Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2002 - Regular Agenda - Parks BoardStaff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Don Allison; Bill Davis; Jon Turton; Laura Wood (Alternate). Board Members Absent: Larry Farnsworth. Guests: Bill Lay, Chairman of the Senior Advisory Committee. Visitors: Lou Hodges, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences (TAMU). Workshop Meetine to Call to order: John Nichols called the workshop meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. 2e Pardon — consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Glenn Schroeder made a motion to accept the absence of Larry Farnsworth as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives and City Council Strategic Issues: Steve Beachy said that an update of the Board, Departmental, and City Council Strategic Issues was included in the Board packets that went out. He added that the Departmental goals support the Board goals and that the Board Goals support the Council's Strategic Issues. He went on to say that each Park Supervisor has personal goals that relate to the Departmental and Board goals, as well as to the Council's Strategic Issues. Board Goal: "Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. " Glen Davis referred to this goal, and asked what the Board should do to accomplish it. Steve said that the Department has developed a preliminary capital improvement project list for future park facilities. The next step the Board should take is to look at the list and determine if projects need to be added. He added that in February, the Board should look at the preliminary cost estimates and determine project priorities. Jon T. felt that this goal should be the Board's top priority. Glen D. asked what the Board needed to do to accomplish the goals within the budget year. Steve said that the Board goals are linked to the Council Strategic Planning Calendar. He added that additional steps will be added to the Board's goals if warranted. Jon T. said that Departmental, Board, and Council Strategic Issues should be in sync with each other to ensure that the Board is working on the "same page" as the Council. Board Goal: "Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program (Madeley Park site review). " Steve said that there would be a joint meeting and public hearing with the City of Bryan and College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., concerning the development of the Madeley Park site. Kris Lehde will send out additional meeting information and an agenda once it is available. Board Goal: "Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. " Steve reviewed a proposed schedule, that was included in the Board packets, to accomplish this goal. The Board was in consensus that the Master Plan Subcommittee should be utilized to review the plan, and bring recommendations back to the ull Board for approval. The members on the Subcommittee are John Nichols, Don Allison, and Glen Davis. John N. suggested adding a public review period to the schedule. Steve agreed that would be essential to the process. 4. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Project Report: Steve reported on the following Capital Improvement Items: • The Hallaran Pool Filter Project is complete. • Oaks Park Bridge is under construction. • The Veterans Park and Athletic Complex construction project is going very well. The Veterans Memorial Committee has received 204 pledges totaling $323,475. The deadline to submit names to be included on the memorial for the dedication on November 11, 2002, is April 30tn • The Department is waiting for the Legal Department to draw up the interlocal agreement for the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. The Board asked for an update on the status of the agreement. Steve will check the status and update the Board. Jon T. said that he is concerned about the safety of the children that play at Anderson Park, and feels that that there should be an iron fence (similar to the one that was recently installed at Pebble Creek Park) installed on the south end of the park, along Holleman. Steve said that Pete Vanecek could come up with a cost estimate. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning potential future Capital Improvement Projects: The following are the Board's concerns and suggestions for potential future capital improvement projects: • Bill Davis is concerned about providing shade structures for park playground equipment. Steve said that this concern would be added to the list under Item V, "Park Improvements. " • Jon T. identified the need for a Pony League ball field, possibly at a community park. Steve said that a new "South" Community Park is planned under Item IV, "Community Facilities. " Glen D. said that when the master plan is done for the park, it should include a Pony League ball field. • Jon T. asked if there were plans to build a community swimming pool south of Southwood Valley. • It was suggested that the Lick Creek Park, Phase II and the Luther Jones Landfill projects should be moved from Item I, "Neighborhood Park Development, " to Item IV, "Community Facilities. " • Glenn S. asked if any joint projects were planned for the new high school. He suggested adding potential tennis court lighting and/or a covered tennis court project to Item IV, "Community Facilities. " Steve said that once cost estimates are determined, the Board would then need to prioritize the potential projects on the list. He added that a special meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss the project list. Kris will mail the cost estimates and project descriptions to the Board prior to the meeting. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the skate park report to the City Council on December 20, 2001: John Nichols requested that Workshop Item #6 be moved to the Regular Agenda, following Item #12. The Board was in consensus on that item being moved. 7. Bear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting of January 8, 2002 Page 2 of 5 Regular Meeting John Nichols opened the regular meeting at 7:20 p.m. 8. Discussion, and possible approval of minutes from regular meeting of December 11, 2001: Glenn S. made a motion to approve the minutes of December 11, 2001, pending an amendment to Item #7 stating that "Park Zone 7" (instead of the 'proposed site for a potential development") is bordered by George Bush Drive, FM 2818, and Wellborn Road...." Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning recommendations for Senior programs and facilities (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy S.b): Steve stated that this item is a City Council Strategic Issue. He said that a draft report (refer to the draft Senior Programs and Facilities Deport) would be presented to the City Council on January 24, 2002, pending the Board's approval of it. (Note: This meeting has since been postponed to February 28, 2002.) He introduced Marci Rodgers and Bill Lay who presented the draft report to the Board. Marci said that two (2) groups of the Texas A&M University's Eisenhower Leadership Development Program have been studying the Senior facilities and programs and have come up with short-term and long-term goal recommendations for these programs. She added that the Committee would need the Board's approval of the report before it could be taken to the City Council for their consideration. She added that as a result of the report, the Senior Advisory Committee does not feel that a Senior Center needs to be built at this time, and that the existing facilities that the City has should be used to their full capacity. Once the programs outgrow the existing facilities, the potential for renting meeting space had been discussed as an option. She said that the ultimate goal of the Committee would be to have a Community Center that the whole community could utilize and benefit from. Marci added that the Committee has requested that more awareness and campaigning efforts be made to promote the Senior programs, as well as the possibility of partnering with other organizations and groups. She added that the issue of transportation to programs would also be addressed. John N. asked what marketing techniques and resources would be used to promote the programs. Marci stated that a lot of the marketing would be through word of mouth. Steve added that any marketing or transportation issues that would require additional funding resources would be brought to the City Council during the budget process. Jon T. asked what age groups were surveyed in the report. Mr. Lay responded that the group surveyed were ages 65 and older, although, he added, needs may be different with other age groups. Steve said that the existing programs the Department offers will be reviewed to determine if Senior programs can be incorporated into them. Mr. Lay went on to say that the Committee is recommending that the study continue and be done as a gradual process, so as not to jump into anything. Glen D. made a motion to endorse and support the draft report. Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. (Note: The Senior Advisory Committee meets on the last Monday of every month, at 10:00 a. m., at the "Exit" Teen Center.) 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the First Quarter Fiscal Year 2002 Park Maintenance Standards Performance Report (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy 2.a): Steve said that a lot of time went into the development of the Park Maintenance Standards. Curtis Bingham said that when the standards were created, the Department had estimated that 83% of the standards were being met. He went on to say that the goal is to meet 90% of the standards within five (5) years. To track this process, the Department created the Maintenance Standards Survey from the maintenance standards. Curtis reviewed the process that the Parks Operations Supervisors use to Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting of January 8, 2002 Page 3 of 5 conduct the surveys. He added that, at certain times of the year, some standards may not be applicable, and that some standards would weigh more than others. Standards for the survey could also be added and/or amended if warranted to "fine tune" it. Curtis said that overall, the Department is currently meeting 77% of the maintenance standards for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2002. Glen D. added that any changes to the standards would require approval by both the Board and the City Council. John N. suggested that any changes be referenced in the survey for tracking purposes. John asked how the Operations Supervisors are trained on the survey grading process to ensure that they are grading consistently with each other. Curtis replied that the Operations Supervisors have attended Turf Management Training. He added that all of the three (3) Operations Supervisors are responsible for grading their own area of responsibility, so the scores are based on judgement. John suggested cross training the Supervisors, and having them grade the other areas of responsibility as well, or have them grade in teams with each other. Glen D. said that he thought the report was a good starting point, and added that it would be a work in progress. Steve said that the results of the survey would be included in the Departments' quarterly performance measure reports that are submitted as part of the budget process. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for T.C.C. Subdivision (Park Zone #7)r Peter Vanecek stated that the proposed development is located on FM 2818, approximately half a mile from Woodway Park. He said that the total park land requirement would only be .69 acres, and added that some of the land has greenway on it, but most of the land is in the floodplain or is densely wooded (refer to Project Review Checklist). The developer is requesting, and staff is recommending, the dedication of the fee in lieu of land. Glen D. made a motion to accept the dedication of the fee in lieu of land for the T.C.C. Subdivision. Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glenn S. suggested adding the location of the proposed development, along with a site map, to the Project Review Checklist in the future. 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning possible Board support for an ice skating rink at the new Brazos County Expo Center: John N. asked for the Board's thoughts on this item. Jon T. said that he is a member of the Brazos Valley Ice Coalition. There appears to be the possibility that an ice skating rink will be built in conjunction with, and adjacent to, the new Brazos County Expo Center. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the Board to state their support of any recreational activity that comes to the community. John N. said that the Board should be specific with their support, and would like to know how supporting such a facility would benefit the community, and also how the operation of such a facility would impact the City's Recreation Staff. Bill D. said that if an ice skating rink could be built in conjunction with the Expo Center, and it would benefit the community, he would be in favor of the Board supporting efforts to include a rink at the Expo Center. Steve said that if the Board is in support of endorsing the idea, a resolution should be prepared on behalf of the Board. After some discussion, it was decided that no action would be taken on this item at this time. Workshop Item #6® Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the skate park report to the City Council on December 20, 2001: John N. said that in order to become more sensitive to the Council's vision, he and Steve would try to obtain better feedback before future projects are presented to the City Council. John N. asked Steve if Staff had been given direction from Council at the December 20, 2002, meeting when the Skate Park Report was presented to them. Steve responded that he recalled that consideration Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting of January 8, 2002 Page 4 of 5 might be given should there be a private venture that wants to construct such a facility, but that Council did not want the City to incur the liability. Glen D. felt that this topic was a "dead issue." He recommended that the Board allocate more of their time to their other goals and objectives. The Board was in consensus. This item was intended for discussion only, and no motion was made. 13. Discussion of next meeting dates and agendas: There will be a special meeting on Tuesday, February 5, 2002, to discuss possible future capital improvement projects, a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 12, 2002, and a joint meeting with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, to discuss the future of Madeley Park. Kris will send out additional information once it is available. - Jon Turton asked for an update of the status of user contract agreement renewals with the Parks and Recreation Department. - It was requested that discussion of the interlocal agreement for the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park be brought to the Board for discussion if an update has not been sent to the Board prior to the meeting. 14. Hear Visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 15. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting of January 8, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Senior advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, December 17, 2001 College Station Teen Center 1520 Rock Prairie Road 10:OOam MINUTES Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, Annie Lee Finch, Bill Kling, Billy Lay, Mary Jo Lay, Neal Nutall, Suzanne Reynolds, Joanna Yeager Members Absent: Vallie Broussard, Laura Holmes, Gerald Jordan, Haskell Monroe, Carol Parzen, Helen Siegel I. Call to order. Bill Lay called the meeting to order at 10:20am. H. Hear visitors. Peter Lamont was introduced to the committee III. Approval of minutes from regular meeting and workshop of November 26, 2001. The minutes were approved as circulated. W. Discussion, consideration and possible action concerning Eisenhower Report. The committee was given a copy of the written report and Bill Lay explained that the students presented their report to City Council on December 6, 2001. He also reported that council's response was positive. V. Discussion, consideration and possible action concerning staff recommendations for, options on senior programs and facilities. The committee was given a rough draft of a proposal prepared by staff for senior programs and facilities based on the recommendations of the Eisenhower Program report and the Senior Advisory Committee workshop held in November. The committee was asked to review and give any suggestions to the proposal. Once approved by the committee the proposal will be sent to the Parks and Recreation Board for approval at their January 8th meeting. The final proposal is scheduled for the January 24, 2002 meeting of city council. Phyllis Dozier asked that the second goal under the Senior Advisory Committee "Goals" be changed to read, "Structure programs for seniors which enable them to be a viable pant of the College Station community" (change: the word permit was replaced with enable) In order to meet Short Term Goals for Senior Programs the following suggestions were given: ® Use senior volunteers to help with registration or other activities ® Emphasis in marketing community as a great place for retirees • As the city investigates transportation, it is important to consider... - easy access from buses or other forms of transportation, into the facility - central pick-up locations with easy access - specialized transportation needs for disabled - consideration of free transportation for seniors on Brazos Transit Bill Kling moved that the proposal be accepted with the suggestions made by the committee. Neal Nutall seconded the motion. The motion passed. VI. Report from Senior Services Coordinator. (report attached) VII. Next meeting date and agenda. The committee will meet on Monday, January 28, 2002 at 10:00am VIII. Adjourn The committee adjourned at 11:30am CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Application for City Boards/Commissions Committees for Year 2002 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY NAME:Joel Nettles TELEPHONE:693-9081 - H) - ..-.._.... _ ADDRESS:1601 Valley View Dr. #1001 W Residence: Mailing: I have lived in College Station_ 5 vrs. Subdivision_ Brookwood VOTERS CERTIFICATE NO.183585 OCCUPATION OR AREA OF EXPERTISE:Office Depot (If retired, please indicate former occupation or profession) EDUCATION (optionai):B.S. in Youth & Family from Abilene Christian University PROFESSIONAL AND/OR COMMUNITY ACT IVITIES:voiunteer with A&M Church of Christ Youth Ministry; Volunteer with A&M Consolidated High School Athletics ADDITIONAL PERTINENT INFORMATION/REFERENCES:GaryCochran -board member Non- Standin_q Committees ® 911 Brazos County Emergency Comm. Dist. O B/CS Economic Development Board ® B/CS Tourism Council ® City Center Site Selection & Master Plan Committee 0 Conference Center Advisory Committee 13 Greenways Task Force OX Lincoln Center Advisory Committee 0 Senior Programs Advisory Committee Standinq Committees • Cemetery Committee • Community Appearance Committee • Construction Board of Adjustments and • CS Business Development Corporation • Electrical Examining Board • Facade Improvement Committee 0 Historic Preservation Committee 13 Joint Relief Funding Review Committee 13 Library Committee 0 Northgate Revitalization Board C3 Parks and Recreation Board 13 Planning and Zoning Commission 0 Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board C3 Zoning Board of Adjustments �4aure (Signa re of Applicant) 119-08-OZ (Date) Appeals Please indicate if you are currently serving on a board/commission/committee Name of PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPOINTED TO (Board/Commission/Committee) o:council/applyldoc CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOA CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE P.O. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 ON (Date of Appointment) a ESTATES OF WOODLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION PG 2. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT WOODLAND HILLS PLEASE LIST YOUR ORDER OF PREFERENCE: rl PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 10 PICNIC AREA 6 VOLLEYBALL COURT BASKETBALL COURT TENNIS COURT® SOCCER AREA BASEBALL AREA RUNNING TRACK NATURE TRAIL, OTHER (PLEASE LIST) OTHER (PLEASE LIST) SUGGESTIONS: /14 I elkc- �'u V-c 61"") 494 ej r) M LZMA 2 Itt PLEASE RETURN TO THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. ESTATES OF WOODLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION a PG 2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT WOODLAND HILLS PLEASE LIST YOUR ORDER OF PRf-FERENCE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PICNIC AREA VOLLEYBALL COURT BASKETBALL COURT TENNIS COURT SOCCER AREA BASEBALL AREA RUNNING TRACK NATURE TRAIL OTHER (PLEASE LIST) -Pro OTHER (PLEASE LIST) SUGGESTIONS: W-ALJOLMEL-M PLEASE RETURN TO THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. Tr 0 ESTATES OF WOODLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION PG 2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT WOODLAND HILLS PLEASE LIST YOUR ORDER OF PREFERENCE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PICNIC AREA VOLLEYBALL COURT BASKETBALL COURT / TENNIS COURT ' SOCCER AREA Z4 BASEBALL AREA RUNNING TRACK NATURE TRAIL OTHER (PLEASE LIST) OTHER (PLEASE LIST) SUGGESTIONS: ^ Ze/ P ,fin /_/ill A� / Aj P LIV P AVE2 AE N TO THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. ESTATES OF WOODLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION mf PG 2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT WOODLAND HILLS PLEASE LIST YOUR ORDER OF PREFERENCE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PICNIC AREA VOLLEYBALL COURT -7 BASKETBALL COURT TENNIS COURT SOCCER AREA BASEBALL AREA RUNNING TRACK NATURE TRAIL OTHER (PLEASE LIST) OTHER (PLEASE LIST) SUGGESTIONS: ilt/g f w- r�-McEg VVID N 0 V 2 1 2003 PLEASE RETURN TO THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. ESTATES OF WOODLAND HILLS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION PG 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT WOODLAND HILLS PLEASE LIST YOUR ORDER OF PREFERENCE: ti 4 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PICNIC AREA VOLLEYBALL COURT BASKETBALL COURT TENNIS COURT SOCCER AREA BASEBALL AREA RUNNING TRACK NATURE TRAIL OTHER (PLEASE L/ST) OTHER (PLEASE LIST) SUGGESTIONS: a MOV& - r I - s ' �i'diaK)K IQU . N O V -1 7 2003 PLEASE RETURN TO THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. 103 West Brookside Drive E-mail: January 5, 2002 Mr. Steve Beachy Director of Recreation & Parks City of College Station College Station, Texas 778 40 Dear Steve, J� RA44 Bryan, Texas 77801-3606 i-raatz@cox-internet.com (979) W-3177 The following is my first pass at the Jane Pulley narrative. Feel free to make any corrections or additions/subtraction that you feel necessary. Jane Pulley has contributed so significantly to the girls of the city of College Station that we co'Icate these softball fields as the Jane Pulley fields: Jane Pulley was the person who organized families and led the effort to establish a Girls Softball Association to provide summer activities forgirls of College Station in the 1970s Hermvolvements include a spokesperson for the furl Scouts, a beloved teacher atA & M Consolidated High School, and community leader forgirls activities in the city. Jane Pulley represents the best of what a citizen should be for their city. The City of College Station herebynames these softball fields "The Jane Pulley Fields" in recognition ofMrs. Jane Pulley's accomplishments for the girls of College Station and the entire community. Steve, I have talked to Mort and Kathy Kothmann and they are enthusiastically in support of naming the fields for Jane. Mort and Kathy have known Jane for some 30 years and Kathy has agreed to get the names for us. Although I no longer reside in College Station, I did live there for 30 years (1407 Caudill and 1404 Lawyer in College Station). Some of the coaches that Jane managed to acquire were Wally Groff, currently the Athletic Director at Texas A&M University, the late Vern Schneider, former city of College Station council member, Don Smith faculty member Industrial. Engineering, Texas A&M University, and myself. But many families benefited from the organization of the Girls Softball program. Kathy Kothmann and I will secure the necessary signatures. I thank you for your efforts on behalf of us all. Re tfully yo , aatz This policy is intended to serve as an outline for individuals or organizations seeking to name City of College Station parks and recreation facilities. This policy is not meant to be all - encompassing, but a helpful guide to make the process more fluid and practical. Each request has unique characteristics and must be addressed as such. This policy attempts to outline the minimum naming requirements as reflected by previous Parks and Recreation Advisory Board decisions and discussions. It may be necessary to supplement, as required, more detailed criteria for this process. 1. All requests for naming a park or facility are to be presented to the Parks and Recreation Department for consideration. For consideration, the requests are to be made by a group or civic organization upon presentation of a petition containing the signature of 25 or more registered voters from the City of College Station. Requests made by individuals will only be considered if the request satisfies Sections 2 a-c of the policy guidelines. Parks do not need to be named after an individual. When named after an individual, the justification must be compelling. 2. The naming request for a recently deceased individual will have a sixty (60) day waiting period from the time of death before the request may be proposed for consideration. 3. The Parks and Recreation Department staff will review the requests for completeness before submitting the item for consideration by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, The chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall appoint a subcommittee that will be responsible for evaluation of the naming request and subsequent recommendation to the full Advisory Board. 5. The subcommittee shall submit its recommendation in a formal written report prior to full review by the Advisory Board. 6. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, by simple majority, shall approve or disapprove the recommendations made by the subcommittee. 7. If the subcommittee's recommendation is for approval and it is disapproved by the full Advisory Board, the matter may then be referred back to the subcommittee for further action. 8. If the subcommittee's recommendation is for denial of the request, no further action is required by the Board. 9. If the proposed naming is approved by the Advisory Board, then the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration and final approval or disapproval. M1161411EM Parks and facilities should be named in the following manner: 1. in honor of individuals who donate land for park space; 2. In honor of individuals who sell open space to the City at a value considerably below market value; 3. In honor of individuals or organizations that contribute 50% or better of land and/or money for the park or facility, 4. In honor of national, state, and local heroes, 5. In honor of community leaders whose outstanding personal service has resulted in significant and enduring contributions to the community. Support for the proposed name should include endorsements by other groups, neighborhoods, or organizations. 6. In relation to the predominant geographical characteristics or physical features (lakes, rivers, streams, and trees) of the land; 7. In relation to the subdivisions within the City where the site is located; 8, In relation to streets adjacent to the park, 9. No park shall be given the same name as an existing school site or public facility, except where the sites abut one another. 10. No park or facility officially named for a particular individual will be changed, However, there may be a park or facility that has a common name with no official designation. In this instance the renaming of such properties is sometimes appropriate. Ron G 2 Board hair anay, Boa Date Attest Bridgette tte Geo CPS, BoBoard':��retary 15 95- Date AGENDA College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Workshop Meeting Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas Call to order. 2. Pardon — consider requests for absences of members from meeting. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives and City Council Strategic Issues. 4. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Project Report. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning potential future capital improvement proj ects. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the skate park report to the City Council on December 20, 2001. 7. Hear visitors. AGENDA College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 7000 p.m. Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas Approval of minutes from regular meeting of December 11, 2001. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning recommendations for Senior programs and facilities (City Council Vision Statement #4,Strategy 5.b). 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the First Quarter Fiscal Year 2002 Park Maintenance Standards Performance Report (City Council Vision Statement #4,Strategy 2.a). 11. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for T.C.C. Subdivision (Park Zone #7). 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning possible Board support for an ice skating rink at the new Brazos County Expo Center. 13. Discussion of next meeting dates and agendas. 14. Hear Visitors. 15. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. City of College Station Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan Three Year Review and Update Proposed Schedule 1. January: — Staff review and update of the current Master Plan, Section I (Introduction). — Completion of the Parks and Recreation Department 5-Year Strategic Plan. 11. February: — Board review and comments regarding Section 11 (Goals and Objectives). — Board review and comments regarding the Parks and Recreation Department 5-Year Strategic Plan. — Staff review and update of Section IV (Area and Facility Concepts and Standards). — Staff completion of the update to the Parks and Recreation Department Resource Guide. — Staff review and update of Section V (Inventory of Facilities). — Staff review and update of Section VI (Needs Assessment and Identification). IV. April: — Board review and comments regarding proposed updates for Sections 1, IV, V, and VT. — Board review and comments regarding Section VII (Prioritization of Needs and Plan Implementation). V. May: — Board review and comments regarding Section III (Plan Development Process). V1. June: — Board consideration of revised Master Plan. — Planning and Zoning Commission Consideration of revised Master Plan. VIL July: — City Council presentation and consideration of ordinance adopting revised Master Plan. OlBoardlRevised Master Plan Schedule.doc City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 (not prioritized) Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department. * Review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop recommendations regarding levels of service (VS4S2a) (January 8, 2002). ❑ Review proposed park conceptual plans and make recommendations for intergenerational features (VS4S3a). ❑ Review and develop recommendations for Urban Forestry Plan (VS3S4a). ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. More interaction between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with the City Council (VS4S8a). 2 Assist with the review and preparation of the Unified Development Ordinance (November 13, 2001). 21 Review and recommend possible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (October 9, 200.1). 2 Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss goals (September 20, 2001). El Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to confirm goals (December 6, 2001). .Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. R1 Castlegate Park site review (November 13, 2001). El Lick Creek Park site review (December 11, 2001) ❑ Woodway Park site review. ❑ Shenandoah Park site review (On Hold). ❑ Madeley Park site review. Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. ❑ Identify and assess the needs for future park facilities. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Determine priorities for development. ❑ Develop a recommendation for consideration in the 2002 bond program. Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. R1 Review and update goals and objectives of the plan (January 8, 2002) ❑ Review and update facility concepts and standards. (February 5, 2002) ❑ Review and update needs assessment. (February 12, 2002) ❑ Review and update priorities. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval: October 9, 2001 City Council Approval: Last Updated: January 4, 2002 Page I of 2 ❑ Develop recommendation for plan adoption by the City Council. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase It Development. El Review needs for future facilities and programs (December 11, 2001) ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Determine priorities for development. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. Skate Park facility planning (VS4S5b). ® Develop recommendation for scope of project. (November 13, 2001) Q Develop recommendation for facility use. (November 13, 2001) El Develop recommendation for implementation. (November 13, 2001) Review funding sources for the installation of two backstops and two batting cages at Bee Creek Park. El Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff (November 13, 2001). ❑ Determine needs for program requirements. ❑ Develop recommendations for scope of project. ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. Review funding sources for the repair or replacement of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. R1 Review proposed project cost estimates (December 11, 2001). * Review funding alternatives (Completed by Stafj). ❑ Develop recommendations for implementation. Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan. R1 Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator (October 9, 2001). ❑ Review Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan as it relates to greenways. Support the City Council's Interagency Plan in any Park and Recreation related issues. ❑ Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments. ❑ Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Develop programs and facilities for Senior Citizens, 0 Receive input from fall Eisenhower Leadership Development Program group. (December 6, 2001) • Determine priorities for programs and facilities (January 8, 2002). • Develop recommendations for implementation (January 8, 2002). Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval. October 9, 2001 City Council Approval. Last Updated. January 4, 2002 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FY02 COALS Implementation of the CIP Program Continue to Improve Staff Development y Implementation of City Council Strategic Issues a Implementation of Special Projects 0 Implementation of New Programs Implementation of the CIP Program ❑ Complete 90% of the CIP Program Refer to CIP FY02 Project List Continue to Improve Staff Development ❑ Complete Management Academy (three (3) PARD Superintendents) (Applications have been .submitted) Q Complete Supervisory Academy (six (6) PARD personnel) (Class graduated on November 13, 2001) ❑ Complete Certified Playground Safety Inspector re -certification from the National Recreation and Park Association (two (2) PARD Supervisors) (Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent, was recertified) ❑ Send one (1) PARD Supervisor to the National Recreation and Park Association sponsored Park Maintenance School Q Complete the Weapons of Mass Destruction training course (seven (7) PARD personnel) (Training held December 12'h, 18`' and 19'h) Q Complete the Principles of Emergency Management course (PARD personnel) (Graduation held on November 18, 2001) Q Participate in the Brazos Valley Regional Leadership Forum Conference (Director of PARD) (Ongoing Implementation of Citv Council Stratteeic Issues ❑ VS3S4a — Complete Urban Forest Management Plan (Request for Proposals complete and contract pending ❑ VS4S2a — Implement Park Maintenance Standards (to track performance) (First quarter report complete) ❑ VS4S3a — Implement Intergenerational Park Facilities (In progress) ❑ VS4S4a — Develop recommendations for developer incentives to provide adequate park land (draft recommendations complete) ❑ VS4S4b — Complete development of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase I, and conduct needs assessment for future facilities (in progress) El VS4S4c — Update Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance, revisions approved by .Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on October 9, 2001. Will go to Council for consideration in February 2002)). ❑ VS4S4d — Develop facility needs for future community park ❑ VS4S5a — Develop plans for senior programs and facilities (In progress) Q VS4S5b — Prepare feasibility report on skateboard park (Report presented to Council on December 20, 2001) CQ VS4s7b — Implement greenway-park connectivity demonstration project (Bee Creek and Lemon Tree parks) Q VS4s8a — Improve communication between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission (Parks and Recreation Advisory Board net with the Commission on September 20, 2001. A joint meeting with the City Council was held on December 6, 2001) Implementation of Special Proiects ❑ Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan ❑ Develop recommendations for future Capital Improvement Program projects (In progress) ❑ Replace irrigation at Lemontree Park Q Implement public art at Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater (Bronze Wolves) (Dedication held December 17, 2001) ❑ Investigate the possibility of Departmental accreditation ❑ Conduct dedication ceremony for the Wayne Bryan Bike Loop Q Coordinate Veterans Memorial Project at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (Groundbreaking on November 12, 2001). Q Complete pond renovation at Brothers Pond Park (Complete in December 2001) ❑ Installation of lightening detection systems at parks. Implementation of New Programs ✓❑ Investigate the potential of joint programming with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Department (Meeting with the City of Bryan PARD November 16, 2001) 0 Implement monthly PARD newsletter (First edition complete in October 2001) Q Facilitate the Northgate "Back Porch Concert" Series Q Conduct Fall Special Olympics Bocce Ball Updated. January 4, 2002 Parks and Recm in Department CIP Project List IFY 2002 (updated 1/4/02) ........... ... XP .. ................. ....................... ...................... ......................... ........ . ..........o. .. .n.......0...................... . -- Business Center Landscaping Project Complete GG9705 $250,000 G.O. 07/31/01 10/19/01 Millennium Winds Improvements (FY'01) Complete HM0104 $7,195 FY'01 08/31/01 7/31/01 Veterans Park, Phase I Under Construction PK9941 $2,936,800 98 G.O. 11/31/02 lCastlegate Park Desian Under Construction Developer 03/31/02 Gabbard Park Improvements Out to Bid PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 04/30102 High School Tennis Court Lights (FY'01) Under Construction PK0109 $91,500 FY'01 04/01/02 Lincoln Entry Improvements Final Design Phase CD1292 $90,000 FY'01 C.D.B.G. 3/31/01 Merry Oaks Improvements Out to Bid PK0103 $37,000 98 G.O. *7/02 10aks Park Bridge Under Construction PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 3/31/02 lBrison Park Improvements Out to Bid PK0100 $54,600 98 G.O. 3/31/02 lWoodwav Park Development Negotiating Land Purchase PK9803 $600,000 Hallaran Pool Filters In Construction PK01 06 $120,000 FY'01 03/31/02 Cemetery Land Acquisition Search Underway GG9905 $275,000 98 G.O. C.S.S.C. Agreement (clubhouse) Madeley Park Concept Preparation PK9706 $48,000 98 G.O. *8/02 Lick Creek Park Development Negotiations with Engineer PK0069 $398,000 98 G.O. Lick Creek Park Bridges Contract w/ TP&W approved $126,265 Grant 98 G.O. IThomas Pool Shade Cover On Hold PK0104 $19,000 98 G.O. Lincoln Center Expansion/improvements $50,000 C.D.B.G. 9/1/02 Thomas Pool Renovation Negotiating Design Contract $277,255 FY'02 3/31/03 Georqie Fitch Playground Replacement Under Construction $30,000 FY'02 Replacement Acct. 8/1/02 Hensel Park Playground Replacement Interlocal Agreement Underway $40,000 FY'02 Replacement Acct. 8/1/02 Park Land Dedication Pebble Creek Park Improvements Iron Fence Installation PK0061 $27,000 Zone 11 Richard Carter Park Improvements In Design FY'02 General Fund Jack & Dorothy Miller Jogging Track Interlocal Agreement Needed Parks and Recreation Department Potential Future CIP Project Summary FY2003-2008 I. Neighborhood Park Development Luther Jones Landfill Steeplechase Park Shenendoah Park Pebble Creek Park II Woodland Hills Cypress Grove Park/Westfield Spring Loop Park Lick Creek, Phase II II. Support Facilities Forestry Shop Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Shop Central Park Office Expansion South District Satellite Operations Shop Renovate Central Park Shop III. Neighborhood Plan Implementation A. East Bypass Plan Sandstone Park Raintree (Basketball) B. Eastgate Plan Richard Carter Park Improvements Thomas and Merry Oaks Parks Shade Structures Eastgate Park Thomas Jogging Track Park Benches IV. Community Facilities New "South" Community Park, Phase I Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase II New Cemetery - Phase I Development Lincoln Center Expansion Cypress Grove Recreation V. Park Improvements Intergenerational upgrades for existing parks Batting Cages and Backstops at Bee Creek Park Cover Basketball Courts at Southwood Valley Athletic Complex Emerald Forest Park Lights Woodcreek Park Lights VI. Pool Improvements Adamson Shotgun Slide Adamson Bathhouse Pitched Roof Additional Shelter at Adamson Lagoon Thomas Pool Bathhouse Renovation VII. Park Acquisition Northgate Park O/Projects/CIP/Future CIP — PARD.doc Updated: January 4, 2002 rARK MAINTENANCE STANDARDS SURVEY SUMMARY I, Athletic Facilities: Competitive Fields East South West Average % of standards met 74% 76% 74% 75% H. Playgrounds East South West Average % of standards met 83% 88% 55% 75% III, Picnic Facilities East South West Average % of Standards met 88% 87% 81% 85% IV. 'Tennis Courts East South Nest Average % of Standards met 83% 62% 65% 70% V. Basketball Courts East South West Average % of Standards met 86% 96% 75% 86% V1e Sand Volleyball Courts East South West Average % of Standards met 63% 77% 90% 77% East South West Average % of Standards met 43% 85% 57% 62% Parks: General Parks East South West Average % of Standards met 85% 79% 84% 83% Overall District Averages East South West Overall % of Standards Met 76% 81% 73% 77% Date Received: December 7, 2001 Park Zone: 7 Name of Development: T.C.C. Subdivision Applicant:Todd Sullivan Address:P.O.Box 131484 City/State: Houston,Texas Phone Number: 409-771-7794 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Mitchell and Morqan Address: 511 Universitv Drive Zip: 77219 City/State: Colleqe Station,Texas Zip: 77840 Phone Number: 979-260-6963 FAX: E-mail: v(amitchellandmorganengieers.com e SECTION 10-13-1 o Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: 70 Multi -family Dwelling Units: Total Land Requirement:.69 Proposed Dedication: 0 SECTION 10-B-2e Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? no Acquisition Costs: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): $148 x 70 = $10,360 Multi -family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): Total Acquisition Fee: Acres • it '. �- - •• - -- Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): $309 x 70 = $21,630 Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): Total Development Fee: Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): $457 x 70 = $31,990 Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): Have development plans and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? No Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? N/A If yes, staff recommends: • it <�, ' . � • Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes, Woodwav Park If yes, staff recommends: Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes Comments: Parks & Recreation Board: Planning & Zoning Board: City Council: O:\Board\Park Land Dedication\Checklists/TCC Subdivision.dot\January 4, 2002 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? No Acreage in floodplain: Acreage in detention: Acreage in greenways: Comments: Percentage: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? Yes c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: e. Do streets abutting the park comply with the Thoroughfare Plan? Percentage: Percentage: Percentage: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the park land dedication fee. 0:\Parks\1Planning\Project Review Checklists/Park Land Dedication Cklist.dot C-'�fCollegeatioY EN10R PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES �m TABLE OF CONTENTS lf�E_, WARill , low � Iu'i' #k\YTRDDUCT#Okv J�Mi/EJ f' r�l��UA Tf'v r�'� lei Cti Proposal for Senior Programs and Facilities January 2002 Strategy 5, for Vision Statement 4: "Develop plans for senior programs and facilities." In January 2001, the City of College Station submitted a project proposal for the Texas, A&M University Eisenhower Leadership Development Program to consider the feasibility of senior facilities and programs in our community as a group project. The group was asked to provide a recommendation for programs and facilities that would adequately meet the needs of the senior population in our community. Also, to be investigated was the potential to offer cooperative programs within the county. The project was accepted and the students went to work researching the needs and interests of the seniors including space and facilities required to meet the needs identified. The students created a survey to be mailed to residents in College Station age 65 and over. However, they were unable to mail the survey and calculate the results before the semester ended. The Spring Eisenhower team made the recommendation, if supported by survey results conducted in the fall of 2001, that the city pursue plans for a senior center and the importance it provides in recreational, educational and social opportunities for the senior population in our community. The project was continued in the fall of 2001 by another group of students in the Eisenhower program. A senior center can serve as a source of information concerning services available to residents. Data supports that as the population continues to grow in College Station so does the senior population as more people are choosing to retire in our community. Funding assistance through state and federal grants may be available for construction of senior centers and programming. The survey was conducted with residents 65 and over in College Station during the fall of 2001 by the Eisenhower Program to determine their interests and time spent in recreational activities. The Eisenhower program recommended to city council that the city continue to offer seniors satisfying programs aimed to sharpen the minds, stimulate the body and renew the spirit. The survey conducted by the students concluded that there is not a current need to build a new senior center, but to utilize existing facilities for senior programs. It was also recommended that the department should concentrate on more advertising and marketing of senior programs. The staff and senior advisory committee would like to make the following recommendations for the senior programs offered by the city. These goals are based on the results of the survey and have received the approval of the Senior Advisory Committee at their December 2001 meeting. 1 The Senior Advisory Committee has adopted the following statement and goals: "Consider seniors as co -equal bookends with the student population as a balance to community life" Goals: Conceptualize, request and establish a place for seniors to meet and function as a. cohesive and constructive group Structure programs for seniors which enable them to be a viable part of the College Station community Organize senior potential to make College Station a progressive, culturally active and a safe place to live Short Term_ Goals_ for Senior Programs (current — 3 vears) ® Utilizing existing facilities: The Parks and Recreation department will strive to meet the needs of seniors by offering programs and classes utilizing existing facilities such as the Teen Center, Lincoln Center and the Annex. It is believed that current city facilities should be maximized in usage before any new facilities are built specifically for seniors. ® Increase Marketing and Advertising The department will focus on marketing and advertising senior programs through the newspaper, web sites, churches., TV, radio, newsletters and other forms of communication to the senior population So that citizens are aware of activities. ® Improve Coordination of Programs: The City staff will coordinate with other organizations and agencies to promote programs offered to seniors such as class: s at A&M and Blinn and other educational opportunities. The program will corAiaac to build joint programming efforts and coordination with the City of Bryan and senior organizations such as Senior Friends and the Gold Medallion Club. ® Enhance Transportation Assistance: The City staff will work with other agencies to provide transportation for seniors. This program may begin as a pilot program for special events at Texas A&M, and later expand to classes and events on a daily or weekly basis. Recommendations to meet the short-term goals Utilizing existing facilities: The seniors have requested that a site be available as a gathering place and meeting space for the older population. The Teen Center could be available during school hours for seniors to meet. In order to accomplish this goal senioic volunteers could be utilized and/or attendants could be hired so that thic (:,3TAcv would be open during school hours (8:OOam-3:OOpm) and the seniors would have access to the computer lab, meeting room and game room. Class schedules, vfould 2 be coordinated with staff. Volunteers could also help with the registration process for classes at the Teen Center. The need for comfortable seating and other furnishings would also be required. This would give the seniors an opportunity to gather both in structured (class) and unstructured (social) settings. Increase Marketing and Advertising: Additional funds are needed for marketing and advertising in order to expose the community to programs offered to seniors. Expenses would include purchasing advertisement, mailings a possible marketing analysis and the hiring of a consultant that would assist in determining the most effective way to reach the senior population. The staff will evaluate and present costs in the budget process for fiscal year 2003. Interim steps may include the utilization of "free" marketing opportunities such as radio and television public service announcements, City access channel and the community calendar in "The Eagle." The staff will also place an emphasis in marketing the community as a great place for retirement. Improved Coordination of Programs: The staff will investigate a centralized registration process for classes offered to seniors on a community -wide basis that is easily accessible. In order to promote opportunities available at A&M and Blinn, classes and events offered may be listed in city publications such as brochures and newsletters. The staff will evaluate and present costs in the budget process for fiscal year 2003. There is some coordination between city Xtra Education registration and University Plus registration, and these opportunities will be examined to see if they may be increased. Additionally, staff has begun the process of evaluating the ability to program classes jointly with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Department. Further discussions will be held with Bryan in 2002 in regards to the joint programming. Enhanced Transportation Assistance® The staff will be investigating the possibility of gaining access to Community Development Block Grant Funds to pay for transportation to special events and programs. Buses would be used to transport seniors from one or more gathering points, to the more crowded and congested areas, such as Texas A&M, to allow them to enjoy special events, without having to drive in these areas. Buses may be rented through either College Station Independent School District or Texas A&M. Funding to rent the busses may come in either grant sources, or from charging a minimal fee to cover the cost of the rental. As the city investigates transportation, special consideration will be given to seniors and those with special needs for easy access to the facility from the bus or other transportation vehicles. Collaborating with Brazos Transit in providing transportation for seniors has been investigated. Due to federal funding restrictions, Brazos Transit is not allowed to compete with private charter providers. Interim goal for senior programs (3-5 vears) ® Renting space: Once the participation increases and current city facilities are unable to meet the needs, the staff recommends that an interim facility be rented. The staff will investigate possible retail locations and other available facilities to meet the growth needs. Current estimates indicate a 3000 square foot facility would cost approximately $2,000 — 3,000 monthly. Recommendations to meet interim goal: Staff will explore rental space availability and cost through commercial/retail markets. Consideration will be given to location, adequate parking and easy access. Long —Term goal for Senior Programs (5-10 years) A long-term goal for senior programs is to have all programs offered in a permanent community center. A community center would benefit all populations and provide space for seniors to meet and provide intergenerational opportunities for all citizens. A community center is included in the city center master plan which has been adopted by the city council. This site would be a good location for this type of facility. The current College Station Conference Center is very limited in use and is not centrally located to the city population. Also, it has very limited parking, poor access and heavy traffic adjacent to the property. An EZYECUT#VE SUMMIARMS SpR 0o 2000 � �DD FAU 200 3 Executive Summary An increasing number of senior citizens moving to College Station each year, a fact evidenced by demographical data, is creating new challenges for the City. Seniors aspire for the City of College Station to achieve its goals of providing social, recreational, and educational programs for them to improve their lives, but currently the city is falling short of this goal. Some services and programs are available, but seniors have described them as "inadequate," and the buildings that house these programs are "drab and in need of improvements." This report entails an investigation performed to determine the adequacy of College Station's programs, services, and facilities for the elderly; analyzes how other communities have addressed similar challenges; and provides some recommendations on how College Station can better serve its seniors. An extensive literature review was compiled to determine how other communities, both similar and dissimilar to College Station, address their seniors' needs. Results indicate that most communities utilize a senior center, which in turn operates and manages the various programs and services. Based on the research conducted in this report, a senior center seems to the best option for College Station to pursue. A mail -out survey was also created to receive direct feedback on College Station seniors' perspectives, and these local survey results will validate or invalidate this conclusion. To address the seniors' needs, the City of College Station should continue in its progress toward development of a senior center, as confirmed or denied by the next phase of the process. In addition to this recommendation, the City should expand its current programs to include intergenerational and cooperative aspects. Lastly, the City should conduct outcome studies to assess the effectiveness of its programs and services. Executive Summary As the City of College Station continues to grow so does its senior citizen population. The College Station City Council has set forth one of its goals as being to "determine the space and facility needs for senior programs." Previous research on the subject has stated that the programs and facilities available to the city's senior citizens were not adequate. In order to determine the true needs and desires of the senior citizens of College Station further research has been conducted. This report includes research and studies done to analyze the program needs of the senior citizen community in College Station. It examines the interest of seniors in a new senior citizen facility. It also looks at the needs and availability of transportation for seniors in order to participate in programs. Finally, it analyzes popular and successful programs that either are currently available to seniors or which could be developed in the future. Based on these investigations recommendations are provided concerning how the City of College Station can better serve its senior citizen population. In order to arrive at these findings an extensive literature review has been researched and compiled. First, a survey was sent to a sample population of College Station seniors asking them questions concerning how active they currently are, and how interested they would be in a new senior center. The survey also addressed the areas of transportation, and what kinds of interests the seniors had. To further address the transportation question research was conducted to determine how public transportation could be used in helping seniors participate in programs designed for them. Research was also done to examine senior citizen programs that are currently available not only in College Station, but also in other cities. Based on this research, there is insufficient evidence of a desire and need by the senior citizen community to build a new facility for them. Instead, it is recommended that the City attempt to publicize currently existing senior programs. These programs already address many senior citizen interests and do not need a new facility. It is recommended that in order to coordinate these programs the City could run them from a central location such as the Teen Exit Center. In addition to this, there also was not a strong desire or apparent need for a new type of transportation program. The City should instead rely on personal transportation and currently existing public transportation means for seniors to participate in different programs. It is recommended that further research be done in order to determine other ways of advertising programs to the senior citizen community. It is also recommended that research be continually done to determine new programs that are successful in other communities. �� ��� Q�� �d� 37 l Responses that were sent back to the Eisenhower Leadership Development Program survey were used to generate a summary of need for a new senior center in College Station. The results of this survey lead to conclusions in two main areas. The first trend in results leads to the willingness of senior citizens to attend a new senior center. The second section of results lead to the type of programming that would best meet the needs of the citizens. Actual survey results used in this report can be found in Appendix B. Other graphs, charts and additional comments not specifically addressed in this report can be found in Appendix C. Existing use of Senior Citizen Services: Of the 118 Senior Citizen respondents, 52% said they have never used recreational, social, and educational activities provided by the City of College Station. As for the remainder of the population, 32.98% said they sometimes used the services and only 2.54% said they always use the services provided. 9400 9200 LM 9000 0 8800 ,� 8600 0 8400 scam 8200 0 8000 78Oa 7600 1991 1992 1" 993 1' 9 9 omit 1 995 1`996 199a Year 38 Pant L Factors that influence willingness to attend a new Senior Citizen Center Demographics �\A ��� �p �0 65-69 IM 70-74 ❑ 75-79 80-84 84-89 Over 90 Age was divided into the following six categories: 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90 and over. Age does not appear to play an overwhelming role in determining the amount of interest in the new senior center. The interest level seemed to follow the same trend downward from the somewhat likely category to the very likely category. Two age categories stand out from the others. This was manifested as a slight increase in the interest level of seniors within the ages of 70-79. They seemed to lean more heavily toward participation in the new center than seniors in either the 65-69 category or in the 80 and above category. 39 40 Fizure 6 — Income Distribution vs. Attend a New Center 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% - 30.00% - 25.00% - 20.00% - 15.00% - 10.00% - 5.00% - 0.00% - ��A v� �W �y� Less than $10000 $10000-$29000 ❑ $30000-$49000 j $50000-70000 _- Over $70000 The request for information regarding income level was met with some hesitation by many respondents. The request for this information was considered a necessity due to the fact that monetary deficiencies could be a leading cause of low participation in a senior citizen center. Because of the lack of response from many participating in the survey, the data is considerably less than the actual population that was surveyed. Of the 37% that did respond with income information, five maintained incomes under 10 thousands dollars (11%), ten had incomes between 10 thousand and 29 thousand (23%), twelve had incomes between thirty thousand and forty-nine thousand (27%), eight maintained incomes between fifty thousand and seventy thousand (18%) and nine had incomes over seventy thousand (21 %). The percentages that are given are the percentages of each category within the forty-four surveys that contained the income information. Therefore, the median income level for these respondents is approximately thirty thousand to forty thousand dollars. Income level did not seem to be a good indicator of participation in the new center. The only seniors that followed a discernable trend were those seniors who had an income level of over $70,000 per year. They a expressed much less interest in a new center than any other group, indicating that they may already belong to local country clubs or other institutes that would take the place of the senior center. Figure 7 — Marital Status vs. Attend a New Center 30 25 20 ., 15 10� 5 0 .fie o,A o\A o'� o No Answer Given Single 1 ❑ Married/Living w/ a Partner ® Widowed Divorced )I i This data shows the correlation between the marital status of the elderly and whether or not they would attend a new senior citizens center. This data is essential to see if the type of companionship is a significant factor in whether or not the elderly will leave their home to participate in the activities of a new center. There were five respondents who gave no answer to their type of companionship. One of these stated they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while another said they would be somewhat likely. Three respondents gave no answer to either question. Four respondents are single. Of these, one said they would be somewhat likely to attend while another said they would likely attend. The other two stated that they would be very likely to attend. There were sixty-nine respondents who are married or living with a partner. Of these, fourteen (20%) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while twenty-four (35%) said they would be somewhat likely. Eighteen 42 (26%) stated they would likely attend a new center while eleven (16%) said they would be very likely to attend. Two (3%) respondents gave no answer to this question. There were thirty-five respondents who are widowed. Of these, six (17%) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while twelve (34%) said they would be somewhat likely. Eleven (31 %) stated they would likely attend while four (11 %) said they would be very likely to attend. Two (6%) respondents gave no answer to this question. There are twelve respondents who are divorced. Of these, one (8%) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while two (17%) said they would be somewhat likely to attend. Five (42%) respondents said they would likely attend a new center while four (33%) stated they would be very likely to attend. Figure 8 - Ethnicity vs. Attend a New Center Not at all Likely Somewhat Likely ® Likely Very Likely IM No Answer This data shows the correlation between the ethnicity of the respondents and whether or not they would attend a new senior citizen center. There were eight respondents who did not choose to give their ethnicity. Of these eight, two (25%) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while one (12%) said they would be 43 somewhat likely. Two (25%) said they would be very likely to attend. An additional two (25%) respondents gave no answer to either question. There were three respondents who chose African American as their ethnicity. Of these, two (67%) chose that they would likely attend a new center while one (33%) said he would be very likely. Two respondents chose American Indian/Alaskan Native as their ethnicity. Of these two, one chose that he would likely attend a new center while the other did not respond to this question. Two respondents chose Asian or Pacific Islander as their ethnicity. Of these, one chose that he would be likely to attend a new center while the other chose that he would very likely attend. One -hundred and three respondents chose Caucasian as their ethnicity. Twenty (19%) of these said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while thirty-nine (38%) said they would be somewhat likely to attend. Twenty- seven (26%) respondents said they would likely attend a new center while fifteen (15%) said they would be very likely to attend. Two (2%) respondents gave no answer to this question. Six respondents chose Hispanic as their ethnicity. Of these, two (33%) said they were likely to attend a new center while another two (33%) said they were very likely to attend. Another two (33%) gave no answer to this question. One respondent selected `other' as his ethnicity. This person said he would likely attend a new center. 44 Activity Levels Fizure 9 - Activity Level vs. Participation Frepuencv 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No Answer Given i 1-2 hours ® 3-4 hours i Ei over 5 hours ej e` C: � This data addressed any correlation between the activity level of the elderly and how often they participate in the city's current facilities and programs. There were six respondents that gave no answer for their activity level. Of these, one (14%) stated they never participate in local activities while the other six (86%) gave no answer for either question. Nineteen respondents stated they were active for one to two hours per week. Of these, sixteen (84%) stated they never participate in local city activities while three (16%) stated they sometimes participate in these activities. Thirty-one respondents said they spent three to four hours per week staying active. Of these, eighteen (58%) said they never attend local activities while ten (32%) stated they sometimes participate in city activities. Two (6%) respondents said they often participate in College Station activities while one (3%) said they always participate. Sixty-eight respondents stated they are active for over five hours per week. Of these, twenty-seven (40%) stated they never participate in city activities while thirty-three (49%) said they sometimes participate. Five (7%) respondents stated they often 45 participate while two (3%) said they often participate. One (1 %) person did not respond to this question. These findings are significant because they show a correlation between if senior citizens are active at the present and whether or not the city is providing this activity. Fizure 10 - Activitv Level vs. Attend a New Center 25 20 - 15 10- 5- 0 _. i No Answer Given 1-2 hours ❑ 3-4 hours over 5 hours Not at all Somewhat Likely Very Likely No Likely Likely Answer The data received in this survey question was used to determine the correlation between senior citizens' current activity level and whether or not they would attend a new senior citizens center. Seven respondents gave no answer for their activity level. Of these seven, one (14%) said they would be somewhat likely to attend a new center while another (14%) said they would be very likely to attend. Five (71%) gave no answer to either question. There were nineteen responders who stated they are active for one to two hours per week. Of these, four (21 %) stated they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while eight (42%) said they would be somewhat likely to attend. Five (26%) respondents stated they would be likely to attend a new center while one (5%) said he would be very likely to attend. One (5%) person gave no answer to this question. 46 Thirty-one respondents said they are active three to four hours per week. Of these, four (13%) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center while eleven (35%) said they would be somewhat likely. Ten (32%) said they would likely attend a new center while six (19%) stated they would be very likely to attend. For those respondents who are active for over five hours per week, fourteen (21 %) said they would be not at all likely to attend a new center. Twenty (29%) respondents said they would be somewhat likely to attend while another twenty (29%) said they would be likely to attend. Thirteen (19%) respondents said they would be very likely to attend while one (1%) person gave no answer to this question. The data received from this correlation is very important because it assists in determining whether those elderly who are currently active will remain active by using a new center. Limiting Factor's Figure 11 - Transportation vs. Participation Freauencv 60 50 - 40 30 - 20 10- 0 I No Answer Given 11 Never ® Sometimes OftenjS i i! Always I Drive Bus Shuttle Taxi Other No Myself Answer Of those senior citizens who always participate in activities, 66% ride the bus. This is in contrast to the 33% who always participate and always drive themselves. There was a large group of senior citizens that claimed to participate in activities on a more 47 occasional basis. Of this group, those who sometimes attend activities drive themselves 93% of the time and 85% of those who responded that they attend often also drive themselves. No one answered that they use a taxi and only two people said they used a shuttle. In relation to income, 94.44% of seniors making over $70,000 per year drive themselves to activities. In the lower income range of less than $10,000 per year, 33.33% drive themselves and 33.33% take the bus. In the same `less than $10,000'category, a significant portion of seniors, 16.67%, take the shuttle. This is a significant percentage based on the fact that most of the other categories do not show any data of shuttle users. Fizure 12 - Transportation vs. Attend a New Center 4.0 30 x 20 Ea I ®rive Myself 10 Bus 0 ; ❑ Shuttle >. Y O ❑Other O J Z E J Q O U The data received from this survey question is used to determine the correlation between senior citizens' modes of transportation and whether or not they would attend a new senior citizens center. One -hundred and four respondents stated that they drove themselves. Of these, nineteen (18%) chose that they are not at all likely to attend a new center while thirty-eight (37%) stated that they would be somewhat likely. Thirty (29%) respondents said they would likely attend a new center while sixteen (15%) would be very likely to attend. There were seven respondents who stated that they rode the bus for 48 their primary mode of transportation. Of these, two (29%) chose that they would be not at all likely to attend a new center, two (29%) chose they would likely attend, and two (29%) chose they would be very likely to attend. Two respondents said that they rode the shuttle as their primary mode of transportation. One of these respondents stated they would be very likely to attend while the other said they would be likely to attend. Six people chose another mode of transportation besides the ones that were listed. Of these, one (17%) chose not at all likely to attend a new center while two (33%) chose somewhat likely. Another two (33%) chose that they would likely attend a new center while one (17%) said they would be very likely to attend. Figure 13 — Received Information vs. Participation Freauencv 40 30 20 No Answer 10� ® No Of the 125 survey responses, sixty-four (54.7%) have received information regarding the senior events and services. Of these sixty-four people, 39.06% had never used the services and 43.75% participate sometimes. Of the 52 who have never received information regarding available programs in the area, 34 people (65.38%) never use activities provided by College Station and 28.85% use them sometimes. Of the 120 respondents who indicated his or her gender, 50.85% of males said they never use 49 College Station's activities and 40.68% of finales said they sometimes use the facilities. Out of the female population, 52.46% said they never participate in the activities provided and 36.07% participate sometimes. Fizure 14 - Time of Dav for Participation Respondents were asked to choose the best time(s) of day for participation in recreation/leisure activities. From this diagram it is evident that the majority of senior citizens participate in activities during the morning or afternoon hours. 50 Other Lirnitinz Factors The data received from this survey question is used to determine what is preventing the elderly of College Station from participating in a senior citizen center. This information is considered very important because it can help determine what actions need to take place in order to make this center a success. The respondent was able to select multiple factors from a list of seven limiting factors. These factors included: health limitations, lack of time, lack of money, lack of transportation, lack of desire, safety and other. Lack of time was the most influential factor limiting the participation of the elderly. Twenty-seven respondents (22%) listed a lack of time as a reason why their participation in activities is limited. health limitations came in second with twenty-five responders (20%) saying that this was a factor in their lack of participation. Eleven respondents (9%) chose lack of money as a consideration when choosing not to participate in area activities while five (4%) chose a lack of transportation as a reason. Lack of desire had sixteen respondents (13%) choose it as a reason for not participating while safety came in last with only four respondents (3%) choosing it as a limiting factor. The other category included reasons such as spouses having health limitations, not being aware of activities offered, leaving pets alone for extended periods, and age. A graph of this data can be found in the Appendix B to this report. 51 Prat II. Willingness to Participate in various Types of Programming Physical Activities Senior citizens chose exercise as their most preferred physical activity with a score of 3.58 on a 5-point scale. Gardening received a 2.7 score and sports received a 2.46. Dancing was the least preferred activity receiving a score of 1.9. Hobbies Overall, the hobby category did not receive a high rating from the senior citizens. Crafts received the highest score, 2.2 on a 5-point scale. Other scores were photography with 2.03, painting with 1.98, and woodworking with 1.93. Games Card games were the highest rated in the game category with a score of 2.37 and bridge had a score of 2.22. The scores continued to decrease with board games at 1.92 and bingo in the lowest -rated category with a score of 1.88. Trips Sightseeing ranked the highest among those surveyed, while attending shows came in second. Other trips that seniors listed were to attend concerts, art exhibits, and foreign films. The seniors expressed interest in visiting such places as Houston, San Antonio, and Niagara Falls through write-in comments on the survey. They also expressed interest in overseas travel. Education Finance received a score of 2.61, which is low in comparison to other activities ranked on the scale. Nutrition was slightly higher with a score of 2.78. Computer/Internet interest had a score of 3.07, which led all categories in interest. The 52 interest level in genealogy was 2.85 and the `other' category score 4.22 on the interest scale. The `other' category was available so that the respondents could select an education area that was not listed and rank their interest in that category. Other areas that were listed include: art and literature, culture, cooking, health, science and math, world history and geography, Spanish, and quilt making. Discussions Current events received a score of 2.90, which is on the low side of the interest scale but has the highest ranking among all topics due to the high scores in the `other' column. The topic of books was slightly lower with a score of 2.73, while the reminiscence topic had a score of 2.15. Support scored 2.02, which was the lowest of all categories, and the `other' category score 3.5 on the interest scale. The `other' category was available so that respondents could select a discussion area that was not listed and rank their interest in that category. Other areas that were listed include: world views, cultures, civic affairs, and local goveriunent. The Performances category received high scores by the senior citizens. Music received the highest score of 3.09, attending plays score a 2.99, movies received a 2.82, and fashion/talent was the lowest score in this category with a score of 2.1. Participation Preferences When asked what groups of people they would like to participate with in activities, most people preferred to participate with family or close friends. The least preferred method of participation based on the scale was the category of participating with strangers. 53 Significance of Data Correlations were made to determine which relationships are significant regarding different variable interactions. Only six specific relationships could be analyzed using simple correlation data. These were Age vs. Attend a New Center, Gender vs. Attend a New Center, Income Distribution vs. Attend a New Center, Activity Level vs. Participation Frequency, Activity Level vs. Attend a New Center, and Received Information vs. Participation Frequency. Of these correlations, only three proved to be statistically significant. The correlation between gender and willingness to attend a new center indicates females are more likely to attend than males. The activity level correlations prove the more active a senior is, the more likely they are to attend a new center. More analysis should be made using non parametric tests to determine the significance of Marital Status vs. Attend a New Center, Ethnicity vs. Attend a New Center, Transportation vs. Attend a New Center, and Transportation vs. Participation Frequency. The results from the correlation analysis can be found in Appendix D to this report. PIETTER ANO SURVEY October 17, 2001 Dear Sir or Madam: We are the Eisenhower Leadership Development Program, a group of college students at Texas A&M University. The city of College Station has a mission to promote the well being of the community, while advancing the quality of life, resulting in exceptional civic pride. This semester we are working in association with the City of College Station by conducting a survey to determine the recreational/social needs of the senior citizens in our area. In addition, it is our job to determine what various activities that the senior citizens of College Station would like to participate in. Please help us by taking a couple of minutes to fill out our survey. We have enclosed a self-addressed and stamped envelope, for your convenience. If you could please fill out the survey and promptly send it back to us. it would be greatly appreciated. This survey is completely anonymous and your answers will not be traced back to you. We have enclosed two copies of a consent form. Please sign one and return it %%ith the survey by October 26, 2001. You may keep the other copy for your own records. Thank you for your time and considerations. We appreciate you helping us in trying to determine the characteristics of the senior citizen community. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our advisor, Allison Dunn at (979) 862-8837. Thanks and Gig'Em! Sincerely, The Eisenhower Leadership Development Program <PLEASE KEEP THIS COPY> March 30, 2001 Greetings: The City of College Station has asked a team of students from Texas A&M University to determine whether the city needs an activity center for senior citizens. This is a semester -long project that will be completed in late April. As part of our study, we are asking 250 senior citizens to complete the enclosed survey. Please sign this consent form and keep it for your own records. Thank you for your time. I understand that my participation in this survey is voluntary. I understand that I may stop this survey at any time without penalty. I understand that I may not answer every question without penalty. I understand that this research study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Research Board - Human Subject in Research, Texas A&M University. For research -related problems or questions regarding subjects' rights, I can contact the Institutional Review Board through Dr. Michael W. Buckley, Director of Support Services, Office of the Vice President for Research at (979) 458-4067. I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all my questions answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this consent form. Signature Signature of Investigator Allison Dunn, Assistant Director Eisenhower Leadership Development Program 4220 TAMU College Station, (979) 862-8837 TX 77843-4220 Email: adunn@bushschool.tamu.edu rom- 3-30-61 Date CollegeCity of . Please fill out and complete the provided survey. When finished please insert the survey into the addressed envelope provided and send it back in the mail. If there are any questions, please contact Allison Dunn at 979-862-8837. Thank You. Please circle your level of interest in the following activities by rating them on a scale from 1 to 5. 1 = Never 2 = A Little Interested 3 = Somewhat Interested 4 = Interested 5 = Very Interested Not Interested Very Interested Dancing 1 2 3 4 5 Exercise (aerobics, walking) 1 2 3 4 5 Sports 1 2 3 4 5 Gardening 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 Not Interested Very Interested Woodworking 1 2 3 4 5 Crafts 1 2 3 4 5 Photography 1 2 3 4 5 Painting 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 3. Games: Not Interested Very Interested Card games 1 2 3 4 5 Bingo 1 2 3 4 5 Bridge 1 2 3 4 5 Board games (scrabble) 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 a 4. Trips: Not Interested Very Interested Shopping 1 2 3 4 5 Sports 1 2 3 4 5 Sightseeing 1 2 3 4 5 Shows 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 Not Interested Very Interested Finances 1 2 3 4 5 Nutrition 1 2 3 4 5 Computers/Internet 1 2 3 4 5 Genealogy 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 Not Interested Very Interested Current events 1 2 3 4 5 Books 1 2 3 4 5 Reminiscence 1 2 3 4 5 Support 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 7® Performances: Not Interested Very Interested Plays 1 2 3 4 5 Movies 1 2 3 4 5 Fashion/Talent 1 2 3 4 5 Music 1 2 3 4 5 Other 1 2 3 4 5 8. Have you received information regarding various recreational/social activities for senior citizens in the College Station area in the past year? (please check) Yes No 9. Please rate how often you participate in recreational activities with the following individuals/groups of people. (please circle) I = Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Somet1mes4 = Frequently 5 = Always Never Always a. Participate alone 1 2 3 4 5 b. Participate with family 1 2 3 4 5 c. Participate with close friends 1 2 3 4 5 d. Participate with individuals you have never met 1 2 3 4 5 e. Participate with same -gender groups 1 2 3 4 5 f Participate with mixed -gender groups 1 .2 3 4 5 10. Please check which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic background? African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Other a. 65-70 b. 71-75 c. 76-80 d. 81-85 e. 86-90 f 908 Please check: 12. 1 am: Male 13. 1 am Single Widowed Female Married/living with a partner Divorced 14. How long have you lived in the Bryan/College Station area? 0-2 years I I - 15 years 3-5 years 16-20 years 6-10 years Over 20 years IS. How often do you leave your residence? (please check) Never Sometimes Often Always 16. That is your primary mode of transportation? (check only one) I drive myself Bus Shuttle Taxi Other (please specify) 17. How much time do you spend in recreation, social, and educational activities a week? MR 5+hours 18. How often do you use recreational, social, and educational activities provided by the City of College Station? (please check) Never Sometimes Often Always 9- If you are not satisfied with your current level of participation, what factors are e)ping you from participating? (Check all that apply) Health limitations Lack of time Safety No factors are keeping me from participating Lack of Money Lack of Desire Lack of Transportation Other (please describe) 20. Please check which of the following categories best describes your total household income, including the money provided to you by your extended family Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $29,000 $30,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $70,000 Over $70,000 I Indicate the best time(s) of day for you to participate in recreation/leisure tivities: (please check all that apply) Morning Afternoon Evenig 22. If there was a senior center in College Station that offered the recreational/social activities that you are interested -in, how likely would it be that you would go? (please check only one) •MITI M-TIMM-y _Likely _Very Likely 23. Please include any additional comments that you have in regard to your recreational, social, and educational interests. n MIN(9r/ES FROM SENIOR A D WS OR Y Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting & Workshop Monday, November 26, 2001 Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, Annie Lee Finch, Laura Holmes, Gerald Jordan, Bill Kling, Billy Lay, Mary Jo Lay, Neal Nutall, Carol Parzen, Suzanne Reynolds, Joanna Yeager Members Absent: Vallie Broussard, Helen Siegel and Haskell Monroe Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Peter Lamont, David Gerling and Marci Rodgers I. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Billy Lay at 10: 1 Oam II. Hear visitors. None 111. Approval of minutes from meeting of October 29, 2001. The minutes were approved as circulated. IV. Eisenhower Leadership Development Program reports. Michael Kemper, Julie Leake and Drew Neumeyer presented a power point presentation on their research. The project focus was on senior facilities, programming and transportation. The students conducted a survey of citizens in College Station who are 65 years of age and older. Five hundred surveys were mailed and 127 were returned and results recorded. The committee was provided with an executive summary and conclusion from the survey of College Station senior citizens. (Copy on file) The committee was given opportunity to respond to the report and make recommendations. V. Report from Senior Services Coordinator. (on file) VI. Lunch VII. Workshop Session Steve Beachy lead the workshop session and asked committee members to offer suggestions for programs they would like to see the city offer. Options for programs: ■ Educational classes offered off the university campus such as art and politics ® Arts and crafts ■ Games such as dominoes and cards ® Listening to old radio shows ■ Offer a meat with a speaker once a month using local resources for current events ■ Lecture series utilizing Texas A & M professors ■ Facilities in the park for seniors such as walking trails, games and all weather facilities ■ Exercise classes, indoor weights and low impact aerobics ■ Utilize representative groups of all ages in the community for dispersing information and receiving input for projects before they are put in place in order to improve communication from council to community ■ Exercise equipment, game rooms and pools ■ Develop a Senior Resource Group which would act as an information center for all services available to seniors. ■ Information Center could include information for senior veterans and other government programs ■ Resource room that is inviting and comfortable for reading ■ Meals ■ Trips (museums, sporting events, shopping) ■ Volunteer groups organized ■ Outreach — seniors serving the needy Communication/Coordination The group discussed effective ways to communicate programs offered to the citizens and the following ideas were mentioned. ■ Newspaper ■ Web sites ■ Interfaith organizations ■ TV access channel ■ Retirement Living Communities (Newsletters) ■ Newcomers packet including information on senior programs ■ Program information available in physician's waiting rooms ■ Flyers at the grocery stores ■ City newsletter/Utility bill insert ■ TV news shows ■ Radio & TV Public Service Announcements ■ Movie Theaters ■ Libraries ■ Provide information on programs to local churches and their senior groups ■ Develop relationships with the Pastors from black churches in order to promote programs to their members ■ Town Hall type meeting for distributing information The Committee also looked into options for facilities and discussed options presented by staff. (on file) Other suggestions from the committee included: ■ Portable buildings from the school district ■ Central Park most desirable setting VIII. Next meeting date and agenda. Monday, December 17, 2001 Review recommendation prepared by staff to be presented to City Council on January 10, 2002. IX. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:30prn XO ��3 FROM COo UAICK WOo RKSWOO f OF DECEM 0 00 0g 2001 Motes from Council Workshop December 6, 2001 (Note: Comments were not taken verbatim) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members in attendance: Chairman John Nichols; Glenn Schroeder; Bill Davis; Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Don Allison. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members absent: Jon Turton; Laura Wood (Alternate) Senior Report: Councilman Garner: Q - What age group was surveyed? A - Ages 65 and older. Q - Had any information been obtained on lifestyle status (working, not working, etc.)? A - That question had not been specifically addressed in the survey. Councilman Hazen: - Stated that she feels that the "Exit" Teen Center would be one of the best registration areas for Senior programs. - Stated that Seniors miss driving to events at night like ®pus, etc., and asked if the issue of transportation had been addressed. Q - Has anyone visited the Bryan Center on Bristol Street? Councilman Malonev: Q - Where would the Seniors go for their classes and registrations during the summer periods when the kids would mainly be utilizing the "Exit" Teen Center? A - This issue would have to be addressed. Councilman Massey: Q - How was the population determined? A - The list was obtained from home and apartment owners and was provided to the Eisenhower Leadership Development Group by the College Station Parks and Recreation Department. The first Eisenhower Leadership Development Group that worked with the Department obtained their initial findings from the same list. Q - Councilman Massey asked Chairman of the Senior Advisory Committee Bill Lay what he thought of the findings. A - Mr. Lay responded College Station is a unique community. More research must be done before anything can be decided. He feels that there should be some kind of program in place within the next couple of years. Q - Councilman Massey asked if there could be some kind of information on Senior programming available on the Internet. A - Marketing will be important. - Councilman Massey asked if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had any feedback on the study. - Due to the Council Strategic Planning Calendar timeline, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had not received the report. Is it scheduled to be presented to them in January. - Councilman Massey feels that the Board should be involved in any decisions. Councilman Silva: Q - Has there been any research done to find out if College Station's Senior population is growing? - Councilman Silva stated that he had gotten input from Seniors at a Mayor's luncheon who feel that education is important to them. He feeds that the Xtra Education program that the Department offers is a good education tool. - The students stated that some TAMU professors let Seniors attend their classes for free (with permission from the registers office and the professor). Mayor McIlhaney stated that Blinn offers programs to Seniors as well. The question was asked if age groups 65 and younger were surveyed? The Council's feedback will be incorporated into the Senior Report. MIN U T F S FRI 0 YV#j S /EkNP# 0 R rz-�,,, DD V§3 0 R V c 0 YVI PON T, CIE/ E: ALP / E C�= TWA\S 0 O F DDIFCEMSER ff, 20M Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, December 17,2001 College Station Teen Center 1520 Rock Prairie Road 10:00arn Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, Annie Lee Finch, Bill Kling, Billy Lay, Mary Jo Lay, Neat Nutall, Suzanne Reynolds, Joanna Yeager Members Absent: Vallie Broussard, Laura Holmes, Gerald Jordan, Haskell Monroe, Carol Parzen, Helen Siegel I. Call to order. Bill Lay called the meeting to order at 10:20am. II. Hear visitors. Peter Lamont was introduced to the committee 111. Approval of minutes from regular meeting and workshop of November 26, 2001. The minutes were approved as circulated. IV. Discussion, consideration and possible action concerning Eisenhower Report. The committee was given a copy of the written report and Bill Lay explained that the students presented their report to City Council on December 6, 2001. He also reported that council's response was positive. V. Discussion, consideration and possible action concerning staff recommendations for options on senior programs and facilities. The committee was given a rough draft of a proposal prepared by staff for senior programs and facilities based on the recommendations of the Eisenhower Program report and the Senior Advisory Committee workshop held in November. The committee was asked to review and give any suggestions to the proposal. Once approved by the committee the proposal will be sent to the Parks and Recreation Board for approval at their January 8h meeting. The final proposal is scheduled for the January 24, 2002 meeting of city council. Phyllis Dozier asked that the second goal under the Senior Advisory Committee "Goals" be changed to read, "Structure programs for seniors which enable them to be a viable part of the College Station community" (change: the word permit was replaced with enable) In order to meet Short Term Goals for Senior Programs the following suggestions were given: • Use senior volunteers to help with registration or other activities • Emphasis in marketing community as a great place for retirees ® As the city investigates transportation, it is important to consider... - easy access from buses or other forms of transportation, into the facility - central pick-up locations with easy access - specialized transportation needs for disabled - consideration of free transportation for seniors on Brazos Transit Bill Kling moved that the proposal be accepted with the suggestions made by the committee. Neal Nutall seconded the motion. The motion passed. VI. Report from Senior Services Coordinator. (report attached) VII. Next meeting date and agenda. The committee will meet on Monday, January 28, 2002 at 10:00am VIII. Adjourn The committee adjourned at 11:30am ►SIP-4%� To: Bicycie Planning Team From Judy Downs CC: Mark Smith natev. 07/31101 Re,. College Station #3 I finally went over to campus and copied this article. I thought we should have it if we were going to keep quoting it to everybody! Also, I have the State Data Center working on the bicycle mode splits from the 1990 Census. It is on summary tape file and we will probably have to pay for the information. The State Data Center's building was condemned (can you believe it), and they are in the process of moving, so it will take a couple of weeks. �S�IflYriYG� Ik�� �71If 0 Page 1 r"1 1 Bicycle Commuting: Understanding the Cu1 ' This paper provides a demographic profile of the bicycle commuter and explores government and community efforts to successfully market bicycle commuting to American workers. An integrated approach is recommended for communities interested in encouraging people to select the bicycle as a transportation alternative. The data used in constructing a profile of the typical bicycle commuter comes from the 1980 and 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample Files (PUMS) compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. These microdata files are a valuable resource for producing detailed tabulations of demographic characteristics for bicycle commuters and other similar subpopulations. by James Williams and Jan Larson mericans love their cars. But the car culture of the 1950s that promised freedom and wide open spaces has led in the 1990s to dependence and gridlock. Ac- cording to the U.S. Census, the number of people driving to work alone increased dramatically between 1980 and 1990. During that period the U.S. labor force grew by 19 million jobs, but 22 million more people began driving to work alone. In the decade between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of American workers driv- ing to work alone increased from 64 per- cent to 73 percent. In the late 1970s and into the 1980s, the federal government unsuccessfully sought to alleviate urban congestion through a costly series of promotions and programs heavily geared toward park and ride transportation. Bicycling as an alternate mode of transportation played virtually no part in these efforts. That changed with two pieces of federal leg- islation: the 1990 Clean Air Act and, more significantly, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The Clean Air Act sets stricter standards for air quality and requires regions to develop methods to reach com- pliance, including bicycling as a trans- portation alternative. The greatest boost to bicycle commuting comes from this policy requirement and $155 billion in funding available to states and commu- nities to develop transportation facilities and plans, including integrating pro- grams and facilities for bicycling. Betz, Dustrude and Walker describe Americans' increasing attraction to bi- cycling as an alternate form of transport. This trend has been accelerated by con- cerns about the environment, improved health benefits and cheaper transport costs. Several surveys show more Ameri- cans are bicycling. While estimates of TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY, Vol 50, No. 3, Summer 1996 (67-78) © 1996 Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Lansdowne, Virginia 67 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY adult cyclists range from 48 million to 70 million, a 1991 Harris poll showed 46 percent of Americans aged 18 and older had ridden a bicycle in the last year. Goldsmith explains however, that nearly all bicycling is considered recreational. He adds that murmurings in support of expanding opportunities for bike com- muting do not necessarily translate into individuals choosing to use bicycles to get to work. U.S. Census data for 1990 reveal that just under a half a million workers, or about four -tenths of one per- cent of the U. S. labor force rely on a bicycle as their primary means of trans- portation to work. Despite the low percentage of bicycle commuters, the potential for bicycles to become an effective alternate mode of transport is great. According to the 1989 Nationwide Personal Transportation Sur- vey, many work trips are short enough to use a bicycle. The study found that 27 percent of travel trips are one mile or less; 40 percent are two miles or less; and 49 percent are three miles or less. Certainly, barriers to bicycle com- muting still remain. Researchers at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center reviewed trans- portation surveys and developed a list of the most commonly offered reasons for not bicycling to work. Among them: • Length of trip and travel time • Absence of safe places to ride • Lack of secure bike parking and showers at work • Fear of crime While transportation literature ex- plores stated reasons for decisions against biking to work, less attention has been devoted to the characteristics of those who do commute to work regularly using a bicycle. Understanding those factors may help craft appropriate re- sponses to the perceived needs of bicy- clists and develop effective approaches .: to attracting new bicycle commuters. As Edmondson observes, "Like skilled mar- keters, planners must craft strategies rooted in consumer information ..." Methodology The data used in constructing a pro- file of the cycling commuter comes from the 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample Files (PUMS) prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Unlike summary data, where the unit -of analysis is a geographic area, microdata files contain records for a sample of housing units and the indi- viduals who live in those housing units. The 1 percent version of the PUMS gives the user records for about 2.5 million individuals. These microdata files allow researchers to produce detailed tabula- tions of characteristics for specialized sub -populations. The Census asks a sample of about 16 percent of all households questions about employment, income, education and many other items. After identifying those persons who are employed at all, the census form asks, "How did this per- son usually get to work last week?" If more than one method was used, the respondent must select the mode of transport used for most of the distance. The respondent could select from items such as car, truck or van, bus or trolley, subway or elevated, railroad, ferry, taxi- cab, motorcycle, bicycle, walked, worked at home, or other method. In this study, persons who identified "bicycle" as the predominant mode of transportation were compared to those commuting to work by other means. Those who worked at home were ex- cluded from the analysis. Results Nine demographic variables were selec of bic age, incor geop of bi pare( ideni twee E are t: dicti: to w bicy< cent. sinc- 75% mute and This the 1 segL sho-, mut Mal( mal( ratic Sou - s. As killed mar - strategies ion . . sting a pro- omes from _ta Sample Bureau of tary data, ;eographic -ecords for d the indi- 3ing units. UMS gives .5 million files allow d tabula- pecialized of about questions education der"-"ving re< ' all, l this per- veek?" If used, the mode of distance. om items or trolley, !rry, taxi- 1, worked identified mode of to those means. were ex- tes were PROMOTING BICYCLE COMMUTING: UNDERSTANDING THE CUSTOMER selected to examine the characteristics age. For persons under 25, the ratio of of bicycle commuters, including: gender, men to women is about 3.5 to 1; but for age, ethnicity, work status, occupation, persons 45 to 54, it is almost 6 to 1. income, education, marital status and Men are far more likely to be bicycle com- geographic location. The characteristics muters up into their 40s and 50s. Fe - of bicycle commuters were then com- male riders are more likely to be under pared to those of other commuters to age 35. In fact, 75% of female bicycle identify similarities and differences be- commuters are between the ages of 15 tween the two groups. and 34. Age and Gender - Gender and age Since bike commuting is closely tied are the two most powerful factors in pre- to age, the increase in births during the dicting whether a person will commute late 1970s and 1980s should produce a to work by bicycle. Nearly 80% of all modest increase in the number of per - bicycle commuters are male. This per- sons using this form of transport. centage has actually increased slightly Marital Status - Figure 2 shows that since 1980, when the percentage was compared to other commuters, bicycle 75%. The total number of bicycle com- commuters tend to be single. This is con- muters declined slightly between 1980 sistent with the age patterns shown and 1990, from 471,000 to 461,000. above, since the younger one is, the less This is probably due to the deflating of likely one is to be married. However, the the baby boom in the 1960s and the con- tendency for bicycle commuters to be sequent aging of the population. As we unmarried persists even when age is con - show in Figure 1, the propensity to com- trolled. For each age group, the rate of mute to work by bike declines with age. commuting by bicycle is highest for those Male bicycle commuters outnumber fe- who have never married, and second males in all age categories. However, the highest for those who are divorced and ratio of men to women increases with separated. The widowed have the low - Figure 1 Bicycle commuters per 1000 total commuters by age II� 10 _j 6 4 .� 2 C I I I 1 1 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 and over Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample z TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY est commuting rates in every age cat- egory. Race and Ethnicity - Riding a bi- cycle to work is not distributed propor- tionately among all racial and ethnic cat- egories, as we can see in Figure 3. The census allows respondants to select the racial/ ethnic category with which they most closely identify. In this table we have combined a number of detailed cen- sus codes into very broad racial/ethnic groupings. Blacks are the least likely to commute by bicycle, followed by Whites, Asians, American Indians, and Hispan- ics in that order. Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians are more likely to be found in Mountain and Western states, where bicycle commuting is highest. Since many members of the Hispanic and Asian populations have recently immi- grated to the United States, they may be influenced by the extensive use of bi- cycles for transport found in Latin and Asian countries. Employment - In addition to age, gender, marital status and ethnicity, fac- tors related to employment are impor- tant determinants of bicycle commuting. To begin with, the distance from work- place to residence must be short enough to allow reasonable commuting time. While the PUMS Census file does not provide direct data on distance to work, it does report travel time. Bicycle com- muters report a shorter travel time than other workers. On average, bike com- muters arrived at work about 16 min- utes after they left home, compared to 22 minutes for persons using other means. A second employment factor is whether the person works at a job full - or part-time for the entire year. Less than half (44%) of bicycle commuters are full- time workers all year. In contrast, 63% of those using other means of transport work full-time. To analyze the relationship between bicycle commuting and type of employ- ment, several hundred census occupa- tional codes were combined into seven broad categories. The bicycle commut- ing rate for each category was calculated by dividing the number of bike commut- Figure 2 Bicycle commuters per 1000 total commuters by marital status 10- 8- 6- 4- 2- 0 Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, I % sample 70 i i Widowed Never Married Married Separated or Divorced F ers by and m sonnet Comm in Figi worker with s. per 10 est for tive st To int teristil ries rr sonne mogra Comm perso: makir tion, states out tY; plain milita Tl farm, thou€ broad Sourc PROMOTING BICYCLE COMMUTING: UNDERSTANDING THE CUSTOMER n hng 4 , ers by the number of total commuters male. Since all are also outdoor occu- om work R ::. Military and multiplying by 1000. Military per- pations, individuals would not be as con - enough ? sonnel have the highest rate of bicycle cerned about having a place to shower . .ing time. commuting at 9.7 per 1,000 as shown and change clothes before starting to does not ' "il in Figure 4. Farm, forestry and fishing work. e to work, n workers ranked second at 7.5 per 1,000 The relatively high rate for service ycle corn- with service workers close behind at 7.3 workers must be interpreted differently. time than per 1000. Bike commuting rates are low- Included in this group are personal ser- bike com- est for workers in the sales/administra- vice workers, food service, and house- t 16 min- tive support category at 2.7 per 1,000. hold workers, as well as protective and npared to To interpret these results, the charac- health service workers. Service workers ing other teristics of the different employee catego- are often part-time and have lower pay nes must be considered. Military per rates. In addition, they are typically factor is r;: sonnel are primarily young males, a de- younger than other workers. Although a job full- mographically favorable group for bike women outnumber men in the service Less than commuting. Moreover, many military category, the effect of these other factors rs are full- personnel live on or very near bases, is strong enough to produce a higher fre- rast, 63% making for a short commute. In addi- quency of commuting by bike. transport tion, many military bases are located in Sales and administrative support states that enjoy good weather through- workers are least likely to use a bicycle p between out the year. These factors all help ex- to get to work. Women outnumber men A employ- `= ' plain the higher commuting rate for the by 2 to 1 among these workers, a factor s occupa- :± ' military. which doubtless accounts for much of mto seven The same considerations exist for the lower participation. Moreover, these commut- farm, forestry and fishing workers. Al- workers may be more concerned about calculated though the age range is somewhat personal appearance on the job, which commut- broader, the category is overwhelmingly may mitigate against use of a bicycle if Figure 3 �j + a les commuters er � 0 � °cyead p DOm metal commuters ra ®etI'�nici ��mute®� by eee t� tus - i 6 5— 4 — 3 — 2— 1- 137- 0 i i Black I American Indian White Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample 71 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY no shower facilities are available. Income and Education - Given what we have learned about the employment characteristics of bicycle commuters, it is not surprising to find that as a group, bicycle commuters earn less money than the rest of society. Since most bicycle commuters only work part-time, it is more instructive to look only at full-time workers. Table 1 contains data on in- come levels by age for full-time workers with different transportation preferences. The average income for all bicycle com- muters is $23,842 compared to $28,876 for all commuters. As expected, there is a link between age, income and bicycle commuting habits. In the 15 to 24 age group, the mean income for bicycle com- muters is $12,229 compared to $15,314 for all commuters. This pattern also holds true for the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups. In older age groups, how- ever, a different picture emerges. The mean income for bicycle commuters in the age groups 45 to 54 and 55 and over is actually higher than that of their co- horts who choose other modes. Bicycle commuters in the 45 to 54 age group have a mean income of $35,580, com- pared to a mean income of $34,624 for all commuters in this age group. In the 55 and over group, those who ride bi- cycles to work also have a higher mean income. The higher mean income for older bi- cycle commuters suggests a different motive for riding to work. If money is not a factor in the decision, personal health or environmental benefits may be other possible motivators. The greater flexibil- ity and independence often associated with higher paying jobs may also pro- vide older commuters with more trans- portation choices. Somewhat consistent with the above analysis is the finding that bicycle com- muting occurs in its greatest numbers at both ends of the educational spec- trum. As shown in Figure 5, individuals with less than four years of high school are most likely to use a bicycle to get to work, showing a rate of 6.2 per 1,000. College graduates follow in their decision to ride a bicycle to work with a rate of Figure 4 Bicycle commuters per 1000 total commuters by occupational category Sales, administrative support - Professional, technical, managerial - i i 0 2 4 5 S 10 Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample 72 P Agf 15-2 25-3 35-4 45-4 55 a Tota Note: E Source: 4.5 pe diplon equall. with r 1,000 greate ing m< menta with 1 may h not of 9", oup 80, corn- 4,624 for ;p. In the ride bi ier mean older bi- different ley is not:` al health be other r flexibii- 3sociated also pro - re trans - he above jcle com- numbers ial spec- 3ividuals ;h school _ to get to , r 1,000. - decision a rate of i" 11 f�) '' 4' WE E Table 1 Mean Income of Commuters By Age and Mode of Transportation Age Bicycle Commuters Other Commuters All Commuters 15-24 $12,229 $15,332 $15,314 25-34 $22,097 $25,184 $25,173 35-44 $28,307 $32,327 $32,318 45-44 $35,580 34,622 $34,624 55 and over $35,768 $32,516 32,520 Total $23,842 $28,891 $28,876 Note: Based on full-time, all year workers Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample 4.5 per 1000. Those with a high school diploma and those with some college are equally likely to ride a bicycle to work, with respective rates of 2.9 and 2.7 per 1,000. College graduates may have greater flexibility in choosing a commut- ing mode and select bicycling for environ- mental and/or health reasons while those with less than a high school education may have limited choices and simply can not afford a car. Some workers with less than a high school education aged 16-18 may not have driver's licenses. Geographic Location - As might be expected, geography plays a prominent role in determining who commutes by bicycle. Figure 6 presents bicycle com- muter rates for the nine geographic divi- sions identified by the Bureau of the Census. The far west states of the Pa- cific have the greatest number of bicycle commuters at 9.6 per 1,000, followed Figure 5 Bicycle commuters per 1000 by level of education 7- S- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1- 0 I - I High School Grads I College grads <High School 1-3 yrs College Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample 73 1 closely by the Mountain division with 8.7 per 1000. The region with the lowest rate of bicycle commuting is the East South Central, which includes of "deep south" states. In these states, less than one out of 1,000 commuters uses a bicycle to get to work. Although weather and popula- tion composition play a significant role in regional patterns of bicycle use, cul- tural factors may be at work in the re- luctance of southern residents to use this form of transport. Riding a bicycle may not fit into southern conceptions of ap- propriate behavior for adults, particu- larly males. In addition to states, the PUMS data files provide data for Metropolitan Sta- tistical Areas (MBAs). In Table 2 we show the top ten MBAs in terms of commut- ing to work by bicycle. Four of these ar- eas are in California which also has the most metropolitan areas (13) with 1 per- cent or more of commuters riding bi- cycles to work. Within California, the Chico -Paradise Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) ranks highest with 49.7 bi- cycle commuters per 1,000, followed closely by the Santa Barbara MSA with 41.2. It should be noted that many of the communities with larger bicycle com- muter populations also are college towns with a generally younger population. In fact, every MSA on the top ten list con- tains a major university. Promoting bicycle commuting What can communities do to promote greater bicycle use? What is it that makes people choose a bicycle to com- mute to work? What more can be done to convince others to do the same? A picture of the hard-core bicycle commuter emerges from the demo- graphic data. The bike commuter typi- cally is male. If young, his wages are lower than non -bicycle commuters his age. If older, his wages are typically higher. The education of the average bike commuter varies from either no high school diploma to having a college de- gree. He lives in a college town where the weather is mild year round, probably in Figure 6 Bicycle commuters per 1 I 0 total commutersby r . a p h_ ; Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample 74 -' the Wes Pre, to bicyc cilities, cerns. I standin muters ers. Go incorpo tive fac bike to and ind issues ; The foll tors an serve a concert is tablish, trips tc cycling nities h ties by j exampl carry n ing bic. distanc clists I onto b Bike-oi numbe ing fac Source: with �t many of cycle corn lege towns elation. In n list con Q4 o promote is it that :le to Com- m be done Same? )re bicycle he demo- nuter typi- wages are ,nuters his typically verage bike :r no high college de- i where the )rol bly in PROMOTING BICYCLE COMMUTING: UNDERSTANDING THE CUSTOMER the West, and less likely in the South. Previous research identifies barriers to bicycle commuting such as lack offa- cilities, distance, traffic and crime con- cerns. The remaining issue is an under- standing of how potential bicycle com- muters become regular bicycle commut- ers. Goldsmith has developed a model incorporating the personal and subjec- tive factors which affect the decision to bike to work. Community, government and industry efforts which speak to these issues are more likely to enjoy success. The following is a breakdown of key fac- tors and further responses which may serve as models in addressing public concerns and perceptions. Distance - It has already been es- tablished that a large percentage of daily trips to work are within reasonable bi- cycling distance. However, some commu- nities have further expanded opportuni- ties by providing bicycle -transit links. For example, in San Diego, California, buses carry rear -mounted bicycle racks allow- ing bicycle commuters to travel greater distances. Since the late 1970's, bicy- clists have been allowed to take bikes onto buses in Westchester, New York. Bike -on -rail programs are available in a number of U.S. cities as are bicycle park- ing facilities. In San Francisco, bicycle parking has been available since the early 1970s. More recently the city's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service has installed 600 lockers. Nearly 500 are in use; 352 of those are rented at a cost of $15 for a 3-month period or $30 for a year. BART also has installed nearly 1,400 bicycle racks at suburban and urban rail stations. Values & Attitudes - Influencing val- ues and altering attitudes may present the greatest challenge to attracting greater numbers of bicycle commuters. Visibility and integration are key com- ponents of these strategies. Because ISTEA requires states and metropolitan areas to develop long-range bicycling plans, the visibility of bicycle commut- ing will be improved. Equally helpful are requirements that states appoint bicycle program coordinators. Coordinators can help communities create consistent ap- proaches to heighten public awareness through education and publicity pro- grams. Eight of the top 10 cities for bi- cycling have bicycle coordinator posi- tions. Public involvement also increases program visibility. In Eugene, Oregon, the Bicycle Advisory Committee works with city officials to promote bicycling and increase facilities. Family Responsibilities - As we Fable 2 Top Ten MetrapaRtam Areas For Bicycle Commuters Metropolitan Statistical Areas Chico -Paradise, CA Santa Barbara, CA Gainesville, FL Eugene -Springfield, OR Bryan -College Station, TX Madison, WI Boulder -Longmont, CO Champaign -Urbana, IL Sacramento, CA Santa Cruz, CA Source: 1990 Census, PUMS file, 1 % sample Bicycle commuters per 1000 49.7 41.2 35.2 32.9 37.2 29.5 24.5 21.6 19.6 19.1 75 have seen, most bicycle commuters are not married. Community and govern- ment officials charged with long-term planning should consider the needs of two -worker families. Possible alternatives include high -density, mixed -use devel- opment. These compact centers would offer day care services, shopping oppor- tunities and easy access to the work- place. Work Requirements - The need to arrive at work neatly groomed and in professional attire and neatly groomed has prompted a number of responses at the local and national level. In 1991 Los Angeles passed a law requiring bicycle parking, showers and clothing lockers in new work sites. Within targeted pollu- tion areas, the Clean Air act requires em- ployers with more than 100 workers to develop plans to reduce work -related trips by automobile. Access & Routling - The need to pro- vide greater access and to develop inte- grated route systems has been docu- mented. Researchers have cited the need for maps and brochures to direct bicycle commuters to the best routes. In North Carolina, the state Department of Trans- portation produces more than 10,000 maps of routes and bicycle facilities an- nually. Recently, the state also completed computer -generated route and access maps for Durham and Winston-Salem. The city of San Diego maintains a sepa- rate phone line that provides informa- tion on bicycling. Free maps indicate city bicycle routes, bus stops where bikes can be loaded and unloaded, locations of bi- cycle lockers and parking at park and ride lots and bike -on -bus routes. Traffic Safety - Concerns that bi- cycle commuting is not safe must be ad- dressed, particularly to expand bike com- muting by women. Bicycle training pro- grams can increase safe behavior as shown in a study of bicyclist character- istics by Cynecki, Perry and Frangos. The researchers observed bicyclist be- W havior regarding use of helmets, atten- tion to traffic rules and use of bike lanes. With the promotion and participation of a bike to work week in Phoenix, helmet use increased, traffic rule compliance rose and bicyclists followed lane desig- nations more closely. Subsequently, the city hosted ten to twelve bicycle rodeos in various city parks and schools. The rodeos offered free bicycle inspections and tune-ups and safety training from police offers on the bicycle detail. Law enforcement is a necessary com- ponent of bicycle safety. Central busi- ness districts, grade schools, parks and universities should be targeted. A num- ber of communities have launched po- lice on bicycle programs that serve as community relations vehicles as well as traditional enforcement operations. Weather - Weather may not neces- sarily deter bicycle commuting. In Min- nesota, where winter temperatures may prevail five to six months of the year, ten percent of adults ride a bicycle to work at least once a year. The state has long promoted bicycle commuting and plans to spend $ 10 million annually during the 1990s to support bikeway development, safety and education programs. Storage/Shower Facilities - ISTEA and the Clean Air Act boost bicycle com- muting by requiring communities and large businesses to address the needs of bicycle commuters. In Palo Alto, Califor- nia, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard provide covered parking and/or bike lockers for employees. Palo Alto also requires that new major commercial and public build- ings install showers and changing areas - The cost of providing such amenities can alleviate the need for more expensive fa- cilities for cars. Employer & Peer Support - Federal law is pushing employers to develop pro- grams to promote bicycle commuting. For example, in Phoenix, a community - wide promotes using other transport modes at least once a week. Schools held .09 poster peted tc particip unit -Y and bik Alto an( ing to el employ( bicycle, reimbu- cycle bi bicycle gent dr. ible wo burs err Examp Oft "bike ft sin has comml bikewa T7, striped -Plector S cent cil people a 1991 estima sin -Ma cycle e Bi( Madis( city's t The cit as well time t house( partm Z-V �m e lanes. ation of helmet pliance desig- Itly, the rodeos )Is. The )ections ig from 1. ry com- al busi- rks and A num- bed po- ,erve as well as ns . neces- In Min- res may_: ear, ten to work ias long d rl-ns rii le )pment, - ISTEA :le com- ies and seeds of Califor- provide kern for res that c build- g areas. ties can isive fa - Federal lop pro - muting. munity- ansport �ols held PROMOTING BICYCLE COMMUTING: UNDERSTANDING THE CUSTOMER poster contests, public agencies com- peted to win the title of most employees participating in the program, and com- munity members hosted a bike festival and bike to work week. The City of Palo Alto and the Alza Corporation are work- ing to encourage bicycle commuting. Alza employees are paid $1 for each day they bicycle, walk or carpool to work. The city reimburses seven cents per mile for bi- cycle business travel. Other support for bicycle commuting includes less strin- gent dress codes in the workplace, flex- ible work hours and parking fee reim- bursement. Example: Madison, Wisconsin Often touted as one of the nation's "bike friendly cities," Madison, Wiscon- sin has done much to promote bicycle commuting. More than 100 miles of bikeway system, consisting of off -road, striped bike lanes and bikeways on col- lector streets, criss-crosses the city. Re- cent city surveys indicate nearly 50,000 people ride bicycles on a daily basis. And a 1991 university survey determined an estimated 13,000 University of Wiscon- sin -Madison students and staff ride bi- cycle each day. Bicycles are part of the landscape in Madison and an everyday part of the city's transportation planning process. The city employs a full-time coordinator as well as two full-time staff and a half- time traffic engineer. The program is housed in the city's Transportation De- partment, offering an integrated ap- proach to planning projects. The city dedicates an estimated $250,000 annu- ally to independent bikeway projects. Substantially greater sums are spent on projects integrating bicycles and other transportation, according to city officials. A number of policies, laws and pro- grams also are in place to promote bi- cycle commuting. The city has a written bike plan and a city zoning ordinance requiring new development to include bicycle parking. The city publishes maps of bicycle routes and facilities and oper- ates an education programs focused on youth. The programs is intended to teach bicycle safety as well as promoted bicy- cling as a life-long activity. Conclusion This Madison, Wisconsin example demonstrates that an integrated ap- proach is needed increase the number of bicycle commuters. Efforts to remove per- ceived and real barriers to bicycle com- muting must be supported. Communities must promote and alert potential bicycle commuters to improvements. But even after barriers are removed and promo- tional efforts are in full swing, more work will be required. The task of changing val- ues and attitudes demands that commu- nities and transportation professionals think like marketers: they must under- stand their customers and provide goods and services that will provide the level of satisfaction customers require if they are to make the switch from potential bicycle commuters to regular bicycle commuters. Endnotes 1. Brad Edmondson, Alone in the Car," American Demographics, June, 1994, pp. 44-52. 2. Michael Replogle, Bicycles and Public Transportation: New Links to Suburban Transit Markets, Pennsyl- vania: Rodale Press, 1983, pp. 24-25. r V TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY 3. J. Betz, J. Dustrude and J. Walker, "Intelligent Bicycle Routing in the United States," Transportation Research Record, no. 1405, 1983, pp. 21-27. 4. Stewart A. Goldsmith, "Case Study No. 1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are and Are Not Being Used More Extensively As Travel Modes," U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration National Bicycling and Walking Study, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1992, p. 14, 5. U. S. Department of Transportation, Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities, Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1989, p. 23. 6. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 'Pavement Pounders and Pedal Pumpers,' Highway Safety Directions, 4, no. 1, 1992, pp. 2-7. 7. Edmondson, p. 53. 8. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990 (United States): Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files, I percent sample, [machine-readable data files], Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor] 1993. 9. Goldsmith, pp. 6-9, 66, 10. Michael A. Replogle and Harriet Parcells, "Case Study No. 9: Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities with Transit," U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Bicycling and Walking Study, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1992, pp. 28-30. I l.Ryan Snyder, "Bicycles in Ecological Cities," Earthword: The Journal of Environmental and Social Re- sponsibility, Issue 4, 1992, pp. 6-7. 12.Replogle and Parcells, p. 39; Betz, Dustrude and Walker, pp. 21-27. 13.M. J. Cynecki, G. Perry and G. Frangos, "A Study of Bicyclist Characteristics in Phoenix, Arizona," Transportation Research Record, 1405, 1983, pp. 28-34. 14.U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Bicycling and Walking Study: Transportation Choices for a Changing America, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1992, p. 57. 15.National Bicycling and Walking Study, p. 89, 16.Replogle, 1983, pp. 24-25. 17.R. Alcott and M. M. Decindis, "Clean Air Force Campaign 1989-1990: Programs, Attitudes and Com- mute Behavior Changes," Transportation Research Record, 1321, 1991, pp. 34-44. TQ James Williams is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire. His teaching and research interests include demography, social stratification, mortality and applied sociology. As a long-time cyclist, his research on the bicycle commuter was prompted b a desire to learn more about others who use this means of traveling to worh. Jan Larson is an Assistant Professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire. She writes frequently about demographic trends for American Demographics Magazine. 78 e t( E t( P P 0 tf C Lel T C 0 STRATEGIC PLANS IMPLEMENTATION CALENDAR 2002 VS 3 S 4.a Urban Forest Plan Ross Canplete future Develop Complete Board review of VS4 Marnenanrs&Faesvy i recommendations recommendations 2-cuarter. S 2.a Parks Maintenance recommendauans. Board remewof f^ 11 for future ClP& budgetrequests for future Parks Maint. Standards Standards Curtis quarter. VS4 Infergenerational Park Ric S3.a Facilities Board review of Council reviews VS4 Developer incentives needs assessment proposed S 4.a to provide adequate developer incentives parks Steve Board review of Complete Phase VS4 complete needs assessment recommendations, S 41 development of VPAC Ric cost estimates& present to Council Improve Subdivision Q :: -' Council Ordinance related to consideration of Dedication VS4 park land location& Ordinance $ q,C dedication Ric - .. 15ld9 revisions Develop masterplan Submitfacility VS4 fornewcommunity needs for inclusion S 4.d park & landfill site Ric in 5-yr. CIP Plan Board reviewof propttad pregrama. Develop plans for Present recanmeadaGme far VS4 senior programs8 _.- Coundid efl.e. seek S S.a facilities Marci =rrierenr based on d-fion. CIP list to Budget Submit VS 4 Prepare feasibility development costs S 5.b report on Peter for CIP based on skateboardpark L. Council direction Implement greenway VS 4 park connectivity S 7.b demonstration project Ric Improve VS4 communication S 8.a between Parks Board, Steve Council, P&Z -Brison, Gabbard, Merry Oaks, Madeley, Woodway, and Spring Loop Parks I NOTE: Shaded items have been completed. O: Strategic Planning/Plan Calendars 2002Tmeline 2002.doc consultants report Determine plan implementation to Council for based upon plan for Council direction Council's direction consideration Board review of Vquarter. Park projects completed by year's end' Complete trail section in VPAC. Applied lmgmnt Revised January 4, 2002 6