Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/08/2002 - Regular Agenda Packet - Parks Board
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 1. Call to order. 2. Pardon—consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 3. 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 projects. 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 7:00 p.m. Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 8. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of December 11, 2001. 9. 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 I. January: — Staff review and update of the current Master Plan, Section I (Introduction). - Completion of the Parks and Recreation Department 5-Year Strategic Plan. II® February: Board review and comments regarding Section II (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. III. March: - 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 I, IV, V, and VI. - 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). VI® June: Board consideration of revised Master Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission Consideration of revised Master Plan. VII. July: City Council presentation and consideration of ordinance adopting revised Master Plan. 0/Board/Revised Master Plan Schedule.doc City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives (not prioritized) Establish policies and standards for re-appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department El Review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop recommendations regarding levels of service (VS4S2a) (January 8 2002). O Review proposed park conceptual plans and make recommendations for intergenerational features (VS4S3a). O Review and develop recommendations for Urban Forestry Plan (VS3S4a). O 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). El Assist with the review and preparation of the Unified Development Ordinance (November 13. 2001). Review and recommend Jo ossible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (October 9, 2001). E1 Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss goals (September 20, 2001). • Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to confirm goals (December 6 2001). Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. Castlegate Park site review (November 13, 2001). Lick Creek Park site review (December 11, 2001) O Woodway Park site review. O Shenandoah Park site review (On Hold). O Madeley Park site review. Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. O Identify and assess the needs for future park facilities. O Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. O Determine priorities for development. O Develop a recommendation for consideration in the 2002 bond program. Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. El Review and update goals and objectives of the plan (January 8, 2002) O Review and update facility concepts and standards. (February 5, 2002) O Review and update needs assessment. (February 12, 2002) O 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 1 of 2 U Develop recommendation for plan adoption by the City Council. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase II Development. El Review needs for future facilities and programs (December 11, 2001) O Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. O Determine priorities for development. O Develop recommendations for implementation. Skate Park facility planning (VS4S5b). El Develop recommendation for scope of project. (November 13, 2001) Ef Develop recommendation for facility use. (November 13, 2001) RE Develop recommendation for implementation. (Novenzber 13, 2001) Review funding sources for the installation of two backstops and two batting cages at Bee Creek Park. E Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff(November 13, 2001). O Determine needs for program requirements. O Develop recommendations for scope of project. O Develop recommendations for implementation. Review funding sources for the repair or replacement of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. EI Review proposed project cost estimates (December 11, 2001). Ei Review funding alternatives (Completed by Stall). O Develop recommendations for implementation. Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan. EI Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator (October 9, 2001). O 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. O Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments. O Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Develop programs and facilities for Senior Citizens. E Receive input from fall Eisenhower Leadership Development Program group. (December 6, 2001) • Determine priorities for programs and facilities (Jcintato, 8, 2002). El 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 P &RECREATION DEPARTMENT FY02 GO );,-- Implementation of the CIP Program Continue to Improve Staff Development Implementation of City Council Strategic Issues Implementation of Special Projects El Implementation of New Programs 4.. . . ..1. . . . ....1. . Im..lementation of the CIP Pro.ram O Complete 90%of the CIP Program —Refer to CIP FY02 Project List Continue to liii rove Staff Deyelo)ment o Complete Management Academy(three(3)PARD Superintendents)(Applications have been submitted) Ei Complete Supervisory Academy(six(6)PA P personnel)(Class graduated on November 13, 2001) O Complete Certified Playground Safety Inspector re-certification from the National Recreation and Park Association (two(2)PARD Supervisors)(Curtis Binghani,Parks Operations Superintendent, was recertified) O Send one(1)PARD Supervisor to the National Recreation and Park Association sponsored Park Maintenance School • Complete the Weapons of Mass Destruction training course(seven(7)PA personnel)(Training held December 17th, 1811, and 19111) Complete the Principles of Emergency Management course(PARD personnel)(Graduation held on November 18, 2001) El Participate in the Brazos Valley Regional Leadership Forum Conference(Director of PARD)(Ongoing) Imlementation of City Council Stratetic issues O VS354a—Complete Urban Forest Management Plan(Request for Proposals complete and contract pending) O VS4S2a—Implement Park Maintenance Standards(to track performance)(First quarter report complete) O VS4S3a—Implement Intergenerational Park Facilities(In progress) o VS4S4a—Develop recommendations for developer incentives to provide adequate park land(draft recomniendations complete) o VS4S4b—Complete development of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex,Phase I,and conduct needs assessment for future facilities(in progress) V5454c—Update Parkland Dedicati n Ordinance(Ordinance revisions approved by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on October 9,2001. Will go to Council for consideration in February 2002)). o VS4S4d—Develop facility needs for future community park o VS4S5a''Develop plans for senior programs and facilities(In progress) 121 V5455b—Prepare feasibility report on skateboard park(Report presented to Council on December 20, 2001) • V54s7b Implement greenway-park connectivity demonstration project(Bee Creek and Lemon Tree parks) • V54s8a—Improve communication between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission (Parks and Recreation Advisoty Board met with the Commission on September 20,2001. A joint meeting with the City Council was held on December 6, 2001) implementation of Special Projects o Review and update the Recreation,Park,and Open Space Master Plan o Develop recommendations for future Capital Improvement Program projects(In progress) o Replace irrigation at Lemontree Park Implement public art at Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater(Bronze Wolves)(Dedication held December 17,2001) o Investigate the possibility of Departmental accreditation O Conduct dedication ceremony for the Wayne Bryan Bike Loop El Coordinate Veterans Memorial Project at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex(Groundbreaking on'November 12, 2001). 121 Complete pond renovation at Brothers Pond Park(Complete in December 2001) CI Installation of lightening detection systems at parks. un leirieritation of New Pro trams Cl Investigate the potential of joint programming with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Department(Aleeting with the City of Biyan PARD November 16, 2001) El Implement monthly PARD newsletter(First edition complete in October 2001) EZI Facilitate the Northgate"Back Porch Concert" Series Cl Conduct Fall Special Olympics Bocce Ball Updated:January 4,2002 Parks and Rem. in Department CIP Project List FY 2002 (updated 1/4/02) : : ::: : :::: :::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :Furojrig.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.0c00000..i.::.:.:.:.:.:•:.:Aptppl.:•:.:•:.:.:.:•:.:•:.:•Finpil:.:.:.:.:. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••.•••• •• ••••• •••• •••••Budget• • • ••••••• •Source••••••.•• ••••••• ••• •• .••• ..•• •• . •. • •. •. • ...••••• •••.•••• -PrbjCi.:.:.: -:::::.:.:.:-:-:.::::::::.....:.:.........:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.$1aius.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:--..Project.#.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: -:.:.:.:.:.:: :.:.:...:-:-::.:-:C9mOletign.:Dat0:.:.COMpletiOn:.D.ate.:: Cost.:.:-:.:.: Business Center Landscaping Project Complete GG9705 $250,000 G.O. 07/31/01 10/19/01 Millennium Winds Improvements(FY'01) Com lete 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 Castlegate Park Design Under Construction Developer 03/31/02 Gabbard Park Improvements Out to Bid PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 04/30/02 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 Oaks Park Bridge Under Construction PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 3/31/02 Brison Park Improvements Out to Bid PK0100 $54,600 98 G.O. 3/31/02 Woodway Park Development Negotiating Land Purchase PK9803 $600,000 Hallaran Pool Filters In Construction PK0106 $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. Thomas 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 Georgie 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 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 IlL 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 0/Projects/CIP/Future CLP PARD.doc Updated:January 4,2002 AINTENA NCE STA hA R ISS S VEY S dkRY Quarterly Period: First Quarter, FY 2002 Overall 'Y of Standards Met: 77% Categories L Athletic Facilities:Competitive Fields East South West Average%of standards met 74% 76% 74% 75% IL 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. Ten i is Courts East South West Average%of Standards met 83% 62% 65% 70% Basketball Courts East South West Average%of Standards met 86% 96% 75% 86% VL Sand Volleyball Courts East South West Average%of Standards met 63% 77% 90% 77% ® Ponds 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% PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST 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 Zip: 77219 Phone Number: 409-771-7794 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Mitchell and Morgan Address: 511 University Drive City/State: College Station,Texas Zip: 77840 Phone Number: 979-260-6963 FAX: E-mail: v©mitchellandmorganengieers.com REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE SECTION 10-B-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: 70 Multi-family Dwelling Units: Total Land Requirement: .69 Acres Proposed Dedication: 0 SECTION 10-B-2: 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: SECTION 10-B-3: Park Development Fee 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): SECTION 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee Have development plans and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? No SECTION 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? N/A If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes, Woodway Park If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes Comments: SECTION 10G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning &Zoning Board: City Council: 0:\Board\Park Land Dedication\Checklists/TCC Subdivision.dot\January 4,2002 SECTION 10-F: Additional Requirements 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? No Percentage: Acreage in floodplain: Percentage: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenways: Percentage: Comments: 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? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the park land dedication fee. O:\Parks\1 Planning\Project Review Checklists/Park Land Dedication Cklist.dot TABLE OF CONTENTS introduction and Recommendations Executive Summaries, Spring and Fail 2001 Results Survey and Letter Minutes from Senior Advisory Committee Meetng N Nember 26, 2S01 Notes from Council Workshop December 6, 2001 Minutes from Senior Advisory Committee. 'eating December 17, 2001 TRODUCTION A D RECO MENDATIONS 0% 0% %,05 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 progr s in our co unity as a group project. The group was asked to provide a reco endation for progr s and facilities that would adequately meet the needs of the senior population in our co unity. Also, to be investigated was the potential to offer cooperative progr. 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 •iled to residents in College Station age 65 and over. However, they were able to .it the survey and calculate the results before the semester ended. The Spring Eisenhower te made the reco endation, if supported by s ey 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 co unity. 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 infor .tion conce ° g 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 co Qty. Funding assistance through state and federal grants .y be available for construction of senior centers and progr. ing. The survey was conducted with residents 65 and over in College Station during the fall of 2001 by the Eisenhower Progr to dete ° e their interests and f e spent in recreational activities. The Eisenhower progr reco ended to city co cil that the city continue to offer seniors satisfying progr. aimed to sharpen the ds, sta ulate the body and renew the spirit. The s ey 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 progr. s. It was also reco I ended that the department should concentrate on more advertising and . keting 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 co unity ), 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 years) • Utilizing existing facilities: The Parks and Recreation Department 11 strive to meet the needs of seniors by offering progr. and classes utilizing existing facilities such as the Teen Center, Lincoln Center and the ex. It is believed that c ent city facilities should be maxized in usage before any new facilities are built specifically for seniors. • Increase Marketing and Advertising: The department will focus on keting and advertising senior progr s through the newspaper, web sites, churches, V. radio, newsletters and other fo of co ,unication to the senior population 3o that citizens are aware of activities. • Improve Coordination of Progra The City staff will coordinate with either organlions and agencies to promote progr offered to seniors such classes at A&M and 131' and other educational opportunities. The program will continue to build joint progr ing efforts and coord tion with the City of Bryan and senior organ' tions such as Senior Friends and the Gold Medallion Club. • Enhance Transportation Assistance: The City staff will work with nines agencies to provide tr portation for seniors. This progr may begin as a pilot progrfor 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 thying school hours for seniors to meet. In order to accomplish this goal senor volunteers could be utilized and/or attendants could be hired so that the (,(firitc, would be open during school hours (8:00am-3:00pm) and the seniors would have access to the computer lab, meeting room and game room. Class schedules would 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 *shings would also be required. This would give the seniors an opport ity to gather both in structured (class) and unstructured(social) settings. Increase Marketing and Advertising: Additional funds are needed for keting and advertising in order to expose the co unity to progra offered to seniors. Expenses would include purchasing advertisement, flings a possible keting analysis and the hiring of a consultant that would assist in dete ing the most effective way to reach the senior population. The staff will evaluate and present costs in the budget process for fiscal year 2003. Inter° steps may include the utif tion of"free" marketing opport °ties such as radio and television public service a o cements, City access cha el and the co unity calendar in "The Eagle." The staff will also place an emphasis in marketing the co unity 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 co ety-wide basis that is easily accessible. In order to promote opport *ties available at A&M and BF classes and events offered may be listed in city publications such as brochures and newsletters. The sta.11 evaluate and present costs in the budget process for fiscal year 2003. Then, is some coordination between city Xtra Education registration and University Plus registration, and these opport °ties will be examined to see if they May be increased. Additionally, staff has begun the process of evaluating the ability to prog classes jointly with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation Depart:, ent, Further discussions will be held with Bryan in 2002 in regards to the joint progra g. Enhanced Transportation Assistance: The staff will be investigating the possibility of gaining access to Co unity Development Block Grant Funds to pay for tr portation to special events and prop-. . Buses would be used to tr port 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 .y 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 c er providers. 3 Interim goal for senior programs (3®5 years) • Renting space: Once the participation increases and current city facilities are able to meet the needs, the staff reco H ends that an inter° facility be rented. The staff will investigate possible retail locations and other available facilities to meet the growth needs. C ent est. ates indicate a 3000 square foot facility would cost approx. ately $2,000—3,000 monthly. Recommendations to meet interim goal: Staff will explore rental space availability and cost through co erciallretail kets. Consideration will be given to location, adequate parking and easy access. Long—Term goal for Senior Programs (540 years) A long-term goal for senior progris to have all progr offered in a permanent co unity center. A co unity center would benefit all populations and provide space for seniors to meet and provide intergenerational opport °ties for all citizens. A co unity center is included in the city center . ter plan which has been adopted by the city co cil. This site would be a good location for this type of facility. The current College Station Conference Center is very F ited 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. 4 suMMi• - EXEG i 00' s„. , „ .0% 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 perfo ed to dete ine the adequacy of College Station's programs, services, and facilities for the elderly; analyzes how other communities have addressed similar challenges; and provides some reco endations on how College Station can better serve its seniors. An extensive literature review was compiled to dete ine 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 4 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. RESULTS :„to 37 Results 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. 38 Part L Factors that influence willingness to attend a new Senior citizen center Demographics Figure 4 -Age vs. Attend a Nevi)Center i ?I') ius-NgsisfouiinunstmmugosmopnegEeEeEettlitiaila i---ii 01 1 „ itjrglRaPrftEeEfeiteeMtltr•ZiMgaiaaiaaafiai 13 1 ..'.... cP) tilillittiNtgaiMaiiiiiiiiiiii1101111011111111111111111 .65-69 i 11.1 1 p 12=,ZZZZZVIIGiFnliiiijilits 111 0 0112101110111q21,pinlp :! 11.1 111 glintinallantlai:,,E441114101110111111•110111114#101111111111111 m 70-74 ! . •1::46,0 illnaragag,” -,y;:;iiiiiativo,Ic.,mNlliffeFMPMIIPtAgflVegtEtl! 1 0 ,f) -tat :minimors 0 ,,-:,:lopiati," R.E2:1!It ei p-,In fl 0 75_79 „..,,,„„,,,,,,, _,.,..,:.,,,„,.„_„, „ ,-,-,-,•-. i -ilia :::1116.101,151 :_:,,:.;11.1411t te 1.0 ,1;',.2.iiltvw;:i•a-,a sm. ,':,.-,,,,,,c.t.-g.,,,,,,,,-ew:,--,,,,- -• , I , NA \.441 NA C 0 1 0 80-84 1 1 84-89 1 i cc-\ , co° 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 Figure 5 - Gender vs. Attend a New Center 40.00% „,„!.,I,o,oruesemees:_emn,gfzimgowsoisfEaf:fgopririss 30.00% 112111111111,11111;giaiiiiiiiiii ail illassaussolinantioli 1, , 0/ mirwri nolnallmPl figgeflemen Bin itzmaiiiikaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimadramemsam -- 1,..::' M a les 1*isinuartm unissol BE iiiiii81111111011111111111111 1 , 20.00% 111,11111111111116/411111111121itini Ili IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m Females 15-99°,(0, 11,111, 129111.111141114,11111111111111111 10.u u 70 iiiiisfiallem In troi5 mation Es*pm Insusimool 5.00% - 0.00% IRIO 011,jillailis,mainsitlials alliltammost* -,''''" "' --;-------- ------i. - - , > ›, L.- , CO - a) a) ' ....te , < 0 0 i z U) The majority of senior citizens participate five or more hours per week in activities. This active population encompassed 64.41%males and 49.18% females. Of the 120 survey members who indicated his or her sex, 59 were male and 61 were female. From the male population, 30.51% said they were not likely to attend a new center, while 66.1% said they were likely to attend a new senior citizen center to varying degrees. Of the 61 females, 90.17% said it is likely, to some degree, that they would attend a new center. 40 Figure 6-Income Distribution vs. Attend a New Center 45.00% - -„„--„.mwmmainssnlielnllgsnlnitltnkgairnm 00% nneelnmpqooymepenzaaiaao 35.00zo -111111100 30.00% allfillj 011111111 25-9,Zki 111111011men ,:1111 112 r1W1011111•1111111 )1.: Less than $1000011 Rill IV"Stallenta 10000 $29000 20.u Riiorvpg Net wis - 111111111111 18:8 6/0 -- 11,41 $30000-$49000 5.00% 111!‘"" .1* 0.00% - $50000-70000 c„...„(...e LE 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 i tionina senior citizen center. Because of the lack of response from many participating n the survey, the data is considerably less than the actual population that was surveyed. •f the 37%that did respond with income information, five maintained incomes under 10, „,0 thousands dollars (11%), ten had incomes between 10 thousand and 29 thousand (2,3/0), twelve had incomes between thirty thousand and forty-nine thousand (27%), eight maintained incomes between fifty thousand and seventy thousand (1_8V) 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 41 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 No Answer Given 25 ‘#‘,,TiA4.47NS,PV!':441**1.,eittte,Ve.'",t, 20 - AMI-4041*.17 NUtfi-ONTN44,3:4Tt'TP:?grl,!- 15 'A-?,,LiOgatiI- ItfieMi"41•AVVIRONNifif Single 10 _ 0 oMarned/Living w a Partner o Widowed .Q.c° lo Divorced 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 ! -1,:g12===it,:t.•••=1,21M=I•M _filiiiii,111011,1111001111111111111-1011,1011, 1 -,,,,,,,,,,..mtsmommetwoody•map.ownow.v.,--,,,mit.komwmmfolo.,,,mu ' 1 agetioommemateamso*sim*rauskatima ie,,,40..wassegovemsomo Notata Likely ukel 1 1 1 zonsgaisainagasainagatiplaris Vsitioaaizgali, El y 11 1 logilliiiii*POiliiiiiiiiiii 1§1000,111,011 M Somewhat Likely 11 Likely w 03 co .2 - loVery Likely ; c . c - •..... 60 (1) a) 03 0 ° ' No Answer 0 I:: 0 43 --- 03 (13 z E z 0 < i C ...._ 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 Figure 9 -Activity Level vs, Participation Frequency ..--'''''"'"'""'"1•111111111111111111"Ali iiii iiii:i;44-tee 0 l 35 No Answer Given _,---inawsE.twniii,v,sam,snvaimmagsNom.,_z!t,,3„.,. , _ . ours issummilittgatiliiiii.:-,:vocknot,011,1111,111,1011111110 'm 1-2 h '1111111111111111111211111116111111111111 'ri, 3..4 hours 25 liale•-'----':1,,_111111.11.•11 111111111111111111110111,12,11.01 1---J on ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,_._.:MIM4atOMNOMMAVit',,iZZ; tanuktimenattmawrolt-liwi 4.v -':',1 ,-,attaMilakettiteakealtn, =4;its.VNA 0 over 5 .4, osien .:--:.lialiait Oil.:r:ri::Milleassewf,tr=iiitoi*Matilwout4 hours 1° 110,1 II -;'.:•;:1111111Ps:1."'-''''illtilinaltelnita•nnt a Usiiiitalf, I 0 -'''''Etf:11 ',:i181111111 ,R lomplit ..._,,f mettim I' 0 0 ,•i,-,!,..I,,n,,,,ti,v,,--io-- e e S '..4.- 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%i) said they never attend local activities while ten(32%) stated they sometimes participate n 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 p r a rtie11 1'111,p,aN t,1L,11e1114,111,i11, while 11,111ai2t11ttwo 11ir 1li1 111p11e(1k41 i134_1 %HiHlN.„t .<, ) s,,.,1l.,ma1.ila0tlsl.,1 dett11oir!i11ithey Ioften t,sIIya'l p1 ltiil m,altrr ltliltiN -c mi1 l17 pM k0lt i a*5oti„tt1t te1 -0o-- 1S-l11Ra One t:1 (1i 1% m") person did i d not r ., et. sp 0 n d tothis question. Thesefindingsare significant because they showa correlation between if senior citizens are active at the present and whether or not thecity 1sprovldin6this activity. Figure 10-ActivityLevelvs. Attend a NewCenter 25 20 Answer Given 15 m 1-2 hours 0 10 3-4 hours 5 tover5 hours 0 ‘ LU' Not at a SomewhatLkeY Very Lk&y No keiy Answer The data received in this survey question was used to determine thecorrelaton between seniorcitizens' current 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 theywould bemc , likely to attend a new while another(14%) said they wouldbevery likely to attend. Five (717" ave no answer to either question. Therewerenineteen responders who stated they are active for one to tw o hours per week. O,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 centerwhile °ne (5%) said he would be very likely to attend. one (5%) Persongave no answer tothis 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 Factors Figure 11 - Transportation vs. Participation Frequency 60 aommismansoomonositinillitnintalinalianinili oisommunassestosoimoonsmosamassolosissmonsma 1II 50 - ,I'NEE'ESIE,I1BNIMISZtgzgzzpiugziaiaaitijiiii,ErjNoAnswerGiven . 40 11111111111,1111111111 1 m Never :,:.„_„„—,:,„,-,,,,,,mmve,,v,mtowmg'eomsmuaatgmmssmvomop 30 -111 11111111111111111"1111,1111111111111111111111 Sometimes 20 Yam 'oiltswer tomm.wasemtesenematmaustasisoftenkaidida , iont santOovessoingsmoostmatimeastastmonsmenz 9 ,,ItykettamenstalitamWskesiattestosammtemowat •Always 1 0 41 I 0 Ott T,toair-, siengstmwBtuloo,,xcrofl 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. Figure 12 - Transportation vs. Attend a New Center 40 „,, 30 11111,11111,1M11.1=1,111111,1211111elleitil- 20 inlinfitri 11111111111Milltallittallatatill I Drivp ' 11111110111 411011111101AINISIPeitlitair 0 itgoppoll*-4112Slitati Entrilitia MIONSIPIIIINSII I B mentea fiestiosompot u s si Shuttle t) §) loOther >, co— z a.,) ° E 0 co 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(3 7%) 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(Y) 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 Frequency 40 „. 30 alliar—ieltnetzmaaiaid.,Ninssgenagnnny No Answer 10 -20 _. yes 0 floonit 1 N0 0 6k cc\ co° 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 males 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. Figure 14 - Time of Day 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 Limiting 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 Part IL 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 government. Performances 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. LET` E� IlI! SURVEY October 17, 2001 Dear Sir or Madam: We are the Eisenhower Leadership Development Program, a group of college dents 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 S ion by conducting a survey to dete ° e the recreational/social needs of the senior cif ns in our area. In addition, it is our job to dete ° e what various activities that the se :sr citizens of College Station would like to participate in. Please help us by taking, a couple of * utes to fill out our survey. We have e losed a self-addressed and st. ped envelope, for your convenience. If you could please fill out the survey and promptly send it back to us. it would be greatly appreciated. - survey is completely anon ous and your answers will not be traced back to you. We have enclosed two copies of a consent fo . Please sign one and return it with the survey by October 26. 2001. You may keep the other copy for your o records. Thank you for your time and considerations. We appreciate you helping us in trying to dete e the c . .cteristics of the senior citizen co unity. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our advisor, Allison D at (979) 862-8837. Th. and Gig'Em! S* - -rely, 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 fo . Signature Date 3-30 -6 1 Signature of Investigator Date Allison Dunn, Assistant Director Eisenhower Leadership Development Progr. 4220 T College Station, TX 77843-4220 (979) 862-8837 Email: adunn@bushschool.tamu.edu City of College Station Senior Citizen Survey Please fill out and complete the provided survey, en 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 Du 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 1. Physical Activities: 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 2. Hobbies: Not Interested Very Interested Woodworking 1 2 3 4 5 Crafts 1 2 3 4 5 Photo,.. .phy 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 i.._ 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 5, Education: 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 0 er 1 2 3 4 5 6. Discussion: Not Interested Very Interested C ent events 1 2 3 4 5 Books 1 2 3 4 5 Re . iscence 1 2 3 4 5 Support 1 2 3 4 5 0 er 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 IL 9. Please rate how often you participate in recreational activities with the following individuals/groups of people. (please circle) 1 = Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Sometimes 4 = Frequently 5 = Always Never Always a. Participate alone 1 2 3 4 b. Participate with f. ily 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 f. Participate with mixed-gender groups 1 2 3 4 5 10. Please check which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic backgro d? African A, erican erican Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Other 11. Which age range are you in? (please circle) a. 65-70 b. 71-75 c. 76-80 d. 81-85 e. 86-90 f. 90+ Please check: 12. I am: Male Female 13. I am: Single Married/living with a partner Widowed Divorced 14. How long have you lived in the Bryan/College Station area? 0-2 years 11-15 years 3-5 years 16-20 years 6-10 years Over 20 years 15. How often do you leave your residence? (please check) Never Sometimes Often Always 16. What is your prary mode of transportation? (check only one) I drive myself Bus Shuttle Taxi Other (Om e specify) 17. How much f e do you spend in recreation, social, and educational activities a week? 1-2 hours 3-4 ho 5+ho 18. How often do you use recreational, social, and educational activities provided by the City of College Station? (please check) Never Sometimes Often Always 19. If you are not satisfied with your c ent level of participation, what factors are emping you from participating? (Check all that apply) Health limitations Lack of Money Lack of time Lack of Desire Safety Lack of Transportation No factors are keeping me from Other (please describe) participating w------- * . 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 (ii) Indicate the best f e(s) of day for you to participate in recreation/leisure tivities: (please check all that apply) Morning Afternoon Evening 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) I Not at all likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely 23. Please include any additional co ents that you have in regard to your recreational, social, and educational interests. 1._