal and interest payments generally fixed. Like all forms of infrastructure financing there are some disadvantages and risks. One major risk is voter aversion to approving bond issues which mean an increase in their property taxes . 6. Lease-purchase Contracts. These contracts allow a community to begin to use a tract of land while acquiring all of the money needed to acquire the proper:ty. Sometimes the lease fee is higher than the interest on bonds; however, it does provide a means to convince citizens that unless the community comes up with the money to purchase the land the recreation opportunities enjoyed on the land will be foregone. 7. Revolving Loan Fund. Under this approach a state may divert a percentage of a major revenue producer such as the alcoholic beverage tax or the lotto earnings into a revolving open lands fund. Local governments can borrow from the fund at a lower interest rate than the commercial money markets. A revolving fund can provide "cash in a flash" for a community which must move quickly to purchase a critical tract of park or open space land before it is lost to the bulldozer. 8. Bond Banks. Under this approach a state legislature establishes the legal authority within the state treasury. The treasury can buy up the small bond issues of participating local governments and in tum sell these in very large and attractive packages on the national and international markets. 87 Aside from using the LOS standard to guide the financing of park and recreation facilities in new development, the LOS standard can be a valuable tool to examine the community to determine where past deficiencies can be corrected through a capital improvement program. Economic Impact Assessment of the LOS The issue of system-wide equity as influenced by the LOS standard will be discussed later in this section. The park and recreation department should use this standard not simply to argue for more land and facilities . As has been stated, the LOS standard implies a high level of quality in the resources and facilities offered community residents. W.ith concerted effort, most deficiencies can be corrected in a few years unless there is severe pressure on the community fiscal resources. The 1990s appear to be the decade of continued tax revenue shortfalls, weakening property tax bases, and desire on the part of cost sensitive elected and appointed officials to manage the long term cost of capital intensive public infrastructure. Parks and recreation often are closely scrutinized because of what many short-sighted developers say is the removal of costly acres from their development plats. Many cities (Lansing, Michigan for example) require an economic impact assessment to accompany any appropriation request for major capital improvements . An economic impact assessment looks at several variables: • The cost of land acquisition . • The loss of potential tax revenue from the land if developed juxtaposed with value enhancement recapture of tax revenue from lands positively impacted by the park. • The cost of land improvement, construction, and maintenance of the facility over its economic life. Maintenance costs can be developed from accepted park maintenance standards. Costs are aggregated by acre for various levels of maintenance of grounds and by unit for maintenance regimes for various park facilities. C~nstruction cost guidebooks are available in many states through the state parks and recreation department. • The social and economic costs to the community from the loss of community enhancements directly attributable to the availability of parks and recreation. The tourism industry has the potential to generate additional property and sales taxes to help finance the development, operations, and maintenance of the park and recreation program. Tourists often use park and recreation resources and facil ities as well as enjoy lei sure services programs and site amenities financed by the local community. Such enhancements include lower crime rates, improved health and well being, increased worker productivity, and appreciation of property values. It is possible, when necessary, to cost out against future benefits the results of increasing an existing LOS or adopting a new standard upon which to build a future park and recreation system. Throughout many regions of the country, the watch word of the 1990s will be growth management. Many states have in place complex local government, regional, and state-wide environmental land and water planning laws. Most notable in Florida is the concurrency 88 requirement, which requires local governments to demonstrate the ability to develop a certain level of public infrastructure prior to permitting additional growth. The LOS standard sets an additional cost of new infrastructure which must be financed totally or in part by the new growth. The LOS for parks and recreation becomes an important consideration in this process . Too low a standard can mean a severe deficiency in land and LOS Implications for Growth Management facilities not only in newly developing areas but also in in-fill areas. Unless exempted by state and/or federal law, too high a standard, when not appropriately shored up by capital improvement funds , can impose a sometimes oppressive financial burden on the cost of new housing, particularly on those products designated as affordable housing. Where questions of site location, school-park partnerships, and facility equity arise, the LOS standard can be used as a reliable planning and resource allocation tool. The standard takes the guesswork and arbitrariness out of projecting future park land and recreation facility requirements. Because of the procedure used to calculate the standard, there is a credibility which arises from the direct linkage to citizens who will eventually use the park and recreation facilities. Their needs and demands are real and, when authoritatively and rationally documented, it is difficult for the courts or the public to ignore the message implicit in the standard. An arbitrary number may be more aspirational than achievable, yet every organization needs to set lofty goals. A well documented LOS which is needs based, facilities. driven, and land measured can serve as a benchmark of public accountability when a community suffers the social and economic ills of a deficient park and recreation system. It has been suggested that park and recreation exaction or impact fees impose a significant financial burden on the cost of new housing, specifically that portion of the new housing market which is characterized as affordable housing. The simple fact is that all costs of public infrastructure which are borne in part or entirely by the new residents will have some impact on the cost of a development lot and ultimately a new home. It has been shown that in the majority of instances the park and recreation impact fees generally add no more than one percent to the cost of a new home spread out over a thirty year VA , FHA or conventional mortgage. Interest rates, developer mark-up and raw land costs do come into play when the per housing unit proportion of all of the impact fees, not just the park and recreation fees, are analyzed. Both the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and some states exempt housing in certain cost ranges from local government exactions and impact fees. Unfortunately, these exemptions are not covered by state and federal funds, leaving the local government to bear the burden of assuming all of the costs of the new infrastructure required to service the affordable housing. This may place some burden on the existing tax base; however, if the community has a strong commercial or other tax base, these costs should not disproportionately burden existing home qwners. Growth management is essentially a mechanism to guide urban and regional growth in balance with a planned, funded, developed, and managed infrastructure. Because of the financing systems used to pay for future growth, those paying the higher front end costs often seek the 89 path of least expensive resistance . To offset this, a defensible standard which can be perceived as fair and equitable will not be opposed with the same intensity as an ad hoc standard which may be perceived as linked to an excessive fiscal burden. Parks and recreation are an important part of the community fabric. When growth is occurring in a frenzy, there is no room to make short-sighted mistakes which can cost future residents their fair share of the community park and recreation system. A LOS locked into the financing system of the growth management planning policies can assure that at least the minimum park acreage and recreation fa cilities will be available for those who otherwise might be denied these resources. The LOS and the School-Park Concept Throughout the history of urban parks in America, many communities have worked with the local public education department to develop neighborhood school-park adjacent to elementary schools. Some time in the 1950s, the concept of the neighborhood school-park facility appeared in the literature and lexicon of the park and recreation profession. This coincided with a fundamental concept in American city planning that the focal point of the residential neighborhood would be an elementary school and an adjacent neighborhood park. This idea makes good sense because it can result in cost savings for both the school agency and the park and recreation department, not only in land acquisition but often in facility development costs. Where school and park agencies have a long history of compatible working relationships, it is possible to design a school build ing with part of the structure serving as a small neighborhood recreation center which includes restrooms , a feature not commonly found in neighborhood parks. When conducting the park land inventory from which the LOS standard will eventually be calculated, the question invariably arises as to how public school lands should be treated. In the majority of instances, if the school and park land were jointly acquired, and by policy are considered a single tract for unrestricted public recreation, the entire tract is counted as a neighborhood park for purposes of park and recreation planning. In contrast, where the school land is either fenced or otherwise not available for unrestricted public use, then the land, even if adjacent to park land or across the street from a neighborhood or community park, should not be included in the park land inventory. If this land is counted, it will skew the eventual standard on the low side. The most immediate and direct benefit of using the school-park concept comes when the park department and school agency acquire sites for new neighborhood school-parks . Each agency will independently determine its minimum land requirement for their respective facilities. For example, if the minimum size of a neighborhood park is 10 acres and the minimum size parcel for a neighborhood school containing grades K through six is five acres, then the site to be either reserved, purchased or exacted would be 15 acres. This may or may not be judged to be too large when perhaps a 12 acre site properly configured would adequately 'meet the needs of the school for physical education and of the neighborhood for a multipurpose neighborhood park and/or playfield. 90 Where school land is located adjacent to a developed neighborhood park and remaining land is left untouched as part of an environmental area, the school may be able to use the environmental open space for ecology studies as part of an outdoor learning program. Where the landscape provides such opportunities, it makes good fiscal, land use, educational, and recreational sense to combine school and park sites . Another benefit of this concept is that the school attendance zone and the service radius or service district for the neighborhood park will include the same number of dwelling units and thus the same population. The only difference is that the school facility sizing standard will be based on a multiplier which converts average family size based on average housing square footage to number of pupils. The park and recreation department will use the same population density to develop the ratio of residents to the amount of land required to satisfy the LOS standard. The Level of Service serves as an allocation mechanism for the delivery of park land and basic recreation facilities throughout a community. By LOS and Equity Implications adoption of such a standard, a community in essence says that all citizens, regardless of the taxes they pay or the use they will make of the services provided, will have an equal opportunity to share in the basic menu of services implicit in the standard and accompanying spatial distribution and allocation policies. If the LOS standard is so many acres per 1000 population, with a basic menu of facilities for each category of park, then in each planning district or service area throughout the community, each resident should have a park of equal size and quality at the same distance from his residence. The Level of Service standard becomes the stated minimum level below which the quantity (land and facilities) should not fall. In calculating the LOS, it is important to understand that the "demand" for park and recreation resources and services cannot be the basis for determining equity. Parks and recreation administrators should carry o ut departmental equity policies which should be contained in the comprehensive master plan. This plan should be the policy guide for the department and should be adopted by the park and recreation board or commission and the elected governing body of the community. The LO S deals with both land and facilities and as such is an expression of the minimum level of park and recreation services to be delivered to every resident of a community. The LOS should not be influenced by efficiency criteria to the point at which equity is impaired . This could raise fourteenth amendment concerns . The LOS is a pub lic sector responsibility which is driven by public policy and achieved with public funding. Public-private partnerships which enable the public sector to deliver more services at a lower cost per participant are consistent with public sector responsibilities and could facilitate the achievement of community park and recreation equity. Within parks and recreation delivery systems, the delivery goals of public agencies differ considerably from those of private providers. As Professors Crompton and Lamb note "One of the distinguishing characteristics of public service provision is its potential for ameliorating the extreme inequities produced by the operation of the private sector. If market equity was 91 completely adopted, then individuals and groups deprived by the operation of the private sector would be disadvantaged by the public sector as well." [Crompton and Lamb (1983) Journal of Macromarketing p. 31] Therefore it would be inappropriate and impractical to use the private market equity model in the delivery of park and recreation services. The market model is commonly used where services are perceived to be discretionary and exhibit characteristics of the private sector. In the plan for achieving equity the LOS should reflect an equal opportunity to use the basic park and recreation services provided from the general fund. Inherent in the LOS are the concepts of fairness and equity. If all of the basics are defined in the comprehensive plan and uniform throughout the community, then there can be some differences in certain facilities, programs or services based on the need or "demand" of the residents in a particular service area. For example, if there is a community-wide need for swimming and the community can only afford one swimming facility, a reasonable approach would be to locate the new facility in a "central park", where it is available equally to all residents . It may not be fair that some residents live closer to the facility than others or some have personal transportation and others do not. The latter situation could possibly be solved by providing public transportation from neighborhood parks or schools during the swimming pool season. In order to achieve equity, there must be not only equal opportunity, but also equal access to all areas and facilities within the system. The parks must be equally safe and capable of delivering equal quality. In reality, the use of the LOS as part of a growth management program can.Place a burden on a community 's fiscal resource base. When the LOS is used as the rationale for determining the amount of land and facilities to be exacted from developers, the law requires that the minimum park acreage and facilities are in place as part of the infrastructure development in the new development. An important consideration here is that past, present, and new residents have all paid a share of the cost of the land for the new parks and recreation facilities . A problem arises when the LOS is applied to existing residential areas where there may not be the park land and facilities that are available in the newly developing areas. The problem becomes more complicated if the community attempts to provide for housing developments on undeveloped or cleared land inside the outer fringes of new development. This is commonly referred to as the process of in-fill. Achieving absolute equity may not always be practical. There are, however, ways that equity can be achieved based on a newly calculated LOS. In some instances, it may require a community to spend capital improvement funds to either enlarge existing parks by purchasing adjacent properties, or by enlarging and upgrading existing facilities such as a community or recreation building in an existing park . In this way, residents in the service area of such a park would have equal park and recreation resources as other residents of the community. In areas where infi ll is being encouraged, the prospective new population (to be determined by the allowed zoning density of the infill area) will determine the standard with respect to the amount of park land needed. 92 Classifications for Parks, Open Space, and Greenways The following classifications are intended to be used as guidelines at the local level. The revised classifications for parks, recreation areas, and open spaces expand upon past classifications to take into consideration local community needs . The key area of change in this regard is the inclusion of park-school sites, athletic fields, private park/recreation facility, natural resource area/preserve, and greenways classifications. The classification system .recommended for pathway facilities is completely new and reflects the need to plan for these facilities in a comprehensive fashion. Pathways accommodate lightweight, slower moving, and non-motorized forms of transportation. Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Facilities Classification The intent of the pathway classifications is to encourage communities to plan for light traffic facilities in the same comprehensive fashion that is recommended for parks, open spaces, community land uses, and motorized transportation systems. From this system-wide planning perspective, a comprehensive light traffic system will emerge that is intrinsically tied to the park, open space, and general land use/transportation system within a city, as well as adjacent communities and regions. Figure 4.1 -Range of Need for Pathways identifies the broad range of uses and skill levels that the pathways seek to accommodate. Figure 4.1 Range of Need for Greenway Facilities Potential Range of Need: Recreation • Commuting/ Alternative Transportation Health and Fitness • Nature Study• Social Interaction Potential Skill Level (Bicyclists) Group A -Advanced Bicyclists: Experienced riders who can operate under most traffic conditions. They comprise the majority of current users of collector and arterial streets and are best served by directness, minimal delays, and sufficent operating space . Group B -Basic Bicyclists: Casual or new adult and teenage bicycli sts who are le ss confident of their ability to operate without special provisions for bicycles. Some will develop greater skills and progress to the advanced level. They are best served by comfortable access to destinations (preferably a direct route), low-speed or low-traffic volume streets, or designated bicycle facilities . Group C -Children : Pre-teen bicyclists whose roadway use is initall y monitored by parents . They are best served by access to key destinations surrou nding neighborhood areas (schools, recreation facilities , shopping), residential streets with low traffic speeds and volumes, well-defined seperation from motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets and seperate bike paths . Sources: Manual: Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists (FHWA-RD-92-073), Federal Highway Administration and Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 93 The following table provides an overview of the classifications for parks, recreation areas open space, and pathways. Parks, Open Space, and Pathways Classifications Table Parks and Open Space Classifications Classlflcation General Description Location Criteria Size Criteria Application of LOS Mini-Park Used to address limited, isolated Less than a 1/4 Between 2500 Yes or unique recreational needs . mile distance in sq . ft . and one resident ial setting. ac re in size Neighborhood Park Neighborhood park remains the basic unit 1/4 to 1/2 mile distance 5 acres is Yes of the park system and serves as the and ininterrupted by considered recreational and social focus of the non-res idential roads minimum size. neighborhood. Focus is on informal active and other physical 5 to 10 acres and pass ive recreation . barriers . is optimal. School-Park Depending on circumstances, combin ing Determined by location Variable-<lepends Yes-but parks with school sites can fullill the space of school district on function should not requirements for other classes of parks , property . count school such as ne ighborhood , community , only uses . sports comp lex , and specia l use. Community Park Serves broader purpose than neighborhood Determined by the As needed to Yes park . Focus is on meeting community-based quality and suitability accommodate recreation needs, as well as preserving of the site . Usually desired uses. unique landscapes and open spaces . serves two or more Usually between neighborhoods and 30 and 50 acres . 1/2 to 3 mi le distance . Large Urban Park Large urban parks serve a broader purpose Determined by the As needed to Yes than community parks and are used when quality and suitability accommodate commun ity and neighborhood parks are not of the site . Usually des ired uses . adequate to serve the needs of the community . serves the entire Usually a minimum Focus is on meet ing community-based community . of 50 acres , with 75 recreational needs , as well as preserving or more acres being unique landscapes and open spaces. optimal. Natural Resource Lands set aside for preservat ion ol signilicant Resource availab ility Variable . No Areas natural resources , remnant landscapes , and opportunity . open space , and visual aesthetics/buffering . Greenways Effectively tie pa rk system components Resource availabi lity Variable. No together to form a continuous park and opportunity . environment. Sports Comp lex Conso li dates heavily programmed athletic Strategically located Determ ined by Yes fields and assoc iated facilities to larger and community-wide projected demand . fewer sites strateg ically located throughout facilities . Usually a minimum the commun ity . of 25 acres, with 40 to 80 acres being optimal. Special Use Covers a broad range of parks and Variable-<lependent Variable . Depends on recreation fac iliti es oriented toward on specilic use . type of use . single-purpose use. Private Park I Parks and recreation facil ities that are Variable-dependent Var iable . Depends on Recreation Fac ili ty privately owned yet contribute to the on specific use. type of use. public park and recreation system . 94 Parks, Open Space, and Pathway Classifications Table (cont.) Pathway Classifications Classlflcalion Park Trail Connector Tra ils On-Street Bikeways All-Terrain Bike Trail Cross-Country Ski Tra il Equestrian Tra il Mi ni-Park General Description Description of Each Type Application of LOS Multipurpose trails located within Type I: Seperate/sing le-purpose Not Applicable . greenways , parks, and natural resource hard-surfaced trails for pedestrians areas . Focus is on recreational value or bicyclists I in-line skaters . and harmony with natural environment. Type II : Mu ltipurpose hard -surfaced trails for pedestrians and bicycl ists/ in -li ne skaters . Type Ill : Nature trails for pedestrians. May be hard-or soft-surfaced . Multipurpose trails that emphasize safe Type I: Seperate/sing le-purpose Not Applicab le. travel for pedestrians to and from parks hard -surfaced trails for pedestrians or and around the community. Focus is as bicyclists/in-li ne skate rs~ much on transportalion as ~ is on recreation . independent r.o .w. (e .g., old railroad r.o.w.) Type II : Separate/si ngle-purpose hard-surfaced trails for pedestrians or bicyclists/in-line skate rs. ~ located with in road r.o,w, Paved segments of roadways that serve Bike Route : Designated port ions of the Not Appl icab le. as a means to safely separate bicyclists roadway for the preferential or from vehicular traffic . exclusive use of bicyc lists. Bike Lane : Shared portions of the roadway that provide separat ion between motor vehicles and bicyclists , such as paved shoulders . Off-road trail for all-terrain (mountain) bikes . Single -purpose loop trails usually Not Applicab le. located in larger parks and natural resource areas . Trails developed for traditional and Loop trails usually located in la rger parks Not Applicable . skate-style cross-country skiing . and natural resource areas . Trai ls developed for horseback riding . Loop trails usually located in larger parks Not Applicable . an d natural resource areas . Sometimes developed as multip urpose with hik ing and all-terrain biking where conflicts can be controlled. General Description: Mini-park is the smallest park classification and is used to address limited or isolate recreational needs . Examples include: Used to address li mited or isolated recreational needs. • Concentrated or limited populations. • Isolated development areas . • Unique recretional opportunities. 95 In a residential setting, vest-pocket parks serve the same general purpose as mini-parks and totlots of the past. They are also intended to address unique recreational needs, such as: • Landscaped public use area in an industrial/commercial area. • Scenic overlooks. • A play area adjacent to the downtown shopping district. Although the past classification mini-park was often oriented toward active recreation, the new classification vest-pocket park has a broader application that includes both active and passive uses. Examples of passive uses includes picnic areas , arbors , and sitting areas. Location Criteria: Although demographics and population density play a role in location, the justification for a Vest-Pocket Park lies more in servicing a specific recreational need or taking advantage of a unique opportunity. Given the potential variety of vest-pocket park activities and locations, service area will vary. In a residential setting, however, the service area is usually less than a 1/4 mile in radius . Accessibility by way of interconnecting trails, sidewalks, or low- volume residential streets increases use opportunities and therefore is an important consideration. Size Criteria: Typically, vest-pocket parks are between 2500 square feet and one acres in size. However, park areas less that 5 acres would technically be considered a mini-park. Anything larger would be considered a neighborhood park. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: Servicing a specific recreation need , ease of access from the surrounding area, and linkage to the community pathway system are key concerns when selecting a site . The site itself should exhibit the physical characteristics appropriate for its intended uses. It should have well-drained and suitable soils with positive drainage. The desirable amount of topographical change and vegetation is dependent upon intended uses . Usu ally, these sites are fairly level. Vegetation (natural or planted) should be used to enhance its aesthetic qualities rather than impede development. Ideally, it should also have adjacency to other park system components, most notably greenways and the trail system. ,·: Development Parameters/Recreation Activity Menus: Customer input through the customer input process should be the primary determinant of the development program for a vest-pocket park. Although these parks often included elements similar to that of a neighborhood park, there are no specific criteria to guide development of facilities. Given their size, they are typically not intended to be used for programmed activities. Parking is typically not required . Site lighting should be used for security and safety. 96 SITE PLAN SOLUTION 1 0 10 20 30 40 IM -I ~ w :::> z w ~ >-w z 0 Ci5 I SITE PLAN SOLUTION 2 0 10 20 30 40 IM -I w :::> z w ~ >-w z 0 Ci5 Figure 4.2 Mini-Park EXISTING SHOPS GREEN STREET i !! DJ. GREEN STREET ( {Q! l ( (Q}} Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department 97 Neighb orhood Park Neighborhood parks remain the bas ic unit of the p ark system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. General Description: Neighborhood parks remain the basic unit of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They should be developed for both active and passive recreation activities geared specifically for those living within the service area . Accommodating a wide variety of age and user groups, including children, adults, the elderly, and special populations, is important. Creating a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site with that of the neighborhood is vital to successful design. Location Criteria: A neighborhood park should be centrally located with in its service area, which encompasses a 1/4 to 1/2 mile distance uninterrupted by non-residential roads and other physical barriers. These distances might vary depending on development diversity. The site should be accessible from throughout its service area by way of interconnecting trails, sidewalks, or low-volume residential streets . Ease of access and walking distance are critical factors in locating a neighborhood park . A person's propensity to use a neighborhood park is greatly reduced if they perceive it to be difficult to access or not within a reasonable walking distance. Frequently neighborhood parks are developed adjacent to the elementary school. Size Criteria: Demographic profiles and population density within the park's service area are the primary determinants of a neighborhood park's size . Generally, 5 acres is generally accepted as the minimum size necessary to provide space for a menu of recreation activities. 7 to 10 acres is considered optimal. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: Ease of access from the surrounding neighborhood, central location, and linkage to greenways are the key concerns when selecting a site. The site itself should exhibit the physical characteristics appropriate for both active and passive recreational uses . Since one of the primary reasons people go to a park is to experience a pleasant outdoor environment , the site should exhibit some innate aesthetic qualities . "Left-over" parcels of land that are undesirable for development are generally undesirable for neighborhood parks as well and should be avoided. Additionally, it is more cost effective to select a site with inherent aesthetic qualities, rather than trying to create them through extensive site development. Given the importance of location, neighborhood parks should be selected before a subdivision is platted and acquired as part of the development process . The site should have well-drained and suitable soils and level topography. Ideally, it should be connected to other park system components such as natural resource areas , lakes, ponds, and greenways. Land within a flood plain should only be considered if the facilities are constructed above the 100 year flood elevation. Although a minimum park size of 5 acres is recommended, the actual size should be based on the land area needed to accommodate desired uses. Development Parameters/Recreation Activity Menus: Since each neighborhood in a community is unique, neighborhood input should be used to determine the development 98 program for the park. The guidelines presented here should be used as a framework to guide program development and ensure consistency with other park system components . They should not be used as an impediment to creative design outcomes. Development of a neighborhood park should seek to achieve a balance between active and passive park uses. Active recreational facilities are intended to be used in an informal and unstructured manner. With the exception of limited use by youth teams, neighborhood parks are not intended to be used for programmed activities that result in overuse, noise, parking problems, and congestion. A menu of potential active recreation facilities includes play structures, court games, "informal" (i.e. non-programmed) playfield or open space, tennis courts, volleyball courts, shuffleboard courts, horseshoe area, ice skating area, wading pool, and activity room. Facilities for passive activities include internal trails (that could connect to the greenway system), picnic/sitting areas, general open space, and "people watching" areas. As a general rule, active recreational facilities should consume roughly 50% of the park's acreage. The remaining 50% should be used for passive activities, reserve, ornamentation, and conservation as appropriate. Developing an appealing park atmosphere should be considered an important design element. The site should accommodate 7 to 10 off street parking spaces, for use by those who choose or need to drive to the park. Park lighting should be used for security and safety, with very limited lighting on facilities, preferably lighted tennis courts only. PARKING (14 Figure 4.3 Neighborhood Park ~------TOWNHOUSES --------' MULTIPURPOSE OPEN PLAY AREA ACCESS CONTROL PICNIC TABLES VITA I BIKE PATH Metropolitan Dade County Park Recreation Department 99 School-Park Allows for expanding the recreational, social, and educational opportunities available to the community in an efficient and cost effective manner. General Description: By combining the resources of two public agencies, the School-Park classification allows for expanding the recreation, social, and educational opportunities available to the community in an efficient and cost effective inanner. Depending on the circumstances, school-park sites often complement other community open lands. As an example, an elementary/middle school site could serve as a neighborhood park. Likewise, a middle or high school could serve as a community park or as youth athletic fields. Depending on its size, one school-park site may serve in a number of capacities, such as a neighborhood park, youth athletic fields, and a school. Given the inherent variability of type, size, and location, determining how a school-park site is integrated into the park system will depend on an particular circumstances. The important outcome in the joint-use relationship is that both the school district and the park system benefit for shared us of facilities and land area. Location Criteria: For the most part, the location of a school-park site will be determined by the school district based on local policy for the distribution of schools. Given this, the location of a school will often dictate how it is best integrated into the park and recreation system. Where planning efforts coincide, attempts should be made to coordinate the needs of the school district with that of the park and recreation system. This allows for siting, acquisition, and facility development to be responsive to community needs in a most effective and efficient manner. Service areas for school-park sites depend on the type of use. They should be surrounded by neighborhood streets. Site Criteria: The optimum size of a school-park site is dependent upon its intended use . The size criteria established for Neighborhood Park and Community Park classifications should be used as appropriate. The schoo l lands, including the building or special use facilities, should not be considered in LOS . Site Selection Criteria/Guideline: The criteria established for Neighborhood Park and Community Park classifications should be used to determine how a school-park site should function. The key factor is to ensure that the site exhibit the physical characteristics appropriate for intended uses. Development Parameters/Recreation Activity Menus: The criteria established for Neighborhood Park and Community Park should be used to determine how a school-park site is developed . Where feasible, if athletic fields are developed at a school-park sites, they should be oriented toward youth rather than adult programs. Establishing a clearly defined joint-use agreement between involved agenc ies is critical to making school-park relationships workable. This is particularly important with respect to acquisition development, maintenance, liability, use , and programming of facilities issues. 100 Different populations in a larger service area challenge planners to fashion the proper recreation activity menu to meet local needs. Figure 4.4 School Park Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department 101 Community Park Focus is on meeting community - based recreational needs, as well General Description: Community parks are larger in size and serve a broader purpose than neighborhood parks . Their focus is on meeting the recreation needs of several neighborhoods or large sections of the community, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. They allow for group activities and as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. offer other recreational opportunities not feasible - nor perhaps desirable -at the neighborhood level. As with neighborhood parks, they should be developed for both active and passive recreation act ivities. Location Criteria: A community park should serve two or more neighborhoods . Although its service area should be 0 .5 to 3 .0 miles in radius, the quality of the natural resource base should play a signifi cant role in site selection . The site should be serviced by arterial and collector streets and be easily accessible from throughout its service area by way of interconnecting trails . While community parks should be strategically sited throughout the community, their locations can be significantl y impacted by other types of parks. Most notable among these are school-parks, natural resource areas, and regional parks-each of which may provide some of the same recreational opportunities provided in community parks. The level of service these other parks provide should be used, in part, as justification for or against a community park in a specific area. Size Criteria: Demographic profiles, population density, resource availability, and recreation demand within its service area are the primary determinants of a community park 's size. Although an optimal size for a community park is between 20 and 50 acres , its actual size should be based on the land area needed to accommodate desired uses. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: The site's natural character should play a very significant role in site selection, with emphasis on sites that preserve unique landscapes within the community and/or provide recreational opportunities not otherwise available. Ease of access from throughout the service area, geographically centered, and relation ship to other park areas are also key concerns in site selection . The site should exhibit physical characteristics appropriate for both active and passive recreation use. It should have suitable soils, positive drainage , varying topography, and a variety of vegetation . Where feasible , it should be adjacent to natural resource areas and greenways. These linkages tend to expand the recreational opportunities within the community and enhance one's perception of surrounding open space. Depending upon their individual character and use , lakes , ponds, and rivers may be associated with either community parks or natural resource areas . Although largely a matter of semantics, Community Park and Natural Resource Area classifications differ in that the former is generally more developed for recreational use that the latter. Land within a flood plain should only be considered if the facilities are above the 100 year flood elevation. Land below that elevation would typically fall within the Natural Resource Area classification. 102 Development Parameters Recreation Activities Menu: Neighborhood and community input through the customer input process should be the primary determinant of development program for a community park. As with a neighborhood park, the guidelines presented in this document should be used as a framework to guide program development and ensure consistency with other park system components . They should not be used as an impediment to creative and uniq ue design outcomes. As stated, community parks are typically developed for both active and passive uses . Although active recreation facilities are intended to be used in an informal and unstructured manner, reserved and programmed use is compatible and acceptable. However, community parks are not intended to be used extensively for programmed adult athletic use and tournaments. A menu of potential active recreation facilities includes large play structures and/or creative play attractions , game courts , informal ballfields for youth play, tennis courts, volleyball courts, shuffleboard courts, horseshoe areas , ice skating areas, swimming pools, swimming beaches, archery ranges, and disc golf areas . Passive activity facilities include extensive internal trails (that connect to the community trail system), individual and group picnic/sitting areas, general open space and unique landscapes/features, nature study areas, and ornamental gardens. Facilities for cultural activities, such as plays and concerts in the park, are also appropriate. The distribution of land area between active and passive recreation, reserve, ornamentation, conservation, and cultural areas is determined on a site by site basis. Parking lots should be provided as necessary to accommodate user access . Park lighting should be used for security, safety, and lighting facilities as appropriate. 103 DAY CARE CENTER -"'"--~i+-~----11 AND/OR RECREATION CENTER +---,ff!i'i'"H-:-¥.+-...:.,.s;.;~~._ ,' ' ' N.W. 67 AVE. .. / .. /:"'"""'""" /' FIELD (LIGHTED) // ..... / ,/·/' ,/ N.W. 186ST. . :. ',,'',,, MULTIPURPOSE FIELD (LIGHTED) ',, '-. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Sports Complex Consolidates h eavily programmed athleti c fields and associated facilities at large r and fewer sites strategically located throughout the communi ty. • Improved control of facility use . General Description: The Sports Complex classification consolidates heavily programmed athletic fields and associated facilities at larger and fewer sites strategically located throughout the community. This allows for: • Economies of scale and higher quality facilities . • Improved management/scheduling. • Greater control of negative impacts to neighborhood and community parks, such as overuse, noise, traffic congestion, parking, and domination of facilities by those outside the neighborhood . Sports complexes should be developed to accommodate the specific needs of user groups and athletic associations based on demands and program offerings. Where possible, school-park sites should be used for youth athletics such as T-ball, soccer, and flag football, to minimize duplication of facilities. Athletic fields are a good example of the multiple use concept in park facility grouping . The fields can be used for a variety of sports so as to accommodate more participants. Also, the facility can be scheduled more heavily than a single use facility . Sports Complexes include fields and courts for softball , soccer, tennis, basketball, volleyball, and racket ball . Location Criteria: Sport complexes should be viewed as strategically located community- wide facilities rather than serving well-defined neighborhoods or areas . They should be located within reasonable and equal driving distance from populations served. Locating them adjacent to non-residential land uses is preferred . Buffering (topographic breaks , vegetation , etc.) should be used where faci lities are located adjacent to residential areas . Identifying athletic field sites prior to residential development is critical to avoiding long term conflicts . Sites should be accessible from major thoroughfares . Direct access through residential areas should be avoided. Given that athletic facilities will likely be used for league play and tournaments, access routes from outside the community should also be considered. The site should be easily accessible by way of interconnecting trails, as well . Size Criteria: Projected facility needs based on demographic profiles , age-group population forecasts, and participation rates should be used to determine the facilities menu for a sports complex . The space requirements should be facility driven to meet projected need . Space for adequate spectator seating sho uld be provided. Consideration should be given to acquiring an additional 20 to 25 % of the total acreage for reserve against unforeseen space needs . To minimize the number of sites required , each site should be a minimum of 40 acres , with 80 to 150 acres being optimal. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: The site should exhibit physical characteristics appropriate for deve loping athletic facilities. Topography and soils are of the utmost concern in 105 this instance. Although extreme topographical change should be avoided , some elevation change is desirable to allow for drainage and to give the site some character. Well-drained and suitable soils are also important. Natural vegetation along the perimeter of the site and in non- field areas is desirable in that it adds to the overall visual appeal of the site. Locating sports complexes adjacent to other park system components, especially natural resource areas and greenways, is also desirable to buffer their impact on surrounding land uses . Access to public utilities must also be considered . Development Parameters: Projected demand for specific types of facilities should be the primary determinant of a sports complexes development program. Sports complexes are intended for programmed athletic use, such as adult ~rganized softball, etc. and tournaments . Sports complexes increase tourism, drawing both tournament participants and spectators . A menu of potential facilities includes ballfields, soccer fields, football fields, outdoor and indoor skating rinks, tennis courts , play structures, hardcourts, and volleyball courts . Internal trails should provide access to all facilities as well as connection to the pathway system. Group picnic areas and shelters should also be considered. Support facilities include multipurpose buildings, restrooms, and common space. Parking lots should be provided as necessary to accommodate participants and spectators. Lights should be used for security, safety, and lighting facilities as appropriate. Field lighting should not be located so as to create a nuisance to nearby residents. Also, note that each sports governing body provides specific facility development standards. 106 Figure 4.6 SPORTS COMPLEX Special Use Park Jtl. .· llT\ -----'1.J -·--·-·- General Description: The Special Use classification covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities oriented toward single-purpose use. Special uses generally fall into three categories: • Historic/Cultural/Social Sites-unique local Covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities oriented toward single-purpose use . resources offering historical, educational, and cultural opportunities . Examples include historic downtown areas, performing arts parks, arboretums, ornamental gardens, performing arts facilities, indoor theaters, churches, public buildings, and amphitheaters . 107 • Recreation Facilities-specialized or single purpose facilities. Examples include community centers, senior centers, community theaters, hockey arenas, marinas, golf courses, and aquatic parks. Frequently community buildings are located in neighborhood and community parks. • Outdoor Recreation Facilities-Examples include tennis centers, softball complexes, s ports stadiums. Location Criteria: Recreation need, community interests, the type of facility, and land availability are the primary factors influencing location. Special use facilities should be viewed as strategically located community-wide facilities rather than as serving well-defined neighborhoods or areas. The site should be easily accessible from arterial and collector streets, where feasible. It should also be accessible from the light traffic system, as well. Size Criteria: Facility space requirements are the primary determinants of site size. As an example, a golf course may require 150 acres, whereas a community center with parking may fit on 10 or 15 acres . Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: Where feasible, a geographically central site is optimal. Given the variety of potential special uses, no specific standards are defined for site selection . As with all park types, the site itself should exhibit the physical characteristics appropriate for its use. Development Parameters/Recreation Activities Menu: Since each special use facility is unique, community input through surveys and focus meetings should be the primary determinant of its development program. There are numerous technical books, manuals, and planning guidelines in the literature addressing the preservation, restoration, operation, maintenance, and interpretation of historic and cultural sites, buildings, and artifacts . General Description: The Private Park/Recreation Private Park/ Recreation Facility Facility is a new classification that recognizes the contribution of private providers to the community park and recreation system. It also encourages greater cooperation between the private and public sector toward meeting growing park and recreation needs . The characteristics of Private Parks and Private Recreation Facilities are as follows: • Private Parks such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and party houses are generally within a residential area developed for the exclusive use of residents and are maintained through a neighborhood association. They are not, however, a complete substitute for public recreation space . • Private Recreation Facilities are for-profit enterprises, such as health and fitness clubs, golf courses, water parks, amusement parks, and sports faci lities. In either case, they can be an entirely private (i.e. for the exclusive use of residents or members) or a p ublic-private venture (i .e. local residents receive special rates and privileges). In many instances, private facilities can fill certain voids which the public sector cannot . This frees up limited public funds to meet high priority needs for land and facilities. 108 The contribution that Private Parks/Recreation Facilities make in meeting community park and recreation needs must be determined on a case by case basis. Specific policy guidelines should be prepared for use in the subdivision exaction ordinance. Location Criteria: For the most part, the location of private parks/recreation facilities will be determined by a developer or private enterprise-with the city often negotiating the final location at the time of development. Where planning efforts coincide, attempts should be made to coordinate the needs of the private party with that of the city. This allows for the greatest degree of service to the community in the most cost effective manner. Service areas for private parks depend on the type of use . Size Criteria: The optimal size of a Private Park/Recreation Facility site is dependent upon its intended use. The size criteria established for other park classifications should be used as appropriate for private parks in a residential setting . Given the inherent variability, there are no established site size standards for private recreation facilities. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: Again, intended use will determine site selection. The criteria established for other park classifications should be used to determine how a private park should function. The key factor is that the site exhibit the physical characteristics appropriate for intended uses. Development Parameters/Recreation Activities Menu: For private parks and recreation areas, the criteria established for other park classifications should be used to determine how a site is developed. Establishing clearly defined joint-use agreements between the city and private party is critical to making a public-private relationship workable. This is particularly important with respect to development fees, user charges , and programming policies. Natural Resources Areas/ Preserve/Open Lands Lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space. General Description: Natural resource areas are lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes , open space, and visual aesthetics/buffering . These lands consist of: • Individual sites exhibiting natural resources. • Lands that are unsuitable for development but offer natural resource potential. Examples include parcels with steep slopes and natural vegetation , drainageways and ravines, surface water management areas (man-made ponding areas), and utility easements . • Protected lands, such as wetlands/lowlands and shorelines along waterways, lakes, and ponds. In Section 2 -Framework for Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Planning, reference was made to defining the natural resource base of a city to determine its potential for preservation and conservation. It is through the Natural Resource Area/Preserve classification that these areas are actually incorporated into the system plan. 109 As was pointed out in Section 2 , the objective with all these lands is to enhance the livability and character of a community by preserving as many of its natural amenities as possible. This can be accomplished in a number of ways: • Setting aside specific natural resource areas for preservation purposes through the Natural Resource Area/Preserve classification . • Carefully and insightfully regulating development to preserve natural resources and open space. • Working with other natural resource agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, local watershed districts, forest preserve districts , floodplain and wetland districts , etc. to protect natural resources and ecosystems . Examples of these types of resources include : • Geologic features . • Functioning ecosystem. • Maintain biodiversity. • Aquifer recharge. • Watershed. • Protection of rare, threatened or endangered species. • Forests/woodlands . • Wildlife habitat. The intertwining of parks , greenways, trails , and natural resource areas is what legitimizes the concept of the city-park, the integration of the human element with that of the natural environment that surrounds them. Location Criteria: Resource availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location. Size Criteria: As with location, resource availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining size . The practical limit of acreage set aside under this classification lies in resource quality, availability, community development considerations, and acquisition costs. Through an array of creative real estate strategies , many acres can be preserved as community open lands . Often blighted lands such as abandoned waterfront sites , industrial sites , quarries , and abandoned landfills, have potential to be converted from community liabilities to community open land resource s . Reclaimed wetlands and wetland banks fall into this category. Site Selection Criteria/Guidelines: Resource quality is the primary determinant when it comes to selecting a site for preservation. Sites that exhibit unique natural resources or remnant landscapes of the region should be of the highest priority. How they can be integrated into the park system is an important challenge and requires creative policy and design. Many of these areas serve as recreation connectors and habitat corridors. Outlots and undevelopable/protected lands should be selected on the basis of enhancing the character of the community, buffering, and providing linkages with other park components protecting natural systems and processes. 110 Development Parameters/Recreation Activity Menu: Although natural resource areas are resource rather than user based, they can provide some passive recreational opportunities. Most notable are nature viewing and study. They can also function as greenways . Development should be kept to a level that preserves the integrity of the resource . Creenways General Description: Greenways serve a number of important functions: • They tie park components together to form a Tie park systems components together to form a cohesive park environment cohesive park, recreation, and open space system. • They emphasize harmony with the natural environment. • They allow for uninterrupted and safe pedestrian movement between parks throughout the community. • They provide people with a resource based outdoor recreational opportunity and experience. • They can enhance property values. In many respects, greenways and natural resource areas have much in common. Both preserve natural resources and mediate between larger habitat areas, open space, and corridors for wildlife. The primary distinction between the two is that greenways emphasize use (i .e. park trails) to a greater extent than natural resource areas. Location Criteria: Land availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location. "Natural" greenways generally follow suitable natural resource areas (as defined under the Natural Resource Area classification). "Man-made" greenways are corridors that are built as part of development projects or during renovation of old development areas. Man-made greenways include residential subdivisions , revitalized river fronts, abandoned railroad beds, old industrial sites, safe powerline rights-of-way, pipeline easements, collector parkway rights- of-way, etc. Some boulevards and many parkways can also be considered man-made greenways if they exhibit a park-like quality and provide off-street trail opportunities. Since greenways are the preferred way to get people from their homes and into the parks, adjacency to development areas and parks is important. The location of greenways is integral to the trail system plan and, in some cases, they can also be considered light traffic facilities. Corridor Width Criteria: As with location , resource availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining the width of the green way corridor. Although corridor width can be as little as 25 feet in a subdivision, 50 feet is usually considered the minimum. Widths over 200 feet are considered optimal. Site Selection Criteria/Guideline: Resource availability in conjunction with the trail system plan are the primary determinants when it comes to selecting land for greenways. Natural corridors are most desirable, but man-made corridors can also be very appealing if designed properly. 111 Development Parameters/Recreation Activities Menu: Greenways can be developed for a number of different modes of recreational travel. Most notable are hiking, walking, jogging, bicycling, and in-line skating. They can also be developed for cross-country skiing and horseback riding. Canoeing is another possibility, where the greenway includes a navigable creek or stream. In a boulevard or parkway setting, automobiles can be accommodated. D 112 \ Figure 4.7 GREENWAY 0 Legend ~ Riparian Forest and Shrubs ~~::i] Wetland 0 Buildings CJ D ' 19-1 ......... --------.+~~.--~-.1 I I Park Trails (Types I, II, and Ill) General Description: Park trails are multipurpose trails located within greenways , parks, and natural resource areas. They are the most desirable type of trail because they: Park trails are multipurpose trails located within greenways, parks, and natural resource areas. • Emphasize harmony with the natural environment. • Allow for relatively uninterrupted pedestrian movement to and through the city's park system and development areas, including, where possible, through commercial and industrial parks. • Effectively tie the various parks and recreation areas together to form a comprehensive park and trail system. • Protect users from urban development and associated vehicular traffic. The three types of park trails illustrated are intended to accommodate walkers, bicyclists, and in-line skaters . Given their attributes, park trails are at the top of the trail classification hierarchy. They should be considered the preferred trail type and used to the greatest extent possible. Development Parameters: Important steps in developing park trails are: • Preparing a comprehensive park and trail system plan that clearly defines the routing of park trails, especially those within greenways . • Acquiring the desired land or establishing trail easements at an early stage of community development. • Establishing appropriate development policies (backed by city ordinance) requiring land developers to incorporate greenways and park trail corridors into their development plans in accordance with the trail system plan . • Establishing design standards that define how park trails are to be built. Trail design should coincide with standards adopted by local and state departments of transportation and AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Organizations), as appropriate. All trails should comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) design criteria. In previously developed cities, abandoned railroad beds, run-down waterfronts, utility rights-of- way, and scenic/historic routes provide the greatest opportunity for park trails . Types of Trails: There are three types of trail under the park trail classification: • Type I trails are used in situations where use patterns dictate separate paths for pedestrians and bicyclists/in-line skates. An example would be a trail around an inter- city lake or along a riverfront. • Type II trails are more suited to lighter use patterns, such as from a housing subdivision to a natural resource area. • Type III trails are suited for areas requiring minimum impact, such as nature preserves . 113 The type used depends on application . Figure 4.8 -Park Trail Types illustrates a typical cross- section of each type. Commuter Linkages: Park trails can certainly be used for bicycle commuting purposes. The type of trail used and its design should reflect the anticipated magnitude of commuter use. On the high end, Type I trails as shown may not be adequate to safely accommodate a "bicycle freeway" type of use. In such a case, wider or directional trails may be appropriate. Figure 4.8 Park Trails I, II, Ill TYPE I PARK TRAILS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED WITHlfril A GREENWAY, PARK . OR NATlltAL R£SOl.ltCE AREA {CORRIDOR WIDTH VARIES , WITH 100 FEET BEING RECOtMJC)ED MIHIM.M 9£H TRAJL USES ARE SEPARATED) frCATLRAL LAN>SCAPE JN ----ADJACENT L ANO USES VAAY NA Tl..RAL. LN«>SCAPE CXH181TlNG A VARIETY Of LNfJf'ORWS, YECiETATION, .u«> SCErrERY llEDJAN STRIP 10 FOOT WlDC BI CYCLE, AN> ltH..INE SKUIHC KARD-SUAFl\CED TRAIL S FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN HARD-SURFACED TRAIL L SEPARATE TRAILS FOR PEDESTRIANS AHO _J 9JCYO..IST /IH-l.IP£ SKATERS SOURCE: BRAl.£R 6 ASSOCIATES, LTD . TYPE I PAR K TRAIL ADJACENT LAN) USE TYPE 11 PARK TRAILS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED WITH I N A GREENWAY , PARK, OR NAT\..RAL RESOl...fie!: AREA (CORRIDOR WIDTH Y~IES, WITH SO FEET BEINC THE AECOWMEN:>ED MINJWUM) NATURAL OR liWfrilADE POhl)INC AREA FOR SCENERY , NATURAL VALUES , srORM WATER CONTROL , mD BUFFER I HC SOl.ftCE : 9RAl£R l ASSOCIATES, L TO . 114 TYPE II PARK TRAIL TYPE Jll -PARK TRAfLS (NA.Tl.RE ) ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED WITH!,.. A tu.~AL FIESOURCC AR EA OA SPECIA.1.... USE MEA SUCH AS A. NATURE PRESERVE . NATURAL LANDSCAPES EXHIBITING l.tHQf..E: L~ORMS . VECCT.ATIOH PAnERNS. At«> WILDLIFE W.SHAT 6 TO 8 FOOT WIO( son-St.Rf'ACEO TRAI L • IHTERPRfl IV[ SIGNA GE I TYPE III PARK TRAIL (NATURE TRAIL ) 10 FOOT 11J OE PEDESTRIAN, BICYCU, Al#.} IN-l.H£ SKATING HARO-SURF Aero TRAIL HOT£: CONS IDERATION SHOULD BE GJVEN TO NJCNENl J NC son-SURFACED NATL.ftE TRAILS WI TH KARO-Slfif" ACED ONES TO ALLOW l.lfl VERSAL ACCESS TO ALL USER GROUPS Connector Trails (Types I, and II) Connector traif s are multipurpose trails that emphasize safe travel for pedestrains to and from parks and around the community. General Description: The significant difference between connector and park trails lies largely in their location. Park trails emphasize a strong relationship with the natural environment within a park-like setting, while connector trails or recreation connectors emphasize safe travel for pedestrians and bicyclists to and from parks and around the community. In general, connector trails are located within existing road rights-of-way and utility easements or along artificial drainageways. The two classes of connector trails illustrated are intended to accommodate walkers, horseback riders, bicyclists, and in-line skaters. Development Parameters: Important steps in developing connector ~ails are: • Preparing a comprehensive park and trail system plan that clearly defines the routing of connector trails. • Establishing trail rights-of-way and easements at an early stage of community development. • Establishing design standards that define how connector trails are to be built. Trail design should coincide with standards adopted by local and state departments of transportation and AASHTO, as appropriate . Types of Trails: There are two types of trail under the connector trail classification: • Type I trails are used in situations where use patterns dictate separate paths for pedestrians, bicyclists and, if necessary, in-line skaters. An example would be a trail within the shoulder of right of way of a collector street or parkway. • Type II trails are suited to lighter use patterns, such as a link between a parkway or thoroughfare and a nearby housing development. The type used depends on application . Figure 4.9 -Connector Trail Types illustrates a typical cross-section of each type. Commuter Linkages: Connector trails can be used for bicycle commuting purposes. The type of trail used and its design should reflect the anticipated magnitude of commuter use. As was with Type I Park Trails, Type I Connector Trails may not be adequate to safely accommodate a "bicycle freeway" type of use . In such a case, wider or directional trails may be appropriate. 115 Figure 4.9 Connector Trail Types Type I, II __ ..._ __ ....... ___ _ ....... llCTC&.I . ... &»-t.• SAT ... 111.llL (I FllT -IF _ ...... .., I -•• •,.. c_,--. cua 1 --u -• --na .._,.,.,. • _,...,..,.._••••cT1-.-. 'llC'I'--•--••••'"•••• nc-•· lYPE I CONNECTOR TRAIL CLAa II --U .. l'TPIC&>.Y ~YID ll"IYMIM 1IC -· al--· -1111-"N -tit -.Tl.U ... --OlllCCTI-. WI. ~-I ------------··---· ........... ----------------- " '"' .... ----·-••cnu. -10 ,., MIMI-._ -·--ITS --, 1-llC -Tll• 111AIL • IOIUY-...-1- lYPE II CONNECTOR TRAIL 1 Bikeways General Description: Bikeways are paved segments of roadways that serve to safely separate bicyclists from traffic. They come in the form of bike routes and bike lanes. The distinction between the two is a matter of exclusivity. While bike routes are essentially paved shoulders or segments of the roadway that serve to separate bicyclists from traffic, bike lanes are designated portions of the roadway for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. (Bike Routes and Lanes) Bikeways are paved segments of roadways that serve to safely separate b i cyclists from traffic. It is important to recognize that bikeways serve distinct user groups, including: 116 • C ommuters-those who use their bicycle as a means to get from point A to B as expeditiously as possible . Their trips can be viewed as substitutes for vehicle trips when planning light transportation ways. • Fitness enthusiasts-those who cycle for fitness as well as recreation. • C ompetitive athletes-those who bicycle competitively. The needs of these user groups are distinctly different from those using park or connector trails for recreational purposes. The distinction is that of speed. At speeds in excess of 10 to 15 mph, the safety of a typical trail user (and bicyclist) becomes important. Although some commuter- type trails are specifically designed to accommodate higher speeds, the vast majority of recreation-type trails are not. Given this, it is important that the inherent differences in user groups be recognized and that trails not used as direct substitutes for bikeways (or vice-versa). Bikeways should be planned as stand-alone systems that connect to the off-street trail system. Development Parameters: Important steps in developing bikeways are: • Preparing a comprehensive park and trail system plan that clearly defines the routing of bikeways . • Establishing design standards that define how bikeways are to be built. Design should coincide with standards adopted by local and state departments of transportation and AASHTO, as appropriate. Types of Bikeways: As stated, there are two types of bikeways: bike routes and bike lanes . Whether a bike route or bike lane is used depends on application and opportunity. Bike lanes should be used in situations where traffic volumes are heavy enough to warrant clear separation between bicycles and vehicles. Although an adequate right-of-way may. not always be available in existing transportation systems, proper planning in evolving systems will preclude this from happening in the future. Bike routes (paved shoulders) should be used in all other situations . Figure 4.10 • Bikeway Types illustrates a typical cross-section of each type. Commuter Linkages: Bikeways play a large role in bicycle commuter networks and should be designed with this type of use in mind. The bikeway system should be extensive enough to allow for reasonable movement within the city and connection to routes outside the city. Bikeways should be considered along all collector, minor arterial, and (on a limited basis) major arterial roads. Naturally, their development should coincide with new road construction and upgrading. Signage is also important. 117 BIKE LANES AR£ 0£S ICNAl£0 PORTIOHS OF THE ROAD WA Y FOR Tt£ PREFER[NT JAL USE r1f BI CY'CUSTS. THEY ARE USED I N IN ST ANCE S wt£RE VEHICIA..AR TRAFTIC VOLi.MES EXCE ED SAFE RIDING COfC)JTJOHS. USUAL.L Y AL.<:WC AN URS~ ROAD SECTION L.ANOSCAPE Blf"F£R Figure 4.10 Bikeway Types STA~AR O DRIVE LANE 8 TO \0 FOOT WI DE PAll:K INC fTP I CM... ROADWAY 5 FOOT WI DE 811<£ L A.HE LANJSCAPE BlFF"ER lllCEWAYS NA Y 8[ AOJ ,\CCJ\lf TO COHf£CTOR TR AILS I STR IPINC SOl.lta:: BRAUER l .\SSOC IATES. LTD. ON-STR EET BI KE LANE BIKE ROU'TES AAE TYP ICALLY PAVED SHOU..DER S Ai.OHC RO ADWAYS THA T ARC S l ct€.D AS B I KE ROUTES. ' TO 6 FOOT PA YE D SHOILll£R SCM.MCE : BRAUER 6 A.SSOC f AfES, LfD. ON-STREET BIKE ROUT E All-Terrain Bike, Cross-Country Ski, and Equestrian Trails I STRlPJNG Emphasis is on building a strong relationship with the natural environment STANDARD DRlVE LAI€ TYPI CAL. ROAO'IAY 4 TO 8 FOOT PAVED SHOUU><A BJKE:WA YS WAY Sf ADJACOH TO CONl£ClOR TRA IL S General Description: All-terrain bike , cross- country ski , and equestrian trails are similar to park trail s in that they emphasize a strong relationship with the natural environment, although for somewhat different reasons. They are most often located within natural resource areas, greenways, community parks and special use facilities, such as golf courses. Since regional and state parks often deve lop and maintain these types of trails , the need for them at the local level is often limited. The following defines some of the considerations with respect to each trail type . All-Terrain (Mountain) Bike Trails: Although relatively new on the rec reation scene, off-road mountain biking has become a very popular activity that appeals to a wide range of age groups with varying levels of skill. Given its relative infancy, trail standards to meet these needs continue to evolve . This e volution, unfortunately, has not been without conflict-most of which 118 centers around the potentially negative impacts of mountain biking on the environment. Uncontrolled and undi sciplined use of establi shed trails poses the biggest impediment to mountain biking's acceptance. There can be serious conflicts and safety problems if equestrian riders, hikers, and bicyclists use these trails . It is through trial and error and sharing of information between agencies that standards will emerge. In the interim, trail design should coincide with the standards being developed by regional park agencies and state resource agencies, which seem to be leading the way in addressing this issue . Cross-Country Skiing Trails: These types of trails come in a variety of types and widths to accommodate two different styles : diagonal or traditional and skate-ski. Diagonal style requires a set track, while skate-ski style requires a wider packed and groomed surface. Trail lengths vary considerably, with loops ranging from a few to 10 or more kilometers . Since quality and safety are important to all skiers, a few well groomed trails are preferable to extensive but poorly maintained ones . Trail design should coincide with the standards developed by regional park agencies and state resource agencies . Equestrian Trails: Equestrian trails are usually grass or woodchip surfaced. Trail length varies considerably, with loops extending out 10 miles or more . In some instances, cross-country ski trails are used for horseback riding during the summer. There is no speeific standard for how many miles of trail should be developed with in a given community. Trail design should coincide with standards adopted by regional park agencies and state resource agencies . 119 Facility Space Standards A facility space guideline is an expression of the amount of space required for a specific recreation facility, such as a children's playground, a picnic area, or a softball d iamond . Very little has changed with recreation facility standards in the past decade. Because of the substantial changes suggested for computing the LOS, this publication ta1ces a more deferential approach than its predecessor to community judgment with respect to sizing the different types of parks . Recent research on the use of Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (NRPA , 1983) suggests that few jurisdictions feel that nationally prescribed minimums by park type are feasible. Facility Space Guideline An expression of the amount of space required for a specific recreation facility. This section presents the activity/facility standards for a menu of facilities needed for basic recreation activities. Keep in mind that when a park size is being considered, the planner must consider not only the LOS but also the amount of space needed to safely develop and use facilities such as playgrounds and volleyball courts. Today, planners are providing more off street parking, more spectator s pace, more space to separate facilities , and more space for amenities . A community can select a facility menu which best satisfies the needs of the citizens . The following table is adopted from the 1983 publication, with the qualification that planners use these as guidelines rather than axioms . Since citizens are taking a more active role in deciding what kind of parks and facilities they want in their community, this seems to be the most sensible approach. As has been stated and restated, the primary concern of park and recreation administrators is to see that there is enough park land , located in the right places, at the time people are there to use it. Park facilities can be cycled as needs, tastes and types of equipment and leisure choices change . But, if a community comes up short of land, this may be a difficult and expens ive deficiency to overcome . Recent research found considerable difference in facility development among the 38 national gold medal award winning park and recreation departments from 1985 through 1992. This was the decade when Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines was in 121 widespread use across the United States. A general consensus was that the facility standards are useful as guidelines, but that a community should determine what mix of facilities best meets its specific needs. Many believe that the cost of strict adherence to those standards is not realistic in the 1990s market place (Martin, 1993). The trend in park ~nd recreation planning is to utilize market research to determine relevant recreation needs. This is based on the facility capacity/demand to participate concept. This seems more credible than relying on the strength of popular fads. Specialized facilities in the 1990s, whi ch in many cases can be provided by the private sector, should be developed only with strong market data to support a need (demand) for the facility. If it is the intent of a park and recreation department to generate interest in a particular recreation activity or park facility, a reasonably priced pilot program makes economic and political sense. While many optimists may feel imbued with "Field of Dreams" fervor, it makes no sense to rush into a massive commitment of scarce public funds, only to find out later that "they did not come". Given the increasing number of business people getting involved in local government, there will be more empiricism demanded of public officials wishing to develop major facilities with a hefty maintenance cost. In deference to the direction of local government planning and budgeting in the 1990s, the number of units per population for a facility development has been deleted from the Suggested Facility Development Standards. This reflects a conviction that each community must shape basic facility standards and park classifications or definitions to fit individual circumstances. In order to keep up with the space requirements for new kinds of facilities, recreation and activities, park and recreation planners and others can consult with NRPA, professional associations, and equipment manufacturers for technical assistance. 122 Suggested Outdoor Facility Development Standards Activity Recommended Recommended Recommended Service Radius Format Size and Space Orientation and Location Notes Dimensions Requirements Badminton Singles-17' x 44' 1622 sq. ft. Long axis north 1/4 -1/2 mile. Usually in school Doubles-20 ' x44 ' -south recreation center or church with 5' unobstructed facility. Safe walking or biking area on both sides. or biking access . Basketball 1. Youth 46' -50' x 84' 2400-3036 sq . ft . Long axis north 1/4 -112 mile. Same as 2. High school 50' x 84' 5040-7280 sq . ft. -south badminton . Outdoor courts 3. Collegiate 50' x 94 ' with 5' 5600-7980 sq. ft . in neighborhood/community unobstructed space parks, plus active recreation all sides . areas in other park settings . Handball 20' x 40 ' with a 800 sq. ft. for Long axis is north 15 -30 min . travel time, (3-4 wall) minimum of 10 ' 4-wall , 1000 sq . ft. -south . Front wall 4-wall usually indoor as part to rear of 3-wall for 3-wall . at north end. of multi-purpose building. court. Minimum 20' 3-2 all usually in park or overhead clearance . school setting. Ice hockey Rink 85' x 200' 22,000 sq. ft. Long axis is north 1/2 - 1 hour travel time. (Min. 85' x 185') including support -south if outdoors. Climate important Additional 5000 area. consideration affecting no . of 22,000 sq . ft. units . Best as part of multi- including support area . purpose facility . Tennis 36' x 78'. 12 ft . Min . of7,200 sq . ft. Long axis north 1/4 -112 mile. best in batteries of clearance on single court area -south . 2 -4. Located in neighborhood/ both ends . (2 acres per complex). community park or near school site . Volleyball 30' x 60'. Minimum 4,000 Long axis north 112-1 mile . Minimum of 6' sq. ft. -south. clearance on all sides. Baseball 1. Official Baselines -90' 3.0 -3.85 A min . Locate home plate 1/4-1/2 mile . Part of neighborhood Pitching dist.-60.5' so pitcher is not complex . Lighted fields part of Foul lines -min . 320 ' throwing across sun , community complex . Center field -400' + and batter not facing it. Line from home plate 2. Little League Baselines -60' 1.2 A min . through pitchers mound Pitching distance-46' to run east-northeast. Foul lines -200' Center field -200' -250 ' Field Hockey 180' x 300' with a Minimun 1.5 A Fall season -Long 15-30 minute travel time. Usually minimum of 10' axis northwest or part of baseball, football, soccer clearance on all sides southeast. For complex in community park longer periods, or adjacent to high school. north/south Football 160' x 360' with a Minimum 1.5 A Same as field hockey . 15 -30 min. travel time . minimum of 6' Same is field hockey . clearance on all sides . Soccer 195' to 225' x 330' 1.7-2.lA. Same as field hockey . 1 -2 miles . Number of units to 360' with 10' depends on popularity . Youth minimum clearance popularity. Youth soccer on on all sides . smaller fields adjacent to fields or neighborhood parks. 123 Golf-900 ' x 690' wide . 13 .5 A for min. Long axis is southwest 30 minu te travel time. Park of golf driving range Add 12' width each of25 tees . -northeast with golfer course complex . As separate unit additional tee . driving northeast. may be privately operated. 1/4 mile Over-all width -276' 4.3A Long axis in sector 15-30 minute travel time . Usually running track length -600'. Track from north to south part of a high school or community width for 8 -4 lanes to northwest -park complex in combination with is 32'. southeast, with finish football, soccer, etc. line at north end. Softball Baselines -60' 1.5 -2.0 A Same as baseball . 1/4 -112 mile. Slight difference pitching dist. -45 ' men . indimensions for 16". May also be used for youth 40' women baseball. Fast pitch field radius from plate -225' Slow pitch -275' (men) 250' (women). Multiple use 120' x 80' 9,840 sq . ft. Long axis of court I - 2 mi les, in neighborhood or court with primary use community parks. (basketball, north and south . tennis, etc.) Archery range 300' length x Minimum 0.65 A Archer facing north 30 minu tes travel time . Part of a minimum 10' + or -45 degrees . regional/metro complex. between targets . Roped, clear area on side of range minimum 30', clear space behind targets minimum of 90' x 45' with bunker. Golf 1. Par3 Average length varies 50-60 A Majority of holes on 112 - I hour travel time (18 hole) -600 -2700 yards . north/south axis 2. 9-hole Average length Minimum of 50 A 9-hole course can accomodate standard 2250 yards . 350 peo ple/day. 3.18-hole Average length Minimum 110 yds 500 -550 people/day . standard 6500 yards . Course may be located in community, district or regional/metro park . Swimming pools Teaching -min . Varies on size of pool None , but care must 15 to 30 minute travel time. Pools 25 yds x 45' even and amenities . be taken in siting for general community use should depth of 3-4 ft. Usually I -2 A sites . life stations in planned for teaching competitive relation to afternoon and recreational purposes with Competitive -sun enough to accomodate Im and 3m min . 25 m x 16 m. diving boards . Located in Min . of 25 sq. ft . community park or school site. water surface per swimmer. Ration of 2 to 1 deck to water. Beach areas Beach area should NIA NIA 1/2 to I hour travel time. Should have 50 sq. ft. of land have a sand bottom with a and 50 sa. ft. of water mwdmum slope of 5%. Boating per user . Turnover areas completely segregated from rate is 3. There should swimming areas . In regional/metro be a 3 -4 A supporting parks . area per A of beach . 124 Impact of The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on Facilities Design An equally important aspect of developing a quality park system lies in how well it serves the needs of the disable. More now than ever before, municipalities have a responsibility (morally as well as legally) to provide a reasonable level of accessibility (to parks and programs) for individuals with varying levels of ability. To help ensure that this in fact happens , Congress enacted The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1992 -that provide for equal access to all users of public (anci private) facilities and programs. Although still largely untested, the basic intent of the act is clear; reasonable equal access opportunities must be provided to those with disabilities. There are no requirements within the ADA which mandate any spatial requirements relative to the size of any particular type of park and recreation facility. The act does, however, mandate that park areas and facilities be reasonably accessible and usable to all populations. The extent to which compliance with the act will impact the size or configuration of a particular facility is likely to be inconsequential in terms of a particular facilities size. It may, however, dictate some changes to specific design guidelines in response to the act. In July 1994 the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Recreation Access Advisory Committee published the Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Recreational Facilities and Outdoor Developed Areas, which provide detailed guidelines for all types of park and recreation facilities. It is recommended that each park planning agency incorporate these and subsequent guidelines and legal standards in the final determination of spatial and facility design guidelines for all units of the park, recreation and open. space system. These accessibility guidelines are further complimented by the materials available on the concept of universal access. Historical Perspective On July 26, 1990, President bush signed one of the most important and far-reaching laws passed in recent years, the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). The law requires that state and local government entities, places of public accommodation, and commercial facilities be readily accessible to persons with disabilities. These new accessibility requirements have led to many questions on how efforts to make recreational facilities accessible can be balanced with the natural landscape of parks, greenways, and nature areas. The ADA accessibility requirements apply to public accommodations, commercial facilities, and state and local government entities . If you own, operate or lease a recreational facility, it is important to determine how your facility and programs must meet the requirements. This broad sweeping law has enormous implications for the park and recreation field. For example, consider that there are over 50 million individuals with disabilities that are covered by this law. According to the American Planning Association, all programs, services, activities, and public meetings must be accessible' to them to comply with the ADA. 125 The ADA gives individuals with disabilities civil rights protection parallel to that provided on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and religion. The law consists of five titles: Title I covers employment discrimination; Title II relates to discrimination in the provision of services, programs, and activities of state and local governments; Title III prohibits discrimination in business and other public accommodation; Title IV covers telecommunications; and, Title V contains implementing provisions. Although all titles are critical, the parks and recreation community are most effected by Titles II and III. Although enforcement of the ADA comes under the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, matters relating to outdoors such as parks and recreation facilities will be directed under the Department of Justice. Required Actions For state and local governments and any public accommodation which would include park district facilities and programs, the ADA requires that all : • Newly constructed buildings and facilities must be readily accessible. • Renovations or alteration of existing buildings and facilities must be readily accessible. • Barriers to accessibility in existing buildings and facilities must be removed when it is "readily achievable." A structure is readily accessible if it meets the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. These guidelines are published by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board whose address is listed in the resources section of this document. New Construction: The ADA requires that new facilities which are built for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, must be readily accessible to persons with disabilities. Design and construction is considered to occur after January 26, 1993, if a completed application for a building permit is filed after January 26 , 1992. To comply with the ADA, park and recreation agencies will need to adopt a consistent and thoroughly documented approach to the planning, design and management of areas and facilities within their system . Alterations to Existing Buildings: The ADA requires that if a building or facility is altered after January 26, 1992, the renovations must be readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. An "alteration" means a change to a building or facility that affects the usability of the building. Alterations include remodeling, renovation , rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, and changes or arrangements in structural elements or in any reconfiguration of walls or partitions. In addition to making the alteration accessible, access to a primary function in the building such as a telephone , restroom or drinking fountains serving the area must be made accessible to individuals with disabilities. 126 Prior to the ADA, only the federal government and federally funded programs were required to make all facilities and services accessible to persons with disabilities under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Currently, all government entities including park agencies are required to comply regardless of their funding sources. Some minimum requirements include but are not limited to: • One accessible route from site access point, such as a parking lot, to the primary accessible entrance must be provided. A ramp with a slope of no greater that 1 :6 for a length of no greater that two feet may be used as part of this route. Otherwise a slope of maximum 1: 12 is allowed. • One accessible public entrance must be provided. • If toilets are provided, then one accessible unisex toilet facility must be provided along an accessible route. • Only the publicly used spaces on the level of the accessible entrance must be made accessible. • Any displays and written information should be located where they can be seen by a seated individual and should provide information accessible to the blind. Removal of Barriers: The ADA requires all public accommodations, programs, and facilities of state and local governments must removed architectural and commun.ication barriers. An architectural barrier is a physical barrier to access, including steps, narrow doors, sidewalks, texture changes in the floor, and placement of signs and furniture . A communication barrier is one that is an integral part of the physical structure of the facility such as telephones mounted too high, the absence of Braille markings on elevators and signage, and alarms that only give audio signal. In many cases, the removal of architectural and communication barriers is not that difficult. The park district should create an overall policy plan for the removal of barriers in a prioritized schedule. Persons with disabilities within the park district should be invited to register their comments and preferences as part of the prioritization. Making curb cuts in the sidewalks, installing grab bars in restrooms, widening entrances, creating accessible parking spaces, installing a paper cup dispenser at an existing drinking fountain, and removing high pile carpet are some of the simple ways access can be achieved . Outdoor Recreational Facilities: The special Programs and Populations Branch of the National Park Service working in conjunction with the United States Forest Service has published a very clear, concise document outlining the methods that local park districts can use to comply to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 in outdoor recreational facilities. An excellent resource, "Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor Recreation" prepared by the USPS with SPPB, contains specific guidelines for creating accessible campgrounds, restroom facilities, picnic areas, trails, equestrian centers , docks, piers, and other outdoor recreational areas. The underlining concept of the National Park Service is that any outdoor recreational facility should be accessible consistently with the level of development existing at the facility . 127 The guide states, "this guide establishes a framework of direction for new and retrofitted recreation sites and facilities requiring that all recreation visitors should have the opportunity to participate in programs and services to the highest level of access feasible for persons with disabilities when compared to that offered other visitors ." Highly developed sites with parking lots , restrooms , structures for public gatherings, and recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and basketball courts should have highly developed routes for accessibility. On the other end of the spectrum, fragile natural areas with limited development and limited recreational facilities should have the minimum of accessible routes to the site. The accessibility level should be consistent with the development level of any facility owned, operated, leased or managed by the park district. It deals with the main components that should be accessible in all areas such as travel to and from selected activities. This document is listed in the resource section and can provide clear guidance to park district officials struggling with methods to make their recreational trail system, recreational facilities, and public programs accessible for people with disabilities. Services and Programs: The ADA requires that all public entities must operate each service, program, or activity so it is accessible to persons with disabilities. If the park district offers a program or an activity that is in a building that is not accessible, the district must: • Remove the barrier to access in the facility . • Shift the location to an accessible site. • Provide the service in some alternative method like outreach program in different facilities. • Construct a new facility for park district programs. Section of the ADA become effective at different times. New construction completed after January 26, 1993 , must comply with accessibility standards ; Timeframe for Compliance alterations made after January 26, 1992, must meet the acces sibility standards; and barriers must be removed by January 26, 1995. Since the development of guidelines pertaining to park and recreation access and use are in process as of the time of this requirement relative to the size of any particular type of park or recreation facility. The act does, however, mandate that all areas and facil ities be accessible and usable. 128 GLOSSARY Amenity Infrastructure -The system of amenity resources, including both landscape and other design elements, and built facilities such as museums, libraries, sports facilities, stadiums, and performing and visual arts centers, which individually and collectively contribute to a livable community. Benefits-Based Approach -An approach to evaluating the delivery of park and recreation resources, facilities and services which focuses on identifying the economic, environmental and social benefits specifically and directly attributable to the cost of providing the opportunities from which the benefits are derived. Biofiltration -The filtration of storm water runoff through biodegradable materials which are themselves returned to the ecosystem in an environmentally safe manner. Customer -The user, consumer, patron, guest, stakeholder or visitor who consumes a product, resource or service provided "free," at some level of fee or user charge below the true cost, or at full cost from a park and recreation agency or private concessionaire operating under the control of the park and recreation agency. Eco-recreation -Outdoor recreation opportunities dependent upon a diverse and undisturbed landscape setting. Eco-recreation is sometimes referred to as eco-tourism. Environmental Scan - A situational analysis involving identification of agency strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats, for the purpose of developing a strategic approach to planning. Exaction -The process of shifting forward to new development the cost of infrastructure, the need for which is generated by new residents . Park land and the development of recreation facilities can be exacted from a developer as land, cash-in-lieu of land and/or an impact fee as a condition of subdivision plat approval. First wins -Successful accomplishments early in the implementation pI:iase of the comprehensive plan, usually outlined in the Action Program within the plan. Gentrification -The process of aging and the study and response to the aging process. Greenway - A linear area maintained as open space in order to conserve natural and cultural resources, and to provide recreational opportunities, aesthetic and design benefits, and linkages between open space and recreational facilities and between these facilities and their users. Impact fees -A one-time fee levied against new development to cover the development's proportionate share of the cost of providing the infrastructure (including parks and recreation) needed to fill the demand created by residents of the development. (Also referred to as development exactions or proffers .) 129 In-fill Development -Development of vacant parcels of land within the inner city, or in established neighborhoods, which for some reason were passed over when the initial development occurred, or were cleared of substandard structures and are ready for new development. In-fill development has the potential to overtax the capacity of the existing infrastructure if the development density exceeds the density for which the infrastructure was designed. Infrastructure -The public and private utilities and services provided to developable property. Items of infrastructure include streets, water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, telephone, cable, natural gas, solid waste collection, schools, parks and recreation, and public libraries . Interlocking -The use of corridors of land and/or water which connect larger parcels, providing an interconnected system within a community or region. Latent Demand -That demand for goods or services which cannot be met because of a lack of market capacity to respond to the demand . In the context of the park and recreation LOS calculation, latent demand is the demand for recreation facilities and activities which cannot be satisfied with the existing facility capacity. Leadership Plan -An element of the comprehensive park, recreation and open space plan which sets forth the mission, management philosophy, and values of the organization, including the organizational structure and leadership positions needed to implement each action item of the plan. Level of Service (LOS) -An expression of the minimum recreation and park infrastructure capacity required to satisfy the park and recreation needs of residents of a community. The LOS is expressed as acres/1000 population. Level-one Environmental Assessment -An early reconnaissance study to determine if environmental contamination and liability is present on a site proposed for acquisition. Light Traffic -Lightweight, slower moving, non-motorized forms of transportation, such as bicycles, feet, in-line skates, horses, wheelchairs, etc . Mandatory Dedication -An ordinance which requires a developer to dedicate park land (and/or cash in lieu of land) as a prerequisite for plat approval. Park Trail -A trail designed for activities within a park, recreation, open space area or green way. Rational Nexus Test -A court-fashioned test, first used by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Jordan v. Menomonee Falls [28 Wis. 2d 608, 137 N .W. 2d 442 (1965), appeal dismissed 385 U.S. 4, 87 S . Ct. 36, 17 L.Ed. 2d 3 (1966)], in which the court held that the exaction of land and/or money for recreational purposes from a subdivision plat was a valid exercise of the police power if there was a "reasonable connection [nexus] between the need for the additional recreational facilities and the growth generated by the new development." 130 Roughly Proportional Test -A term created by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigard [No. 93-518, U .S. S.Ct. (1994)] to best encapsulate the court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The court stated "No precise calculation is required, but ~e city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Stakeholder -Group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the organization's mission; examples include managers, employees, policy makers, suppliers, vendors, citizens, and community groups. Strategic Plan -Sometimes referred to as a comprehensive plan or business plan. The purpose of the strategic plan is to establish a preferred course of action and to position the agency in the environment in which it operates. Sustainable Landscape - A landscape enhanced and maintained to the highest degree of ecological harmony. Systems Planning -The process of assessing the park, recreation, open space and greenway facility needs of a community and translating that information into a framework for meeting the physical, spatial and facility requirements to satisfy those needs. Transportation Enhancements -Facilities and amenities such as bicycle paths, walking paths, rights-of-way landscaping, lighting, and motorist information signs which are funded from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (!STEA). Urban Growth Management - A package of public strategies, policies, codes and ordinances which are designed to keep the pace of urban growth in line with the fiscal capability of a jurisdiction to finance the required infrastructure, plan to protect natural resources and the environment, and maintain the desired quality of life in the community. 131 Appendix A RECREATION OPEN SPACE STANDARDS METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT UPDATE METRO~ PARKS Planning and Research Division August, 1995 133 1. Introduction Recreation Open Space Standards Process to Derive Uniquely Local LOS Open-space standards define the amount of recreation open space required to minimally meet the leisure land, facilities , program and service needs of a resident population. Metropolitan Dade County Park and Recreation Department derived its open space standards in 1968 as part of the development of its 1969 Open Space Master Plan. Over the following 25 years the Plan helped create a large, highly diversified, metropolitan park system considered to be among the finest in the nation. In 1990 the Department implemented a park impact fee to collect funds for the acquisition and improvement of recreation open space. The objective was to expand the park system in direct relation to new residential growth and the demands it placed on the park system. The impact fee was based on the premise that demand for recreational services could be empirically measured, translated into facility and acreage standards, and priced accordingly. The derivation of standards was specifically designed to be responsive to present day conditions, sensitive to existing resident demands , and mathematically sound. 2. Back~round Since its formation in 1957, Metropolitan Dade County has had a "two-tier" system of government. Under this system, Metro-Dade is comprised of a large unincorporated area and 27 incorporated areas or "municipalities". Each municipality has its own government and provides such "city-type" services as police, zoning, and local parks. The total population of the 27 municipalities is approximately 900,000. The City of Miami is the largest municipality, followed by Hialeah, Miami Beach, North Miami and Coral Gables. The areas of the County that do not fall within municipal boundaries comprise unincorporated Dade County. With a resident population of more than 1.0 million people, the unincorporated area is, essentially, the largest city within the County. Within unincorporated areas, the County is the governing body and provides "city-type" services such as police, fire, zoning, trash collection, and local parks. Metro-Dade is also responsible for providing major regional infrastructure and services to all County residents regardless of location. These include roads, sewers, environmental protection and regional parks. The dual responsibilities of local and regional services accounts for the two-tier system. The Park and Recreation Department establishes and adheres to Level of Service (LOS) only for local parks serving unincorporated residential areas. Local parks are functionally equivalent to other city parks and provide a range of recreational opportunities that are designed to balance active vs . passive use, developed vs . natural areas, and small and simple vs. large and diversified activity areas. Depending on their size, location, variety and quality, local parks serve areas ranging in size from small neighborhoods to large districts. 134 Prior to 1990 the Department's LOS had been derived primarily from subjective methodology. Such a methodology adequately served political, comprehensive planning, and policy processes from 1968 to 1988. In 1985 and 1986 the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Statutes governing the preparation, adoption and implementation of local government comprehensive plans. Commonly referred to as Florida's "Growth Management" Law, the Legislature mandated that specific LOS for traffic, mass transit, parks, water, sewer, solid waste and drainage be in place. They further defined a concept of "concurrency": That the adopted LOS must be in-place, or "concurrent" with the approval of new development. No development orders could be issued when the adopted LOS would not be met. Metropolitan Dade County adopted its new Comprehensive Plan and LOS in 1988 . The park and recreation LOS began to come under scrutiny when a building moratorium was declared in north Dade County because of too few parks. The parks LOS was criticized, largely because it had not been derived through an empirical methodology. The criticism significantly increased in 1989, when the County proposed a park impact fee that had, as its foundation, the same LOS adopted in 1968. As a result of intense pressure by the building industry, the Dade County Board of County Commissioners instructed the Park and Recreation Department to conduct a study to confirm or to reject the existing LOS . If the LOS was to be rejected, then a new LOS must be calculated. It was hoped by the building industry that the LOS would be lowered, thereby reducing the impact fee and threat of building moratoriums. 3. Project Components After a careful review of the many ways to determine LOS, a methodology was developed that enabled the Department to update and empirically establish the minimum amount of recreation open space needed to serve unincorporated area residents. First, three basic questions needed to be answered: 1) What type of facilities and activities should be included as LOS components; 2) What type of parks should be used to establish and maintain the LOS; and 3) What portion of the LOS should drive the calculation of the impact fee? Second, the calculation of a LOS would rely on a three-step process. 1) A questionnaire designed to calculate the actual recreation supply based on the actual attendance and participation at facilities, programs, and events ; 2) A household survey of unincorporated residents designed to determine actual recreational demand for a list of commonly provided recreational activities, and the frequency and location of these same events; and 3) A calculation that combines supply and demand information to derive a uniquely local standard for the minimum amount of land necessary to support required active and passive uses of recreation open spaces and facilities. The result would be a needs based, facility-driven, land-measured LOS that indicates the minimum recreational open space needed for Metro-Dade County Park and Recreation Department to serve the unincorporated residential population. 135 4. Recreation Supply Questionnaire A questionnaire was sent to 44 park managers who supervise the activities within 72 parks. Each location was chosen to include the fullest diversity of park facilities , activity areas and event spaces throughout the entire park system. The result was a list that included parks of all classes, sizes, levels of development and locations. The questionnaire asked for typical and peak period recreation participation at 21 commonly provided facilities and activity areas (Exhibit 1). Questionnaire information was designed to provide more detail on attendance data already available through the Department's computerized attendance system. Facilities and activity areas questioned ranged from beaches and fishing to programmed recreation and fitness centers. The object was to calculate the total recreational opportunity or "supply" available to residents utilizing local parks . Table 1 below describes a 12 activity subset that specifically addresses those activities most commonly associated with local parks in the unincorporated area. Another 9 activities were more comnionly associated with larger, regional parks and for the purposes of this study were not included in the LOS calculation. Each of these 12 facility and activity areas are broadly distributed throughout the unincorporated area providing essentially the same recreation opportunity to area residents regardless of geographic location. The only exception related to lighted facilities that have the benefit of extended play time. Table 1 Facilities and Activity Areas Commonly Associated with Local Recreation Open Spaces Picnic Shelters Bicycle Trails Playgrounds Multi-Purpose Exercise Paths Swimming Pools Programmed Rec. Centers Tennis Courts Baseball/Softball Fields Football/Soccer Fields Handball/Racquetball Courts Basketball Courts Volleyball Courts The questionnaire compiled information on the number of total visits or visitor occasions that each activity area actually provided in an effort to calculate recreation supply as a function of recreation capacity. Figure 1 shows that recreation supply relied on three types of information for each activity. Typical use was calculated from the Department's compu terized attendance system. It was calculated as the average daily attendance over a three year period . Peak use, atypically high levels of use, was calculated from a combination of computerized records and park manager observations. This information was also used to determine the proportion of time that a facility and activity could be expected to support either typical or peak use. The result was an expected capacity or supply for each facility and activity commonly associated with local parks . 136 Figure 1 Recreation Supply Calculations Recreational Supply= [(typical use/day x typical%) + (peak use/day x peak % )] x [days available/year] Typical Use = Number of people expected each day as computed by annual average attendance information . Typical % = Percent of time expected to support typical use . Peak Use = Numbers of people expected on days exhibiting atypically high use such as weekends , holidays and special events . Peak % = Percent of time expected to support peak use . Days Avail. = Number of days , weather permitting, that each facility or activity is typically available to the public. This approach specifically tried to avoid using optimum or maximum levels of use that focused on the total number of visitor occasions that potentially could be provided regardless of time or location. For example, a lighted tennis court can support up to 4 individuals/court/hour, who can play up to 16 hours/day, or a total potential capacity of 64 visitor occasions/day. This is decidedly different from recreational use found locally and its use would serve to skew local standards. The questionnaire found that the recreation supply/day for one lighted tennis court within the Metro-Dade park system is not 64 visitor occasions, but it is 16 visitor occasions. Rather than applying national standards to local communities, this process allowed local customs and patterns of participation to support the development of a uniquely local LOS. Table 2 illustrates the entire range of facilities, activities and events within the park system, and calculates local supply information for those facilities and activities most commonly associated with local parks. Only information derived for local parks was utilized for the LOS calculation. The result for the 12 facility or activity areas is itemized under Local Supply. 137 Activity Lake & Ocean Beache s Fishing Boat Ramps Camping (RV & Tent) Picnicking/Partie s Bicycling Children 's Playground Nature Areas Fairs/Festi vals/E vents Walk/Jog/Exer. Paths Swimming Pools Golf Tennis BasebalVSoftball Marina Wetslips FootbalVSoccer Handball/Racquetball Basketball Volleyball Open Play Areas Prog. Rec. Centers Table 2 Recreation Supply .___ Local Parks ____. .___Area-Wide Parks ____..... . .___ Supply____. Typical Peak Typical Peale Local Non-Local Use I Use I Expected Use I Use I Expected Days Recreation Recreation Unit (%) Unit (%) Capacity Unit (%) Unit (%) Capacity Avail. Supply Supply 177 .60 2,800 .40 1,226.20 2,444 .62 11,490 .38 5,881.48 360 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 350 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 350 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 340 0 0 17 .73 82 .27 32 .91 25 .73 409 .27 128 .68 340 11 ,189 43,751 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 330 0 0 31 .63 82 .37 49 .05 115 .61 225 .39 157 .90 340 16,677 53 ,686 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 360 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 llO 0 0 20 .71 86 .29 26 .24 78 .78 108 .22 84 .60 355 9,315 30,033 82 .73 114 .27 90.64 55 .62 230 .38 121.50 340 30,818 41,310 0 .00 0 .00 .00 197 .77 350 .23 232.19 340 0 78 ,945 6 .59 15 .41 9.89 9 .65 29 .35 16.00 355 3,512 5,680 40 .65 105 .35 43.88 63 .75 140 .25 82 .25 230 10,092 18,918 0 .00 0 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 360 0 0 60 .77 90 .23 73.20 80 .90 200 .IO 92 .00 170 12,444 15,640 7 .60 12 .40 8.22 9 .70 78 .30 29.70 350 2,877 I0,395 20 .86 86 .14 12.04 36 .67 83 .36 54 .12 . 355 4,274 19,212 21 .62 49 .38 31.78 29 .52 51 .48 39.56 350 11,125 13,846 12 .72 45 .28 21.10 0 .00 0 .00 .00 360 7,596 0 36 .56 115 .44 70.76 50 .60 180 .40 102 .00 350 24,766 35 , 700 5. Recreation Demand Survey A Recreation Demand Survey (Exhibit 2) was developed to update recreation participation patterns for all County residents. It was designed to provoke information about emerging trends, development priorities for all residents, and recreation demand for certain facilities, activity areas and events. The survey sample used standard techniques appropriate for systematic random telephone interviews of County residents living in unincorporated areas. A sample population of 8000 telephone numbers, obtained from Survey Sampling, Inc . of Westport, Connecticut, provided a probability element sample of Dade County households with a telephone. The sampling frame was weighted to correct for different population proportions among key demographic variable (age, race, ethnicity, etc.) and area of residence (8 Park Benefit Collection Areas and 31 Southern Bell telephone exchange districts). For example, the number of Black and Hispanic respondents surveyed closely approximated that proportion in the Dade County population. And the proportion of survey respondents in Park Benefit District 1 or the Silver Oak telephone wire center, for example, closely approximated the proportion of respondent households actually living in these areas. 138 The sample for the survey was comprised of 1,322 households . Selection· of a household respondent was done by random and rotating selection using four possibilities: the oldest male over 18; the oldest female over 18; the youngest male over 18; and the youngest female over 18 . At least five attempts were made to contact a respondent at a number, and at least one each of these calls were made during the weekday evening and weekend daytime before the number was considered unreachable. Ultimately, 135 people refused to participate yielding a refusal rate of 9%. An analysis of reasons for refusals revealed that neither the number nor their reasons injected any bias into the sample. Interviewing was conducted over a two-week period extending from January 20 to February 2, 1991. In order to reach the largest number of potential respondents, interviews were conducted during a wide span of hours, seven days a week. On weekdays, interviews were conducted from 10:00 a.m. to 9 :30 p .m . On weekends, interviews were conducted from 11:00 a .m. to 7:00 p.m . Interviews were conducted by Behavorial Science Research's 40-station phone lab, located in Coral Gables, Florida. Final analysis concentrated on the 1,322 completed households surveyed and the 4,353 individuals occupying those homes . Assuming random respondent selection, statistical calculations support a 97% level of confidenc e and a margin of error approximating +/-3 %. Certain items, due to the skip pattern of the questionnaire, have a much smaller number of responses and lower level of confidence . Comparison of select demographic characteristics of the sample with known population parameters indicated that the overall sample closely reflected characteristics of the entire Dade County population (Table 3). Minor exceptions relate to a small over-sampling of females, typical of telephone household interviews, and non-hispanics . Neither exception, however, was deemed sufficient to cast doubt on the validity or accuracy of the methodology or results . Sampling discrepancies related to age and Park Benefit Districts were also well within tolerable error. 139 Table 3 Comparison of Key Population and Sample Parameters Parl!m~t~r Popyll!tion (1) Sl!m12le (2) % Difference Sex Male 48% 40% -8 Female 52 60 -8 Ethnicity Hispanic 49 38 -9 Non-Hispanic 51 62 -9 Race Black 20 16 -4 White 73 79 -6 Other 7 5 -2 Age Under 20 26 19 -6 20-34 24 24 0 35-54 25 31 +6 Over 54 25 25 0 Park Benefit District 1 20 22 +2 2 0 0 0 3 17 19 +2 4 35 31 -4 5 5 4 -1 6 14 12 -2 7 5 7 +2 8 4 4 0 Sources : 1 Metro-Dade Planning Department, Re searc h Divi sion , 1990 Census and Population Statistics 2 Metro-Dade Park & Recreation Department , Planning & Research Div ., 1991 Lei sure Interest Survey Metropolitan Dade County's LOS for recreation open space reflects only that portion of demand fo r local parks exhibited by unincorporated area residents. Since demand in these areas is commonly associated with the use of developed facilities or activity areas , recreation demand was measured by both level of participation and the frequency of that same participation among the 12 activities tracked . For example, Table 4 illustrates that 42.6% of households expressed some use of bicycling in the last 12 months. It also reveals among individuals residing within these households 18.3% cycled at least 1 time in the last year, 23.5% cycled at least once in the 140 month, and 58.2% cycled at least once in the last week. In an effort to more accurately determine total levels of use, respondents were asked to itemize varying levels of use for all household occupants (Table 5). For bicycling that translates into 2,870 users where 1,200 individuals were defined as light users (minimum 1/year), 979 individuals were defined as medium users (minimum I/month), and 671 individuals were defined as heavy users (minimum l/week). Table 4 Levels of Recreational Participation by Activity Activity ParticiDBtion Level of Use Non-User User Light Medium High (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Ocean or Lake Beaches 29.9 70.1 46.9 28.6 24 .5 Fishing 64.6 35.4 48.1 31.4 20.5 Camping (RV & Tent) 87.7 123.0 71.2 19 .6 9.2 Bicycling 57 .8 42.2 18.3 23.5 58.2 Walking , Jogging, Exercise Paths 35.9 64.l 10 .1 18 .8 71.1 Nature Parks 63.3 36.7 48.9 27.4 23 .7 Boat Ramps 88.4 11.6 35.7 33.8 30.5 Children 's Playgrounds 69.3 30.7 19.5 29.6 51.0 Swimming Pools 61.8 38.2 34.3 21.0 44.8 Marina Wet Slips 95.3 4 .7 50.0 16.1 33 .9 Handball/Racquetball Courts 85 .1 14 .9 26.9 29.4 43.7 Basketball Courts 77 .2 22 .8 17.9 24 .6 57.5 Open Play Area 75.l 24 .9 17.3 35.6 47.l Programmed Recreation Centers 89.l 10.9 23.6 22 .9 53.5 Exercise/Fitness Centers 76.6 23.4 12.3 21.0 66.8 Picnics/Parties 43.4 56.6 50.7 29 .1 20.2 Special Events in Parks 73.6 26.4 63.3 20 .1 16.6 Golf 89.0 11.0 37.0 30.1 32 .9 Tennis 82.0 18.0 29.0 27 .7 43.3 Baseball/Softball 81.9 18.1 31.4 28.5 40.2 Football/Soccer 76.l 23.9 21.8 27 .8 50.3 Volleyball 89.0 11.0 37 .7 26 .7 35.6 Respondents were also asked to discuss activities whose participation was constrained by certain barriers . Barriers listed by respondents included distance, transportation , fear of crime, building decay, etc. Unmet demand for these activities was termed latent demand. Certain activities like bicycling, exercise and basketball exhibited more noticeable latent demand than others . In each case respondents were asked to list the activity they desired and the approximate annual frequency of use if the activity was more available . For the purposes of calculating total demand, latent demand was added to existing demand if the barriers to participation could be overcome or resolved by the Department. These included modification ~flighting to increase personal safety, and building repair to increase facility safety. In cases that involved 141 unresolveable issues, such as age related health limitations, the activity was not included since the Department could not remove the barrier preventing participation . Figure 2 describes how total recreation demand is calculated from expressed and latent demand. Table 5 illustrates how demand for each of the 12 recreational facilities and activities is calculated. Recreation Demand Figure 2 Recreation Demand Calculations Expressed Use + Total Sample Latent Use Total Sample Expressed Demand Latent Demand Total Sample = (#light users x l/yr., +(#medium users x 12/yr .) +(#heavy users x 52/yr.) = (#light users x l/yr., +(#medium users x 12/yr.) +(#heavy users x 52/yr.) = total number of occupants living within sampled households. Table 5 Recreation Demand Total Light Medium Heavy Exp Latent Latent Recreation Sample Users Users Users Use Users Use Demand/Person/Year # I Mile Beach 4353 2,794 l,276 535 45,926 0 0 10 .55 #I 100 L.F. of Pier 4353 995 503 202 17,535 0 0 4.03 # I Salt. Boat Ramp 4353 340 205 91 7,532 0 0 l.73 #I Campsite -RV 4353 432 136 55 4,924 0 0 l.13 #I Picnic Shelter Area 4353 2,130 l,041 404 35,630 0 0 8.19 #I Mile of Bicycle Trail 4353 l,220 979 404 47,860 14 168 l l.03 #I Child's Playground 4353 1,042 810 501 36,814 0 0 8.46 #I 100 Acre Nature Area 4353 1,313 692 288 24,593 0 0 5.65 #I lO Acres Special Event 4353 956 329 156 13,016 0 0 2 .99 # I Mile of Exercise Path 4353 676 464 121 12,536 29 348 2 .96 #I 5,000 S .F. Pool 4353 l,353 881 598 43,021 0 0 9.88 #I 18 Hole Course 4353 213 136 75 5,745 12 144 l.35 #I Tennis Court 4353 419 283 178 13,071 42 504 3.12 # I Base/Softball Field 4353 403 279 163 12,227 23 276 2 .87 #I Marina Wetslip 4353 149 67 39 2,981 0 0 .68 # I Foot/Soccer Field 4353 572 457 288 21,032 0 0 4.83 # I Hand/Racquetball Ct. 4353 338 243 144 10,742 0 0 2.47 #I Basketball Court 4353 494 396 284 20,014 27 324 4 .67 #I Volleyball Court 4353 245 157 95 7,069 0 0 l.62 # I Acre of Open Play Area 4353 825 656 355 27,157 0 0 6 .24 #I 2,000 S .F. Prog Rec. Ctr. 4353 387 215 190 12,847 31 372 3.04 142 As an example, demand infonnation from Table 5 for a picnic shelter area is examined in Figure 3. The total expressed demand from all users is 35,630 uses/year. When divided by the sample of 4353 persons the result is an aggregate demand of 8.19 uses/person/year. Figure 3 Recreation Demand Example Recreation Demand = Expressed Use Total Sample + Latent Use Total Sample Expressed Use = (2,130 x 1) + (1,041x12) + (404 x 52) Expressed Use = 35,630 Latent Use = (0 x 1) + (0x12) + (0 x 52) Latent Use = 0 Total Sample = 4,353 Recreation Demand = 35,630 + 0 4,353 4,353 Recreation Demand = 8.19 uses/person/year 6. Derivation of LOS A LOS reflects the minimum amount of recreation open space needed to meet recreation demand. The LOS measure in Dade County is in the form of acres per 1,000 people. Land alone does not meet total demand, it is primarily the recreation opportunity created by facilities and areas on park land that meets demand. As such, LOS reflects the acreage needed to accomodate the facilities and areas required to meet current demand within a well-designed park setting and the population served by those same facilities. Translating supply and demand information into an "acres per 1,000 people" LOS was accomplished through the following methodology. First the minimum number of people served by each park facility and area was calculated. Minimum population service requirement calculations are defined in Figure 4. Figure 4 Minimum Population Service Requirement Minimum Population Service Requirement = Recreation Supply Recreation Demand Recreation Supply = [(typical use/day x typical %)+ (peak use/day x peak %)] x day s available/year Recreation Demand = Expressed Use + Total Sample Latent Use Total Sample 143 Recreation supply, recreation demand, and population service requirements were all driven by the facili ties and activity areas that are characteristic to local parks in Dade County. Although distributed throughout the system, these facilities are not randomly developed. Each takes advantage of or is constrained by certain characteristics of a park site . Generally, the size and character of each site determines the type and quantity of facilities that are likely to be developed. The Department has a park classification system to differentiate parks according to their size, character and the type of facilities likely to be associated with them (Table 6). Park Class Mini-Park Neighborhood Single Purpose Community District Table 6 Characteristics of Local Park Classes Minimum Size Level of Activit)'. Develonable Acres 114 - 1 Acre Passive l/4Acre 5 Acres Passive 2.5 Acres 5 Acres Active 2 .5 Acres 30Acres Passive/ Active 15 Acres 200Acres Passive/ Active 100 Acres The land requirements (minimum park size) for each class of park represents the minimum park acreage necessary to provide quality recreation opportunity in a well-designed park . Each park class also leaves approximately 50% of each park open and undeveloped . The result is a system that classifies five different types of local parks according to minimum size, level of activity and developable areas. Table 7 applies local service requirements to the various classes of parks provided throughout the system. Through careful review it became clear that the LOS is an aggregate of each park class, acknowledging that each plays a role within the system. This is founded on the principles that: 1) the system is better balanced by having parks of varying size and proximity to residential areas; 2) each park class provides a somewhat different menu of recreation activity, balancing active and passive pursuits; and 3) larger parks , located properly,. can draw larger numbers of visitors to better equipped facilities with more competitive programs without adversely impacting residential neighborhoods. The open space analysi s suggested, for example, that a 5-acre neighborhood park with a typical array of facilities would serve 5,375 people and provide a component LOS of .93 acres I 1,000 people. A similarly sized, but more developed single purpose park, however, will serve more than twice as many people and have a component LOS of .41 acres I 1,000 people . A larger 30-acre community park, with many more facilities, would serve 35 ,785 people and provide a component LOS of .84 acres I 1,000 people. And a 200 acre District park will serve 218,210 people and provide a component LOS of .92 acre s I 1,000 people. Collectively, the four classes of public parks in Dade County that serve residential communities provide a total LOS of 3.10 acre I 1,000 people. It represents an increase of .35 acres I 1,000 over the 2 .75 acres I 1,000 people standard established in 1968. 144 Table 7 Minimum Local LOS Minimum Minimum Neighborhood Single Purpose ' Community District Local Non-Local Park (5AC) Park (5 AC) Park (30AC) Park (200AC) Service Service Unit No. No . No. No. Requirements Requirements Standard Units Pop . Units Pop. Units Pop . Units Pop. Total 41 ,840 200,687 # I Mile Beach 0 0 0 0 #I LF. of Pier 0 0 0 0 0 0 # I Salt. Boatramp Lane 0 0 0 0 0 0 #I Campsite -RV & Trailer 0 0 0 0 1,367 5,345 # I Picnic Shelter Area 0 0 1,367 5.0 26,726 0 #I Mile of Bicycle Trail 0 0 0 0 1,972 6,348 # I Childs Playground 1.0 1,972 0 1,972 1.0 6,348 # / 100 Acres Nature Area 0 0 0 0 0 # / 10 Acre Special Event 0 0 0 0 3,147 10,147 # I Mile of Exercise Path .5 1,574 0 3,147 1.0 10,417 3,118 4,180 # / 5,000 S.F. Pool 0 0 3,118 0 0 58,354 # / 18 Hole Course 0 0 0 0 1,126 1,821 #I Tennis Coun 0 0 4 4,505 8.0 14,517 3,514 6.586 #I Base/Softball Field 0 2 7,(rl.7 2 7,027 6.0 39,517 0 0 #I Marina Wetslip 0 0 0 2,576 3,237 # I Foot/Soccer Field 2 5,151 0 2.0 6,474 1,166 4,212 #I Hand/Raquetball Ct. 0 0 4 4,663 4.0 16,850 4,112 # I Basketball Coun 2.0 1,830 0 2 1,830 4.0 16,448 6,850 8,526 #I Volleyball Court 0 0 0 4.0 34,105 1,218 0 #I Acre of Open Play Area 0 0 0 0 8,155 11 ,756 # / 2,000 S.F. Prog . Rec ., CCnt. 0 0 till. 4.0 ~ Total Population Served 5,375 12,178 35,785 218,210 Local Park LOS .93 Al .84 .92 3.10 145 146 TO Park Manager Exhibit 1 MEMORANDUM DATE December 20 , 1990 FROM Kevin Asher , Supervisor Pla_nning Section SUBJECT Requested Attendance Data for Select Facilities /Activities This Department is trying to update our recreation and facility standards . Part of this effort relies on better understanding attendance patterns at certain facilities. Data provided by you to this Section for our computerized attendance system can only partially provide needed information . An additional five minutes of your time , however, can help to provide the information required. At your earliest opportunity , please fill in and return to me information below that applies to your park or facility . Make sure all three columns are filled in . 1 • In column (1) fill in the number of people you might expect to use the park facility during a typical day (spectators included). 2 -In column (2) fill in the number of people you might expect to use the park or facility during the peak or busiest time of week or year (spectators included). 3 • In column (3) fill in the percentage of time accounted for by peak use during the course of a year Park I Facility Typical Number Peak Number % of Time of Peak of Users I Day of Users I Day of Users I Day Beach Fishing Boat Ramps Camping Park Picn ics I Parties Children 's Playgrounds Nature Area Fair I Festivals I Events Waiki Jog I Exercise Paths Swimming Pools Go~ Tennis Baseball / Softball Marina Wetslips Football / Soccer Handball / Racquetball Basketball Volleyball Open Play Areas Programmed Rec . Center Boxing I Fitness Center Appendix B 147 Edited I Coded I Entered Respondent I Card DADE COUNTY LEISURE PARTICIPATION SURVEY Time In: _____ _ Hello, my name is _______ , and I'm calling from Behavorial Science Research on behalf of the Dade County Parks and Recreation. We are conducting a county-wide survey about how Dade County residents spend their recreation time. I need to speak to the male or female head of household . Would that be you? IF NO : ASK TO SPEAK TO THAT PERSON 1. We heed to find out the kinds of activities people living in Dade County do for recreation . I'm going to mention several recreational activities , and I'd like you to tell me about your family's participation in these activities. < FOR a., b., c., 8 = 8 OR MORE, DK/ REFUSED = 9 > 0 OR 9 - - - - - - - --- - - -SKIP TO NEXT ACTIVITY (FOR EACH ACTIVITY ASK:) a. First of all, I'd like to know how many people in your household _________ during the last 12 months? (WHERE APPROPRIATE THE QUESTION WILL BE PHRASED AS .... ) How many people in your household __________ ·as a player or spectator in the last 12 months ? b. How many people in your household------------ at least once a month? c . How many people in your household------------ at least once a week? d. Where do people in your household most often _____________ ? Activities (went I go) 1. To Ocean or Lake Beaches 2. Fishing 148 a. b. c. d. per I per I per I year month week Location (15) a. b. c. d. per I per I per I Activities year month week Location 3 . Camping (RV & Tent) 4. Bicycling 5 . Walking, Jogging or Exercise Paths 6. To Nature Parks (used/ use) 7. Boat Ramps 8. Children's Playgrounds __ 9 . Swimming Pools 10. Marina Wet Slips 11. Handball I racquetball __ Courts 12. Basketball Courts 13 . Open Play Area 14. Programmed Recreation __ Centers 15 . Exercise I Fitness Centers (attended / attend) 16. Picnics I Parties 17. Special Events in Parks (played or participated as a spectator, play or participate .•• ) 18. Golf 19. Tennis 20. BasebalUSoftball 21. Football/Soccer 22 Volleyball _2_ (80) Respondent I Card 149 23. a. Are there any other recreation activities that I haven't mentioned that you or members of your family participate in at least once a month? 1. Yes - - - - - - - - - - - -CONTINUE WITH Q23b 2. No - - - - - - - - - - - -SKIP TO Q24 3. DK/Refused b. What activities? (SPECIFY) c. How many people in your household participate in this activity? d . Where do people in your household go most often to __________ ? B Activity c #People D Where? ------------- 2. ----------------------------- 3. ----------------------------- 24. a. Are there any recreational activities that you or members of your family would like to participate in but cannot because of cost, low quality facilities, lack of availab le facilities or inadequate skills? 1. Yes - - - - - --- - - - -CONTINUE WITH Q24b 2. No - - - - - - - - - - - -SKIP TO Q25 9. DK/Refused b. What activities? c. (IF NO ACTIVITY MENTIONED, SKIP TO 25) How many family members would participate? B Activity !. ___________________ _ 2. ___________________ _ 3. ___________________ _ c #People 25. In thinking about County elections, do you vote in every election, most elections, some elections, only a few elections, or do you usually not vote? 1. every election 2. most 3. some 150 4 . a few 5. don't vote I not registered 9DK 26. When you consider the quality of life in your neighborhood, on a scale from l to 5 where 5 IS VERY IMPORTANT and 1 IS NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT, please tell me how important are each of the following statements about park and recreation areas. a. Protecting open space from development b. Making neighborhoods more attractive places c. Preserving environmentally sensitive areas d . Providing play areas for our youth e. Creating areas where neighbors can get to know each other f . Offering recreational facilities for adults 27 . When thinking about the place closest to your home that you use most frequently for recreational activity, would you describe it as a: 1. public park 2. public school 3. homeowners ' associational recreational space 4. health or fitness club 5. country or social club 6 . golf course 7. other 9.DK 28 . The Parks Department tries to provide quality park and recreation services to all residents . It often has to make difficult choices on how to develop and operate parks . Would you encourage the Parks Department to: 3 =Undecided a) 1. Develop more smaller parks used by neighborhood and community residents b) 1. Fix up existing park and recreational areas c) 1. Begin developing vacant or undeveloped parklands d) 1. Spend more money on supervised recreation activities e) 1. Continue operating and maintaining all park and recreational areas 9 =Refused 2 . Develop a few larger parks that are used by all county residents 2. Buy more parkland in developing areas 2. Fix up existing park and recreational areas 2 . Spend more money on building park and recreation areas 2. Begin allowing citizen groups to develop , program and maintain park and recreation areas (79) _3_ Respondent I Card 151 29. The Parks Department continually must make decisions about developing recreational areas and facilities. They would also like your help in making these decisions. As I read a list of items please tell me if you think the Parks Department should be SPENDING MORE, SPENDING LESS, OR SPENDING ABOUT THE SAME amount of money in the future for this item. Spend Spend Spend DK (ROTATE) more less same· __ a. Children's Playgrounds l 2 3 9 b. Tennis Courts I 2 3 9 __ c. Swimming Pools I 2 3 9 d. Golf Courses I 2 3 9 __ e. Racquetball I Handball Courts I 2 3 9 f. Recreation Centers l 2 3 9 __ g. Ballfields 1 2 3 9 __ h. Bicycle Trails 1 2 3 9 i. Lake Areas 1 2 3 9 __ . j . Beach Parks 1 2 3 9 __ k . Improved Bay Access 2 3 9 __ 1. Marinas and Boat Ramps 2 3 9 __ m. Jogging and Exercise Trails 1 2 3 9 n. Basketball Courts 1 2 3 9 o . Nature Areas 1 2 3 9 __ p. Campgrounds I 2 3 9 __ q . Picnic Areas 1 2 3 9 __ r. Open Play Areas 2 3 9 (23) 30. If you could create the ideal park for your neighborhood, what percentage of that park would be left open and natural? ______ % 31. People who visit or use parks are having to pay a larger share of the cost of providing facilities and activity areas. As I read a list of activities, facilities and programs please tell me what percentage of the total cost for providing that service "ACTUAL USERS" should pay. 0% MEANS THAT USERS SHOULD NOT PAY ANY OF THE COST AND 100% MEANS THAT USERS SHOULD PAY ALL OF THE COST FOR THAT ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM. a. Beaches .............................. . % ---- b. Marinas .............................. . % ---- c. Boat ramps ............................ . ----% d. Campgrounds .......................... . ----% e . Picnic shelters .......................... . ----% f. Lakes and swimming pools ................ . ----% g. Golf courses ........................... . ----% h. Tennis courts ........................... . ----% i. Adult athletic fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ----% j. Youth athletic fields ...................... . ----% k. Youth recreational programs ............... . ----% 1. Adult recreational programs ............... . ----% m. Senior I Elderly recreational programs ...... . ----% 152 Now, I have just a few more questions for statistical purposes . 32. What is the total number of people living in your household? 33. How many in your household are: 8 = 8 or more 9 = Refused a. less than 6 years old? b. 6 -17 years old? c. 18 -24 years old? d . 25 -44 years old? e. 45 -64 years old? f. 65 or more years of age? 34. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Single 3 . Divorced 4. Widowed 35. Are you Hispanic? 1 =Yes 2 = No 9 = DK/Refused 36. What is your racial group? 1. White 2 . Black 3. Other 37. What is your zip code? 38. What is the street intersection closest to your home? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stop me when I say the category that best describes your total household income from all sources. 1. Less than $15,000 2. $15,000 -$25,000 3. $25,000 -$ 50,000 4. $50,000 -$75,000 5. More than $75,000 9. (DO NOT READ) DK I Refused 40. How many people in your household are employed? 41. What is the highest level of education completed by any member of your family? 1. some grade school 2. some high school 3. graduated high school 4. technical I vocational school 5. some college 6. graduated college 7. post-graduate degree 153 42. Sex (DO NOT READ ) 1. Male 2. Female 43. What year were you born? 44. How many years ha ve you been a resident of Dade County? _______ _ 45. PBD#: (17) This concludes our survey. Thank you very much for participating in our study. My supervisor may be calling to verify that this interview actually took place . Is your tel ephone number: Interviewer:----------------Date : __________ _ Time Out: ________________ Telephone : _______ _ 154 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION REGIONAL SERVICE CENTERS NRPA Great Lakes Regional Office 650 West Higgins Road Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60195 Phone: (708) 843-7529 Fax: (708) 843-3058 NRPA Southeast Service Center 1285 Parker Road Conyers, Georgia 30207 Phone: (770) 760-1668 Fax: (770) 760-9427 NRPA Northeast Service Center 2775 S. Quincy Street, Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22206 Phone: (703) 578-5558 Fax: (703) 671-6772 NRPA Pacific Service Center 350 South 333rd Street, #103 Federal Way, Washington 98003 Phone: (206) 661-2265 Fax: (206) 661-3929 NRPA Western Service Center Eni Jesperson Beach House 619 Prospect Lake Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80910 Phone: (719) 632-7031 Fax: (719) 632-0709 155 SELECTED RECREATION ORGANIZATIONS Listing compiled from the 27th Edition of the Encyclopedia of Associations 1993, Vol. l-3, Deborah M. Burek (ed.), Gale Research Inc.: Detroit, 1992. Amateur Athletic Union Youth Sports Program 3400 West 86th St., P .O. Box 68207 Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317) 872-2900 American Amateur Baseball Congress 118-19 Redfield Plaza Marshall, MI 49068 (616) 781-2002 American Amateur Racquetball Association 815 N . Weber, Ste. 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 635-5396 Amateur Athletic Union of the United States 3400 West 86th Street, P .O . Box 68207 Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317) 872-2900 Amateur Skating Union of the United States I 033 Shady Lane Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (708) 790-3230 Amateur Trapshooting Association 601 West National Rd . Vandalia, OH 45377 (513) 898-4638 American Association of Museums 1225 I St., NW , Ste . 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-2277 American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Oglebay Park, Rt. 88 Wheeling, WV 26003 (304) 242-2160 American Camping Association 5000 State Rd ., 67 N Martinsville, IN 46151 (317) 342-8456 American Canoe Association 7432 Albany Station Rd., Ste. B-226 Springfield, VA 22150 (703) 451-0141 American Hiking Society 1015 31st St., NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 385-3252 156 American Lawn Bowls Association c/o Merton Isaacman 17 Buckhorn Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 476-3133 American Platform Tennis Association Box 901 Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 (201) 744-1190 American Running and Fitness Association 9310 Old Georgetown Rd . Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 897-0197 American Water Ski Association 799 Overlook Dr. Winter Haven , FL 33884 (813) 324-4341 American Youth Hostels P .O. Box 37613 Washington, DC 2001 3-7613 (202) 783-6161 American Youth Soccer Organizations P.O . Box 5045 Hawthorne, CA 90251 (213) 643-6455 Athletics Congress of the USA 200 Jenkins Ct., 610 Old York Rd . Jenkintown, PA 19046-2627 (215) 887-0200 Babe Ruth Baseball 1770 Brunswick Ave., P.O . Box 5000 Trenton, NJ 08638 Bicycle Manufacturers Association of America 3050 K St., NW, Sui te 400 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 944-9297 Billiard and Bowling Institute of America 200 Castlewood Dr. North Palm Beach, FL 33408 (407) 840-1120 Boy Scouts of America 1325 Walnut Hill, P .O . Box 152079 Irving, TX 75015 (214) 580-2000 Boys Clubs of America 771 First Ave . NY, NY 10017 (212) 351-5900 Camp Fire Boys and Girls 4601 Madison Ave. Kansas City, MO 64112-1278 (816) 756-1950 Council for National Cooperation in Aquatics 901 W . New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 638-4238 Croquet Foundation of America 500 A venue of Champions Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418-9990 (407) 627-4188 Field Hockey Association of America /U.S . Field Hockey Assoc . 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578-4587 Girl Scouts of the USA 830 Third Ave. NY, NY 10022 (212) 940-7500 League of American Wheelmen 6707 Whitestone Rd., Ste. 209 Baltimore, MD 21207 (301) 944-3399 Little League Baseball Box 3485 Williamsport, PA 17701 (717) 326-1921 National Amateur Basketball Association 6832 W . North Ave., Ste. 4A Chicago, IL 60635 (312) 637-0811 National Boating Federation 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 338-5718 National Bowling Council 2300 Clarendon Blvd., #1107 Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 841-1660 National Collegiate Athletic Association 6201 College Blvd. Overland Park, KS 66211 (913) 339-1906 National Employee Services and Recreation Association 2400 S. Downing Ave. Westchester, IL 60154-5199 (708) 562-8130 National Field Archery Association 31407 Outerl-10 Redlands , CA 92373 (714) 794-2133 National 4-H Council 7100 Connecticut Ave., NW Chevy Chase, MD 20815-4999 (301) 961-2800 National Golf Foundation l 150 S .U .S. Highway One Jupiter, FL 33477 (407) 744-6006 National Horseshoe Pitchers' Association c/o Donnie Roberts P.O. Box 7927 Columbus, OH 43207 (614) 444-8510 National Paddleball Association 6529 S. Westnedge Portage, MI 49002 (616) 323-0011 National Safe Boating Council U .S. Coast Guard Headquarters Commandant (G-NAB-3) Washington, DC 20593 (202) 267-1060 National Shuffleboard Association c/o Harold Edmondson 3816 Norbrook Dr. Columbus, OH 43220 (614) 457-3816 National Skeet Shooting Association P.O. Box 690007 San Antonio, TX 78268 (512) 688-3371 Pony Baseball/Softball P.O. Box 225 Washington, PA 15301 (412) 225-1060 Presidents Council on Physical Fitness & Sports 701 Penn Ave, NW, Ste. 250 Washington , DC 20004 (202) 272-3430 Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association 200 Castlewood Dr. North Palm Beach, FL 33408 (407) 842-4100 Roller Skating Association 7700 A St. Lincoln, NE 68501 (402) 489-8811 157 United States Badminton Association 1750 E. Boulder St, Bldg . 10, Room 127 Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578-4809 United States Curling Association c/o David Garber 1100 Center Point Dr., Box 97 1 Stevens Point, Wl 54481 (715) 344-1199 United States Cycling Federation c/o USOC 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578-4581 United States Diving Pan America Plaza 201 S. Capitol, Suite 430 Indianapolis , IN 46225 (317) 237-5252 United States Fencing Association 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO 80909-5774 (719) 578-4511 United States Figure Skating Association 20 First St. Colorado Springs, CO 80906 (719) 635-5200 United States Gymnastics Federation 201 S. Capitol, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46225 (317) 237-5050 United States Handball Association 930 N. Benton Ave . Tucson, AZ 85711 (602) 795-0434 United States Judo Federation c/o Yosh Uchida 418 Union Ave. Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 United States Paddle Tennis Association 189 Seeley St. Brooklyn, NY 11218 (718) 788 -2094 United States Soccer Federation 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578-4678 United States Squash Racquets Association P.O. Box 1216 23 Cynwyd Rd. Bala-Cnywyd, PA 19004 (215) 667-4006 158 United States Tennis Association 1212 Avenue of the Americas NY , NY 10036 (212) 302-3322 United States Tennis Court and Track Builders Association 720 Light St. Baltimore, MD 21230-3816 (301) 752-3500 United States Volleyball Association 3595 E. Fountain Blvd. Colorado Springs , CO 80910-17 40 (719) 637-8300 U.S .A. Amateur Boxing Federation 1750 E. Boulder St. Colorado Springs, CO ~0909 (719) 578-4506 U.S.A. Hockey 2997 Broadmoor Valley Rd . Colorado Springs, CO 80906 (719) 576-4990 Young Women 's Chri stian Associations of the U.S.A . 726 Broadway NY , NY 10003 (212) 614-2700 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1992 Construction Cost Guidebook. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Recreation Division, Recreation Services Branch. Lansing, Michigan . Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Building and Facilities, Transportation Facilities and Transportation Vehicles, U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Washington, D.C, August 1992. Ann Arbor's Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space 1988-1994, Department of Parks and Recreation. Ann Arbor, Michigan . June 1988 . Bannon, Joseph J., Leisure Resources: Its Comprehensive Planning, Prentice-Hall, Inc ., Englewood Cliffs, NJ ., 1976, 454 pp. Buechner, Robert D. (Ed.), National Park, Recreation and Open Space Standards, NRPA, Arlington, VA, 1971, 51 pp. Cangeni, P., W. Williams, and P. Goskell. "Going to the Source for Accessibility Assessment". Parks and Recreation Vo. 27 No 10 (1992), pp . 66-69. Cheek, Neil H. et al., Leisure and Recreation Places, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1976, 172 pp. Christiansen, Monty L., Park Planning Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977, 413 pp. Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, published for Resources for the Future, Inc., by the Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966, 328 pp. Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide: City of Lino Lakes . Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Division of Parks and Recreation Planning and Design. Minneapolis, MN. 1993. Crompton, J.L., I. S. Reed, and M. Uysol. Empirical Identification of Product Life-Cycle Patterns in the Delivery of Municipal Park and Recreation Services". Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Vol. 5 No. 1 (1977), pp. 17-34. Crompton, J.L. "Needs Assessment: Taking the Pulse of the Public Recreation Client". Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Texas A&M University System. College Station, Texas. 1986. DeChiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Urban Planning and Design Criteria (2nd Ed.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975, 646 pp . Development Exactions-Impact Feesffaxes. Park and Recreation Impact Fees No. 1 Planning Advisory Service. Chicago, Illinois. American Planning Association. June 1987 . 159 Development Exactions-Dedications and Fees-In-Lieu-Of Development Exactions-Dedications No. 3 Planning Advisory Service. Chicago, Illinois. American Planning Association. August 1985. Development Exactions-Dedication and Fees-In-Lieu-Of Development, Exaction Dedications No. 2 Planning Advisory Service. Chicago, Illinois. American Planning Association . September, 1984. Driver, B.L.. "The Benefits o f Leisure". Parks and Recreation Vol. 27 No. 11 (1992), pp . 14 -24. Feasibility Studies for Recreation Facilities, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto , Canada, 1979 , 27 pp. Fogg, George E ., Park Planning Guidelines (3rd Ed.), NRPA, Arlington, VA. 1991 Frank, J .E. and R.M. Rhodes . Development Ex actions. Planners Press. American Planning Association. 1987 . Godbey, G., A. Graffe, and S . James. "Reality and Perception: Where Do We Fit In?". Parks and Recreation Vol. 28 No. 1 (1993), pp. 76-84. Gold, S.M. "Resolving Conflicts Of Recreation Users". Trends Vol. 29 No. 4 (1993). Gold, S.M. (1973). Urban Recreation and Planning. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lee & Febiger. 333 pp. Gold, Seymour M., Recreation Planning and Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1980, 322 pp. A Guide to Designing Accessible Outdoor Recreation Facilities, U. S. Department of Interior, Lake Central Regional Office, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980, 58pp. Guidelines For Open Spa ce Planning and Management. East Bay Regional Park District. 1991 . Healing America's Cities: Wh y We Must Invest in Urban Parks. The Trust For Public Land, San Francisco, California, 1994. Hendon, Wm. S ., Evaluating Urban Parks and Recreation, Praeger Publishers , New York, 1981, 271 pp. Hines , Thomas I., Revenue Sources Management in Parks and Recreation, NRPA, Alexandria, VA, 1978, 170 pp . Howe, R.J., D. Gaeddert, and M .A. Howe . Quality on Trial. West Publishing Company, St. Paul , Minnesota. 1993 . Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Neighborhood Open Space Plan. Iowa City, Iowa. 1993 . 160 Kerr, Kathleen W. (Ed.), Cost Data for Landscape Construction (3rd Ed.), Kerr Associates Inc., Minneapolis, 1982, 258 pp. Kershaw, Warren W., Land Acquisition, NRPA, Alexandria, VA, 1975, 26 pp. Kirsch, Sondra (Ed .), Public Policy Model for Charges and Fees, NRPA, Alexandria, VA, 1980, 45 pp. Knapp, Richard F., and Charles E. Hartsoe, Play for America, NRPA, Arlington, VA, 1979, 269 pp. Krahe, J . "Park Standards Are Up In The Air". Planning Vol. 56 No . 12 (1990). pp. 10-13. Land Use In Transition: Emerging Forces and Issues Shaping The Real Estate Environment. The Urban Land Institute. Washington, DC. 1993 . Leisure And Life 2000: A Policy Plan for Recreation, Parks , and Community Services in San Jose, California to the Year 2000. San Jose , California. 1988. Leisure Services Location Package : Project Operations Guide, U . S . Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC, 1978, 156 pp. Listokin, D. and C . Walker. The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook. New Brunswick, New Jersey. Center For Urban Planning Research . Rutgers University. 1989 Mariposa 2005, Mariposa County Parks And Recreation Master Plan. Mariposa County, California. 1992. Martin, D.W. "Application of the National Recreation and Park Association Open Space Guidelines and Facility Standards by Selected Cities in the United States''. Research Report Leisure Research Institute, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation . Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana. 1993 . Mills, A.S., D.E. Albrecht , and B .E . Wicks . "Recreation and Parks Needs Assessment Survey Manual". Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Texas A&M University System. College Station, Texas. 1984. Mobley, T.A . and R.A. Toalson, Parks and Recreation in the 21st Century, Arlington, Virginia, National Recreation and Park Association, 1992, 121 pp. Nelessen, Anton Clarence, Visions for a New American Dream. Planners Press, American Planning Association, 1994. Nelson, A.C. (ed.), Development Impact Fees , Policy Rational, Practice, Theory and Issues, Chicago, Illinois, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 1988. Nichols, J.C., A.C. Nelson, and Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees, Chicago, Illinois, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 1991 . 161 Nichols, J.C., The Calculation of Proportionate-Share Impact Fees, Chicago, Illinois, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 408, American Planning Association, 1988. Olympia's Plan for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities, Olympia Parks and Recreation Department, Olympia, Washington, 1991. Open Space Master Plan, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Los Altos, California, 1992. Orange County, Florida 1990-2010 Comprehensive Policy Plan -Open Space element. Orange County Planning Department, Orlando, Florida, 1991. Outdoor Recreation for America, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Washington , D .C ., 1962, 246 pp. Park Maintenance Standards, National Recreation and Park Association, Alexandria, Virginia, 1986. Park, Recreation Facility, and Open Space Plan Draft. Willamalane Park and Recreation District, Springfield, Oregon, September 1992. Parks, Recreation And Open Space Comprehensive Plan . Fauquier County, Virginia (1993). Park, Recreation And Open Space Master Plan. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1988. Parks And Recreation Master Plan. City of Chandler, Arizona, 1993. Planning Recreation : A Manual Of Principles and Practices, Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Province Of Ontario, Toronto, Canada, 1991. Policy Plan, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. Fairfax Station, Virginia 1992 . Recreation Carrying Capacity Handbook: Methods and Techniques for Planning, Design and Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 1980, 104 pp. Recreation/Open Space Plan Update 1990. Upper Arlington, Ohio, 1990. Reed, David J. and Richard R. Perdue, Park Planning and Design: An Evaluation Approach, NRPA ,Alexandria, VA, 1979, 55 pp. Rutledge, Albert J., A Visual Approach to Park Design, Garland STPM Press, New York, 1981, 180 pp. Savage, J.P. "LOS Leaders". Planning Vol. 59 No. 1 (1993). pp. 16-19 . Seattle's Park and Recreation COMPLAN. Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. Seattle, Washington, October 1992. 162 Smart, J. Eric, Recreational Development Handbook, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C ., 1981, 257 pp. Snyder, T.P. and M.A . Stegman, Paying for Growth., Washington, DC, The Urban Land Institute, 1987 . Somerset County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan . Somerset County Park Commission and Planning Board, Somerset, New Jersey, 1992. Stearns County Recreation Plan. Stearns County Park Department. St. Cloud, Minnesota, 1989. Strategic Plan For Anaheim Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Anaheim Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, Anaheim, California, 1987. Theobold, Wm. F., Evaluation Of Recreation and Park Programs, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979, 204 pp. van der Smissen, Betty, Evaluation and Self-Study of Public Recreation and Park Agencies, NRPA, Alexandria, VA, 1978, 69 pp. Waldron, J.C. "Balancing Outdoor Recreation in the Real Florida". Trends Vol. 29 No. 4 (1993). pp. 10-13 . Warnick, Rodney B., David C . Bojanic, and Sharon Bojanic, "Yield Management in Recreation Resources Management". Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 12, No . 3 ( 1994). Wilder, Robert L., Parks and Recreation -An Economic Justification, NRPA , Alexandria, VA, 1981, 63 pp. 163