2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan

Page 1

2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation System Master Plan

table of contents i. Table of Contents

i

ii. Acknowledgments

iii

part one: introduction

1

1.1 A Brief History of Columbus 1.2 Summary of the Department 1.3 Purpose of the Plan 1.4 Planning Process + Methodology

3 5 17 21

part two: existing conditions analysis

part three: needs and priorities assessment

79

2.1 Planning Area Overview &RPPXQLW\ 3URĆOH 2.3 Recreation Trends Analysis 2.4 Existing Parks + Recreation Facilities Evaluation 2.5 Programs Overview

3.1 Community Engagement Process 3.2 Public Opinion Survey 3.3 A3™ Level of Service Analysis 3.4 Summary of Needs and Priorities

part four: master plan vision

4.1 Visioning process 4.2 Guiding Principles, Goals, + Objectives 4.3 New Park Spaces 4.4 Indoor Recreation 4.5 Bikeways + Trails 4.6 Natural Areas + Experiences 4.7 Improving the Existing System 4.8 Opinion of Probable Costs

27 33 43 49 75

81 91 99 153

159 163 167 177 185 193 201 215

SDUW ĆYH \HDU DFWLRQ SODQ

221

part six: appendices

237

5.1 Process + Methodology 5.2 Proposed Funding Approach 5.3 Plan Adoption

6.1 Commonly Used Acronyms 6.2 References + Citations 6.3 List of Figures 6.4 Appendix I (Plan Introduction) 6.5 Appendix II (Existing Conditions) 6.6 Appendix III (Needs Assessment) 6.7 Appendix IV (Master Plan Vision) 6.8 Appendix V (5-Year Action Plan)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

223 225 233

239 241 245 249 253 345 537 567

i

ii

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y O F W E S T L A F AY E T T E P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N M A S T E R P L A N

acknowledgments CITY OF COLUMBUS CITY COUNCIL Mayor Jim Lienhoop Councilman Dascal Bunch Councilwoman Elaine Wagner Councilman Frank Jerome Councilman Frank Miller Councilman Tim Shuffett Councilman Tom Dell Councilwoman Laurie Booher

(District 1) (District 2) (District 3) (District 4) (District 5) (at-large) (at-large)

CITY OF COLUMBUS PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Mark Jones Director of Parks and Recreation Pam Harrell Director of Business Services Kathy McPeek Columbus Gymnastics Ctr. + Recreation Program Mgr. Lisa McDaniel Columbus Gymnastics Ctr. + Recreation Asst. Program Mgr. Casey Ritz Manager of Park Operations Jim Lemke Aquatics Manager Nikki Murphy Director of Sports Programs Patrick Senn Sports Coordinator Travis Tindell Athletic Facilities Supervisor Carleen Fry Hamilton Center Ice Arena Program Coordinator Shanda Sasse The Commons Manager Carley Freeman Marketing + Public Relations Coordinator Keith VanDeventer Golf Pro/Manager Stacy Findley Project and Resource Development Director Aaron Brua Golf Course Superintendent CITY OF COLUMBUS PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD John McCormick Mark Levett Millie Maier Julie Abedian BROWNING DAY MULLINS DIERDORF Ryan P. Cambridge, PLA, ASLA, APA Christine Eaton, PLA, ASLA Drew Braley, PLA, ASLA Brett Schlachter, PLA, ASLA Mark Beer

Planning Practice Leader, Project Manager Landscape Architecture Practice Leader Landscape Architect, Editor Urban Planner, Landscape Architect Urban Designer, Landscape Architect

COMMUNITY PARTNERS The Columbus Park Foundation Bartholomew County Park Board Developmental Services Inc. The Columbus Visitors Center City of Columbus – Bartholomew County Planning Department Columbus Regional Health: Healthy Communities Foundation For Youth Lincoln-Central Neighborhood Family Center Bartholomew County School Corporation B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

iii

01 introduction

2

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

1.1

a brief history of Columbus

1.1 A Brief History of Columbus The City of Columbus has been the county seat of Bartholomew County since 1821. The county was named after General Joseph Bartholomew, who was wounded at the Battle of Tippecanoe. The site of the county seat was chosen on February 15, 1821 by a team of commissioners. Initially, it was called Tiptona, in honor of General John Tipton who owned the land that the city was founded on. However, the commissioners decided to name the city Columbus (Schmucker, 2012). Columbus was incorporated as a town in 1834 and as a city in 1837. Prussian immigrants were the main settlers and grist mills, sawmills, wood mills and distilleries were the early industries powered E\ K\GURSRZHU *RRGV ZHUH VKLSSHG YLD ćDWERDWV on the waterways as far south as New Orleans. The ĆUVW UDLOURDG DUULYHG LQ IURP 0DGLVRQ ,QGLDQD (Schmucker, 2012). The national headquarters of Cummins Engine (Cummins hereafter) is located in Columbus and was founded there in 1919 by Clessi Cummins. The late J. Irwin Miller joined the company in 1934 and was instrumental in its success. He served as the president and chairman of Cummins and launched the Cummins Foundation in 1954. Cummins was the genesis for the majority of the modern architecture found in Columbus, as funds from the Foundation helped to secure the services of world renowned architects for local buildings. This program was initiated to pay for design of a much needed school. It was then expanded to include all public buildings. Consequently, Columbus is world-

renowned for its showcase of modern architecture, which is a major tourism draw for the city. Today, there are over 60 public and private buildings in the city that were designed by notable architects (Schmucker, 2012). Columbus also has a rich history in the arts. The Columbus Area Arts Council (CAAC) serves as the umbrella organization for arts groups and sponsors. The city boasts two symphony orchestras: Columbus Indiana Philharmonic and the Columbus Symphony Orchestra. The Orchestra, which is the oldest in the state started in 1923. CAAC also hosts the Columbus City Band in existence since 1843 and the Dance Studio. CAAC partners with the Parks Department throughout the year to provide concerts and events (Schmucker, 2012). Today, Columbus remains a vibrant city with a diverse culture who embraces the arts and the importance of parks in their community. The City is seeing some new growth downtown, with several mixeduse residential developments being constructed in the last several years. Cummins remains a key community anchor, however, numerous others have arisen since Cummins’ arrival in the city. Through a partnership with the Columbus Park Foundation, Columbus has been able to implement over 20 miles of their People Trails network, which stitches together many of the city’s park sites and cultural destinations.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

3

4

1.2

summary of the department

1.2.1 Departmental Overview The Columbus Parks and Recreation Department (Department hereafter) was established on February 7KHLU ĆUVW PHHWLQJ ZDV KHOG LQ $SULO WR HOHFW RIĆFHUV DQG GLVFXVV GRQDWLRQV RI SURSHUW\ $W the time of this study, Mark Jones was the current Director of Parks and Recreation for the City and the Department’s contact information is listed below. Primary Contact: Mark Jones, Director Address: PO Box 858 Columbus, IN 47202 Phone: (812)-376-2680 Email: mjones@columbus.in.gov Currently, the City of Columbus‘s park system consists of 21 public park sites and 10 facilities, which together total 702 acres of park land. The parks range in scale and program from small neighborhood parks to large, community parks such as Mill Race Park.

This mission statement will be evaluated and updated as necessary during the Visioning phase of this master SODQQLQJ SURFHVV WR HQVXUH LW UHćHFWV WKH FXUUHQW vision and direction of the Department.

6WDIĆQJ At the time of the study, the Department employed 56 full time employees, and over 200 part-time employees. The operations of the Department are divided into eight (8) categories: 1. Business Services 2. Parks Operations 3. Aquatics 4. Project and Resource Development 5. Sports Programs 6. Marketing Coordination 7. Athletic Facilities 8. Recreation Programs

In addition, the Department oversees the development and maintenance of the People Trails; a network of over 20 miles of multi-purpose trails which connect the various parts of the city.

Many of the part-time and hourly employees assist with running recreational programs, sports coordination, golf course operations, and/or Donner pool operations. An organizational chart of the Department is provided in Section 6.4 of the Appendix.

1.2.2 Mission Statement

1.2.4 2016 Budget Overview

The mission statement for the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department is:

The Department’s annual budget is primarily funded through property tax revenues and user fees collected for various programs. The Department has a history of partnering with local businesses, the Columbus Parks Foundation (see Section 1.2.6), and other agencies to meet the ongoing budget challenges.

“Enriching lives, Building community.�

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Parks General Fund with Forwarded Encumbrance Amounts represent the largest funding source for the Department, however, the available funding KDV ćXFWXDWHG RYHU WKH SDVW ĆYH \HDUV 7KHVH funds saw a gradual decline from 2012 to 2014, decreasing in total by $858,443 in that span before increasing again in 2015 and 2016. Funds for 2017 have decreased from 2016 to a total of $4,638,191. Overall, 2012 had the highest annual budget total at $4,719,339.

Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, Columbus Regional Hospital Wellness Program, Columbus Area Arts Council, and Foundation for Youth (FFY) (City of Columbus, n.d.).

Funds from Non-reverting Funds with No Encumbrances KDYH JUDGXDOO\ LQFUHDVHG HDFK \HDU IRU WKH SDVW ĆYH (5) years, starting with $1,473,483 in 2012 growing to $2,652,427.16 by 2017. In that span, these funds saw the largest amount of growth, increasing by a total of $1,178,944, however, this budget included $285,241 of corrections for pass-through monies and other budget corrections from prior years.

The Columbus Board of Parks and Recreation is the policy-making authority for the Department. The Board is bipartisan and comprised of four (4) members appointed by the Mayor to serve staggered fouryear terms. Together, the Department and its Board operate under the provision of the “Indiana Parks and Recreation Law� (IC 36-10-3) in accordance with City Ordinance.

With the exception of 2016, the Parks Commons Fund with No Encumbrances has also increased each year. These funds had the largest growth of any revenue source from 2016 to 2017, increasing by $539,471 for a total amount of $2,652,427. It should be noted WKDW RI WKLV WRWDO ZDV GXH WR WKH ĆUVW FDSLWDO expense budgeted for since the Commons was built in 2011.

The 2017 Columbus Board of Parks and Recreation members include:

Funds from Parks City Capital Budgets and Park Foundation Capital Investments on Behalf of Parks & Recreation (payments from the Columbus Park )RXQGDWLRQ KDYH ćXFWXDWHG GUDPDWLFDOO\ RYHU WKH SDVW ĆYH \HDUV ZLWK WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQWV RFFXUULQJ in 2013 and 2014, consequently years when general parks funds were decreasing. When all municipal and Foundation funding sources were combined, the Department had an annual operating budget of $9,966,442 for 2017, which represents an 21.8% increase over 2016, despite excluding any current unallocated Park Foundation funds.

The following charts provide a summary of the Department’s operating budgets over the past six (6) years.

3DUN %RDUG

Mark Levett 2900 Washington Street Columbus, IN 47201 Term expires 12/31/2019 Julie Abedian 1048 Lapwing Court Columbus, IN 47203 Term expires 12/31/2017 Millie Maier 5442 River Birch Drive Columbus, IN 47201 Term expires 12/31/2020 John McCormick 2770 Franklin Columbus, IN 47201 Term Expires 12/31/2021

Additionally, the Department actively pursues alternative funding sources such as partnerships and grants, to fund programs and capital improvement projects. They have a long history of collaboration with several community partners, including the

6

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

Parks General Fund with Forwarded Encumbrance Amounts FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

100 - Personal Services

$2,651,870

$2,731,314

$2,689,890

$2,736,931

$2,784,772

$2,941,524

200 - Supplies

$521,616

$397,007

$386,994

$389,678

$384,953

$398,563

300 - Other Services & Charges

$1,253,316

$946,977

$784,010

$741,310

$668,945

$873,145

400 - Capital Outlays

$292,536

$0

$0

$375,641

$734,114

$424,959

Total

$4,719,339

$4,075,300

$3,860,895

$4,243,560

$4,572,785

$4,638,191

Parks Non-Reverting Fund No Encumbrances FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016*

FY2017

100 - Personal Services

$507,573

$502,192

$517,904

$597,695

$869,181

$964,111

200 - Supplies

$249,150

$250,850

$300,700

$322,200

$407,950

$421,160

300 - Other Services & Charges

$707,760

$749,010

$866,160

$935,310

$1,146,580

$1,260,655

400 - Capital Outlays

$9,000

$9,000

$9,000

$9,000

$8,500

$6,500

Total

$1,473,483

$1,511,052

$1,693,764

$1,864,205

$2,432,211

$2,652,427

*Golf division was added in October of 2015 and full year for 2016. Budgets were $92,970 for 2015 and $519,398 for 2016.

Parks Commons Fund No Encumbrances FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

100 - Personal Services

$374,923

$408,541

$421,391

$464,500

$472,202

$504,673

200 - Supplies

$27,100

$30,100

$32,650

$42,650

$42,650

$42,650

300 - Other Services & Charges

$344,250

$379,250

$399,750

$408,650

$394,750

$401,750

400 - Capital Outlays

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$500,000

Total

$746,273

$817,891

$853,791

$915,800

$909,602

$1,449,073

Parks City Capital Budgets FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

400 - Capital Outlays

$0

$462,000

$322,976

$736,000

$79,500

$1,226,750

EDIT Bond

$48,650

$1,610,031

$1,020,679

$106,634

$0

$0

Total

$48,650

$2,072,031

$1,343,655

$842,634

$79,500

$1,226,750

Park Foundation Capital Investments on Behalf of Parks & Recreation Park Foundation Payments

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

$13,541

$597,101

$989,162

$410,307

$191,152

TBD

Figure 1.1: Budget history for the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department from FY2012-FY2017.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

7

1.2.6 Columbus Parks Foundation The Columbus Park Foundation is a separate 501(c)(3) organization that provides sponsorships for various park programs, donations, and fundraising for capital improvement projects to assist the Department. The Foundation is governed by a board of directors consisting of nine (9) voting members, two (2) lifetime PHPEHUV ZLWK QR YRWLQJ ULJKWV DQG RQH H[ RIĆFLR member with no voting rights. There are two (2) openings for voting members. The mission of the Foundation is to:

“...aid and encourage the Columbus Department of Parks and Recreation in the acquisition, conservation, and development of lands for park and recreation purposes; WR VHFXUH ORQJ WHUP ĆQDQFLDO VXSSRUW including an endowment fund, for park and recreation projects; and to support and encourage full community participation in recreation programs through scholarships and other resources.� The Foundation has been a leader with several of the core initiatives in the City such as the development of the People Trails network, the ColumBike bike share program, the Hamilton Center renovation, and the Race2Play program. In addition, the Foundation is one of the larger landholders in the City, helping to ensure that the City’s parks and recreation system has the ability to expand in-step with its population (The Columbus Park Foundation, 2016). Additional information about the Foundation and its initiatives can be found by visiting their website at http://www.columbusparkfoundation.org/.

.H\ 0LOHVWRQHV IRU Following is a summary of key highlights and milestones for the Department and the Foundation for the years 2012-2016.

8

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

2012 Parks and Recreation Department Highlights:

– The Department provided over 3.4 million hours of service (the equivalent of 145,459 days) to its users. – The Department was host to 20 baseball, girls’ fast pitch softball, and adult slow pitch softball tournaments, bringing over 10,500 visitors and millions of dollars in tourist revenue to our community. – Over 4,605 adults and 3,700 youth participated in recreational sporting events through the Department. – The Columbus Gymnastics Center saw enrollment in classes increase by 27 percent from the previous year. The most notable increases occurred in the cheer camps, tumbling camps, and the “Flip & Dip� programs. – The Donner Aquatic Center was the host facility WR WKH &HQWUDO =RQH 6ZLP 0HHW IRU WKH ĆUVW WLPH in 2012, as well as the annual Jamie Miller Swim Meet in June and the Columbus Youth Triathlon, which enjoyed another record participation in its second year. – Recreation and Aquatics staff joined forces to offer the Special Swim Program in 2012 to 16 local special needs youth. This program, which has been offered for over 50 years, allows for one-onone swimming instruction for those with special physical and mental needs and continues to be a favorite among our users and staff. – Donner Aquatic Center classes and lessons all saw an increase in participation numbers from the previous year and also expanded in provided programs such as water polo in partnership with Columbus East High School. – Programming started to expand at the Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena with new mini camps, variety camps and themed public skates. – The Broomball league saw notable growth in participation numbers (over 100 participants) DQG KRVWHG LWV ĆUVW DQQXDO WRXUQDPHQW DW WKH ULQN which brought teams from all over the region to our community. – Both the “Come Out & Play� free, supervised SURJUDP DQG WKH ĆHOG WULSV WR WKH SRRO IURP 1LQWK Street and Pence Street Park saw growth. – Mill Race Park and Donner Parks continued to be popular venues for large and small community

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

– Park Operations supported over 150 Department, Columbus Park Foundation and community events.

2012 Park Foundation Highlights:

– The Columbus Park Foundation received a “brandlift� in 2012 welcoming a new logo representing the primary four focus areas of the foundation along with a new website and visual tools to assist SRWHQWLDO GRQRUV LQ ĆQGLQJ WKHLU SDVVLRQ DUHDV WR support. – 7KH ćDJVKLS SURMHFW IRU ZDV WKH 3HRSOH Trail Network Campaign, an effort led by several prominent community leaders to raise $1 million to leverage an additional $4 million to expand the existing 21 miles of People Trails.

2013 Parks and Recreation Department Highlights:

Figure 1.2: Donner Park (2016).

events, with 52 community/family/special recreation events were held in one of these parks for 2012. – 7KH &RPPRQV RSHQ IRU LWV ĆUVW IXOO \HDU IXOĆOOHG its role as “the community’s living roomâ€? with 400 free uses of the Xenia S. Miller Conference Room, 137 events in the public space, with 30 of these events free to the public, and played host to both the Franklin and combined Columbus East/North High School proms. – There were four (4) businesses housed within The Commons by the end of the 2012 year, doubling its businesses from the year before. – Park Operations worked with 14 different volunteer groups representing 2,123 hours of service in the parks. Projects included putting ćDJV RQ YHWHUDQèV JUDYHV LQ WKH &LW\ &HPHWHU\ for Memorial Day, painting the stage at Donner Shelter, painting Donner Garage and the props for Sneakers at Starlight, cleanup at Mill Race Park, and picking up trash within the park system.

– Columbus Parks and Recreation Department provided over 245 programs in 2013 to youth, adults, and families serving a total of 170,467 participants. – The Department also served as a registration manager for partners such as Foundation For Youth and Columbus Regional Health’s Wellness programs. – There were 825 teams and over 12,000 people who participated in 22 tournaments consisting of baseball, girls fast pitch softball, adult slow pitch softball, and soccer, bringing millions of tourist dollars to our community. – Over 3,700 adults and 4,600 youth participated in recreational sporting events offered by the Department. – Columbus Gymnastics Center saw enrollment in classes increase by 24 percent from the previous year. The most notable increases occurred in the “Flip & Dip� program, birthday party rentals, open gym numbers and Boys/Girls club visitor numbers. – Donner Aquatic Center had 29,244 patrons attend public sessions, which was slightly lower than 2012 due to the impact that the weather had on visitation. The swimming lesson registrations remained consistent as compared to 2012 with 885 registered. – Over 23,153 participants enjoyed the facilities at the Hamilton Center while participating in hockey, ĆJXUH VNDWLQJ EURRPEDOO SXEOLF VNDWLQJ IXQG

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

9

–

–

– –

–

– –

– – –

–

raising events, exercise classes, tournaments and competitions. The Hamilton Center hosted the 1st annual Turkey Trot 5k walk/run which was held on Thanksgiving morning with 110 participants and $615 raised for the Chuck Wilt Youth Scholarship Program. Three major skating competitions were hosted at the Hamilton Center during 2013: Indiana University Collegiate skating competition included 7 colleges and 150 skaters; Southeastern Great Lakes Skating competition had 186 skaters from 6 surrounding states competing over 3 days; and Columbus Invitational which had 86 skaters. The Hamilton Center also began utilizing the various rooms for more innovative programming such as yoga, stretching and Zumba. A successful partnership with the Columbus North High School Theater Department to provide drama camps each summer resulting in an increase of 16% participation over 2012. Free and low cost programs continued to be a draw for several thousand people each year. Almost 22,000 people attended a free event at Donner Center, Donner Park or Mill Race Park in 2013. Over 44 special events were held in one of the facilities during 2013. Over 32,000 attended a special event during 2013. At The Commons, 29,886 participants utilized the facilities for events and meetings in 2013. )DFLOLW\ LPSURYHPHQWV DQG ĆQDO WRXFKHV ZHUH PDGH throughout the year such as the DixieLite window shade in the Nugent-Custer Performance Hall, and full loading dock access was completed. In its second year of operation, The Commons surpassed the projected rental revenue goal for 2013 by July of that year. The First Annual Festival of Lights Christmas Village was held at the Commons, seeing an estimated 1,000 guests visiting throughout the day. Park Operations worked with 18 different volunteer groups representing 2,302 hours of service in the parks and supported over 130 community events. 2013 was also a busy year at Park Operations in other ways, as they took the lead on a plan for the emerald ash borer (EAB), working with several city departments and community experts to develop a strategy and implementation plan to address this invasive insect. The City was fortunate to complete

a land exchange between Parks and BCSC that connects Noblitt Park with Mill Race Park. The Department also added green space to 9th Street Park and a shelter house to Oakbrook Park.

2013 Park Foundation Highlights:

– Race2Play saw four (4) park improvements during 2013 with 9th Street Park receiving accessible playground equipment and surface, a security system, and additional green space. Mead Village also received accessible playground equipment and surface in addition to a new shelter and bench. Morningside received new accessible playground equipment, a swing set, shelter house and the Come Out & Play Playground Program. Pence Street saw a refurbished playground by adding all new accessible playground equipment, a new shelter and basketball court. – The People Trail Network saw 18 expansion projects with $258,121.67 of private funding collected in 2013 and an additional Federal TA funding project of $150,000.

Figure 1.3: Mill Race Park (2016).

10

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

– Over $2,000,000 in Public funding was allocated over the last three years for asset preservation and HQHUJ\ HIĆFLHQF\ LPSURYHPHQWV 7KH ODUJHVW RI which was a full roof replacement project valued at approximately $1 million. – $1,038,727.00 in private funds were contributed in 2013 to renovate the Hamilton Center. These funds helped to preserve, restore and add features such as the pavilion room, community rooms and locker rooms to increase revenue to a valuable and unique recreational asset and rental space for our community. $227,000 in Private Funding had already been invested to improve boards and glass around the small and large rink. – In 2013 the Park Foundation also teamed up with AmeriCorps and employed Dick Boyce as our Volunteer Coordinator.

2014 Parks and Recreation Department Highlights:

– Park Operations completed several capital projects LQ WKH SDUNV VXFK DV SDLQWLQJ SRRO Ć[WXUHV DW WKH Donner Aquatic Center, repairing sections of the skate park, and adding a water fountain with pet water at Oakbrook Park. They also replaced portions of the Donner Center roof, replaced the HVAC system at FFY, and upgraded the light Ć[WXUHV DW WKH 6HUYLFH &HQWHU – Park Operations worked directly with seven (7) volunteer groups representing 1,278 hours of service in the department and supported over 120 department, Columbus Park Foundation, and community events. – Over 2,800 adults and 4,300 youth participated in recreational sporting events offered by the Department. – Lincoln and Clifty Parks hosted 17 baseball and softball tournaments in 2014 with 627 teams and over 10,000 participants and their families coming to Columbus to participate. – 'LFN :LJK %ODFNZHOO 3DUN KRVWHG ĆYH VRFFHU tournaments with 225 teams with over 3,800 participants. – 24 BCSC teams continued to use the Department’s facilities for their athletics/competitions. – Lincoln Park earned the National Softball Association’s 2014 Outstanding Park Award. – Sports Tourism continued become a growing business in Columbus and Bartholomew County.

– The Columbus Gymnastics Center saw an increase in each of the three types of provided open gym classes by an average of 8 percent. New classes were added to reach new age ranges of children. – The Donner Aquatic Center public session attendance was 25,601, which was lower than average due to the unseasonably cold weather, which resulted in the center closing early and/or not operating due to weather more frequently this year than typical; despite this, swimming lesson registration numbers were 1,193 which is our best year ever by over 200 registrations. – A second triathlon was offered at Donner Park, and between the two events there were over 100 participants. Training sessions were also offered, which included lap swims at the Donner Aquatics Center, and bike/run sessions on the City’s People Trails. – The Department continues to work closely with Foundation for Youth and BCSC to offer programming assistance, educational and training sessions at FFY, East H.S. and North H.S. pools. – Over 30 children registered for the beginner Bike Camps. At the end of the Camp all the beginners were riding without training wheels and all participants were able to ride the people trails with PRUH FRQĆGHQFH – Approximately 30,000 participants enjoyed the newly renovated facilities of Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena in 2014 participating in a variety of events/programs which included Columbus Youth Hockey, Bloomington Blades Hockey, Lincoln Center Figure Skating Club, Hockey Lessons, Figure Skating Lessons, Adult Hockey, Youth Spring Hockey League, Adult Broomball, Speed Skating, Public Skating, Pre School Skates, Fundraising Events, Lock In, Yoga, Zumba, the Annual Ice Show, Birthday Parties, Meetings, Team Building events, Military PT Skating, & The Park Foundation Annual Meeting. – The Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena KRVWHG WZR ĆJXUH VNDWLQJ FRPSHWLWLRQV D Broomball tournament and both an adult and youth 3 on 3 tournament. – The programming of Hamilton continued to grow, exceeding both opportunities and participation; many programs were done in partnership with local organizations.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

11

– The “Come Out & Play� free, supervised playground program for ages 6-12 saw another increase in participation serving 1,905 participants. – In 2014, over 23,200 people attended a free event at Donner Center, Donner Park or Mill Race Park. The annual Summer Celebration sponsored by the Indian Association of Columbus in July at Mill Race Park had an attendance of approximately 2,000; WKH ODUJHVW FURZG VLQFH WKH HYHQW ĆUVW EHJDQ LQ 2007. The Department’s 3rd annual Teen Council Glow in the Dark Easter Egg Hunt had over 125 teens attend this year at Mill Race Park. Over 45 special events were held at Donner Center, Donner Park or Mill Race Park and over 30,000 attended a special event during 2014. – At The Commons, the tenant numbers continued to grow, offering more opportunity for local business commerce. – Over 50,000 guests attended rental events, meetings & activities hosted at The Commons in 2014. There were 159 events hosted at The Commons which resulted in exceeding our revenue goal for event rentals.

2014 Park Foundation Highlights:

– Race2Play raised $8,425.21 in private funds in the form of grants, private donations and private sponsors. – $137,029.59 in private funding, plus an additional $20,000 from the Mill Race Marathon, were raised to help fund the development of The People Trail Network. – The Cummins Foundation granted $16,475 to be applied towards the purchase of trees, benches and additional landscaping to enhance our People Trails. – During November, the City celebrated the opening of the newest expansion piece of the People Trail Network which was Phase 1 of the Downtown Trail. – Tour de’ Trails raised $14,019.90 in proceeds for the Park Foundation. – The “C� Bike Racks raised $900 in proceeds and continue to gain popularity throughout the city. – The James K. Baker Tree Fund raised $11,870 in contributions and an additional $713.99 was raised for the Trees to Trees recycle program. – The 2nd Annual Sneakers Event raised $21,004.82

12

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

in proceeds which were earmarked for the People Trails Network. – The Chuck Wilt Youth Scholarship Program raised $5,910.92, which is the scholarship program that helps to underwrite the cost of the Parks & Recreation Programs for children in the community.

3DUNV DQG 5HFUHDWLRQ 'HSDUWPHQW Highlights:

– Athletics saw an increase in the number of tournaments for softball and baseball through Lincoln and Clifty complexes. There were a total of 400 baseball teams and 230 softball teams that participated in 19 tournaments. – Athletics hosted two (2) soccer tournaments with Columbus Express Soccer Club bringing 300 teams and the Rugby State Semi Finals, and the Rugby Club bringing in 120 teams to the City to participate. – Athletics served 2,235 adults and 4,297 youth through our recreational sports programs. – In October of 2015, the Parks Department regained management of both Greenbelt and Rocky Ford Par 3 golf courses. The courses had been previously contracted out to and managed by Golf Pro Steve Cohen. The Department saw great potential in the possibilities of increased programs, partnerships with local businesses in town, and membership options. Plans for the Golf Courses for 2016 included hiring a Golf Pro/Manager, Greens Superintendent, replacing the irrigation system at Par 3, and the purchase of (using reserve funds) a QHZ ćHHW RI HTXLSPHQW WR UHSODFH WKH \HDU ROG pieces which were being used at the courses. – The Donner Aquatic Center public session attendance was up from 2014 with 28,211 in attendance. Swimming lesson registration was also up from 2014 with a total of 1,512 registered. There were 8,546 people who attended a free swim session during the season. – Donner Aquatic Center was also host to the Doggie Swim, two (2) youth triathlons, the Jamie Miller Swim meet and American Red Cross CPR classes. – Park Operations worked directly with four (4) volunteer groups representing 618 hours of service for our Department and community. There were over 100 hours of labor also donated to large scale FRPPXQLW\ HYHQWV VXFK DV &RORUćRZ <RJD (WKQLF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

– –

– –

Figure 1.4: Lincoln Park (2016).

Expo, Farmer’s Market, holiday decorations for downtown Columbus and the Parks Department, the Hospice Concert, Mill Race Marathon, and Touch-a-Truck. – Park Operations facilitated the completion of three (3) capital projects including the resurfacing of the Donner Tennis Courts, the installation of two Pickleball Courts at Donner Park, and the UHSODFHPHQW RI WKH PDLQ SRRO ĆOWHU DW WKH 'RQQHU Aquatic Center. – The Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena had a great year by way of adding additional competitions, tournaments, public events, youth and adult recreational sports participation QXPEHUV +DPLOWRQ KRVWHG WZR ĆJXUH VNDWLQJ competitions, two Broomball tournaments and both an adult and youth 3 on 3 tournament. A youth hockey camp was also introduced during the summer of this year and was a success that would be repeated in 2016. – The two largest user groups for Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena are Columbus Youth Hockey and the Lincoln Center Figure

–

–

–

–

Skating Club, both of which experienced growth. This trend is expected to continue into the future. The Hamilton Center also partners with many other organizations and user groups such as our Broomball & Speedskating users, Indiana University Bloomington, Total Package Hockey and the Columbus Icemen to name a few. In 2015, new partnerships were formed and existing ones strengthened! Almost 23,400 people attended a free event at Donner Center, Donner Park or Mill Race Park in 2015. The annual Carnival Time Fun Day was expanded this year to serve as the signature event to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA). Over 40 special events were held at Donner Center, Donner Park or Mill Race Park during 2015. Over 30,000 attended a special event during 2015. Over 500 children participated in fee based recreation programs, such as a day camp, a child’s interest class or a fee based special event. The Department’s partnership with Columbus North High School’s Drama Department had another successful summer with 112 children participating in one of three (3) drama camps for 2015. “Child’s Play Touring Theater” visited the members of the Boys/Girls Club through a partnership with Columbus Area Arts Council, Parks & Recreation & the Boys/Girls Club. Approximately 100 children participated in this unique opportunity! The Columbus Gymnastics Center increased class students’ registrations by 15% from 1,359 in 2014 to 1,578 in 2015! This was an increase of 209 children. The Department offered eight (8) six-week sessions for the Columbus Gymnastics Center. Open gym attendance increased by 95 people from 2014 to 2015. The Department had 9,981 attend in 2014 and 10,076 in 2015. A target goal of 10,000+ was set for 2016. In 2015, over 66,000 guests attended rental events, meetings & activities hosted at The Commons. There were 173 events (76 Private / 70 Free / 27 Ticketed) hosted at The Commons, the revenues from which exceeded the event rental goals for the year. Additionally, the two conference rooms were utilized for 476 meetings by local nonSURĆW RUJDQL]DWLRQV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

13

– The Department welcomed a new tenant, OrangeLeaf Frozen Yogurt, to the Food Court area at the Commons.

3DUN )RXQGDWLRQ +LJKOLJKWV

– The Tour de Trails event raised $10,440.00 in proceeds for the Park Foundation. – The Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena campaign raised $60,030.00 in private contributions for improvements. – The James K. Baker Tree Fund received $6,133.00 in contributions and helped to plant 93 trees in city parks. – $15,069 from the Chuck Wilt Youth Scholarship Program provided scholarships to 200 children from 102 families to participate in 332 activities – $150,757.11 in private funding was raised to support the ongoing development of the People Trail Network.

2016 Parks and Recreation Department Highlights:

– In 2016, the Department hired Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf out of Indianapolis, to update the city’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Ryan P. Cambridge, a Registered Landscape Architect, was WKH ĆUPèV SURMHFW PDQDJHU IRU WKLV HIIRUW – As a result of the baseball, softball, and soccer tournaments brought to Columbus by the Parks Department in 2016, the Department generated over $5.5 million dollars in direct spending in the City of Columbus; an approximate increase of $1 million over 2015. – The Parks Department provided facilities to a large number (and variety of) user groups in 2016, including the Bartholomew County School Corporation (high school baseball, softball, soccer and tennis in addition to middle school soccer, tennis and cross country), Columbus Express Soccer Club, Cinco de Mayo adult soccer league, Columbus Rugby Football Club, Columbus Youth Lacrosse, Cummins soccer tournaments, travel soccer league games, Skyhawks Camps, Challenger and Tetra soccer camps. – With the completion of the Pickleball courts at Donner Center, Columbus saw one of the fastest growing sport trends come to life, the game of Pickleball. Staying on top of national trends, the

Parks Department worked collaboratively with the Columbus Pickleball Club to help grow the organized and free play structure associated with the sport. – The youth soccer program continued to grow and remains one of the Department’s biggest programs. Since 2012, our youth soccer program has grown by 499 kids or a 23% increase. – The Columbus Dog Park was a new addition to our department in 2016. Previously, the dog park which is located in Clifty Park but was run and maintained by The Dog Park Association. Since beginning the management of the Dog Park, the Department has invested in many improvements with plans for more in the future. – The Columbus Gymnastics Center focused on restructuring staff to accommodate larger class sizes in addition to more class offerings. Two parttime positions dedicated to programming were added. The number of individuals registered for classes has increased by 12 percent since 2015. The number of individuals participating in open gym remains consistently high, trending at over 10,000 kids each year for the last two years.

Figure 1.5: Mead Village Park (2016).

14

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

– Thanks to favorable weather, the Donner Aquatics Center had a very successful year in 2016. Public Session attendance was up 10.27 percent this year from the previous years. Along with public sessions, Donner Aquatic Center also hosted the annual Jaime Miller Swim Meet with Donner Swim Club, 2 Youth Triathlons, swim lessons, SCUBA lessons and private rentals. A CrossFit training program was introduced in the 2016 season with plans to continue into the 2017 season. – $ QHZ ĆOWUDWLRQ V\VWHP ZDV LQVWDOOHG LQ WKH ODS pool at the Donner Aquatic Center, providing a PRUH HIĆFLHQW XVH RI ZDWHU DQG ZLOO NHHS WKH ZDWHU cleaner all while reducing expenses. – *ROI VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRPSOHWHG LWV ĆUVW IXOO \HDU RI operation under the Parks Department umbrella in 2016! A Golf Pro/Manager (Keith VanDeventer) and Greens Superintendent (Aaron Brua) ZHUH KLUHG LQ DQG KDYH PDGH VLJQLĆFDQW contributions to the success of both golf courses. At both Greenbelt and Rocky Ford Par 3, there was a focus on retaining members, establishing relationships with new members, improving course

conditions, re-establishing programs for youth, ladies, and beginners, and breaking the mold by implementing new ideas such as Footgolf to the community. – Park Operations worked to support implementing capital projects, and providing labor, supplies and equipment for programing and events. Park Operations likewise supported other City 'HSDUWPHQWV QRW IRU SURĆW RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG volunteer groups throughout the City of Columbus. – The Department introduced a variety of new programs including #Celebrate U, Ed-Venture Days camp, Wild Wacky Water Week camp, Let’s 3UHWHQG FDPS 'LQR 5LIĆF 'LQRVDXU 'D\V FDPS Blast Off camp and Family Adventure Nights at Donner Park. The Little Chefs-Cookies & Cream class was selected to be featured by the PBS children’s show The Friday Zone, which will air in April of 2017.

2016 Park Foundation Highlights:

– The Tour de Trails event raised $5,913.00 in proceeds for the Park Foundation. – The Hamilton Community Center & Ice Area brick SURJUDPèV ĆUVW VWDJH ZDV FRPSOHWHG – The James K. Baker Tree Fund received $24,675.00 in contributions and helped to plant 156 trees in city parks. – With the generous support of Cummins, Inc and Columbus Regional Health, the Department installed eight ColumBike bikeshare stations and ODXQFKHG D ćHHW RI FRPPXQLW\ VKDUHG ELF\FOHV allowing for healthy and convenient transportation around Columbus. – $16,948.28 from the Chuck Wilt Youth Scholarship Program provided scholarships to 229 children from 108 families to participate in 385 activities.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

16

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

1.3

purpose of the plan

1.3.1 What is a Parks System Plan? A parks and recreation system master plan is a guiding document that seeks to evaluate, analyze, and strategically plan the long-term development of the City’s parks and recreation system to ensure WKDW LW LV PHHWLQJ WKH LGHQWLĆHG JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV RI WKH &LW\ DQG LV SURYLGLQJ HTXLWDEOH VXIĆFLHQW DQG HIĆFLHQW VHUYLFHV WR LWV UHVLGHQWV The result of this planning process is a living document which serves as the most consolidated and authoritative source for information related to the City’s parks and recreation system.

1.3.2 Why Plan?

To remain competitive in securing both jobs and residents (both current and future), the City must embrace the role of quality of life – and parks – in community-wide economic development. As John Crompton notes in his book “Community %HQHĆWV DQG 5HSRVLWLRQLQJ 7KH .H\V WR 3DUN DQG Recreation’s Future Viability:�

"...a well-planned and designed parks and recreation system also has the ability to increase a community’s economic, environmental, and social sustainability" - (Crompton, 2007).

The development of a parks system master plan is one of the most important and impactful planning SURFHVVHV D &LW\ FDQ XQGHUWDNH EHFDXVH WKH EHQHĆWV it yields have the ability to transcend many of the City’s existing physical and operational systems, and have a tangible impact on many residents’ daily lives. In the modern era; parks must be thought of as PRUH WKDQ MXVW êĆHOGV DQG IDFLOLWLHV ĂŤ WKH\ DUH IDU too important to be in such a small box. A city’s parks system often serves as the “gatekeeperâ€? for its community image and overall quality of life. This role is critically important today, more than ever, as people are choosing where to live and work based on quality of life provided by a community, rather than on what jobs and/or industries may be located within that community.

This is something few traditional planning processes achieve. To put further pressure on the system, parks and recreation departments nationwide are QRZ ĆQGLQJ WKHPVHOYHV RQ WKH IURQWOLQHV RI WKH battle to improve community health by combating obesity, promoting healthy lifestyles, and increasing connectivity. What was in the past the management RI êĆHOGV DQG IDFLOLWLHV Í WKH REMHFWLYHV RI PRGHUQ parks systems now also encompasses social justice, multi-faceted sustainability, and community-wide economic development to name only a few. Columbus is projected to continue growing in the coming years, and without proper planning, will struggle to provide its increasing population with the same parks and recreation level of service it is currently providing its existing residents. If the level of service drops, so will quality of life. To remain competitive as a high-quality place to live, work, and SOD\ WKH &LW\ PXVW FRQWLQXH WR SURYLGH D VXIĆFLHQW

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

17

A

RW

YS

TRAILS

W

TE

G

AYS

E RE

N

W

A

TRANSIT

ROA DWAYS

RAIL LINES

AN L L A N AT U R

DS

BI

R.O.W.

W E K

AY

S BL

U E W AY S

Figure 1.6: Public realm methodology diagram.

18

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

and equitably distributed supply of high-quality parks and recreation facilities, programs, and services. This plan – when coupled with appropriate action on behalf of the City and its residents – will help ensure that the City’s parks and recreation system is as iconic, enduring, and attractive as its architectural assets.

1.3.3 More than Just Parks! It is important to note that while this is a “parks and recreation� master plan, it takes into account the many systems – both physical and operational – which form the framework of the City’s public realm; the interstitial network of public and quasi-public spaces which link together the various neighborhoods and districts of the City. Examples of these systems include parks and public spaces, natural lands, transportation systems, bikeways/trails, and civic and cultural destinations. The thoughtful planning and design of the public UHDOP LV RI VLJQLĆFDQW LPSRUWDQFH EHFDXVH RI LWV LQćXHQFH RQ RYHUDOO TXDOLW\ RI OLIH DQG XVHU experience. Every Columbus resident and visitor will interact with the public realm multiple times on any JLYHQ GD\ LW ZLOO EH WKH ĆUVW WKLQJ SHRSOH H[SHULHQFH upon arrival, and the last impression on departure. A well-designed and implemented public realm system, complete with networks of streetscapes, parks, trails, public places, and natural areas, serves as the framework for the various types of development and land uses found in the City, thus helping to ensure a similar experience and quality of life across its entirety. Although the City may not have full control over how each and every parcel is developed, WKH\ GR KDYH VLJQLĆFDQW FRQWURO RYHU WKH SXEOLF UHDOP making it one of the City’s most important assets.

intended to serve as the single most authoritative VRXUFH IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ VSHFLĆF WR &ROXPEXVè SDUNV recreation, and open space system. In addition to making its own observations and recommendations, this plan seeks to identify, vet, DQG SULRULWL]H UHOHYDQW SDUNV DQG UHFUHDWLRQ VSHFLĆF recommendations found across a multitude of existing city planning processes. Examples of relevant plans and planning processes where coordination and/or research was anticipated by the Project Team include but are not limited to: – Columbus Area Visitors Center Sports Council Strategic Planning Project (2017) – Columbus Riverfront, Today and Tomorrow (2017) – Pickleball Usage Survey (2016) – City of Columbus Intersection Study: A Plan4Health Initiative (2016) – CAMPO 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (2016) – Columbus State Street Corridor Plan (2014) – Bartholomew County Northern Gateway Plan (2012) – BCSC Safe Routes to School Plan (2012) – Columbus Central Avenue Corridor Plan (2011) – Columbus Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (2010) – CAMPO Public Participation Plan (2007) – City of Columbus Comprehensive Plan (2002) Many of these aforementioned planning efforts were led by the Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and/or The City of Columbus – Bartholomew County Planning Department.

1.3.4 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts The City of Columbus Parks and Recreation System Master Plan is just one of several planning processes which seek to guide the overall developmental trajectory of the City of Columbus, however, it is

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

19

20

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

1.4

planning process + methodology

1.4.1 There is no Silver Bullet! 7KHUH LV QR êRQH VL]H ĆWV DOOÍ DSSURDFK WR SDUNV system planning because no two communities are the same. Each community must select an approach and methodology which will best achieve their desired end result. The approach utilized to develop this master plan was both collaborative and linear in nature, beginning with discovery and visioning at the macro-level, ZKLFK LQIRUPHG WKH VLWH DQG SURJUDP VSHFLĆF recommendations at the micro-level. The Project Team worked intentionally and diligently throughout the planning process to build consensus amongst the project stakeholders by incorporating multiple engagement points in each key phase of the project. This plan is anchored in detailed analysis, hands-on Client interaction, meaningful public involvement, and broad community support. The recommendations are both visionary and actionable, each supported by a realistic implementation strategy. Following are VXPPDUL]HG GHVFULSWLRQV RI HDFK RI WKH ĆYH FRUH phases of the planning process.

1. Discover: Goals and Outcomes

The Master Planning process begins with a “Discovery� effort, during which the Project Team met with the representatives from the City and key project stakeholders in a collaborative setting to better understand the project’s guiding goals and objectives, and to establish metrics against which success could be gauged. In addition, a Steering Committee composed of diverse but allied City residents and stakeholders was assembled and tasked with helping oversee the planning process.

2. Evaluate: Existing Conditions Analysis

The Existing Conditions Analysis process represents the comprehensive inventory, evaluation, and analysis of the City’s existing parks and recreation system. During this phase of the process, the Project Team visited and evaluated each of the City’s existing parks, documenting the quantity, location, and condition of individual facilities. In addition, a better understanding of resident lifestyles was obtained WKURXJK WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI D FRPPXQLW\ SURĆOH (demographics), and trends analysis. This data was then assimilated in a uniform project base map that was utilized throughout the life of the project.

(QJDJH $QDO\]H 0L[HG 0HWKRGV 1HHGV Assessment

The Needs Assessment process utilized a variety of triangulated analysis techniques - qualitative, quantitative, and anecdotal - to understand the needs and priorities of the City’s residents and the physical system as a whole. Examples of these techniques included a review of programs and events, level of service (LOS) analysis, and an online community survey. During the Needs Assessment Process, the Project Team engaged both the City and the community at-large by using a variety of public involvement techniques such as collaborative workshops, public presentations, stakeholder interviews, public surveys, and a dynamic web-based public engagement platform (www.columbusparksmp.mysidewalk.com). Having a detailed and accurate understanding of both needs and priorities will help to ensure that every dollar spent towards implementing the Master Plan 9LVLRQ SURYLGHV WKH PRVW EHQHĆW SRVVLEOH IRU WKH

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

21

monitoring

discover

ning

obse

an

rvi

pl

ng

implement

envision

evaluate

te

n

in

g

engage + analyze

is

li

s

sy

n

th

e

s

Figure 1.7: Planning process diagram.

City’s residents, and serves as the decision-making framework for the Vision to follow.

4. Envision: Master Plan Vision

Once community needs and priorities were understood, the Project Team spent an equal amount of effort developing creative, innovative, and sustainable solutions to respond to them. The foundation of this “visioning” effort was established in a participatory, workshop setting in the City of Columbus. The input gained from the Visioning Workshop informed the multiple initiatives and recommendations found in the Master Plan Vision, including those associated with existing parks/ programs, new parks/programs, natural lands, trails, and quality of life.

22

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

,PSOHPHQW $FWLRQ 3ODQ

A master plan is only as realistic as its implementation strategy! After a Master Plan Vision was established, the Project Team took the time to understand the costs and challenges associated with its long-term implementation. As is the case with the majority of communities, the cumulative cost of the Vision exceeded the resources available at time of the planning process. Anticipating this, the Project Team worked to establish a phased and prioritized action plan that will allow for short-term progress towards ORQJ UDQJH JRDOV DQG LGHQWLĆHG DOWHUQDWLYH IXQGLQJ approaches to help further facilitate implementation.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part one : plan introduction

1.4.2 From the Perspective of “Place” Unfortunately, when it comes to the public realm, not all “spaces” – or parks for that matter - end up becoming true “places” that have the ability to increase a community’s quality of life, health, and economic development. To attempt to buck this trend, this planning process was approached with a placemaking-based methodology. According to the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), “placemaking” is more than just better planning;

“Placemaking is a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value. More than just promoting better urban design, Placemaking facilitates creative patterns of use, paying particular attention to the physical, cultural, and social identities that GHĆQH D SODFH DQG VXSSRUW LWV RQJRLQJ evolution.” - Project for Public Spaces With community-based participation at its center, an effective Placemaking process capitalizes on a local community’s assets, inspiration, and potential, and it results in the creation of quality public spaces that contribute to people’s health, happiness, and wellbeing. A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone; it must also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always trumps form. When people of all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds can not only access and enjoy a place, but also play a key role in its identity, creation, and maintenance, that is when we see genuine Placemaking in action (Project for Public Spaces, 2016). A placemaking approach that is grounded in collaborative stakeholder involvement produces solutions that involve and integrate all components of a community, from the built environment to the numerous interstitial spaces of the “public realm” where residents spend a large portion of their daily lives. If the City of Columbus is to be one of the

most livable “people places” in the region, then it’s planning and design processes must be people-led with placemaking at their core. Absent of community support and participation, even good planning and design do not guarantee that a “space” will become a true “place.”

1.4.3 Branding the Plan In 2011, the City completed a re-branding process to update its logo; the result was a cropped version of the Paul Rand-inspired letter “C”. This logo, and its brand colors of red, yellow, green, and blue, were adopted across the overwhelming majority of the City’s departments, with the exception of the Parks and Recreation Department, whose logo has remained largely unchanged since its creation in the 1970’s. In an effort to help merge the history of the Department with the current brand of the City, the Project Team worked with the Department to establish a creative and energizing “brand” icon for the Master Plan in an effort to help generate visibility and excitement for – and subsequent increased engagement with - the planning process. In addition to its incorporation within promotional and advertising material, this brand was also LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH SURMHFW VSHFLĆF ZHEVLWH ZKHUH residents could track the progress of the plan, review draft documents and presentations, and engage in discussion in real-time throughout the life of the planning process.

2017-2021 columbus indiana PARKS + RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN

Figure 1.8: Planning process brand image.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

23

02 existing conditions analysis

26

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

2.1

planning area overview

2.1.1 Planning Area Description The City of Columbus is approximately 28 square miles in size as of 2016. Columbus is located in Central Indiana in Bartholomew County, approximately 40 miles due south of Indianapolis. Columbus is the 21st largest city in the state, and the Bartholomew County seat. 7KH 3ODQQLQJ DUHD IRU WKLV PDVWHU SODQ LV GHĆQHG as the corporate limits for the City of Columbus as depicted on the following page. The Department acknowledges that citizens outside of the corporate limits utilize their facilities and programs.

2.1.2 Natural Systems Topography

&ROXPEXV LV UHODWLYHO\ ćDW ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH western portion of the city, which is hilly and has steeper slopes. Floodway areas adjacent to the rivers and creeks sometimes also have steep slopes. In recent years the city has grown to the west, but in the past most development headed north and east due to WKH FRQVWUDLQWV RI WKH ćRRGSODLQV With the exception of those along the river, the SDUNV ZLWKLQ WKH FLW\ DOVR FRQWDLQ UHODWLYHO\ ćDW areas. The river corridors offer opportunities for passive recreation and trail connections throughout the community which the Department has taken advantage of through the development of the People Trail system. The Haw Creek corridor is developed on the south end of the city, but largely undeveloped in the northern section (Schmucker, 2012).

Water Resources

The city has three main water bodies, which include the Flatrock River, Clifty Creek and Haw Creek. South of the City, the Flatrock River and Driftwood River form the east fork of White River. The main land area RI WKH FLW\ LV GHĆQHG E\ WKHVH WKUHH ZDWHU ERGLHV Columbus's climate and temperature are both relatively mild. Generally, there are no extreme temperatures in this Midwest region. Average temperatures range from 30 degrees (F) during the winter months and 75 degrees in the summer, with approximately 38 inches of precipitation annually (Schmucker, 2012).

Land Cover

Within the City’s corporate limits, the majority of the land appears to be developed, limiting the City’s ability to expand its park system to select locations within its current boundary. The majority of the remaining undeveloped areas are located southwest of the City along the Flatrock River corridor, and near the Columbus Municipal Airport. Coincidentally, this is also where the most recent growth has taken place. Though the city has little planted/cultivated areas available within its municipal boundary, it is surrounded by farmland outside of the city limits. Undeveloped land to the southwest of the city consists primarily of forested upland, however, most is not owned by the city or currently available to the public. The majority of available woodland areas are located along the banks and lowlands of the Flatrock River, Haw Creek, and Clifty Creek corridors; all of which offer residents opportunities to view and experience various riparian ecosystems. Furthermore, several of the City’s parks are located adjacent to these

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

27

Figure 2.1: Project base map illustrating the "planning area" and the location of existing park and recreation facilities.

28

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

woodlands, including Noblitt Park, Mill Race Park, Lincoln Park, Northbrook Park, McCullough’s Run Park, Clifty Park, and the Greenbelt Golf Course, which allow for unique educational and recreational events at these parks to engage the wooded areas. The People Trails, a multi-use trail network, connects the linear woodlands and provides excellent passive recreational opportunities such as hiking or biking. Donner Park and Clifty Woods (located adjacent to Clifty Park), provide access to a wide range of mature tree species. In addition, there are approximately 17 acres of both woodland and prairie areas at the currently undeveloped and inaccessible Amberly Park property, which is immediately adjacent to Clifty Park.

Soils

The majority of the city is built upon variations of )R[ VHULHV VRLO W\SHV FODVVLĆHG DV VLOW ORDPV DQG

1LQHYHK VRLO W\SHV FODVVLĆHG DV VDQG\ ORDPV 7KHVH soils are characterized as having medium to rapid permeability rates and upwards of six (6) feet depth to the water table, making these well-drained soils LGHDO IRU ERWK UHFUHDWLRQDO ĆHOGV DQG EXLOGLQJ VLWHV (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d.). Conveniently, many of the City’s existing parks are located on these soil types. Soils located within the corridor of the Flatrock River consist of silt and sandy loams - such as Genesse, Stonelick, and Eel series - that are subject WR RFFDVLRQDO WR IUHTXHQW ćRRGLQJ 7KHVH VRLO W\SHV have moderate to low depth to the water table and the permeability rates are generally moderate (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d.). Some parkland and trail corridors, including Mill Race Park and Noblitt Park, are located within these soil types. Due to

Figure 2.2: McCulloughs Run (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

29

WKH SUREDEOH ćRRGLQJ GHYHORSPHQW ZLWKLQ WKHVH DUHDV VKRXOG FRQVLVW RI ĆHOGV DQG VWUXFWXUHV WKDW FDQ withstand periodic submergence.

0DQ 0DGH +LVWRULFDO DQG &XOWXUDO Assets Transportation Infrastructure

Columbus has convenient access to various forms of transportation. Columbus is conveniently located just off US-31 and Interstate 65; major north-south corridors which eventually link the city 70 miles south to Louisville, Kentucky. Thanks in part to its adjacency to major transportation corridors and its relative proximity to both Indianapolis and Louisville, Columbus has seen steady growth over the years. Columbus is also within a day’s drive of a third of the metropolitan areas of the U.S. (Schmucker, 2012).

In addition, both the Columbus Municipal Airport and Indianapolis International Airport (approximately one hour drive) provide service to Columbus residents. The Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company both provide rail service to the city, ultimately connecting Columbus to the larger, national rail network. This rail service is vital for the industrial business sector in Columbus, with freight trains running daily on both main lines to Indianapolis and Seymour connecting to the Port of Jeffersonville, Indiana and the Louisville area (Schmucker, 2012).

Industries and Employers

Columbus has a strong industrial and commercial presence that is also balanced with agricultural and residential areas. The commercial areas are focused in the downtown area and on the west, north and east sides of the community. These areas are adjacent to

Figure 2.3: Bridge over the Flatrock River, as seen from its eastern bank, south of Mill Race Park.

30

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

the major thoroughfares: US-31, Interstate 65 and SR-46. Multiple business and industrial parks have been developed along I-65 and US-31 and near the airport. The residential areas surround the downtown area and continue to expand towards the north, west and east sides of the community. In addition, downtown has also seen the development of several mixed-use residential projects. Agricultural land uses are still prevalent on the perimeter of the corporate limits and in the outlying contiguous areas (Schmucker, 2012). &ROXPEXV LV KRPH WR ĆYH 1RUWK $PHULFDQ manufacturing research and design (R&D) centers and production facilities including Cummins Inc., Faurecia, Dorel, Enkei, and PMG Indiana which all offer a

variety of job opportunities at different skill levels to the workforce in Columbus (Greater Columbus Indiana Economic Development Corporation, n.d.).

Architecture + Design

One of Columbus’s strongest cultural assets is its collection of modern architecture, which has long been a draw for tourists to the region. Seven (7) buildings in Columbus have been cited for the National Historic Landmarks program, including the Miller House and Garden which features renowned landscape design. Mill Race Park, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh in 1992, is also a nationally recognized park design (Columbus Area Visitors Center, n.d.).

Figure 2.4: The Commons (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

31

32

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

2.2

community SURĆOH

2.2.1 Demographic Methodology This demographic and lifestyle analysis was undertaken to better understand Columbus’ diverse and growing population, projected trends, and to compare how the city’s demographic makeup compares to that of Bartholomew County and the State as a whole. While the demographic analysis is quantitative in nature and lacks psychographic information, it does provide a comprehensive snapshot of who lives in the community based on the latest data available to the Project Team. The data utilized for this analysis was collected from Esri Community Analyst, the U.S. Census, and from the City of Columbus. Unless noted otherwise, data represents information gathered in 2016.

decrease in an acreage-based level of service if no additional park land is acquired and developed.

Population Distribution

The population distribution for Columbus is fairly even amongst the different age groups, with the highest percentage of one particular age group being 13.0% (ages 35-44). Additionally, the median age of Columbus is 38.8, which is fairly comparable to both the County and the State (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016). This data suggests that recreation-based needs in Columbus are not likely driven by any particular age group and consequently should provide a balance of facilities and programs that cover all age groups.

2.2.3 Race + Ethnicity

In 2015, the City of Columbus had a total population of 46,690. Columbus’s population accounts for roughly 60% of Bartholomew County’s total population and subsequently the County’s GHPRJUDSKLF PDNH XS LV KHDYLO\ LQćXHQFHG E\ WKDW RI Columbus. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

Compared to Bartholomew County, the City of Columbus has a higher diversity index at 39.2 compared to 34.9 for the County. Although the majority of the population of Columbus reported their race to be white alone (82.4%), the city also has a growing population that identify as Asian alone (9.0%). Hispanic origin makes up the third highest percentage of race/ethnicity in Columbus at 6.2% of the population.

The City’s population is projected to increase from 2015-2020 at a higher rate (1.14%) than both Bartholomew County (1.03%), and the State (0.52%) (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016). If these trends hold true, by 2030, the City’s population could increase by 15.8% to 55,344. This projected growth suggests that the Department should anticipate an increase in demand for recreational facilities and programs, as well as a

Asian alone is the only race projected to increase VLJQLĆFDQWO\ E\ JURZLQJ IURP WR Consequently, white alone is the only race projected to decrease by 2020, declining from 82.4% to 77.3% (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016). With Columbus’ population growth rate expected to increase, the Department should anticipate that it will also continue to become a more diverse community, and as a result, should plan for recreational facilities

2.2.2 Population

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

33

and programs that also appeal to those emerging demographic groups.

2.2.4 Income The average and median household incomes of both Columbus ($71,305 and $51,621) and Bartholomew County ($71,115 and $53,896) are higher than that of the State as a whole ($63,031 and $47,659). Additionally, both Columbus ($28,895) and Bartholomew County ($27,728) have a higher per capita income than the State ($24,562) (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016). A higher level of household income suggests that the City has a higher standard of living.

(GXFDWLRQ With 90.5% of the city’s population over the age of 25 having a high school diploma (or equivalent), Columbus’s population has a slightly higher level of educational attainment compared to both the County and the State. Additionally, 31.7% of the population over the age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree and 13.9% have a graduate or professional degree. (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016).

2.2.6 Housing The average and median home values of owneroccupied housing units for Columbus ($216,429 and $178,613) and Bartholomew County ($212,133 and $174,355), are both notably higher than the State ($178,821 and $145,977) (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016). Home values are generally viewed as a reliable indicator of overall neighborhood quality and stability, housing affordability, and wealth. The comparably high home values in Columbus likely correlate with a high level of neighborhood quality, and in-turn a comparably high quality-of-life. Inversely, this data may also suggest that increasing home values make it GLIĆFXOW IRU ORZHU LQFRPH UHVLGHQWV WR UHPDLQ LQ WKH homes they are in, and/or may limit the growth of the city if affordable housing options are lacking.

34

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Although Columbus has higher home values, the number of Owner-occupied housing is lower in Columbus (56.3%) than the County (64.2%) and the State (61.7%). Consequently, rental-occupied housing is higher in Columbus (33.6%) when compared to both the County (26.0%), and the State (27.5%) (U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst, 2016).

/LIHVW\OH 3URĆOHV Methodology

Lifestyle assessments differ from traditional, strictly census-based, demographic assessments by looking at both demographic and socioeconomic datasets. 7KH UHVXOW LV D PRUH ĆQH JUDLQHG DQDO\VLV ZKLFK provides insight into diverse population groups. For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Team utilized Esri’s Tapestry Segmentation to help identify the lifestyle choices and behaviors of the various populations. Esri’s Tapestry Segmentation is a sophisticated market segmentation system that LGHQWLĆHV FRQVXPHU PDUNHWV PDWFKLQJ FRQVXPHU traits with geographic areas and populations. These VHJPHQWDWLRQV DUH FODVVLĆHG LQWR XQLTXH PDUNHW segments, each of which can be grouped into 14 overarching LifeMode Groups, or into 6 urbanization groups. (DFK PDUNHW VHJPHQW LGHQWLĆHV D SDUWLFXODU SRSXODWLRQèV GHPRJUDSKLF SURĆOH DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF characteristics. The Tapestry Segmentation makes use of several cluster analysis methods and data from multiple respectable sources including Census 2010, The American Community Survey, Esri’s demographic updates, Experian’s ConsumerView database, and consumer surveys (Esri, 2016).

Tapestry Segmentation:

The tapestry segments present in Columbus are listed below, in order of predominance. 1. Traditional Living – 13.8% 2. Midlife Constants – 10.9% 3. Savvy Suburbanites – 10.4% 4. Soccer Moms – 10.3% 5. Middleburg – 9.5% 6. Comfortable Empty Nesters – 8.9% 7. Hardscrabble Road – 7.4%

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Small Town Simplicity – 6.4% Down the Road – 5.5% Retirement Communities – 3.5% In Style – 3.4% Young and Restless – 2.5% Heartland Communities – 2.5% Set to Impress – 1.8% Old and Newcomers – 1.7% Green Acres – 0.9% Salt of the Earth – 0.7%

(Esri, 2016) Graphic summaries for each of the top three (3) Tapestry Segments – created by Esri – are provided on the pages which follow. Together, these segments represent just over 35% of the city’s population. Additional information on the remaining tapestry segments can be found by visiting Esri’s website at www.Esri.com/landing-pages/tapestry.

to a broad audience, and to maximize participation, should vary based on the demographic makeup of the surrounding community in which they are offered. As stated, the Department must also plan for a growing and increasingly diverse community in the IXWXUH DQG ZRXOG EHQHĆW IURP EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ the recreation-based preferences of these demographic groups as they emerge. The Market Potential Indexes (MPI) listed in Section 2.3 of this report, will help provide insight on the recreation preferences, based on demographic constitution, of Columbus. This demographic data also suggests that additional park land will need to be acquired and developed, as the city grows, in order to maintain the city’s current level of service (see Section 3.4 of this report).

2.2.8 Implications When comparing demographic make-ups, the City of Columbus is fairly similar to both the County and State in several key aspects, such as population distribution and race. In contrast, the City of Columbus has higher levels of educational attainment, higher incomes, and higher home values when compared to the County and State. Additionally, the City is projected to grow at a faster rate than the State and will continue to diversify as it grows. 5HVLGHQW OLIHVW\OH SURĆOHV DUH IDLUO\ HYHQO\ GLVWULEXWHG meaning that the City is not dominated by one group, but rather, is a mosaic of multiple, different groups. While there are some similarities across these groups, such as their preference for single-family homes and predominantly conservative views, there are also disparities when it comes to income/spending, education level, and preferences for recreation and use of free time. This analysis suggests that the Department must continue to pursue the ever-elusive distinction of being something for everyone. Facilities must be PXOWL SXUSRVH ćH[LEOH DQG GLVWULEXWHG WKURXJKRXW the community. Programs and events must cater

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Figure 2.5: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Traditional Living segment (Esri, 2014).

36

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Figure 2.6: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Traditional Living segment (Esri, 2014).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

37

Figure 2.7: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Midlife Constants segment (Esri, 2014).

38

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Figure 2.8: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Midlife Constants segment (Esri, 2014).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

39

Figure 2.9: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Savvy Suburbanites segment (Esri, 2014).

40

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Figure 2.10: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Savvy Suburbanites segment (Esri, 2014).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

41

42

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

2.3

recreation trends analysis

2.3.1 Overview + Methodology

2.3.2 Summary of National Trends

The Project Team utilized the 2016 Sports, Fitness, and /HLVXUH $FWLYLWLHV 7RSOLQH 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 5HSRUW produced by the Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) to help better understand national trends in parks and recreation.

:DONLQJ IRU ĆWQHVV LV WKH PRVW SRSXODU VSRUW RU ĆWQHVV DFWLYLW\ ZLWK RYHU PLOOLRQ XVHUV LQ This activity has remained popular for some time due to the generally low level of skill required and ability to partake in a wide variety of environments. According to the report, participating with a friend was a strong motivator to exercising, something WKDW LV YHU\ HDV\ WR DFKLHYH ZLWK ĆWQHVV ZDONLQJ (Sports & Fitness Industry Association, 2016). Other ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH KLJK LQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ treadmill and running/jogging at 50 and 48 million. Off road triathlons (+23.6%) and adventure racing (+20.9%) had the highest percentage of growth over the past year, while snowmobiling had the largest decrease in participants (-11.1%) over the prior year (SFIA 2016).

As part of the Topline Report, SFIA conducted 32,658 online interviews with individuals over the age of six from different locations and ethnic groups nationwide. These interviews helped to GHWHUPLQH WKH ĆQGLQJV IRU WKH UHSRUW ZKLFK ORRN DW DFWLYLW\ OHYHOV DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ RI D VSRUW RU ĆWQHVV type in combination with age groups to determine ZKLFK VSRUW RU ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV DUH PRUH FRPPRQ within certain age groups (Sports & Fitness Industy Association, 2016). These trends were then reviewed in conjunction with the local market potential index (MPI) of the City of Columbus – a measure of how likely, based on the demographic makeup of the City as reported by Esri’s Sports and Leisure Market Potential Report, a resident is to participate in a certain activity – to see how they may apply at a local level. An MPI of 100 represents the national average while a number above 100 represents higher than the national average and consequently below 100 represents lower than the national average (Esri, 2016). For this analysis, each available and applicable core recreation activity was grouped to best correlate with the 2016 SFIA Topline Report’s categories of Fitness Activities, Individual Sports, Outdoor Sports, Racquet Sports, Team Sports, Water Sports, and Winter Sports.

2YHUDOO SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV WHDP winter, and water sports have increased steadily over the last few years. Of those, team sports have seen the largest increase in participation, with over seven different sports growing in use by at least 4% over 2014 numbers. Individual sports saw a slight decrease overall in 2015, while outdoor and racquet sports stayed about the same. &RUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ DJH JURXSV DQG VSRUW RU ĆWQHVV type were also determined with participants born in this millennium participating in team sports more often than any other age group. Fitness activities ZHUH WKH PRVW SRSXODU VSRUW RU ĆWQHVV FDWHJRU\ among the remaining age groups (SFIA 2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

43

7KH 6SRUWV )LWQHVV DQG /HLVXUH $FWLYLWLHV 7RSOLQH 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 5HSRUW GHĆQHV inactivity as “those participants who reported no physical activity in 2015 and an DGGLWLRQDO VSRUWV ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV WKDW UHTXLUH PLQLPDO WR QR SK\VLFDO H[HUWLRQĂŤ (Sports & Fitness Industry Association, 2016). The number of people ages 6 and older ZKR LGHQWLĆHG WKHPVHOYHV DV LQDFWLYH IRU GHFUHDVHG VOLJKWO\ IURP WR of the total population, bringing the number of “inactiveâ€? Americans to 81.6 million. The 13 to 17 age group had the biggest decrease in inactivity levels at -1.4% from 2014 while 55 to 64 age group had a slight increase in inactivity levels at +0.4% more (SFIA 2016).

2.3.3 Fitness Activities 7KH PRVW SRSXODU ĆWQHVV DFWLYLW\ LV ZDONLQJ IRU ĆWQHVV PLOOLRQ XVLQJ D WUHDGPLOO (50.4 million), running/jogging (48.5 million), free hand weightlifting (42.7 million), and VWUHWFKLQJ PLOOLRQ 7KH ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV WKDW KDG WKH PRVW JURZWK IRU WKH SDVW year include barre (+12.0%), calisthenics (+9.8%), cardio cross trainer (+6.7%), tai chi DQG VZLPPLQJ IRU ĆWQHVV Fitness activities that had a decline in the past year include running/jogging (-5.1%), ZDONLQJ IRU ĆWQHVV ZHLJKW UHVLVWDQFH PDFKLQHV IUHH EDUEHOO ZHLJKWV DQG ERRW FDPS VW\OH WUDLQLQJ 7KRXJK ZDONLQJ IRU ĆWQHVV DQG UXQQLQJ jogging had the largest decreases in participation for the past year, the sheer volume of participants still make these high demand activities (SFIA 2016). When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits greater WKDQ DYHUDJH PDUNHW SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH IROORZLQJ ĆWQHVV DFWLYLWLHV – Walking for exercise (MPI 102) &ROXPEXV H[KLELWV ORZHU WKDQ DYHUDJH PDUNHW SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH IROORZLQJ ĆWQHVV activities: – Weight lifting (MPI 98) – Aerobics (MPI 96) – Pilates (MPI 92) – Jogging/running (MPI 90) – Yoga (MPI 89)

2.3.4 Individual Sports Bowling was the most popular individual sport reported in 2015 with 45.9 million participants; almost double the second highest sport, golf, at 24.1 million. Ice skating PLOOLRQ DUFKHU\ PLOOLRQ DQG WUDLO UXQQLQJ PLOOLRQ URXQG RXW WKH WRS ĆYH individual sports with the greatest participation. Several individual sports, mostly centered on running, have seen a large growth in participation over the past year. Off-road triathlons had the most growth with 23.6% more participants than the prior year while adventure racing (+20.9%), road triathlons DQG WUDLO UXQQLQJ DOVR KDG VLJQLĆFDQW JURZWK

44

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

The sports that declined the most over the last year include 2x2 wheel roller skating (-3.9%), golf (-2.3%), and skateboarding (-2.2%). Three of the most popular individual sports (bowling, golf, and ice skating) saw a decrease in participation the past year, trail running had the fourth highest number of participants and was also one of the fastest growing individual sports (SFIA 2016). When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits greater than average market potential for the following individual sports: – Archery (MPI 111) – Bowling (MPI 111) – Golf (MPI 103) Columbus exhibits lower than average market potential for the following individual sports: – Ice skating (MPI 99)

2XWGRRU 6SRUWV The most popular outdoor sports for 2015 were road biking (38.2 million), fresh water ĆVKLQJ PLOOLRQ KLNLQJ PLOOLRQ FDPSLQJ PLOOLRQ DQG ZLOGOLIH YLHZLQJ (20.7 million). Shooting related outdoor sports had the most growth over the past year ZLWK IRXU RXW RI WKH WRS ĆYH DFWLYLWLHV LQFOXGLQJ FOD\ VKRRWLQJ WUDS VKRRWLQJ (+13.9%), hunting with a handgun (+10.0%), and target shooting with a handgun (+9.1%). %0; ELNLQJ DOVR KDG VLJQLĆFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DW 6LPLODU WR ĆWQHVV activities, most of the popular outdoor sports had a decrease in participation over the last year, including road biking (-3.6%), camping (-3.2%), wildlife viewing (-1.9%), and IUHVKZDWHU ĆVKLQJ KRZHYHU WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU WKHVH DFWLYLWLHV LV still vastly higher than the fastest growing sports (SFIA 2016). When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits greater than average market potential for the following outdoor sports: – )UHVKZDWHU ĆVKLQJ 03,

– Hunting with a shotgun (MPI 111) – +XQWLQJ ZLWK D ULćH 03,

– Target shooting (MPI 102) Columbus exhibits lower than average market potential for the following outdoor sports: – Road biking (MPI 98) – 6DOWZDWHU ĆVKLQJ 03,

– Mountain biking (MPI 95) – Hiking (MPI 94) – Backpacking (MPI 91)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2.3.6 Racquet Sports The most popular racquet sports for 2015 include tennis (17.9 million), table tennis (16.5 million), and badminton (7.2 million). While none of these activities experienced a decrease in participation over the last year, cardio tennis (+12.6%), racquetball (+8.1%), and squash (+7.2%) had substantial growth (SFIA 2016). Columbus exhibits lower than average market potential for the following racquet sports: – Tennis (MPI 94)

2.3.7 Team Sports The most popular team sports by total volume of participants for 2015 were basketball (23.4 million), baseball (13.7 million), outdoor soccer (12.6 million), slow-pitch softball (7.1 million), and touch football (6.4 million). The team sports that have seen the most growth from the past year are roller hockey (+9.8%), swimming on a team (+6.7%), indoor soccer ćDJ IRRWEDOO DQG UXJE\ 7HDP VSRUWV WKDW KDYH VHHQ WKH ODUJHVW decrease in participation over the last year include ultimate Frisbee (-2.7%), paintball (-1.7%), touch football (-1.5%), and volleyball on grass (-0.6%) (SFIA 2016). When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits greater than average market potential for the following team sports: – Softball (MPI 108) – Baseball (MPI 105) Columbus exhibits lower than average market potential for the following team sports: – Football (MPI 99) – Swimming (MPI 98) – Volleyball (MPI 95) – Basketball (MPI 94) – Soccer (MPI 82)

2.3.8 Water Sports The most popular water sports in 2015 were canoeing (10.2 million), kayaking (9.4 million), snorkeling (8.8 million), and jet skiing (6.2 million). Several water sports H[SHULHQFHG VLJQLĆFDQW JURZWK RYHU WKH ODVW \HDU LQFOXGLQJ ERDUGVDLOLQJ ZLQGVXUĆQJ (+13.1%), stand-up paddling (+9.8%), and kayaking recreational (+7.3%), white water kayaking (+7.1%), and sea kayaking (+5.7%). One noteworthy observation is that, unlike many of the most popular sports, recreational kayaking is one of the most popular and fastest growing sports. Water-based activities that had a decrease in participation LQFOXGHG ZDWHU VNLLQJ MHW VNLLQJ DQG VXUĆQJ 6),$ When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits greater than average market potential for the following water sports: – Canoeing/kayaking (MPI 104)

46

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

2.3.9 Winter Sports The most popular winter sports in 2015 were downhill skiing at 9.3 million total participants, followed by sledding (8.8 million) and snowboarding (7.6 million). Many of WKH PRVW SRSXODU ZLQWHU VSRUWV DOVR KDG VLJQLĆFDQW JURZWK RYHU WKH SDVW \HDU LQFOXGLQJ free style and downhill skiing, sledding, and snowboarding all having at least a 2.9% growth or higher. Snowmobiling, however, experienced the most drastic decline in participation, with 11.1% less than 2014. Cross-country skiing also experienced a decline of 3.4% (SFIA 2016). When compared against the SFIA's national trends for 2016, Columbus exhibits lower than average market potential for the following winter sports: – Downhill skiing (MPI 86)

2.3.10

Implications

7KH &LW\ RI &ROXPEXVè PRVW SRSXODU VSRUW DQG ĆWQHVV DFWLYLW\ ZDV ĂŞZDONLQJ IRU H[HUFLVHĂŤ ZLWK SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU WKH SDVW \HDU ZKLFK LV VLJQLĆFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKH QH[W FRPPRQ DFWLYLWLHV RI VZLPPLQJ DQG IUHVK ZDWHU ĆVKLQJ DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV respectively). Activities that were the least popular include skiing downhill (857), ice skating (890), and Pilates (936) (Esri, 2016). Columbus is on par with national averages for the majority of the activities listed above, ZLWK QR QRWDEOH RXWOLHUV )UHVK ZDWHU ĆVKLQJ KDG WKH KLJKHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI SDUWLFLSDQWV compared to the national average with an MPI of 117 followed by hunting with a shotgun (MPI 111), archery (MPI 111), and bowling (MPI 111). Activities with the lowest percentage of participation are soccer (MPI 82), downhill skiing (MPI 86), and yoga (MPI 89) (Esri, 2016). A trend worth noting is that the largest concentration of MPI’s above the national average were found in the individual and outdoor sports categories. The adjacency of Camp Atterbury, Brown County State Park, Yellowwood State Forest, and several national wildlife refuges likely contribute to this trend and would suggest that, given the generalized lack of accessible natural areas within the City, these facilities may be meeting the majority of the outdoor recreation-based needs of residents. A second interesting anecdote is that the majority of the team sports scored below national averages, with exceptions being both baseball and softball. Columbus has a rich history of embracing sports tourism – providing facilities which can draw and host regional tournaments – as a means of economic development. At the time of the study, the Department was actively hosting tournaments for baseball, softball, and soccer. Based on feedback from the City, this approach has been successful in the past. It is worth noting, however, that based on this demographic analysis, it is likely that the ratio of resident users to visitors for these facilities may be skewed more to the latter. To be viable, the economic impact generated from these events must offset the additional costs associated with operating and maintaining the facilities, which otherwise could meet other high priority needs.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

47

48

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

2.4

existing parks and recreation facilities evaluation

2.4.1 SiteScore™ Evaluation Methodology The Project Team, along with City Columbus Parks and Recreation staff, visited the City’s parks and recreation facilities during the months of October and November 2016. The City’s existing 31 existing park and/or facility sites were evaluated using Browning Day’s Site Score™ Park Site Evaluation Tool – a copy of which is provided in the Appendix – which evaluated the city’s parks and facilities using the following four (4) key categories of criteria:

Access + Linkages:

– Visibility from a distance; can one clearly see into the park from the surrounding neighborhood/ roadways? – Ease of walking/biking to the park; can someone walk directly into the park safely and easily? – Ease of walking/biking within the park; can someone navigate the interior of the park safely DQG HIĆFLHQWO\ WR DFFHVV LWV PDMRU FRPSRQHQWV" – &ODULW\ RI ZD\ĆQGLQJ VLJQDJH LV WKHUH VLJQDJH WKDW LGHQWLĆHV WKH SDUN DQG RU VLJQDJH WKDW SURYLGHV additional information for users? – Universal accessibility; does the site generally appear to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws for accessibility, and if not, what are the major barriers?

Comfort + Image:

the park clean, free of litter, and maintained appropriately? – Perception of safety; is the park designed and maintained in a way that facilitates a feeling of safety and security while in the park? – Comfort of places to sit; are there a variety of different, comfortable places to sit? – Evidence of design standards; is there clear evidence of quality planning and design standards in place which result in a cohesive and functional site?

8VHV $FWLYLWLHV 6RFLDELOLW\

– Mix of uses/things to do; in accordance with PPS’s Power of 10 principles, are there a variety of things to do, given the park typology? – Activation; is the park activated by a variety of people of different age groups, ethnic backgrounds, and abilities using the park throughout the day and across the seasons? – Distribution of activity; is there consistent activity which is evenly distributed, geographically, throughout the park site? – 3URJUDPPLQJ ćH[LELOLW\ KRZ ćH[LEOH LV WKH SDUN LQ accommodating multiple uses/activities and future change in trends? – Integration of technology; is technology – such as Wi-Fi – integrated within the site in a meaningful and appropriate way?

Sustainability:

– 2YHUDOO DWWUDFWLYHQHVV LV WKH SDUN DWWUDFWLYH DW ĆUVW glance? – Feeling of safety; does the park feel safe at the time of the visit? – Quality of maintenance; are exterior areas of

– Stormwater management; are green infrastructure systems embraced to help manage stormwater? – Multi-modal capacity; is the park accessible and facilitate the use of multiple modes of transportation (bikes, transit, walking, driving, etc.)?

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

49

– Sustainable site maintenance practices; are sustainable maintenance practices/policies in place, appropriate for the scale and program of the site? – Healthy lifestyles; does the park intentionally and clearly promote healthy lifestyles through the use of supporting facilities/programs/advertisement? Each of the sites was scored based on the above questions using a scale of 1 to 5:

1.0 = Well Below Expectations 2.0 = Not Meeting Expectations 3.0 = Meets Expectations 4.0 = Exceeds Expectations 5.0 = Far Exceeds Expectations Scores were assigned based on an evaluation of the park site compared to other sites in the City. Although the process of scoring is based on the professional opinion of the Project Team, and is therefore inherently subjective, consensus on the results was reached through review and discussion with the Department. The purpose of the rigorous scoring was to establish an understanding of how the park system rates in terms of quality and its ability to serve users within WKH &LW\ RI &ROXPEXV VSHFLĆFDOO\ DQG WR LGHQWLI\ DUHDV for potential improvement. It is worth noting that identifying system-wide trends, both positive and negative, is as important as the score of an individual park.

2.4.2 Park Typologies For this planning process, the Project Team evaluated 27 individual parks sites and stand-alone facilities – totaling 702 total acres – owned and operated by the City of Columbus. Some of these sites, such as Donner Park, also contain a special-use facility (The Donner Center), for which a separate analysis form was completed. The physical condition of the city’s trails system was not evaluated in detail as part of the scope of this master plan. 7KH &LW\èV SDUNV DQG IDFLOLWLHV ZHUH FODVVLĆHG LQWR ĆYH GLIIHUHQW SDUN W\SRORJLHV 7KHVH W\SRORJLHV – or groups of similar park types – share similar characteristics regarding scale, context, and program/ inventory. It should be noted that although parks within each of these typologies share similar characteristics, they will also have many differences, as no two parks within the system are the same. These typologies were established in the prior 20122016 City of Columbus Comprehensive Park System Master Plan, and included: 1. Mini Parks 2. Neighborhood Parks 3. Community Parks 4. Greenways 5. Special-Use Facilities

Figure 2.11: Chart illustrating the distribution of existing parks by park typology.

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

6\VWHP :LGH 7UHQGV DQG Observations The existing condition and functionality of the city’s park system can be summed up in the following phrase; “good but not great.â€? Overall, the average SiteScore™ across all parks and facilities evaluated was 61.3, which is “meeting expectations.â€? The majority of Columbus’ parks are in acceptable condition, though show signs of both age and varying degrees of usage. This is especially true of both the mini parks. Only two (2) park/facilities were scored as “exceeding expectations,â€? both of which are in the same general location. 2I WKH ĆYH SDUN W\SRORJLHV HYDOXDWHG FRPPXQLW\ parks scored the highest with an average SiteScore™ of 70.0. The neighborhood parks were a close second with an average score of 68.0. The mini park typology was the lowest scoring, with an average score of just 54.4. A common sentiment among many recreation providers is that having multiple, small parks distributed throughout the community is ERWK H[SHQVLYH DQG LQHIĆFLHQW IURP D PDLQWHQDQFH VWDQGSRLQW 7KLV DQHFGRWH LV GLIĆFXOW WR GLVSURYH however, small neighborhood parks and mini parks are also often some of the most valued assets a community has when viewed through the eyes of the residents. These parks serve a vital role for the neighborhoods in which they are situated by helping to meet the everyday recreation needs of their residents without forcing them to drive to do so. After the conclusion of the SiteScore™ evaluation, VHYHUDO V\VWHP ZLGH WUHQGV ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG Regardless of park typology, most the parks in Columbus are well-connected, providing easy access to surrounding residents. Additionally, the majority of the parks had a high level of multi-modal capacity, which helps to facilitate the use of alternate forms of transportation. Many of the parks evaluated also H[KLELWHG D JRRG GHJUHH RI SURJUDPPLQJ ćH[LELOLW\ allowing for a wider variety of uses and greater adaptivity over time. The highest scoring evaluation category was Sustainability, with a score of 16.4 out of a possible 25.

No one evaluation metric scored within the “exceeding expectationsâ€? range, indicating that there is notable URRP IRU LPSURYHPHQW 6LJQLĆFDQW FKDOOHQJHV UHJDUGLQJ VLJQDJH DQG ZD\ĆQGLQJ SDUN DFWLYDWLRQ DQG the integration of technology (such as Wi-Fi hotspots) were observed system-wide. The lowest scoring evaluation category was Uses, Activities, + Sociability, which averaged a score of 14.1 out of a possible 25. It was apparent that the Department has made VLJQLĆFDQW LPSURYHPHQWV ZLWK UHJDUG WR XQLYHUVDO design and ADA accessibility system-wide, however, there are improvements still to be made over time. For example, the Donner Center - one of the primary locations for indoor programming (and the location RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQWèV RIĆFHV ZLOO UHTXLUH VLJQLĆFDQW improvements to the building and its systems to ensure that it is functional for the Department’s purposes and appropriately accessible. In addition, there were multiple instances where accessible routes to key park destinations were absent or compromised. Over 50% of the park and/or facility sites evaluated contained at least one (1) playground area (14 in total). All but three (3) of the playgrounds observed utilized HQJLQHHUHG ZRRG ĆEHU PXOFK (:) DV WKH VDIHW\ surface material. EWF, if maintained appropriately, can be an accessible surface, however, requires D VLJQLĆFDQW DPRXQW RI UHJXODU HIIRUW WR HQVXUH appropriate standards are met. As the Department makes improvements to its playgrounds, it is recommended that a solid/stabilized safety surface – such as poured in place rubber, synthetic turf, or rubber tiles – be utilized wherever feasible to increase overall safety and accessibility (see Section 2.4.8). Following is a description of each typology, and an overview of the various parks and facilities found within that typology. Details on what contributed to the individual scores for each park or facility can be found in the SiteScore™ Matrix on the following page. Copies of the completed SiteScore™ form for each park site or facility evaluated can also be found in the Section 6.5 of the Appendix. Recommendations DQG REVHUYDWLRQV VSHFLĆF WR 8QLYHUVDO $FFHVVLELOLW\ $'$ ZLOO IROORZ LQ 6HFWLRQ DQG SDUN VSHFLĆF recommendations for improvements will be addressed in the Master Plan Vision.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Figure 2.12: SiteScoreâ„¢ Park Site Evaluation Matrix.

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

= Exceeding Expectations

= Meeting Expectations

= Not Currently Meeting Expectations

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2.4.4 Mini Parks Description

Mini parks are characterized by their relatively small size (less than 4 acres) and specialized facilities to serve a VSHFLĆF VHJPHQW RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ 7KLV SDUN W\SH LV W\SLFDOO\ ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ FORVH SUR[LPLW\ WR PRUH GHQVHO\ populated neighborhoods, multi-family buildings, and/or urban areas. Mini parks are normally provided by local government or by private developers as a part of residential or mixed-use development (Schmucker, 2012).

Summary of Findings

7KH 'HSDUWPHQW FXUUHQWO\ PDLQWDLQV ĆYH PLQL SDUNV ZKLFK WRJHWKHU KDYH DQ DYHUDJH VFRUH RI WKH ORZHVW RI DOO ĆYH SDUN W\SRORJLHV 7KLV VFRUH LQGLFDWHV WKDW ZKHQ YLHZHG DV D JURXS WKH FLW\èV PLQL SDUNV DUH not currently meeting expectations regarding functionality, condition, usage, and/or programming. Of the mini parks evaluated, both Ninth Street Park and Mead Village Park scored in the “meeting expectationsâ€? category (with scores of 75 and 68 respectively), while the remaining three (3) mini park sites all scored below 50. The lowest scoring of the mini parks evaluated was Richards School Park, with a SiteScore™ of 40. Common challenges observed at the city’s mini parks included limited access/visibility, limited connectivity, limited accessibility, poor overall physical condition, and limited or underutilized amenities.

Ninth Street Park

SiteScore™: 75 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 0.25 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Mini Park Address: 9th and Short Wilson near Union St (end of Wilson St south of 10th St) Amenities: – Water fountain (1) – Parking (curb) – Playground – Shelter (1) – Basketball court – Benches

Figure 2.13: Ninth Street Park (2016).

Mead Village Park

SiteScore™: 68 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 2 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Mini Park Address: On Locust Dr. (north of US 31/National Rd, off of Westenedge Dr.) Amenities: – Large ADA playground – Basketball court – Water fountain – Parking (curb) – ADA parking (2) – Benches (3) – Picnic tables (4) – Shelter

Figure 2.14: Mead Village Park (2016).

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Morningside Park

SiteScore™: 45 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 0.7 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Mini Park Address: Morningside Drive (off McClure Drive behind Eastside Community Center) Amenities: – Water fountain (1) – Playground – Shelter – Picnic table (1) – Basketball court Figure 2.15: Morningside Park (2016).

Pence Street Park

SiteScore™: 44 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 2.1 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Mini Park Address: 401 Pence Street Amenities: – Water fountain – Parking (3) – ADA parking space – Playground – Shelter – Picnic tables (4) – BBQ grill – Basketball court – Community garden area – Multi-purpose greenspace

Figure 2.16: Pence Street Park (2016).

Richards School Park Tennis Courts

SiteScore™: 40 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 0.6 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Mini Park Address: 3311 Fairlawn Dr. Amenities: – Tennis courts (2)

Figure 2.17: Richard's School Park Tennis Courts (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

1HLJKERUKRRG 3DUNV Description

1HLJKERUKRRG SDUNV FRQWDLQ PDQ\ UHFUHDWLRQ IDFLOLWLHV WKDW UHVLGHQWV H[SHFW WR EH DEOH WR ĆQG QHDU WKHLU KRPH either within walking or biking distance. These parks are typically 5-15 acres in size, however, size can vary based on location. Neighborhood parks are characterized by family oriented recreational activities such as FRXUW JDPHV SOD\JURXQGV DSSDUDWXV SLFQLFNLQJ DQG ćH[LEOH VSDFH IRU TXLHW SDVVLYH DFWLYLWLHV 3DUNLQJ PD\ RU may not be provided. These parks often contain both passive activities and active recreation areas. Municipal governments normally provide neighborhood parks, however, they can also be developed as part of a school and/or residential community project (Schmucker, 2012).

Summary of Findings:

The Department currently maintains three (3) neighborhood park facilities, which together have an average SiteScore™ of 68.0 (meeting expectations). Of the park typologies evaluated, neighborhood parks had the highest average score. Of the neighborhood parks evaluated, Harrison Ridge Park was the highest performing, with a SiteScore™ of 69. The lowest scoring neighborhood park evaluated was Oakbrook Park (67). Amberly Park, which is neither developed nor accessible, was not evaluated. In contrast to the mini parks, the majority of neighborhood parks appeared to be in good overall physical condition. Common challenges observed at the city’s neighborhood parks included limited accessibility and connectivity, and limited or underutilized amenities. Although neighborhood parks scored the highest of the ĆYH W\SRORJLHV HYDOXDWHG WKHUH LV URRP IRU LPSURYHPHQW DW HDFK SDUN VLWH DV QRQH VFRUHG LQ WKH êH[FHHGLQJ expectations� range.

Harrison Ridge Park

SiteScore™: 69 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 4 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Neighborhood Park Address: In Tipton Lakes on Harrison Ridge Rd Amenities: – Water fountain (1) – Parking (10) – ADA parking – Playgrounds (2) – Shelter – Picnic tables (2) – Handball court – Basketball court – Tennis court – Benches (3) – Bike rack – Multi-purpose greenspace – Multi-purpose trail

Figure 2.18: Harrison Ridge Park (2016).

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

McCulloughs Run

Figure 2.19: McCulloughs Run (2016).

SiteScore™: 68 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 38 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Neighborhood Park Address: 25th St. and Talley Rd. Amenities: – Parking (24) – ADA parking (2) – Woodlands/habitat area (23 ac) – Playground – Shelter – Benches (3) – Bio-swales – Multi-purpose greenspace

Oakbrook Park

Figure 2.20: Oakbrook Park (2016).

SiteScore™: 67 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 9.1 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Neighborhood Park Address: In Tipton lakes and across from Turtle Bay housing development (46 West, left at Goeller Blvd, straight on Goeller Blvd to Oakbrook Park) Amenities: – Water fountain (1) – Parking (5) – ADA parking – Playground – Shelter – Picnic tables (4) – Basketball court – Fishing pond – Benches (2) – Bike rack – Multi-purpose trail – Short nature trail – Multi-purpose greenspace

Amberly Park (undeveloped)

SiteScore™: n/a Acreage: 17 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Neighborhood Park (undeveloped) Address: Adjacent to Clifty Park, east across Clifty Creek Amenities: – Woods/habitat (17 ac)

Figure 2.21: Amberly Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2.4.6 Community Parks Description

Community parks are easily accessible to and have the ability to serve multiple neighborhoods. Users typically expect to have to drive to Community Parks, however, trail connections leading to the park are also very desirable. These parks can also be co-located with adjacent public schools. A community park provides recreational opportunities for a wide variety of people of different ages, ethnicities, and abilities. Community parks may contain areas suited for intense recreational purposes such as a recreation center EXLOGLQJ DWKOHWLF ĆHOGV VZLPPLQJ WHQQLV DQG ZDONLQJ MRJJLQJ WUDLOV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR PRUH QHLJKERUKRRG VFDOH amenities. Community parks may also have a recreation center and/or have areas of natural quality for outdoor recreation such as viewing, sitting, and picnicking. Community parks are typically larger than neighborhood parks, with sizes ranging from 16 to 75 acres based on location and the amenities provided (Schmucker, 2012).

Summary of Findings:

The Department currently maintains seven (7) community parks, ranging between 16 and 89 acres in size. Together, these parks have an average SiteScore™ of 70.0, which indicates that as a group, they are currently meeting expectations. Of the community parks evaluated, Mill Race Park ranked the highest, with a score of 82 (exceeding expectations). The lowest scoring community park evaluated was Eighth Street Park, which had a SiteScore™ of 54 (not meeting expectations). (DFK FRPPXQLW\ SDUN KDG XQLTXH FKDOOHQJHV PDNLQJ W\SRORJ\ ZLGH WUHQGV GLIĆFXOW WR DVFHUWDLQ :KHQ YLHZHG as a group, the community parks scored the highest when evaluated for sustainability and access/linkages, and the scored the lowest when evaluated for Comfort + Image and Uses, Activities + Sociability. Lincoln Park, Donner Park, and Blackwell Park all scored in the upper range of the “meeting expectationâ€? category, indicating that minor, strategic improvements would likely result in these parks scoring in the exceeding expectations range. It should also be noted that Eighth Street Park, while accessible, is largely undeveloped greenspace.

Mill Race Park

SiteScore™: 82 (exceeding expectations) Acreage: 83 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: 50 Carl Miske Dr. Amenities: – Mill Race Center – Transportation Center – Water fountains (6) – Restroom (2) – Multi-purpose trails (0.8 mile) – Parking (181) – ADA Parking (10) – Woodlands/Habitat (11 ac.) – Playground – Boat ramp – Covered bridge – Amphitheater and stage – Observation tower – Shelters (3) Figure 2.22: Mill Race Park (2016).

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Picnic tables (42) Basketball court Public art (2) Fishing (4) Benches (34) Bike Racks Ponds (2) Wetland areas Boardwalks Nature trails 2XWGRRU ĆWQHVV HTXLSPHQW River overlook Multi-purpose greenspace River Rat Memorial

Figure 2.23: Mill Race Park (2016).

Lincoln Park

Figure 2.24: Lincoln Park (2016).

SiteScore™: 76 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 33 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: 2501 Lincoln Park Dr. Amenities: – Hamilton Center (see Special-Use Facilities) – Water fountains (4) – Restrooms (2) – Storage (4,100 sf) – Multi-purpose trails (0.12 mile ) – Parking (255) – ADA parking (9) – Playground – Batting cage – Basketball court – Softball diamonds (6) – Tennis courts (4) – Public art (1) – Picnic tables (25) – BBQ areas (6)

Donner Park

SiteScore™: 76 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 32 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: 739 22nd St. Amenities: – Donner Center (see Special-Use Facilities) – Water fountain (1) – Restroom building – Multi-purpose trail (0.9 mile) – Parking (287) – ADA parking (13) Figure 2.25: Donner Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Figure 2.26: Donner Park (2016).

Playgrounds (2) Amphitheater/stage Large shelter Picnic Tables (83) BBQ areas (5) Basketball court Pickleball courts (2) Tennis courts (4) Benches (8) Bike racks (6) City Cemetery (9.41 ac) ColumBike bike-share station Public art Multi-purpose greenspace

Blackwell Park

SiteScore™: 74 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 59 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: Westenedge St. and Parkside Dr. Amenities: – Richard J. Wigh Soccer Complex – Press box – Building (1,040 sf) – Water fountain (2) – Restrooms (2) – Multi-purpose trail (.8 miles) – Parking (319) – ADA parking (13) – Freedom Fields Playground (completely accessible) – Shelter – Picnic Tables (4) – BBQ areas (2) – Rugby (1) – 6RFFHU ĆHOGV

– Public art – Benches (4) – Bike racks (1) – :LOGćRZHU DUHD Figure 2.27:Blackwell Park (2016).

Noblitt Park

SiteScore™: 64 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 46 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: Adjacent to Flatrock River (entrance at west end of 17th St just off Washington St) Amenities: – Water fountain (1) Figure 2.28: Noblitt Park (2016).

60

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Figure 2.29: Noblitt Park (2016).

– – – – – – – – – –

Multi-purpose trail (0.3 mile) Parking (18) ADA parking (2) Gravel parking lots (2) Woodland/habitat (24.5 ac) Softball diamonds (2) Benches (4) Trailhead River access Multi-purpose greenspace

Clifty Park

SiteScore™: 64 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 89 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: Indiana Ave. and Marr Rd Amenities: – Storage building #1 (3,096 sf) – Storage building #2 (6,440 sf) – Water Fountains (4) – Restroom (1) – Multi-purpose trails (1.25 mile) – Parking (483) – ADA parking (19) – Woodlands (5 ac) – Playground – Shelter (2) – Picnic tables (10) – BBQ area – Skate Park – Volleyball courts (4) – Basketball courts (2) – Baseball diamonds (9) – )DVW SLWFK VRIWEDOO ĆHOGV

– Benches (4) – Bike Rack – Bio-swales – Track/football stadium and H.S. baseball diamond (Columbus East High School) Figure 2.30: Clifty Park (2016).

Eighth Street Park

SiteScore™: 54 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 16.3 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Community Park Address: Eighth Street Amenities: – Multi-purpose trail (0.3 mile) – Softball (1) – Multi-purpose greenspace Figure 2.31: Eighth Street Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

61

2.4.7 Greenways + Linear Parks Description

A greenway park is an area developed for one or more varying modes of recreational travel such as hiking and biking. These parks are often linear in nature (e.g. they follow the alignment of the trail/path), and are typically designed to connect recreational facilities, schools and residential neighborhoods. The acreage of greenway parks varies widely, and is often subject to existing natural and man-made features, the extents of the public right-of-way, and/or associated easements. In some cases, a greenway is developed within a large land area designated for protection and management of the natural environment, with the recreational use as a secondary or future objective (Schmucker, 2012).

Summary of Findings:

7KH 'HSDUWPHQW FXUUHQWO\ PDLQWDLQV WKUHH VLWHV FODVVLĆHG DV JUHHQZD\V 7RJHWKHU WKHVH VLWHV KDYH DQ average SiteScore™ of 56.7, which indicates that they are not currently meeting expectations, or performing to their highest potential. Of the greenways evaluated, the SR46 greenway scored the highest at 62 (meeting expectations). In contrast, Northbrook Park scored the lowest at 52, and is not currently meeting expectations. *LYHQ WKH OLQHDU QDWXUH RI JUHHQZD\V WKH\ FDQ EH GLIĆFXOW WR DFWLYDWH HVSHFLDOO\ LI WKHUH LV GHGLFDWHG DFFHVV to the site outside of the trail network; the SR46 Greenway is an example of this. Other common challenges observed at the city’s greenways included a lack of amenities and/or programming, and a comparably low level of sustainability. Despite their challenges, Columbus’ greenways need to be better embraced and activated, as together, these three (3) sites represent over 15% of the total park system acreage.

State Road 46 Greenway

SiteScore™: 62 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 72 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Greenway Address: Land on the east and west sides of SR-46 between Morgan Willow Trace and Jonesville Road. Amenities: – Multi-purpose trail (2.59 mile) – Bench Figure 2.32: SR-46 Greenway (2016).

Everroad Park

SiteScore™: 56 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 25 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Greenway Address: 25th St. to Griffa and 30th St. Amenities: – Multi-purpose trail (0.7 mile) – Woodland/habitat (7 ac.) – Benches (3)

Figure 2.33: Everroad Park (2016).

62

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Northbrook Park

SiteScore™: 52 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 22 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Greenway Address: 300 N and Marr Rd in Northbrook housing development Amenities: – Multi-purpose trail (0.8 mile) – Woodland/habitat (22 ac.) – Benches (4) – Fence (340’) Figure 2.34: Northbrook Park (2016).

6SHFLDO 8VH )DFLOLWLHV Description

6SHFLDO XVH IDFLOLWLHV DUH VLWHV DQG RU IDFLOLW\ W\SHV ZKLFK GR QRW ĆW D êVWDQGDUGÍ SDUN W\SRORJ\ RU GHĆQLWLRQ These sites often serve a very specialized purpose, such as a senior center or aquatics center, and can be both integrated within a larger community park or exist as a stand-alone facility. Common special use facilities seen in Columbus include recreation centers, aquatics centers, community centers, senior centers, and golf courses. In addition, dog parks, cemeteries, and memorial spaces would often fall within this category. The size of special-use facilities varies widely, dependent upon the intended purpose of the site. For example, a community center may occupy a fairly small piece of property when compared to a golf course. The size of these facilities also varies by context; a suburban recreation center will occupy a larger landmass than one of a similar program in an urban setting.

Summary of Findings:

The Department currently maintains eight (8) special-use facilities, which is the most of any of the park typologies evaluated. Together, these facilities have an average SiteScore™ of 57.3, which indicates that as a group, they are not currently meeting expectations. With a score of 78 (meeting expectations), The Commons was the highest scoring park/facility in the entire system. In contrast, the Par 3 Golf Course and the Donner Center were two of the lowest scoring park facilities evaluated (40 and 41 respectively). The special-use facilities in Columbus represent a wide array of uses including four (4) indoor centers, two (2) golf courses, a dog park, and a memorial park (Tipton Park). The Department also maintains a city-owned cemetery adjacent to Donner Park, which is only utilized for burial and memorial purposes. The Department also assists in the maintenance of the Eastside Community Center – a small indoor center – however, the building is managed and operated by a third party. Neither the cemetery nor the Eastside Community Center were evaluated using the SiteScore™ tool. /LNH WKH FRPPXQLW\ SDUNV V\VWHP ZLGH WUHQGV ZHUH GLIĆFXOW WR LGHQWLI\ IRU WKH VSHFLDO XVH IDFLOLWLHV JLYHQ WKHLU diverse nature. When viewed as a group, the city’s special-use facilities scored the highest when evaluated for Access + Linkages and Comfort + Image, and scored the lowest when evaluated for Uses, Activities + Sociability and Sustainability. It’s worth nothing that the lowest scoring indoor center was the Donner Center, with a SiteScore™ of 41, and that with an average score of 50, both of the city’s golf courses are currently underperforming.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

63

The Commons

SiteScore™: 78 (meeting expectations) 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility – Indoor Community Center Address: 300 Washington St. Amenities: – Large, indoor playground – Xenia Miller Conference Room – Miller-Tangeman Lobby – The Patio – Nugent-Custer Performance Hall – Several food/retail vendors – 2IĆFH DUHDV – Public Art (1)

Figure 2.35: The Commons (2016).

Hamilton Community Center

SiteScore™: 68 (meeting expectations) Acreage: (within Lincoln Park) 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility – Indoor Ice Rink Address: 2501 Lincoln Park Dr. Amenities: – Indoor ice arena – Skate rental area – Fireplace – Outdoor terrace – Various gathering areas – Restrooms/locker rooms – Concessions space Figure 2.36: Hamilton Community Center (2016).

Figure 2.37: Foundation For Youth (2016).

64

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Foundation for Youth/Columbus Gymnastics Center

SiteScore™: 68 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 4.2 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility Address: 405 Hope Ave. Amenities: – Facility size: 53,000 s.f. – )XOO VL]H EDVNHWEDOO J\PQDVLXP ćRRUV ZLWK JRDOV (2) – Swimming pool – Boys and Girls Club Activity Center – Gymnastics Center – Parking (226) – ADA Parking (8) – Playground – Restrooms

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

Greenbelt Golf Course

Figure 2.38: Greenbelt Golf Course (2016).

SiteScore™: 60 (meeting expectations) Acreage: 82 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility Address: 1000 N Gladstone Ave. Amenities: – Building/clubhouse (3,398 sf) – Water fountain (4) – Restroom (2) – Storage (5,305 sf) – Multi-purpose trail (0.8 mile) – Parking (93) – ADA parking (4) – Bridge (3) – Picnic tables (5)

Columbus Dog Park

SiteScore™: 58 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 0.5 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility Address: Within Clifty Woods Amenities: – Gravel parking lot (1) – Large and small dog areas – Woodland/habitat (0.5 ac) – Shelter – Picnic tables (2) Figure 2.39: Columbus Dog Park (2016).

Tipton Park

SiteScore™: 45 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 0.1 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility Address: Lindsay Street and SR-46 Amenities: – Monument/marker Figure 2.40: Tipton (2016).

Donner Center

SiteScore™: 41 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: (within Donner Park) 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility – Indoor Community Center and Outdoor Aquatics Center Address: 739 22nd St. Amenities: – Indoor community center – Multi-purpose rooms – Restrooms/locker rooms – Columbus Parks and Recreation Department 2IĆFHV – 8-lane 50-meter lap pool Figure 2.41: Donner Center (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

– – – – –

11'4" diving well with 2 one meter diving boards Waterslide that is 20' high and 160' long Leisure pool with a play structure and fountains Concessions space 22,000 square feet of cement deck space surrounding the pools

Par 3 Golf Course

SiteScore™: 40 (not meeting expectations) Acreage: 47 ac. 3DUN 7\SRORJ\ Special-Use Facility Address: 3362 Fairlawn Dr. Amenities: – Building (2,871 sf) – Water fountain (2) – Restrooms – Storage (519 sf) – Parking (43) – ADA Parking (2) – Picnic tables (5) – Ponds (2) Figure 2.42: Par 3 Golf Course (2016).

2.4.9 Universal Design + Accessibility Accessibility and the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements must be taken into consideration for every program and facility, as there is no “grandfather� clause associated with this requirement. The Department continually strives to achieve accessibility standards in all of its program services, facility renovations and developments. Existing facilities are in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The City has developed and adopted a formal and comprehensive city-wide ADA transition plan, details of which are included within this section of the report. In addition, the Department strives develop new programs and facilities that appeal to people of all abilities and address the ever changing needs of the Columbus populace (Schmucker, 2012). In a joint partnership with the Senior Center and the City of Columbus, a new senior center was opened in 2010 called Mill Race Center. Mill Race Center is located in the downtown area in Mill Race Park. This was in direct acknowledgment of input from citizens that a facility was needed to provide programming, ZHOOQHVV DQG ĆWQHVV RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU WKRVH ZLWK limited abilities. The Senior Center manages the facility and programs. In addition, the Columbus Regional Figure 2.43: Accessible playground at Mead Village Park (2016).

66

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

+RVSLWDO :HOOQHVV &HQWHU DOVR WHDFKHV ĆWQHVV DQG wellness programs at their facility, which was designed with accessibility and programming to meet the needs of seniors; a growing demographic in Columbus as current residents age in place (Schmucker, 2012). Columbus is home to Freedom Field Playground, one of the largest, entirely accessible playground in the U.S. In addition to accessible play features, the playground also includes public art installations accessible site furnishings, a shelter, trees, and a security camera. At other facilities, the Department continues to provide accessible site furniture and surfaces when inaccessible versions are due for replacement and/or repair (Schmucker, 2012). An excellent example of incorporating accessibility into Department’s programming is the Special Swim Program at Donner Aquatic Center. This program meets a core community need of promoting basic swimming skills and water safety to the entire population, while also helping children and teens with sensory impairment and other special needs learn how to exert more control over their body’s movements. This program provides one-on-one attention for each participant, and scholarships are available for WKRVH ZKR QHHG ĆQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH WR SDUWLFLSDWH (Schmucker, 2012).

Special considerations are incorporated into the Department’s program offerings to allow people of all abilities to participate. The Department communicates their accessible programs and facilities through their program guide, web site, Facebook page, Twitter feed, email list, local news media and program advertising. They are continually reviewing current marketing efforts to improve their communication with citizens.

City of Columbus ADA Transition Plan

The City of Columbus American with Disabilities (ADA) Act Transition Plan is demonstrative of the City’s commitment to providing equal access to all of its public programs, services, facilities, and activities for citizens with disabilities. To develop this plan, the City of Columbus has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of its facilities and programs to determine what types of access barriers exist for individuals with disabilities. This plan replaced previous self-evaluation and transition plans developed by the City and its departments, and will be used to guide future planning and implementation of necessary accessibility improvements (City of Columbus, 2017). Recommendations for each of the city’s parks and IDFLOLWLHV DV LGHQWLĆHG LQ WKH $'$ 7UDQVLWLRQ 3ODQ FDQ be found in Section 6.4 of the Appendix. The full plan

Figure 2.44: Freedom Fields accessible playground at Blackwell Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

67

can be viewed or downloaded from the city’s website at http://columbus.in.gov/careers/ada-transition-plan/ ada-transition-plan.

City of Columbus ADA Coordinator

The Director of Human Rights for the city is the ADA FRRUGLQDWRU DQG WKHLU RIĆFH LV ORFDWHG DW &LW\ +DOO $W the time of this study, the Director of Human Rights was: Aida J. Ramírez City of Columbus Director of Human Rights 123 Washington Street Columbus, IN 47201 Phone: (812) 376-2532 Fax: (812) 375-2752 Email: humanrights@columbus.in.gov

Public Notice of ADA Requirements

The Public Notice of ADA Requirements located RQ WKH &LW\èV ZHEVLWH SURYLGHV DQ RIĆFLDO GRFXPHQW that outlines the cities policy on employment, HIIHFWLYH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ PRGLĆFDWLRQV WR SROLFLHV and procedures as well as methods for addressing complaints regarding inadequate accessibility (City of Columbus, 2012).

ADA Grievance Procedure

Grievances are submitted to the Human Resource Department located at City Hall. The ADA Coordinator will meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and attempt to reach a possible resolution with a formal response provided to the complainant within 15 days of the meeting. If the complainant disagrees with the response, they can appeal and will meet with the Board of Public Works and Safety to discuss the incident and further possible resolutions. The following is a detailed excerpt from the City of Columbus ADA Transition Plan regarding the city’s Grievance Procedure, which can also be found on the city’s website. [The] Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). It may be used by anyone who wishes WR ĆOH D FRPSODLQW DOOHJLQJ GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RQ WKH EDVLV of disability in the provision of services, activities, SURJUDPV RU EHQHĆWV E\ WKH &LW\ 7KH &LW\ V 3HUVRQQHO

68

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Policy governs employment related complaints of disability discrimination. A. Any citizen or employee who has a complaint regarding the City’s alleged non-compliance with the $'$ PD\ ĆOH D ZULWWHQ FRPSODLQW ZLWKLQ VL[W\ GD\V of an incident or of the receipt of information of such alleged non-compliance. % 7KDW VXFK ZULWWHQ FRPSODLQWV ĆOHG E\ FLWL]HQV VKDOO EH ĆOHG ZLWK WKH +XPDQ 5HVRXUFHV 2IĆFH RI WKH &LW\ & 6KRXOG DFFRPPRGDWLRQ V EH QHFHVVDU\ LQ ĆOLQJ the complaint or in any steps in this procedure, an appointment with the Head of Human Resources may be made along with a request of the accommodation QHFHVVDU\ WR ĆOH WKH FRPSODLQW ' 7KH FRPSODLQW VKDOO EH UHIHUUHG E\ WKH 2IĆFH RI Human Resources to the department head who is responsible for the subject of the complaint. ( 7KH 2IĆFH RI +XPDQ 5HVRXUFHV VKDOO EH UHVSRQVLEOH for insuring that such complaints are investigated by the department head and that a written response is given to the complainant within thirty (30) days after VXFK ĆOLQJ RI VDLG FRPSODLQW F. Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the written response from the department head, the complainant may petition for review of the matter by notifying, in writing, the Board of Public Works and Safety for resolution. The complaint should be in writing and contain information about the alleged discrimination such as name, address, phone number of complainant and location, date, and description of the problem. $OWHUQDWLYH PHDQV RI ĆOLQJ FRPSODLQWV VXFK DV SHUVRQDO interviews or a tape recording of the complaint will be made available for persons with disabilities upon request. The complaint should be submitted by the grievant and/or his/her designee as soon as possible but no later than (sixty) 60 calendar days after the alleged violation to: Human Resources ADA Coordinator

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

123 Washington Street Columbus, IN 47201 Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the complaint, the ADA coordinator will meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and the possible resolutions. Within 15 calendar days of the meeting, ADA Coordinator will respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the complainant, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape. The response will explain the position of the City of Columbus, Indiana, and offer options for substantive resolution of the complaint. If the response by ADA Coordinator does not satisfactorily resolve the issue, the complainant and/or his/her designee may appeal the decision within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the response to the Board of Public Works or its designee. Within (thirty) 30 calendar days after receipt of the appeal, the Board of Public Works or its designee will meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and possible resolutions. Within (thirty) 30 calendar days after the meeting, the Board of Public Works or its designee will respond in writing, and, where appropriate, in a format accessible to the complainant, ZLWK D ĆQDO UHVROXWLRQ RI WKH FRPSODLQW All written complaints received by ADA Coordinator appeals to the Board of Public Works or its designee, DQG UHVSRQVHV IURP WKHVH WZR RIĆFHV ZLOO EH UHWDLQHG by the City of Columbus, Indiana, for at least three years (City of Columbus, 2012).

6\VWHP ZLGH 2EVHUYDWLRQV

Of the parks and facilities visited several key trends and/observations were made: – The majority of the City’s playgrounds utilize EWF mulch as their safety surface. While EWF can be an accessible surface, it needs continued maintenance in order to ensure it meets the VSHFLĆF $670 UHTXLUHPHQWV 1HZHU SOD\JURXQGV DQG WKRVH ZKLFK KDYH XQGHUJRQH VLJQLĆFDQW upgrades, have utilized a rubber tile system, which would be the preferred method of the two. – The City’s newest community centers, The Commons (downtown) and The Mill Race Center, are both excellent examples of largely accessible

facilities which incorporate multiple principles of universal design in their construction. The Department’s older facilities, such as the Donner Center, are in need of updating for both functionality and accessibility. Major improvements to the Hamilton Center over the last several years have increased the accessibility of that historic facility. – It goes without saying that ongoing maintenance of older sites and facilities is necessary to mitigate challenges with accessibility. In some cases, accessible routes were initially provided, however, settlement of the pavement, debris, and/or other maintenance constraints have rendered them inaccessible. – Columbus has a rich history of sports tourism; something they wish to see continue into the future. The Department should ensure that accessible spectator seating areas – and routes leading to them – are provided at all locations where tournaments are held, regardless of the sport. – ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI SURJUDP VSHFLĆF barriers to accessibility observed, as part of this analysis, were associated with the location and/ or facility in which they were offered, not the program itself.

6LWH )DFLOLW\ 6SHFLĆF 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV

)ROORZLQJ DUH VLWH DQG IDFLOLW\ VSHFLĆF recommendations made by the Project Team during the site evaluation process, as described in Section 2.4 of this report. Recommendations were only made for “developed� parks and greenspaces and facilities currently programmed and maintained by the Department. These recommendations are not intended to replace WKH SDUN VSHFLĆF UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV VHW IRUWK LQ WKH adopted ADA Transition Plan (see Section 6.5 of the Appendix), but rather to supplement them. These recommendations are also intended to be implemented over-time, if deemed appropriate after additional inĆHOG LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DV EXGJHWV EHFRPH DYDLODEOH DQG RU major improvements are made to the facilities. Blackwell Park – Provide additional accessible seating areas near large gathering/spectator areas associated with

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

69

WKH VRFFHU ĆHOGV Clifty Park – Provide accessible routes to accessible spectator seating areas. – Provide accessible routes between the various ball diamonds on the eastern portion of the site. – Provide accessible seating areas along the People Trail Columbus Dog Park – Provide accessible parking space(s) – Provide accessible route into each of the dog areas – Provide an accessible seating area in each of the dog areas. Donner Park – Provide accessible seating areas around the playground. – Ensure accessible routes to and within the playground. – &RQYHUW HQJLQHHUHG ZRRG ĆEHU PXOFK (:) play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Provide accessible route to the pickleball and basketball court. Everroad Park – Upgrade existing seating area to be accessible.

Foundation for Youth – Provide accessible seating area(s) near the playground. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. Greenbelt Golf Club – Provide accessible picnic/seating area. – Ensure accessible entrance/doorway is provided; consider adding powered automatic door opener. Hamilton Center – Consider adding powered automatic door opener to front/main entrance. – Provide accessible table in Fireside Community Hall – Upgrade showers to be accessible. Harrison Ridge Park – Grade of walk between parking lot and the playground appears to be too steep to be an accessible route, despite being the shortest. – Remove trip hazards in the concrete sidewalks along accessible routes. – Remove trip hazard at the entrances to both playgrounds. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF

Figure 2.45: Inaccessible route to ADA ramp at Morningside Park Playground (2016).

70

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Provide accessible seating areas near the playgrounds. – Upgrade northernmost play equipment to provide accessible features. – Consider adding an accessible swing with appropriate access route. Lincoln Park – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Consider adding an accessible swing with appropriate access route. – Provide accessible route to the basketball court from accessible the parking space. – Relocate the accessible parking space adjacent to the playground; there is no accessible route leading from it to the play space due to the 6” concrete curb separating it from the sidewalk. McCullough’s Run Park – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. Mead Village Park – Provide accessible route from parking lot to the ground-level of the playground. Currently, there

is an accessible route to the play structure, but wheelchair users are forced to enter the play structure, leaving no accessible route to any seating areas, the basketball court, and/or the other ground-level play structures. – Consider adding an accessible swing. Mill Race Park – Fix trip hazard along path leading to the North Lake Lookout, west of the Mill Race Center. – Provide accessible seating areas along Round Lake promenade. – Ensure that debris and sediment do not impeded accessible routes along the river edge. – Ensure elevator to the top of the Tower Clock (observation tower) is in a safe and functional operating condition. – Provide accessible route to the special-needs swings. – Provide accessible seating areas adjacent to the playground. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. Morningside Park – Fix trip hazards and grade issues leading from the walkway to the playground ramp.

Figure 2.46: Accessible route from ADA parking space to playground and park proper missing at Pence Street Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

71

– Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Ensure main walkway accommodates the minimum ADA turning radius at playground entry points. Ninth Street Park – Ensure walkway between the playground and the basketball courts meets the applicable standards for an accessible route with regard to width and turning radius. Noblitt Park – Provide a marked, accessible parking space with an accessible route to the trail network. Northbrook Park – Upgrade existing seating area along the trail to be accessible. Oakbrook Park – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Consider adding an accessible swing with appropriate access route – Repair trip hazards present along walkways and

trails. – Provide an accessible seating area adjacent to the playground. Par 3 Golf Course – Provide accessible water fountain in the clubhouse. – Provide accessible seating/picnic areas outside the clubhouse; there are accessible picnic tables, however, they are located in a turf lawn. – %DWKURRPV DUH LQ QHHG RI VLJQLĆFDQW LPSURYHPHQW – Consider adding powered automatic door opener to front/main entrance. Pence Street Park – No accessible route exists from the accessible parking spaces into the park space or between any of the components within the park space including the playground, picnic area, basketball court, and large shelter. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. Richards School Tennis Courts – 6LJQLĆFDQW FUDFNV LQ WKH FRXUW VXUIDFH SUHVHQW WULS hazards and should be repaired.

Figure 2.47: Trip hazard present at Harrison Ridge Park (2016).

72

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

resolved through further, technical study. – No accessible path exists from the parking areas to the tennis courts, which are the only components Tipton Park of this “parkâ€? space. – Accessible parking spaces do exists in proximity – Tipton Park is really more of a monument/ memorial than it is a park space; no programming to the courts, however, would require wheelchair XVHUV WR HLWKHU FURVV WZR ODQHV RI WUDIĆF RU QDYLJDWH or amenities exist outside of a stone monument adjacent to a roadway and sidewalk. a long, circuitous route around the motor court of the school to access the courts. – There is no sidewalk connection leading from the monument to the existing street-side sidewalk; a distance of approximately 20 feet. From the The Commons – Overall, this building is very accessible, and VLGHZDON WKDW FXUUHQWO\ H[LVWV LW ZRXOG EH GLIĆFXOW to read the plaque on the monument. incorporates the principles of universal design within its construction. The Department/City may wish to consider adding a dedicated, accessible on- Wigh Soccer Complex – An accessible route should be provided to street parking space near the front entry. accessible seating areas near/adjacent to the main VSHFWDWRU EOHDFKHUV RQ WKH JDPH ĆHOG The Donner Center and Aquatics Center – Add a powered automatic door opener at front/ main entrance. Currently, visitors needing assistance must ring a door bell at the front entry in order to gain assistance entering the building, ZKLFK LV D VLJQLĆFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ĂŞH[SHULHQFHĂŤ IRU those users when compared to the unrestricted access of able-bodied individuals. – While architecturally unique and historic, the 'RQQHU &HQWHU LV LQ QHHG RI VLJQLĆFDQW XSJUDGLQJ and repair. Given the building’s age, there are likely many ADA challenges which should be

Figure 2.48: Lack of ADA spectator seating at Clifty Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

73

Image: CPRD, 2017.

74

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

2.5

overview of existing programs

0HWKRGRORJ\ For this planning process, the Department provided the Project Team with a Microsoft Excel database of all programs hosted by the Department in the 2016 calendar year. The database, which is provided in its raw form in Section 6.5 of the Appendix, provided information regarding the program name, type, age range, offering dates, participant cost, offering location. Following are observations made which utilized this data.

3URJUDP 4XDQWLW\ DQG 3ULFLQJ The Department hosted 118 unique program offerings in the year 2016, with an average cost of $49 per participant. The Free Swim Session at Donner Park was the most affordable program (free), while the Lifeguard Class was the most expensive ($255). Programs in the higher cost range were typically specialized and/or were more expensive to administer than traditional programs, thus necessitating the higher cost.

3URJUDP 2IIHULQJ /RFDWLRQV The Department offered programs at 12 dedicated locations, and one (1) program was held and multiple locations throughout the community (“$3 a Day Field Trips). Approximately 30% of all programs offered by the Department in 2016 took place within Donner Park, either in the park itself, the Donner Aquatics Center, or the Donner Center (6.8%, 8.5%, and 14.4% respectively).

hosting 18.6% of all programs offered in 2016. The Columbus Gymnastics Center followed closely behind, hosting 17.8% of programs offered in 2016. Together, these three sites hosted over 66% of all programs offered in 2016. The remainder of the programs were split between other city-owned park sites and off-site locations such as public schools and the Columbus Armory, (6.8%). Following is a detailed breakdown of all program offering locations in Columbus. It should be noted that these calculations exclude the various athletic tournaments that are hosted (or supported) by the Department. Location

# of Programs

% of Total

Hamilton Community Ctr. & Ice Arena

22

18.6%

Columbus Gymnastics Center

21

17.8%

Donner Center

17

14.4%

Donner Aquatic Center

10

8.5%

Clifty Park

9

7.6%

Blackwell/Dick Wigh Soccer Complex

8

6.8%

Donner Park

8

6.8%

Off-Site

8

6.8%

Lincoln Park

7

5.9%

Greenbelt Golf Course

4

3.4%

Mill Race Park

2

1.7%

Rocky Ford Par 3

1

0.8%

Multiple Locations

1

0.8%

The Hamilton Community Center and Ice Area was the most popular single location for programming,

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

3URJUDP 'LVWULEXWLRQ E\ 7\SH The programs evaluated were allocated among six (6) core programming categories:

towards young children (ages 1-4). The Department offered gymnastics programs for children as young as 1 year old up to 15 years old.

$TXDWLFV

Athletics (29.7%)

Athletics accounted for the largest percentage of any program type, and as the name suggests, LQFOXGHG VSRUWV VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV LQFOXGLQJ VRFFHU tennis, kickball, volleyball, baseball, softball, and soccer. Many these programs were offered at either Blackwell Park/Dick Wigh Soccer Complex, Clifty Park, Donner Park, or Lincoln Park. Approximately 69% of the athletics programs were youth-restricted, with the balance being offered primarily for the adult age group.

The Department offered 10 unique aquatics programs in 2016, many which were dedicated towards “learn to swim� style and/or swim-skill development programs. Other programs offered included youth triathlon training, several lifeguard classes, and open swim programs. Many of the aquatics programs offered were for youth participants, however, the swim lessons – which are a critical life skill – were open to participants over the age of six (6) years old. The aquatics programs were offered exclusively at the Donner Aquatic Center.

Recreation (23.7%)

Golf (4.2%)

The Recreation Programs category encapsulated a wide range of program offerings, many of which were geared towards children, and included a mix of physically-active programs, camps, special events, life skills classes, and seasonal events. The overwhelming majority of these programs were offered at the Donner Center/Donner Park, with the remainder being held at the Columbus Gymnastics Center, Mill Race Park, and Columbus North High School. The majority of Recreation programs are geared towards youth participants, though there were programs for adults and several that were open to all ages.

Ice Sports (18.6%)

Ice Sports programs were held exclusively at the Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena. As the name suggests, the programs offered were focused predominantly on ice skating and hockey, and included multiple seasonal skating events (such as “Skate with Santa�). The Ice Sports programs are also open to a wide range of ages, though some are ability-based.

*\PQDVWLFV

Gymnastics programs were offered exclusively for youth participants at the Columbus Gymnastics Center. The programs offered including gymnastics and tumbling classes of multiple skill levels, cheerleading programs and cheer camps (including a VSHFLDO QHHGV VSHFLĆF SURJUDP DQG SURJUDPV JHDUHG

76

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The Department recently took over the management and operation of two (2) golf courses in the city, and RIIHUHG ĆYH JROI VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV LQ )RXU (4) of these programs were offered at the Greenbelt Golf Course, and the fourth at the Rocky Ford Par 3. The programs offered were centric on skills development, and were open to a wide range of ages and abilities.

3URJUDP 'LVWULEXWLRQ E\ $JH *URXS The majority of the programs hosted by the Department are for youth participants (67.8%), with 61.9% being age restricted to the youth category. Programs in the youth category span a wide array of program types, including competitive athletics, life skills, and cultural arts. The second most popular age range is adult programs (15.3%), which includes programs largely dedicated to athletics. Approximately 10.2% of all programs offered in 2016 were open to participants of all ages, and 5.9% were restricted only by ability/skill. The Senior Golf League, which took place at the Green Belt Golf Course from April to October, was the only "senior" program offered by the Department in 2016. It should be noted that the Mill Race Center (operated E\ WKH &LW\ RIIHUV PXOWLSOH VHQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV throughout the year.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part two : existing conditions analysis

3URJUDP 'LVWULEXWLRQ E\ 6HDVRQ The offering dates of the programs hosted by the Department were also evaluated. For the purposes RI WKLV HYDOXDWLRQ SURJUDPV ZHUH FODVVLĆHG LQWR ĆYH (5) categories based on the season(s) in which the program began: 1. Spring (March through April) 2. Summer (May through August) 3. Fall (September through November) 4. Winter (December through February) 5. Year-round Almost 50% of all programs hosted by the Department were offered in the summer season (45.8%). The bulk of summer programming was split between recreation, athletics, and aquatics programs. Approximately 19.5% programs were offered yearround. These programs were typically held indoors, and split largely between gymnastics and ice skating programs. The balance of the programs offered in 2016 were held in spring (12.7%), winter (11.0%), and fall (11.0%).

7UHQGV 2EVHUYDWLRQV Based on the data available to the Project Team at the time of this planning process, the following programming trends were observed: – Program Offerings: Overall, the Department offers a good distribution of program types and the cost of the majority of programs is likely affordable for many residents. Core, life safety programs – such as the learn to swim programs – were offered for a very low cost. – Programming Locations: The programs offered in 2016 were hosted at 12 separate locations across the city, all of which are east of I-65, requiring the residents in the western portion of the city to travel further to obtain access to program offering locations. – Focus on Athletics: Athletics programs represented the largest percentage of total programs offered. Athletics programs were hosted at 4 facilities across the city, all of which are located east of I-65. These programs were offered primarily for youth, however, approximately 30% were for adult-aged participants. The predominance of athletics-based programs is likely

UHćHFWLYH RI WKH &LW\èV ORQJVWDQGLQJ VXSSRUW RI sports tourism in Columbus. The desired role of both the Department and the private sector in the long-term vision for sports tourism should be clearly articulated to ensure that the resources RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW DUH EHQHĆWLQJ WKH JUHDWHVW amount of Columbus residents possible. – Additional Golf Programs: The Department recently took over management of two (2) golf courses in the city. At the time of this study, WKH 'HSDUWPHQW KDG PDGH VLJQLĆFDQW VWULGHV with regard to operations, management, and maintenance of these facilities, however, the same effort should also be focused on developing programs which help to activate these facilities and offset their high level of operational cost. At the WLPH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RQO\ RIIHUHG ĆYH JROI VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV – Senior Programs: 6HQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPPLQJ represents only 0.8% of the total programs offered by the Department. The Department's offerings are supplemented by those of the Mill Race Center – a City-owned and membership-based Senior Center in Mill Race Park – which is currently the only public senior center in Columbus. Despite the presence of the Mill Race Center – which is not managed by the Department - the Department may wish to consider further evaluating the need and/ RU GHVLUH IRU VHQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV DQG HYHQWV that are more evenly distributed throughout the city, as travel can often be challenging for senior residents. If the population continues to age in SODFH WKH GHVLUH IRU VHQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV DQG events will likely increase. – Indoor Programming: The amount, type, and distribution of indoor programs is limited by the existing indoor facilities, none of which represent the contemporary indoor recreation and community center model. Columbus’ indoor programming is primarily offered at the Donner Center, the Hamilton Center, and the Foundation for Youth (FFY). The Donner Center is a more traditional “community centerâ€? model, and lacks some of the amenities necessary for active indoor UHFUHDWLRQ VXFK DV J\PQDVLXPV DQG ĆWQHVV workout rooms. The FFY Center is the closest comparable to a true “indoor recreation and community center,â€? however, is not managed exclusively by the Department.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

77

03 needs assessment

80

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

3.1

community engagement process

3.1.1 Overview Parks are for the people, and as such, community participation was a cornerstone of this master plan. The Project Team utilized multiple engagement techniques throughout the life of the process, with the intent of reaching the greatest amount of residents as possible. In addition, the Project Team created an online project engagement page for use throughout the planning process. This “project portal� served as a means to convey announcements and information to the general public and to review documents/ presentations. In addition to viewing information, the general public had the ability to provide real-time feedback to the Project Team, as well as to engage in comment-based discussion and dialogue. Following is a summary of each technique and its associated implications.

3.1.2 Project Steering Committee One of the most critical components of a successful planning process is a diverse and dedicated Project Steering Committee (SC). The purpose of the SC is to serve as a “voice� for the community at large, and to help oversee and guide the implementation of the master plan long after the planning process is complete. The SC for this master plan was composed of LQćXHQWLDO ORFDO UHVLGHQWV DQG VWDNHKROGHUV VHOHFWHG by the City. These individuals are leaders in the community and represent local business owners, City employees, and active community members.

The SC remained involved in the planning process throughout its duration, and was engaged by the Project Team at key points during the planning process. The many responsibilities of the SC included raising awareness of and promoting the planning process, helping to circulate information throughout the community, and providing community feedback and diverse perspectives to the Project Team. The SC participants were selected based on their involvement with the City of Columbus’ parks and recreation system, as well as their community OHDGHUVKLS DQG LQćXHQFH 7KHVH LQGLYLGXDOV DUH NQRZQ for executing plans and “making things happen.� Collectively, the SC represented 12 organizations, Departments, Boards, and/or businesses, which included the following: – The Columbus Park Foundation – Bartholomew County Park Board – Developmental Services Inc. – The Columbus Visitors Center – City of Columbus – Bartholomew County Planning Department – City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Department – Columbus Regional Health: Healthy Communities – Foundation For Youth – City of Columbus Parks Board – City of Columbus City Council – Lincoln-Central Neighborhood Family Center – Bartholomew County School Corporation The SC was engaged at a Kick-Off Workshop during the early phases of the project to ensure consensus on scope, approach, and schedule. Notes from that meeting can be found in Section 6.4 of the Appendix.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

81

3.1.3 Stakeholder Focus Groups A group of individual project stakeholders were selected by the City to be interviewed by the Project Team. Over the course of a full day, multiple individual meetings were held on-site in Columbus. Though stakeholders were given a list of “talking points� to guide the discussion, the intent of these meetings was to solicit broad-based input on the existing conditions of the City and to learn, from a resident’s point of view, what is working and what isn’t working. Participants were asked to be open and honest, encouraged to focus on the “big picture,� and to not let any current constraints facing the City ĆVFDO RU RWKHUZLVH OLPLW WKHLU YLVLRQ IRU WKH IXWXUH On November 14th, 2016, the Project Team conducted a total of seven (7) focus groups at the Donner Center. In total, 64 people from 28 different boards and/or organizations participated in these focus groups including representatives from: – Columbus Parks and Recreation Department – Columbus Engineering Department – Columbus North High School – Columbus East High School – Foundation for Youth – Columbus Park Foundation – Columbus Fire Department – Columbus Regional Health: Healthy Communities – Lincoln-Central Neighborhood Family Center – IUPUC – &LW\ RI &ROXPEXV 2IĆFH RI WKH 0D\RU – Mill Race Center – Columbus Police Department – Heritage Fund – United Way of Bartholomew County – Columbus Pickleball Club – REMC – Columbus City Council – Columbus Park Board – Tipton Lakes Community – Developmental Services Inc. – Taylor Bros. – Hoosier Brokers Realty – Cummins – Coca-Cola – Columbus Planning Department – The Commons Board – SIHO

82

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

A copy of the sign in sheet and full minutes from each of these focus groups can be found in Section 6.6 of the Appendix. Following is a summary of the input received for each of the core discussion topics. Review of Scope and Schedule At the beginning of each interview or focus group, the Project Team provided participants with a highlevel overview of the master planning process, scope, and schedule to ensure that everyone had an appropriate framework for the discussion which followed, and more importantly, to identify and answer any questions they may have had about the process. Participants were also asked if there were any additional meetings, workshops, presentations or other outreach efforts that the Project Team should consider. The majority of questions raised were associated with the workshop process and overall project schedule. Overall, participants had a good understanding of the SODQQLQJ SURFHVV DQG QR VLJQLĆFDQW FRQFHUQV ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG Needs Participants were asked to identify what they believed, based on their unique perspectives and experiences, to be high-priority parks and recreation needs in Columbus. Participants responded with a diverse array of potential needs which ranged from small maintenance issues to large-scale capital improvements. Interestingly, the three (3) most common themes accounted for almost 50% of all QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG 1. Increased access to indoor recreation programs + facilities (57) 2. Make improvements to existing parks + facilities (34) 3. Increased community-wide connectivity (29) Following are summarized common themes for parks DQG UHFUHDWLRQ QHHGV LQ &ROXPEXV DV LGHQWLĆHG E\ the participants of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups. The number in parenthesis next to the LGHQWLĆHG WKHPH FRUUHVSRQGV WR WKH DSSUR[LPDWH number of comments for that theme across all interviews and focus groups. 1. Increased access to indoor recreation programs + facilities (57)

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

2. Make improvements to existing parks + facilities (34) 3. Increased community-wide connectivity (29) 4. New facilities/facility types (19) 5. Determine vision of athletics programs + facilities (15) 6. Focus on funding and Implementation (12) 7. Determine the viability of sports tourism as an economic impact tool (12) 8. More park land (11) 9. Increased universal accessibility (10) 10. Improve operations practices (9) 11. (QVXUH SURJUDPV DQG IDFLOLWLHV UHćHFW demographic changes/needs (9) 12. Improve programs + events offerings (8) 13. Increased integration of technology (8) 14. Increased access to natural areas and programs (7) 15. Clarify the mission of the Department (5) 16. Improved aquatics programs + facilities (3) 17. New/improved performance venues (3) 18. Increased focus on leveraging parks for economic impact (2) 19. Utilize the parks system to address social issues (2) Priorities After discussing a diverse array of needs, participants were asked to identify their highest priorities regarding future investment in parks and recreation LQ &ROXPEXV 7KH KLJKHVW SULRULW\ LGHQWLĆHG E\ participants was the need to set the standard for parks and recreation in the region by providing Columbus residents with access to the highest quality experiences, programs, and facilities. The common notion was that if the Department was going to do something, they should do it well. The second most important priority was the need to focus on serving and supporting a diverse community by building bridges between different ethic and socioeconomic groups, maximizing affordability, and providing a balance between competitive and recreation-oriented programs and facilities. The third highest priority focused on the need to clearly communicate the role and importance of the city’s parks system to the community. A community’s investment in parks – both existing and new – is critically important because there is now,

as parks advocates have long preached anecdotally, D TXDQWLĆDEOH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ D FRPPXQLW\èV park system (in both size and quality), and its overall quality of life, sustainability, and economic capacity. Parks are – and should be designed, funded, and maintained as - critical infrastructure; just as much as quality roads, schools, and utilities! A community’s quality of life is a key metric in its ability to attract and retain talent, especially in today’s global – and mobile – marketplace, and parks are the gatekeeper of that quality of life. Quality of life goes hand in hand with economic development, and many communities underestimate the direct impact that their parks system has on their economy. Following are summarized common themes for parks and recreation investment priorities in &ROXPEXV DV LGHQWLĆHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV RI WKH stakeholder interviews and focus groups. The QXPEHU LQ SDUHQWKHVLV QH[W WR WKH LGHQWLĆHG SULRULW\ corresponds to the approximate number of comments for that priority across all interviews and focus groups. 1. Provide high quality experiences, programs, and facilities (12) 2. Focus on serving a diverse community (10) 3. Embrace and increase access to the city’s unique natural systems (9) 4. Embrace and communicate the importance and role of parks in our community (8) 5. Embrace comprehensive sustainability; environmental, social, + economic. (6) 6. Focus on improving community-wide connectivity (6) 7. Increase system-wide universal accessibility (5) 8. Embrace collaboration and partnerships (5) 9. Improve outreach and awareness (5) 10. Increase park land acreage to plan for future growth (3) 11. Pursue sports tourism as an economic development tool (2) Benchmark Communities To facilitate future benchmarking, participants were asked to identify cities and/or communities which they felt had positive attributes worth studying further. Desirable attributes were not limited to parks and recreation alone, including also quality of

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

83

life, well-connected trail networks, embraced natural lands, and riverfront locations. No boundaries were given with regard to the size, location, or density of the communities; participants were free to respond based on their own unique experiences. Participants responded with a broad list of potential benchmark communities which included both large and small cities spread from New York to Montana. Approximately 44% of the benchmarked communities LGHQWLĆHG ZHUH LQ ,QGLDQD DQG ZHUH LQ WKH Midwest. The reasons communities were selected by participants varied, however, the focus on sports tourism, successful riverfronts/waterfronts, welldeveloped trail networks, and quality indoor facilities were commonly referenced. Following is a list of the communities suggested by the interview participants. The number in parenthesis at the end of each community name indicates the number of unique times that community was suggested. 1. Bloomington, IN (5) 2. Grand Rapids, MI (4) 3. Carmel, IN (3) 4. Chicago, IL (2) 5. New York, NY (2) 6. Valparaiso, IN (2) 7. Aiken, SC 8. Chattanooga, TN 9. Cincinnati, OH 10. Elizabethtown, KY 11. Emerson, GA 12. Evansville, IN 13. Fargo, ND 14. Franklin, IN 15. Greenwood, IN 16. Indianapolis, IN 17. Jeffersonville, IN 18. Johnson County, IN 19. Lafayette, IN 20. Madison WI 21. Minneapolis, MN 22. Missoula, MT 23. Newburg, IN 24. Noblesville, IN 25. Owensburough, KY

84

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Pueblo, CO Quad Cities San Antonio, TX Savannah, GA, Terre Haute, IN Westerville, OH :HVWĆHOG ,1

Funding/Implementation Understanding a community’s opinions associated with various funding and implementation strategies upfront is critically important, as this information should help inform the framework for the overall master plan Vision. As such, participants were asked what types of funding sources they would support, anticipating that this plan would result in “millions of dollars’ worth� of needed improvements. A list of common funding sources was provided to help facilitate discussion. In general, participants supported the idea that the Department should utilize a diverse variety of funding sources, both traditional and non-traditional. There was also a desire of participants for the Department to move beyond a “pay as you go� implementation strategy so that larger improvements could be made in the near-term. The two most commonly referenced potential IXQGLQJ VRXUFHV ZHUH WKH XVH RI D SDUN VSHFLĆF bond and implementing a park-impact fee. Multiple participants supported the general opinion that D SDUNV DQG UHFUHDWLRQ VSHFLĆF ERQG ZRXOG OLNHO\ be well received, provided the vision – and value of the proposed improvements - was compelling and articulated clearly. In addition, participants were largely supportive of utilizing alternative funding sources, such as securing grand funding and leveraging/bolstering public-private partnerships, to supplement the Department’s traditional sources. The least popular funding mechanisms, ones which participants indicated would likely not be supported by the public, included increasing taxes (sales tax LQFUHDVHV ZHUH VSHFLĆFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG VHYHUDO WLPHV special assessments, and increased user fees. It was also noted that raising private capital for public SURMHFWV KDV EHFRPH PRUH GLIĆFXOW WKDQ LW KDV EHHQ historically, though still worth pursuing.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

3.1.4 Public Workshop In addition to the Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups, the Project Team also conducted a general public input workshop on the evening of November 14th, 2016 from 6:30 – 7:30 pm. The workshop was held in the community room at the Donner Center. The workshop was attended by 58 people from all over the City of Columbus. Meeting Format This workshop was open to the general public; a key difference between this workshop and the stakeholder interviews, which were by invitation. The UHVXOW ZDV D IUHH ćRZLQJ GLVFXVVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH Columbus residents and the Project Team. The workshop was conducted in an open-house setting, where participants were given a brief overview of the planning process and were provided ZLWK DQ DJHQGD WKDW RXWOLQHG ĆYH GLIIHUHQW participation exercises. In total, 58 participants from the community attended the workshops. Following is a summary of the input received during the workshops; a copy of the agenda, sign-in sheets and full meeting minutes can be found in Section 6.4 of the Appendix.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

0XOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV JUHHQVSDFHV

Performing arts center (10) Large community parks (9) Community gardens (9) Indoor pool (8) Spray/splash pads (7) Canoe/kayak launches (7) Disc golf courses (7) Outdoor swimming pools water parks (6) Golf course (6) Farmer's Markets (6) Dog parks (5) Outdoor amphitheaters (5) Fishing piers (5) Softball baseball diamonds (4) Picnic shelters (4) Outdoor jogging track (4) Art galleries (3) Basketball courts (3) Indoor theater (2) Tennis courts (2) Skate parks (2) Other facilities (2) 6RFFHU ĆHOGV

Playgrounds (1) Outdoor sand volleyball courts (1)

([HUFLVH ĂĽ &LW\ ZLGH 1HHGV “We have placed a chart on the wall for listing a variety of different types of parks and recreation programs and facilities; some offered by the City, others not. Please place a dot besides those programs/facilities that you believe are important but for which the need is not being met adequately in the City of Columbus.â€? Following are the key needs for both facilities and programs as indicated by the workshop participants. The number in parenthesis following the program/ facility indicates the number of times that program/ IDFLOLW\ ZDV LGHQWLĆHG Facility Needs: 1. Pickleball courts (25) 2. Bicycle/walking/multi-purpose trails (16) 3. Small neighborhood parks (13) 4. Nature center and trails (12) Figure 3.1: Community input meeting (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Program Needs: 1. Nature programs (13) 2. Adult sports leagues (11) 3. After school programs (10) 4. <RXWK ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

5. Programs for people with special needs (10) 6. Community special events (10) 7. Community gardening (10) 8. $GXOW ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

9. Youth sports leagues (8) 10. Senior adult programs (8) 11. Camps (7) 12. History programs (7) 13. Enrichment classes (7) 14. Youth art, music, dance, theater classes (6) 15. Swim lessons (5) 16. Wellness screenings (5) 17. Fishing and boating programs (4) 18. Adult art, dance, theater (4) 19. Volunteer opportunities (3) 20. $GXOW ZDWHU ĆWQHVV SURJUDPV

21. Programs for pets and owners (3) 22. Travel programs (1)

Exercise #2 – Vision for the Future! “Before you is a blank canvas, literally! Please use the pens and Post-It notes provided and write your “vision” for future of parks and recreation in the City of Columbus. What kind of programs/events will there be? What do you want to be able to do or see? How is the community different, and what is the Parks Department’s role the community? Use your imagination!” When participants were asked about their vision for the future of parks and recreation in Columbus, the several key trends emerged. Following is a summary of those trends, which have been aggregated into various categories, as well as the direct comments submitted by the participants. 6\VWHP ZLGH &RQQHFWLYLW\ – Interconnected by trails, food by sidewalks. – Expansive connected trail/park system. – Walking loops in each park. – Improved usability. – Additional People Trails for biking and walking. – Hiking trails. – Sidewalk from Terrace Lake Rd. neighborhood to Southside School for walking/bike purposes. – Have well maintained trails along the dominant waterway, Haw Creek. This includes mowing frequently enough to create good view of creek and look cared for. – Make people; trail safer in parts where it not well formed. – Connect People Trails to parks, connect people trail to all of Columbus. – All bike paths will be safe away from vehicular WUDIĆF DQG ZHOO OLW IRU QLJKW ULGLQJ – Ability to bike around town without impatient drivers – People Trails will be continuous from one side of city to the other and link desirable destinations. – More bike and walking paths that actually go somewhere. – Continue to expand People Trail system so that we have a complete circle around the city. New and Improved Parks and Public Spaces: – Every neighborhood has safe, attractive park with playgrounds and gardens.

Figure 3.2: Community input meeting participants (2016).

86

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

– In the future our parks system will be culturally relevant to a diverse population with different HTXLSPHQW WR PHHW UHćHFW D FKDQJLQJ SRSXODWLRQ with different ideas on recreation. – Involve more acreage and green space. – 'RJ 3DUN ZLWK DUWLĆFLDO WXUI WKDW FDQ EH KRVHG RII – Citizens should be near natural lands. – Improved and well maintained skate parks. – Improved riverfront development and boating activities. – Community gardens, easy bike and walking to trails, green spaces and parks, better at informing the community of what the parks have to offer. – Improve McCullough’s Run Park with trails and ball courts Pickleball Courts: – More courts, more locations; near Mill Race Center, near west side. – Develop park site on west side with pickleball courts, playgrounds, and gardens near walking paths. – More Pickleball courts at Donner/Westside. – Multi-use of tennis courts at Lincoln Park for Pickleball. – Establish courts at sites where people can easily watch from another facility, such as outside. – Light the Donner Pickleball court. Recreation Facilities: – More indoor aquatic activities. – Sport facilities to spend locally instead of out of town. – Indoor activity area that could be privately owned. – Improved facility accessibility. – 0RUH EDOO ĆHOGV – Tennis practice walls. – Outdoor basketball courts, Taylorsville and Hartford areas. – Gym space for sports. – Involve new evolving sports that may not even exist today. – Frisbee golf options. New and Improved Programs and Events: – City tree plan. – Provide more educational and experiential resources regarding our fragile ecosystem. – After school and break activities with transportation from schools.

Operations/Management/Maintenance: – 'LYHUVH SDUNV ERDUG WKDW LV PRUH UHćHFWLYH RI WKH community. – Sustainable development. – Keep Columbus happy, healthy, and productive. – Inviting to visitors and new comers, new businesses.

Exercise #3 – Chat with the Director “He’s a borderline celebrity in Columbus; this is your chance to have a short, one-on-one chat with the City’s Parks and Recreation Director Mr. Mark Jones. Participants should feel free provide open feedback to Mr. Jones, and to ask him any park-related questions WKH\ ZLVK 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV IURP WKH 3URMHFW 7HDP ZLOO be on hand to take down notes which may result from these informal conversations, some of which may require follow-up at a later date.” During the open house portion of the workshop, participants were free to approach Mark with any questions they may have that pertained to parks and recreation in Columbus. In addition to gathering data to help inform this high-level planning process, this exercise also sought to provide an opportunity for participants to voice opinions and/or ask questions with regard to more detailed operations, management, and maintenance tasks associated with the Department.

Figure 3.3: Community input meeting participants (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

87

parks and recreation in Columbus. The participants were given the option of distributing their coins across six (6) different buckets, each representing a budget/investment category. A total of 489 coins were distributed, representing a total possible amount of $4,890 (at $10/coin). The total for each of the buckets was calculated as a ratio of investment out of a total of $100 utilizing the following formula: ( a * 100 ) / b = c

Figure 3.4: Community input meeting participants (2016).

Following is a summary of the comments received. – “Re-evaluate referees for kickball (self-refereeing)â€? – “Number of picnic tables throughout parks is decreasing over time.â€? – ĂŞ6RFFHU SUDFWLFH FRQćLFWV DIWHU ZDLWOLVW DGGV VLF ĂŤ – “Pickleball night games. Lights? Tennis?â€? – “Tennis courts; relocate practice wall and correct size (Lincoln Park).â€? – “Community theater opportunities throughout parks?â€? – ĂŞ/HVV WXUI DQG PRUH PHDGRZV EXWWHUć\ preservation/protection).â€? – “People Trail connectors; proximity to property a concern.â€? – “25th Street Bridge for trail/western edge.â€? – “Lights on trails.â€? – “Issue with trains at Mill Race Park.â€? – “Park ops rocks!â€?

Exercise #4 – Priority Spending “We have placed numbered buckets on the table representing key areas of potential spending priorities, and “$100� in coins for each participant (each coin = $10). Please distribute your coins among the buckets based on how you believe parks and recreation spending should be prioritized.�

Where: a = Total number of coins in individual bucket b = Total number of coins distributed across all buckets c = Average of individual bucket out of a possible $100 Following is a summary of how participants allocated their funds, as well as any comments which were provided. 1. Development of NEW walking and biking trails ($24.33/$100) – “Trail to Shadow Creek area.â€? 2. Improvements to EXISTING parks, trails, and facilities ($22.90/$100) – “Skate park maintenance needed.â€? – “Advance development of McCullough's park.â€? – ĂŞ'RJ SDUN ZLWK DUWLĆFLDO WXUI FDQ EH KRVHG RII QRW muddy.â€? 3. Construction of a NEW multi-use community center ($14.31/$100) – “Indoor pool, new or expanded, FFY pool, more time for use.â€? – “Indoor sports space.â€? – ĂŞ,QGRRU VRFFHU RU ćDJ IRRWEDOO LQćDWDEOH GRPH LQ winter months.â€? 4. Other? ($14.31/$100) – ĂŞ0RUH LQGRRU RXWGRRU SLFNOHEDOO ĆHOGV ĂŤ – “Camping/camping facilities (2).â€?

This question sought to understand how workshop participants would prioritize spending with regard to

88

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

– “Lights in existing pickleball courts.â€? – “A sidewalk in front of Terrace Lake Rd. neighborhoods to Southside.â€? – “More indoor aquatic facilities. City martial arts/ self-defense programs.â€? – ĂŞ0XOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV ĂŤ – ĂŞ:HVWVLGH SDUNV ZLWK SLFNOHEDOO ĆHOG FRXUWV DQG playground and garden.â€? – “Create or preserve natural areas.â€? &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI 1(: VSRUWV ĆHOGV

– “Pickleball courts (2), multiple park locations.â€? – ĂŞ7XUI ĆHOGV 'LVF JROI ĂŤ – ĂŞ0XOWL SXUSRVH VSRUWV ĆHOGV ĂŤ 6. Acquisition of NEW park land and open space ($11.67/$100) – “Westside Park with pickleball courts, garden and playgrounds with benches.â€?

([HUFLVH ĂĽ %DUULHUV WR 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ “What keeps you from visiting/using the City’s parks and recreation facilities more often? Perception of safety? Awareness of what is available and happening? Schedule? Lack of the right amenities or programs? Please place a dot/sticker next to each barrier; if you don’t see one, please write it in one of the spaces provided on the poster, and then place your dot. You may use as many dots as necessary, however, please only place one dot per barrier, per person.â€? Following are the barriers to usage of parks and recreation facilities and programs in Columbus, as indicated by the workshop participants. 1. I don't know what's being offered or what there is to do (15) 2. I have trouble getting there by WALKING/ BIKING (11) 3. Events/programs/amenities I want aren't offered (9) 4. :D\ĆQGLQJ , GRQ W NQRZ ZKHUH WR JR

5. Access to greenspace is too limited (7) 6. Current hours of operation (6) 7. I don't feel safe in some parks/facilities (5) 8. I use facilities/programs in other cities (5) 9. Parks/facilities are too crowded (5) 10. Other (5) 11. I have trouble getting there by BUS (2)

Figure 3.5: Community input meeting participant (2016).

12. Cost of events/programs is too high (2) 13. Not enough parking (2) 14. Poor customer service by Parks Department Staff (2) 15. Parks/facilities are not well maintained (1) Participant comments included: – “Weatherâ€? – “Pickleball courts for Westsideâ€? – “More pickleball courtsâ€? – “Lack of lighting at pickleball courts.â€? – “Not many activities for senior citizens. I do use parks, people-trails, misc. other parks as often as I like.â€? – “Lap swimming at Donner starts at 12 pm. You exercise then eat. How about lap swim at 11am?â€? – “Christmas is the worst time to close FFY pool for maintenance. How about summer when Donner pool is open? How about when school is in session?â€? – “Not much offered on south west part of town.â€? – “Connect people trail and make it safer in particular spots.â€? – ĂŞ1HHG PXOWL XVH ĆHOGV ĂŤ – “Need more online communication of events.â€?

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

89

90

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

3.2

public opinion survey

3.2.1 Survey Methodology

and manually entered online by the Project Team to ensure consistent analysis of the results.

In an effort to reach a broad cross-section of the general public, an online public opinion survey was conducted. This survey was intended primarily for City of Columbus residents. The 29 question survey took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and participants remained anonymous. The survey was available to the public from November 14th 2016 to January 6, 2017.

There was a total of 954 unique respondents to the survey, of which, 952 were collected online from the survey web link and two (2) were collected in hardcopy format and then entered into the online system manually by the Project Team. A copy of the survey instrument, as well as the survey response data are provided in Section 6.6 of the Appendix.

The online survey was administered by Browning Day through the use of the online platform developed by SurveyMonkeyŽ. Because the survey was elective (in that anyone could choose to take the survey), the results are not statistically-valid, however, do provide insight into the opinions of a much larger and diverse population when compared to the other engagement techniques utilized. The survey was widely advertised to the general public for several weeks prior to its launch through the use of traditional public announcements, reminders included with residents’ utility bills, WKH SURMHFW VSHFLĆF ZHESDJH DQG ORFDO PHGLD Additionally, Browning Day created a project handout card that was provided to meeting participants which directed them to the survey location. A common concern associated with online surveys is WKDW VRPH UHVLGHQWV PD\ QRW KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV to the internet needed to be capable of accessing and completing an online survey. To address this, paper copies of the identical survey instrument were provided to the Department, and were available upon request at several locations in the city. At the end of the survey period, paper copies were collected

Following is a summary of the input received from the public opinion survey process.

3.2.2 Parks + Facilities Condition

Overall, 78.6% of respondents rated the physical condition of the City’s parks and recreation facilities as either good or excellent, 19.6% rated them as “fair,� and only 0.8% (8 total responses) rated them as SRRU 7KHVH ĆQGLQJV ZRXOG VXJJHVW WKDW WKH V\VWHP is well maintained, however, it is worth nothing that of the 78.6%, only 13.2% rated the City’s parks as “excellent,� suggesting that there is room for improvement to move from “good� to “great.� It is also worth noting that some of the most common barriers to participation/usage – as noted below – are due to the perceived quality of maintenance and facilities.

Usage

The most frequently visited park in the system is Mill Race Park, with 80.2% of respondents indicating that they have visited the site at least once within the prior 12 months. The Commons (77.7%), Donner Park (67.0%), and the People Trail network (59.2%)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

91

were also top contenders. Only 1.4% of respondents indicated that they do not use/visit any of the City’s parks or facilities. The least frequently visited parks in the system included Amberly Park (0.6%), Eighth Street Park (1%), Morningside Park (1.2%), and Everroad Park (1.4%). It’s worth noting that, except for Morningside Park, the “least popular” parks are largely undeveloped greenspaces which residents may not acknowledge as a park site, and/or ones which provide little compelling reason for users to visit. Most Visited Parks - Following is a complete list of the parks and facilities that respondents indicated they had visited at least once during the prior 12 months: 1. Mill Race Park (80.2%) 2. The Commons (77.7%) 3. Donner Park (67.0%) 4. People Trail Network (59.2%) 5. Donner Aquatic Center (39.4%) 6. Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena (37.4%) 7. Donner Center (36.6%) 8. Clifty Park (32.2%) 9. Noblitt Park (29.9%) 10. Blackwell Park (29.8%) 11. Lincoln Park (27.6%) 12. Columbus Gymnastics Center (26.6%) 13. Dick Wigh Soccer Complex (22.9%) 14. Greenbelt Golf Course (14.4%) 15. Rocky Ford Par 3 Golf Course (14.0%) 16. Mead Village Park (11.4%) 17. City Cemetery (10.6%) 18. Harrison Ridge Park (9.7%) 19. McCullough's Run (9.5%) 20. Oakbrook Park (7.1%) 21. Columbus Dog Park (3.5%) 22. Ninth Street Park (3.0%) 23. Pence Street Park (1.9%) 24. Everroad Park (1.4%) 25. Did not use/visit ANY City of Columbus Parks facilities (1.4%) 26. Morningside Park (1.2%) 27. Northbook Park (1.2%) 28. Eighth Street Park (0.9%) 29. Amberley Park (0.6%)

92

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The parks and facilities which are visited the most frequently throughout the year, as indicated by the percent of respondents who visit the park or facility 10 or more times annually, are: 1. People Trail Network (55.6%) 2. The Commons (42.1%) 3. Mill Race Park (40.6 %) 4. Donner Park (28.6%) 5. Dick Wigh Soccer Complex (18.2%) 6. Blackwell Park (16.1%) 7. Donner Aquatic Center (15.2%) 8. Columbus Gymnastics Center (14.3%) 9. Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena (13.9%) 10. Clifty Park (11.8%) 8VH RI $OWHUQDWLYH 6HUYLFH 3URYLGHUV Of the respondents, 85.6% indicated that they utilized alternative provider facilities – those not managed by the Department - to meet a portion of their parks and recreation needs in the last 12 months. The most common alternative providers utilized by respondents included: 1. Churches/places of worship (53.1%) 2. Public schools (45.3%) 3. Youth sports associations/travel sports (29.9%) 4. Boys & Girls Club (24.7%) 5. Private recreation centers (21.0%) 6. Private golf clubs (14.3%) 7. Private schools (14.0%) 8. Homeowners associations/apartment complexes (12.5%) 9. Private dance studios (12.1%) Based on the data available, it’s unclear whether the activities associated with “youth sports associations/ travel sports” were taking place in a public park, or a site owned/managed by an alternative provider.

Barriers to Usage of Parks and Facilities

Residents were asked to identify potential barriers to participation which prevent residents from using the City’s parks and recreation facilities more often. Almost half (47.1%) of respondents indicated that nothing was preventing them from using the City’s parks and facilities more often than they currently do. The most common barrier to usage of the City’s parks and recreation facilities was a lack of awareness of

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

what the park system had to offer, with 26.4% of the respondents indicating that they were either unaware of what was being offered by the Department or were unaware of where parks/facilities were located. what is offered (19.5%). It’s also worth noting that 24.1% of respondents indicated that either the facility quality or level of maintenance were barriers to usage. Following is a complete list of barriers which respondents indicated prevent them from utilizing the City’s parks and recreation FACILITIES: 1. I do not know what is being offered (19.5%) 2. Facilities are not well maintained (12.7%) 3. Other (12.2%) 4. Too far from residence (11.4%) 5. Lack of quality amenities (11.4%) 6. I do not know locations of facilities (6.9%) 7. No bicycle/walking/multipurpose trails (6.8%) 8. Fees are too high (6.5%) 9. Operating hours are not convenient (5.1%) 10. Facility not offered (4.8%) 11. 6HFXULW\ LV LQVXIĆFLHQW

12. Parks are too crowded (3.9%) 13. Lack of parking (2.9%) 14. Access to parks and green space is limited (2.7%) 15. Poor customer service by staff (2.2%) 16. I/we use facilities in other cities (1.8%) RI UHVSRQGHQWV LGHQWLĆHG D EDUULHU QRW OLVWHG on the survey. In total, 116 comments were received, which represented a wide array of other barriers. Common themes within these com-ments included the lack of bathrooms at park sites, personal/ LQGLYLGXDO VFKHGXOLQJ FRQćLFWV DQG RU ODFN RI IUHH time, lack of connectivity, and the condition of facilities.

3.2.3 Amenities Amenities Usage

Respondents were also asked to indicate which amenities – things within parks and/or facilities – they utilized the most frequently over the last 12 months. Over 98% of respondents indicated they had used a City-owned amenity in that timeframe, with the most frequently used amenities included:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Walking and biking trails (70.1%) Playgrounds (51.3%) Nature trails (45.5%) Natural areas (37.1%) Open play areas (33.9%) Ice arena (32.0%) Outdoor pools (32.0%) 6RFFHU ĆHOGV

Picnic shelters (30.1%) Amphitheater/stages/performance areas (29.0%) Community centers (25.3%) Gymnastics center (24.4%) Golf Courses (19.7%) Public art (19.6%) Conference/meeting rooms (18.2%) Softball/baseball diamonds (16.9%) Multi-purpose/event rooms (16.5%) Basketball courts (16.4%) Tennis courts (11.5%) Batting cages (10.0%) 3RQGV ODNHV IRU ĆVKLQJ DQG ERDWLQJ (7.9%) Pickleball courts (5.7%) Other (5.2%) Skate Park (5.0%) Dog park (3.9%) Volleyball courts (3.1%) Footgolf course (2.9%) 5XJE\ ĆHOGV

Do not use any City of Columbus Parks Facilities (1.5%) Handball courts (0.2%)

Amenity Needs

Residents were asked to indicate whether they had a need for various types of parks and recreation amenities (smaller facilities or programmatic areas within park sites), as well as to indicate how well those needs were being met. When all responses were calculated, the following facilities represent those with the greatest percent of respondents indicating that they had a need for a facility or amenity that was at least partially unmet: 1. Bicycle/walking/multipurpose trails (59.5%) 2. Nature trails (59.1%) 3. Indoor pools (48.3%) 4. Nature centers (48.0%) 5. Small neighborhood parks within walking

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

93

distance (47.6%) 6. Farmers’ markets (47.3%) 7. Outdoor swimming pools/water parks (44.8%) 8. Large community parks (43.0%) 9. Picnic shelters (41.3%) 10. Spray/splash pads (40.0%) 11. Performing arts centers (39.8%) 12. 0XOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV JUHHQVSDFH

13. Playgrounds (39.0%) 14. Art Galleries (37.9%) 15. Indoor theater (33.5%) 16. Outdoor jogging track (30.9%) 17. Outdoor amphitheaters (30.5%) 18. Kayak and canoe launches (30.4%) 19. Community gardens (28.7%) 20. Fishing piers (25.6%) 21. Golf course (20.5%) 22. Tennis courts (20.5%) 23. Basketball courts (20.4%) 24. Dog parks (19.2%) 25. Outdoor sand volleyball courts (18.3%) 26. Disc golf courses (17.9%) 27. 6RFFHU ĆHOGV

28. Baseball and softball diamonds (13.5%) 29. Pickleball courts (12.3%) 30. Skate parks (11.9%) Overall, the following facilities/amenities have the highest percentage of respondents indicating that their need for that facility 25% of less met: 1. Spray/splash pads (28.8%) 2. Indoor pools (26.4%) 3. Nature centers (22.0%) 4. Small neighborhood parks within walking distance (21.0%) 5. Art galleries (19.2%) The highest priority facility and amenity needs are those which are needed by the greatest amount of residents (those which have the highest percentage of total need indicated), which also have a high level of unmet need. To help classify high priority needs for facilities and amenities, each facility/amenity was assigned a score. These scores were obtained by adding the total number of respondents who indicated they had an unmet need for that facility/ amenity (A) with the total number of respondents who indicated their need for that facility/amenity

94

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

was met by 25% or less (B), and then subtracting from that subtotal the number of respondents who reported that they did not have a need for that facility/amenity at all (C). Priority Need Score = (A+B)-C Utilizing the above methodology, the top 10 highest priority facility and amenity needs reported by respondents (in order of priority) include: 1. Bicycle/walking/multipurpose trails (544) 2. Nature trails (542) 3. Small neighborhood parks within walking distance (405) 4. Farmers’ markets (389) 5. Indoor pools (331) 6. Large community parks (308) 7. Nature centers (262) 8. Outdoor swimming pools/water parks (213) 9. Picnic shelters (177) 10. Spray/splash pads (172)

3.2.4 Programs Usage

In addition to facilities and amenities, respondents were asked about their preferences and opinions with regard to programs. When looking back over the last 12 months, 58.6% of respondents indicated that they had participated in a program offered by the Department. Of those that participated, 64.7% rated the quality of that program as either good or excellent (46.8% and 17.8% respectively). Approximately a quarter of respondents (25.1%) indicted that they had not participated in a program offered by the Department, and only 1.2% indicated that the quality of the program in which they did participate was “poor.”

Barriers to Usage of Programs

Over half (61.1%) of respondents indicated that there were barriers which prevented them from utilizing the Department’s programs, the most common of which was a lack of awareness of what is currently offered (25.2%). Other common barriers to programs usage included: 1. I do not know what is being offered (25.2%) 2. Program times are not convenient (18.1%)

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Fees are too high (15.5%) Other (10.6%) Program not offered (9.4%) Too far from residence (8.3%) Lack of quality programs (8.2%) Classes are full (7.2%) Facilities are not well maintained (5.2%) I do not know locations of facilities/programs (5.2%) No bicycle/walking/multipurpose trails (4.0%) Poor customer service by staff (2.5%) Access to parks and green space is limited (2.1%) Lack of parking (1.9%) I/we use programs in other cities (1.6%) 6HFXULW\ LV LQVXIĆFLHQW

Program Needs

Residents were asked to indicate whether they had a need for various types of parks and recreation programs, as well as to indicate how well those needs were being met. When all responses were calculated, the following facilities represent those with the greatest percent of respondents indicating that they had a need for a program type that was at least partially unmet: 1. $GXOW ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

2. Community special events (44.6%) 3. Nature programs/environmental education (44.1%) 4. Enrichment classes (sewing, cooking, etc.) (40.0%) 5. Adult art, music, dance, or theater (38.6%) 6. $GXOW ZDWHU ĆWQHVV SURJUDPV

7. Youth art, music, dance, or theater classes (33.2%) 8. Youths sports leagues (32.2%) 9. Volunteer opportunities (31.7%) 10. Swim lessons (30.0%) 11. Wellness screenings (30.0%) 12. History programs (29.8%) 13. Adult sports leagues (28.3%) 14. Camps (27.3%) 15. <RXWK ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

16. Travel programs (26.5%) 17. Programs for pets and owners (24.2%) 18. Fishing and boating programs (23.7%) 19. Birthday parties (21.6%) 20. Community gardening (20.9%)

21. After school programs (16.7%) 22. Programs for people with special needs (13.4%) Overall, the following programs have the highest percentage of respondents indicating that their need for that facility 25% of less met: Nature programs/environmental education (23.6%) $GXOW ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

Enrichment classes (sewing, cooking, etc.) (18.9%) $GXOW ZDWHU ĆWQHVV SURJUDPV

Adult art, music, dance, or theater (16.2%) The highest priority program needs are those which are needed by the greatest number of residents (those which have the highest percentage of total need indicated), which also have a high level of unmet need. To help classify high priority needs for programs, each program type was assigned a score. These scores were obtained by adding the total number of respondents who indicated they had an unmet need for that program (A) with the total number of respondents who indicated their need for that program was met by 25% or less (B), and then subtracting from that subtotal the number of respondents who reported that they did not have a need for that program at all (C). Priority Need Score = (A+B)-C Utilizing the above methodology, the top 10 highest priority program needs reported by respondents (in order of priority) include: 1. $GXOW ĆWQHVV FODVVHV

2. Nature programs/environmental education (142) 3. Community special events (136) 4. Enrichment classes (sewing, cooking, etc.) (39) 5. Adult art, music, dance, or theater (9) 6. $GXOW ZDWHU ĆWQHVV SURJUDPV

7. Volunteer opportunities (-84) 8. Youths sports leagues (-111) 9. Youth art, music, dance, or theater classes (-113) 10. Wellness screenings (-137)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

&RPPXQLW\ 3ULRULWLHV High Priority Actions

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for various “actions� that could be taken by the Department to improve the parks and recreation system in Columbus. Respondents were provided with a list of potential actions (as well as the opportunity to suggest ones which were not included), and asked to indicate their level of support for each action. Following is a list of the most supported potential actions – ranked by their combined percentage of “very supportive� or “somewhat supportive� ratings - that could be taken by the Department, according to respondents: 1. Upgrade/improve EXISTING parks (93.1%) 2. Upgrade/improve EXISTING walking/biking trails (88.9%) 3. Develop/build NEW walking/biking trails (83.9%) 4. Acquire open space for PASSIVE activities (trails, picnicking, etc.) (81.6%) 5. Upgrade/improve EXISTING community centers (78.8%) 6. 8SJUDGH LPSURYH (;,67,1* DWKOHWLF ĆHOGV (75.1%) 7. Develop/build NEW indoor swimming pool (66.5%) 8. Acquire open space for PROGRAMMED activities (soccer, baseball, etc.) (65.2%) 9. Develop/build NEW nature center (52.9%) 10. Develop/build NEW indoor community center/civic center (52.4%) 11. Develop/build NEW performing arts facilities (49.1%) 12. 'HYHORS EXLOG 1(: DWKOHWLF ĆHOGV

13. Develop/build NEW special events rental facilities (48.3%) 14. 'HYHORS EXLOG 1(: ĆVKLQJ SLHUV ZDWHU access points (45.2%) 15. Upgrade/improve EXISTING dog park (37.3%) 16. Develop/build NEW art galleries (36.7%) Following is a list of the least supported actions, as ranked by the percentage of respondents who indicated they would not be supportive of that action: 1. Develop/build NEW art galleries (29.5%) 2. Upgrade/improve EXISTING dog park (28.2%)

96

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

3. 'HYHORS EXLOG 1(: ĆVKLQJ SLHUV ZDWHU access points (24.6%) 4. Develop/build NEW performing arts facilities (21.9%) 5. Develop/build NEW special events rental facilities (21.3%) 6. 'HYHORS EXLOG 1(: DWKOHWLF ĆHOGV

7. Develop/build NEW indoor community center/civic center (18.2%) 8. Develop/build NEW nature center (18.0%) 9. Develop/build NEW indoor swimming pool (15.5%) 10. Acquire open space for PROGRAMMED activities (soccer, baseball, etc.) (12.3%) 11. 8SJUDGH LPSURYH (;,67,1* DWKOHWLF ĆHOGV (7.0%) 12. Develop/build NEW walking/biking trails (6.7%) 13. Acquire open space for PASSIVE activities (trails, picnicking, etc.) (5.9%) 14. Upgrade/improve EXISTING walking/biking trails (4.5%) 15. Upgrade/improve EXISTING community centers (4.0%) 16. Upgrade/improve EXISTING parks (1.8%) Respondents were also asked to indicate the “top three� actions they believed the Department should take, which were as follows: 1. Upgrade existing parks 2. Develop new walking/biking trails 3. Upgrade existing walking/biking trails

Investment Priorities

5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDQN D VHULHV RI ĆYH (5) investment priorities for improving parks and recreation facilities in Columbus. With a weighted average score of 4.2 (out of a possible 5), the highest priority for investment indicated by respondents was for improvements/maintenance to existing parks, trails, and recreation facilities. Following is a complete list of the respondents’ priorities for investment, ranked from highest to lowest, based on the weighted average ranking: 1. Improvements/maintenance to existing parks, trails, and recreation facilities (4.2) 2. Development of walking and biking trails (3.6)

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

3. Acquisition of new park land and open space (2.7) 4. Construction of a new, multi-use community center (2.6) 5. &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI QHZ VSRUWV ĆHOGV VRIWEDOO soccer, baseball, etc.) (2.2)

–

–

3.2.6 Lifestyles + Demographics Respondents were asked a series of demographic and lifestyle preference questions to better correlate the demographic make-up of the respondents with that of the City as a whole. Although the survey was not statistically-valid, the demographic make-up of the respondents was generally similar to that of the larger Columbus populace with regard to age, race, and ethnicity. In contrast, the survey respondents appeared to have a higher than average level of income, and represented a higher ratio of women to men. Respondents were also asked to provide the zip code of their primary residence. A total of 94.5% of respondents indicated that their permanent residence was in either the 47201 or 47203 zip codes, which are the primary zip codes covering the municipal boundaries of the city. The balance of the respondents either lived in the zip codes surrounding the city, or lived outside of the region.

– – –

–

–

3.2.7 Observations After the results from the public opinion survey had been calculated and analyzed, several core observations were made which should help inform the overall needs priorities of the respondents: – In general, respondents view the parks and recreation system in Columbus, in 2016, as good, but not “great.� Respondents indicated that the condition and maintenance of existing facilities was a barrier to increased usage, and that improving existing parks and facilities – as opposed to building new ones – was one of their highest priorities for investment. – Bikeways and trails are one of the most valued and popular amenities in the entire system. They represent the most used amenity type of all H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLWLHV DQG DFFRXQW IRU WZR RXW RI ĆYH

of the top investment priorities (both improving existing trails and building new ones). An obvious common thread between both programs and facilities is that awareness of what is offered is the number one barrier to participation system-wide. The most “popular� park and/or facility sites are Mill Race Park, The Commons, Donner Park, and the People Trail Network. Both Mill Race Park and The Commons are located downtown. Nature programs and experiences are important to residents, and represent a fairly unmet need when compared against the city’s inventory of facilities. Respondents priority program types are largely dependent upon access to indoor facilities. Over 85% of participants indicated that they had utilized an alternative provider within the last 12 months to meet some of their recreation needs. The most common alternative providers which were churches/places of worship, public schools, and youth sports associations. Differentiating and complementing what is offered in the private sector will be important when considering future investments in parks and recreation facilities and programs. Respondents indicated that the “top three� actions they believed the Department should take were (in order of importance), to upgrade existing parks, develop new walking/biking trails, and upgrade existing walking/biking trails The majority of the survey respondents appeared to be current park and recreation system users, with over 98% indicating that they had visited at least one (1) city-owned park or facility in the prior 12 months. It is important therefore to note WKDW WKHVH VXUYH\ ĆQGLQJV PD\ QRW UHSUHVHQW WKH opinions of non-users, who are one of the most GLIĆFXOW JURXSV WR UHDFK ZLWKLQ D SDUN VSHFLĆF planning process.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

97

98

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

A3 ™ level of service analysis

3.3.1 Ensuring Equity The Indiana State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 3ODQ 6&253 GHĆQHV D SDUNV DQG RSHQ VSDFH /HYHO of Service (LOS) analysis as “a process of strategic planning which takes into account the unique aspects of individual communities and measures demand for recreation opportunities, current park and recreation resources, and the needs and preferences of community residentsâ€? (INDNR, 2012). The purpose of the LOS analysis found herein is to attempt to identify gaps in access or equity with regard to parks and open space facilities or amenities. The reasoning behind a LOS analysis is that parks are for the people – all people - and that all people VKRXOG KDYH ĂŞHTXDO RSSRUWXQLW\ĂŤ WR EHQHĆW IURP them (Mertes, 1996). In his book The Excellent City Parks System; What Makes it Great and How to Get There, author Peter Harnik stresses the importance of equity by stating that an “excellent city park system is accessible to everyone regardless of residence, SK\VLFDO DELOLWLHV RU ĆQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV 3DUNV VKRXOG be easily reachable from every neighborhood, usable by the handicapped and challenged, and available to low-income residentsâ€? (Harnik, 2003).

3.3.2 LOS Methodology There are multiple ways to measure LOS from a parks and open space perspective; each of which LV QHFHVVDU\ EXW QRW VXIĆFLHQW DORQH 6LPLODU WR the needs assessment concept of “triangulation� discussed earlier in this section, LOS must also be evaluated from multiple vantage points because there are no concrete standards or guidelines that apply universally to all communities. Addition-ally,

there is no one LOS evaluation technique that is able to account for every variable contributing to accessibility and equity. In the end, it is up to each individual community to decide what role they want their parks to play, and what standards are required to achieve or maintain that standard. All too often, communities rely solely on acreagebased analysis (a ratio of acres per 1,000 population) because it is the most widely referenced and is also the easiest to calculate. Evaluating acreage LOS alone however, does not paint the full picture with regard to equity because it does not take into account quality, amenities present (or lacking), or geographic location. To provide a more comprehensive view of LOS, this section of the master plan will evaluate LOS – at a high level - for both amenities (presence of facilities), and access (geographic distribution of resources), in addition to the traditional LOS for acreage. Amenity LOS is important because not all parks provide users with the same facilities; just because D SDUN LV FODVVLĆHG DV D êUHJLRQDO SDUNÍ GRHV QRW necessarily mean it will have a pool. Therefore, NQRZLQJ RQO\ SDUN DFUHDJH RU FODVVLĆFDWLRQ GRHV not provide an accurate understanding of facility inventory compared against the existing population’s demand for those facilities. Similarly, evaluating access LOS is equally important. If a community has over 100 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents – an exceptionally high LOS – but 95% of those acres are located on one side of the community, is that equitable? Understanding the geographic distribution of facilities and re-sources is key to understanding equity, or lack thereof.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

99

3.3.3 Acreage LOS Acreage LOS evaluates the total amount of park acreage a community has when compared with its current and projected population expressed in acres per 1,000 residents. This technique is often one of the most widely utilized due to its ease of calculation. It is generally regarded that the higher the acreage LOS, the higher the quality of life enjoyed by the community’s residents. Though the previous 2012-2016 City of Columbus Parks Master Plan provides some analysis on their current park acreage, it does not perform an

acreage LOS or provide a benchmark or target LOS. Additionally, the City’s Comprehensive Plan makes no reference to a targeted acreage LOS. The 2016-2020 Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) makes recommendations of 20 acres/1,000 residents on the county-level, but not for individual towns or cities. Based on their calculations using current (at the time of the study) park acreage and 2014 population, Bartholomew County is providing an acreage LOS of 24.9 acres per 1,000 residents; 392 acres more than SCORP’s recommendation. For comparison purposes, only 36 additional counties out of the total 92 are providing

2015 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage Estimated 2015 Populationa

46,690

2016 LOS for Columbus (acres/1,000 residents)

15.0

Acres Needed to Maintain 2016 Population LOS

700.35

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage

Acres

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

702.24

15.0

2

2020 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage Estimated 2020 Populationb

49,413

2016 LOS for Columbus (acres/1,000 residents)

15.0

Acres Needed to Maintain 2016 Population LOS

741.20

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage

Acres

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

702.24

14.2

-39

2030 Level of Service Analysis (LOS) Acreage Estimated 2030 Populationb

55,344

2016 LOS for Columbus (acres/1,000 residents)

15.0

Acres Needed to Maintain 2016 Population LOS

830.16

Community and Neighborhood Park Acreage a

U.S. Census Bureau via American Fact Finder

b

Based on a projected 1.14% annual population increase

Acres

Actual Acres/1000

Surplus/Deficiency

702.24

12.7

-128

Figure 3.6: Acreage LOS chart.

100

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

greater than or equal to 20 acres per 1,000 residents. (IDNR, 2015). Using the latest available population numbers at the time of study, the 2015 acreage LOS for Columbus is approximately 15.0 acres per 1,000 residents. In comparison, the City of Indianapolis was providing an acreage LOS of 13.2 acres/1,000 population in 2014 (Harnik, 2014). For the purposes of analyzing acreage LOS over time, 15.0 acres per 1,000 population was selected as the benchmark in order to determine how many acres would be required to maintain the City’s current acreage LOS as the city’s population continues to increase over the next 5 to 15 years. The population projections utilized for this analysis were extrapolated from data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and indicate that the City’s population is expected to increase by 1.14% annually. Based upon these projections, the city’s acreage LOS will drop from 15.0 acres/1,000 population in 2015 to 12.7 acres/1,000 population in 2030. Based on this analysis, the city will need to acquire approximately 128 additional acres of park land by 2030 to maintain their current acreage LOS.

3.3.4 Amenities LOS Amenity LOS (often also referred to as “facilities LOS�) expresses equal opportunity through the availability of recreation facilities (e.g. basketball courts) within a community when compared with its population (Barth, 2009). In the 1990’s, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) published standards indicating the maximum population served E\ D UHFUHDWLRQ IDFLOLW\ H J RQH EDVHEDOO ĆHOG VHUYHV 10,000 population). These standards were intended WR VHUYH DV D ćH[LEOH EHQFKPDUN KRZHYHU ZHUH blindly adopted by many communities. 1RZ D PRUH FRPPXQLW\ VSHFLĆF DSSURDFK LV often taken when evaluating amenity LOS, with communities determining their own standards based on the vision of their residents, current programming trends, and operational capacity. At the time of this planning process, neither the City, Bartholomew &RXQW\ RU WKH ,QGLDQD 6&253 SURYLGHG VSHFLĆF guidelines on amenity LOS.

In lieu of a local benchmark or requirement, this amenity LOS analysis utilized the median population per facility data as reported in the 2016 NRPA Field Report (NRPA, 2016). This analysis also utilizes the same extrapolated population projections referenced within the acreage LOS analysis. It should also be noted that this is by no means a comprehensive list of facilities, however, the facilities selected were the most applicable to the City of Columbus based on the data available in the 2016 NRPA Field Report. When evaluating Amenity LOS for 2015 population, the city was providing greater than or equal to the recommended amount of facilities per population for every facility type analyzed with the exception of recreation centers (2 needed), gyms (1 needed), and IRRWEDOO ĆHOGV QHHGHG ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKH &LW\ KDV DQ DEXQGDQFH RI VRFFHU ĆHOGV ZKLFK FDQ OLNHO\ IXOĆOO WKH VDPH UHFUHDWLRQ QHHGV DV IRRWEDOO ĆHOGV :KHQ IDFWRULQJ LQ SRSXODWLRQ SURMHFWLRQV for 2020 and 2030, the Amenity LOS indicates an DGGLWLRQDO GHĆFLHQF\ LQ SOD\JURXQGV QHHGHG outdoor swimming pools (1 needed), and outdoor tennis courts (1 needed) by 2030. When facilities from county-owned parks are included into the Amenity LOS, the analysis showed D VXUSOXV RI SOD\JURXQGV VRFFHU ĆHOGV EDVNHWEDOO FRXUWV DQG EDVHEDOO DQG VRIWEDOO ĆHOGV $OWKRXJK facilities in County-owned parks provide residents with access to a wider array of facilities, it should be noted that all outside of the city’s municipal boundary and are may be further away from Columbus residents than what they are willing to drive for that facility type. Based on this amenities LOS analysis, the City should consider adding the following facilities prior to 2030, if population projections are realized: – )RRWEDOO ĆHOGV

– Gymnastics center (1) – Playgrounds (2) – Recreation centers (2) – Swimming pool (1) – Tennis court (1)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

101

Facilities LOS: Columbus Only POPULATION SERVED per c facility

ACTIVITY

Surplus / Deficiency Existing # of Facilities

Population Estimate

b c

b

b

2030

46,690

49,413

55,344

6,599

Baseball Field

9

2

2

1

7,000

Basketball Courts

13

6

6

5

30,000

Community Centers

4

2

2

2

32,376

Community Gardens

4

3

2

2

43,183

Dog Park

1

0

0

0

25,523

Football

0

-2

-2

-2

26,418

Gymnastics Center

1

-1

-1

-1

28,500

Ice Rink

1.5

0

0

0

8,060

Multipurpose Fields

16

10

10

9

Nature Centers

0

0

0

0

3,560

Playground

14

1

0

-2

26,650

Recreation Centers

0

-2

-2

-2

6,671

Soccer Fields

34

27

27

26

9,687

Softball Field

13

8

8

7

34,686

Swimming Pool (Outdoor Only)

1

0

0

-1

4,295

Tennis Court (Outdoor Only)

12

1

0

-1

114,620

a

a

2020

2015

U.S. Census Bureau via American Fact Finder Based on a projected 1.14% annual population increase Based on the "median" population per facility data, 2016 National Recreation and Parks Association Field Report, 2016

)LJXUH )DFLOLWLHV /26 FKDUW UHćHFWLQJ RQO\ &LW\ RZQHG IDFLOLWLHV

102

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Facilities LOS: City + County POPULATION SERVED per c facility

ACTIVITY

Surplus / Deficiency Existing # of Facilities

Population Estimate

2020b

2030b

46,690

49,413

55,344

2015

a

6,599

Baseball Field

14

7

7

6

7,000

Basketball Courts

19

12

12

11

30,000

Community Centers

4

2

2

2

32,376

Community Gardensd

4

3

2

2

43,183

Dog Park

1

0

0

0

25,523

Football

0

-2

-2

-2

26,418

Gymnastics Center

1

-1

-1

-1

28,500

Ice Rink

1.5

0

0

0

16

10

10

9

Nature Centers

0

0

0

0

3,560

Playground

24

11

10

8

26,650

Recreation Centers

0

-2

-2

-2

6,671

Soccer Fields

38

31

31

30

9,687

Softball Field

18

13

13

12

34,686

Swimming Pool (Outdoor Only)

1

0

0

-1

4,295

Tennis Court (Outdoor Only)

12

1

0

-1

8,060 114,620

Multipurpose Fields

d

a

U.S. Census Bureau via American Fact Finder Based on a projected 1.14% annual population increase per U.S. Census Bureau via Esri Community Analyst, 2015 Based on the "median" population per facility data, 2016 National Recreation and Parks Association Field Report, 2016 d No available data for County owned facilties b c

)LJXUH )DFLOLWLHV /26 FKDUW UHćHFWLQJ &LW\ DQG &RXQW\ RZQHG IDFLOLWLHV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

103

Access LOS Methodology

A quantitative approach to parks and recreation level of service is to evaluate LOS through the development RI VSDWLDO ĂŞVHUYLFH DUHDĂŤ JXLGHOLQHV IRU VSHFLĆF SDUN RU amenity types; this technique is referred to as access LOS. These resulting service areas are representative of the true distance, utilizing the existing transportation network, that residents must travel to access a particular type of facility. To complete this analysis, the Department’s existing facilities were mapped in GIS, and then a service area was calculated using Esri’s Network Analyst extension. The resulting “bubbleâ€? indicates which residential areas have access to an individual park or facility-type within the given access LOS standard. The resulting maps also indicate voids in the service areas, helping to indicate where new facilities may need to be located within the city. Approximately 75%-80% of the city’s residential areas are within a one (1) mile service area of a park facility. Different types of facilities necessitate different Access LOS parameters. For example, residents would expect to have to travel further to a regional facility, such as an aquatics center, then they would to a neighborhood-scale amenity like a playground. Taking this into account, the Project Team – in consultation with the Department – assigned each of the city’s primary amenities to one of the following categories, each with its own unique Access LOS parameters:

1HLJKERUKRRG $PHQLWLHV PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD

– 0XOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV JUHHQVSDFH – Playgrounds – Trailheads

There are more park sites that offer neighborhood amenities than either community or special-use. These facilities are evenly distributed throughout the city and provide adequate access to nearly all its residential areas. However, select residential areas to the northeast and those adjacent to Interstate 65 are consistently outside of the service areas. Offering more neighborhood-scale facilities at any of the existing parks located in the northeastern portion of WKH FLW\ VXFK DV 1RUWKEURRN 3DUN ZRXOG KHOS WR ĆOO LQ

104

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

voids in access for those areas. Neighborhood Needs Based on this analysis, the city may need to provide an increased distribution of the following neighborhoodscale amenities. – Multi-purpose greenspaces – Playgrounds – Trailheads

&RPPXQLW\ $PHQLWLHV PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD

– – – – – – – – – –

Baseball diamonds Basketball courts Community rooms Golf courses Pickleball courts Rugby 6RFFHU ĆHOGV Softball diamonds Tennis courts Volleyball courts

Given the larger service area of community amenities, the presence of one amenity location provides can provide access for as much as half of the city’s residential areas. When there are multiple facilities of the same facility type, the overwhelming majority of the city’s residential areas have access. Community Needs Based on this analysis, the city may need to provide an increased distribution of the following communityscale amenities. – Baseball diamonds – Community rooms – Golf courses – Pickleball courts – 5XJE\ ĆHOG – 6RFFHU ĆHOGV – Softball diamonds – Volleyball courts

6SHFLDO 8VH $PHQLWLHV PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD

– – – – – – –

Boat Ramp Community Center Dog Park Fishing Gymnastic Center Ice Rink Pools (indoor and outdoor)

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

– Indoor recreation centers – Senior Center – Skate parks 0RVW VSHFLDO XVH IDFLOLWLHV SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV to the majority of the city’s residential areas, with only the neighborhoods west of Interstate 65 falling outside of the service area for a few facility types. A notable exception is city-owned recreation centers, none of which currently exist, and consequently present the largest gap in access. 6SHFLDO 8VH 1HHGV Based on this analysis, the city may need to provide an increased distribution of the following special-use facilities. – Community centers – Dog parks – Gymnastics centers – Ice rinks – Pools – Indoor recreation and community centers – Skate parks )ROORZLQJ LV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH $FFHVV /26 ĆQGLQJV IRU each of these facilities.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

0XOWL SXUSRVH )LHOGV

Public Parks:

Facility Type: Neighborhood Service Area: 1 mile Summary:

0XOWL SXUSRVH JUHHQVSDFHV å ćH[LEOH JUHHQVSDFHV large enough to throw a baseball - exist on sixteen (16) different park sites distributed evenly throughout the city. Minor gaps in access occur along the Haw Creek and Sloan Branch Stream corridors and in some of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to Interstate 65.

106

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

1. Amberly Park 2. Blackwell Park 3. Clifty Park 4. Donner Park Eighth Street Park 6. Everroad Park 7. Harrison Ridge Park 8. Lincoln Park 9. McCullough’s Run Park 10. Mead Village Park 11. Mill Race Park 12. Morningside Park 13. Noblitt Park 14. Oakbrook Park Pence Street Park 16. Richards School Park

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

)LJXUH $FFHVV /26 PDS LOOXVWUDWLQJ D PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ PXOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

107

Playgrounds

Public Parks:

Facility Type: Neighborhood Service Area: 1 mile Summary:

There are thirteen (13) park sites that provide playgrounds, most of which are located south of State Road 31 and east of Flatrock River. Consequently, WKRVH DUHDV GHSLFW KDYLQJ VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV ZKLOH the neighborhoods to the north-east of the city and adjacent to Interstate 65 are outside of a one (1) mile service area from existing playground facilities.

108

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Blackwell Park Clifty Park The Commons Donner Park Foundation for Youth Harrison Ridge Park Lincoln Park McCullough’s Run Park Mill Race Park Morningside Park Ninth Street Park Oakbrook Park Pence Street Park

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.10: Access LOS map illustrating a 1-mile service area from all existing playgrounds.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

109

Trailheads

Public Parks:

Facility Type: Neighborhood Service Area: 1 mile Summary:

Eleven (11) park sites include a trailhead, which for the SXUSRVHV RI WKLV PDVWHU SODQ LV GHĆQHG DV D SXEOLF SDUN site that provides parking adjacent to a People Trail. Gaps in access occur in the northeastern portions of the city, neighborhoods along Haw Creek south of the Greenbelt Golf Course, and neighborhoods adjacent to I-65.

110

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Blackwell Park Clifty Park Dog Park Donner Park Eighth Street Park Everroad Park Harrison Ridge Park Lincoln Park Mill Race Park Noblitt Park Oakbrook Park

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.11: Access LOS map illustrating a 1-mile service area from all existing trailheads.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

111

Baseball Diamonds

Public Parks: 1. Clifty Park

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

Despite having nine (9) baseball diamonds within the city, Clifty Park is the only park site that offers them. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service area, only WKH QHLJKERUKRRGV WR WKH VRXWKHDVW KDYH VXIĆFLHQW access within the given analysis parameters.

112

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.12: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing baseball diamonds.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

113

Basketball Courts

Public Parks:

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

Basketball courts are located at eleven (11) different park sites that are evenly disturbed throughout the city. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service DUHD DOO UHVLGHQWLDO DUHDV KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR basketball courts.

114

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Blackwell Park Donner Park Foundation for Youth Harrison Ridge Park Lincoln Park Mead Village Park Mill Race Park Morningside Park Ninth Street Park Oakbrook Park Pence Street Park

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.13: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing basketball courts.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Community Rooms

Public Parks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

There are four (4) park sites that provide community URRPV ZKLFK WRJHWKHU SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR the majority of the residential areas east of I-65. The residential areas west of I-65 and those near the Walesboro Airport site are currently outside of a 3-mile service area for existing community rooms.

116

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The Commons Donner Center Foundation for Youth Hamilton Community Center & Ice Arena

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.14: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing community rooms.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

117

Public Golf Courses

Public Parks: 1. Greenbelt Golf Course 2. Par 3 Golf Course

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

There are two (2) municipal golf courses within the city. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service DUHD WKHVH WZR IDFLOLWLHV SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR the residential areas east of Flatrock River. Residential areas west of the river are outside of a 3-mile service area for existing facilities.

118

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.15: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing public golf courses.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

119

Pickleball Courts

Public Parks: 1. Donner Park

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

At the time of the analysis, Donner Park was the only park site that provided pickleball courts. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service area, the residential areas to the northeast, and those west of I-65 are outside of the service area for existing facilities.

120

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.16: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing pickleball courts.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

121

Rugby Fields

Public Parks: 1. Blackwell Park

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

7KHUH LV RQH UXJE\ ĆHOG ZLWKLQ WKH FLW\ ORFDWHG at Blackwell Park. Residential areas located in the QRUWKHUQ SRUWLRQ RI WKH FLW\ KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV IRU this facility type while those to the east, south, and west are outside of the service area.

122

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

)LJXUH $FFHVV /26 PDS LOOXVWUDWLQJ D PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ UXJE\ ĆHOGV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

123

Soccer Fields

Public Parks: 1. Blackwell Park

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

:KLOH WKHUH DUH PXOWLSOH VRFFHU ĆHOGV DYDLODEOH ZLWKLQ the city, they are all located at Blackwell Park or the Dick Wigh Soccer Complex. As a result, the residential areas located in the northern portion of the city have VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR WKH ĆHOGV ZKLOH WKH UHVLGHQWLDO areas to the east, south, and west are outside of the three (3) mile service area.

124

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

)LJXUH $FFHVV /26 PDS LOOXVWUDWLQJ D PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ VRFFHU ĆHOGV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Softball Diamonds

Public Parks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

Clifty Park Eighth Street Park (backstop only) Lincoln Park Noblitt Park (backstops only)

There are four (4) park sites that provide a total of 10 softball diamonds. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service area, these existing facilities provide VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH UHVLGHQWLDO areas east of I-65. The largest gap in access occurs with the neighborhoods west of Interstate 65, which are currently underserved for this facility type.

126

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.19: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing softball diamonds.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

127

Tennis Courts

Public Parks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

Donner Park Harrison Ridge Park Lincoln Park Richards School Tennis Courts

There are existing tennis courts at four (4) different park sites, which evenly distributed throughout the city. Consequently, approximately all residential areas KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR D WHQQLV FRXUW ZKHQ HYDOXDWHG with a three (3) mile service area.

128

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.20: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing tennis courts.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

129

Volleyball Courts

Public Parks: 1. Clifty Park

Facility Type: Community Service Area: 3 miles Summary:

Clifty Park is the only park site which provides residents with access to outdoor volleyball courts. When evaluated with a three (3) mile service area, the residential areas in the southeastern portion of the FLW\ KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV ZKLOH WKRVH WR WKH QRUWK and west are outside of the service area of existing facilities.

130

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.21: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing volleyball courts.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

131

Boat Ramps

Public Parks: 1. Mill Race Park

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

Mill Race Park is the only park site to provide boat UDPS DFFHVV :KHQ HYDOXDWHG ZLWK D ĆYH PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD WKLV SDUN SURYLGHV VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR DOO existing residential areas.

132

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.22: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing boat ramps.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

133

Community Centers

Public Parks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

There are four (4) park sites that provide a community FHQWHU :KHQ HYDOXDWHG DW D ĆYH PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD WKHVH IRXU SDUN VLWHV SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR nearly all residential areas, except for a a portion of the residential areas west of I-65.

134

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The Commons Donner Center Foundation for Youth Hamilton Community Center Ice Arena

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.23: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing community centers.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Dog Parks

Public Parks: 1. Dog Park

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

There is one (1) dog park located within the city. 7KLV SDUN VLWH SURYLGHV VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR DOO neighborhoods located east of Interstate 65 while residential areas to the west of the interstate are outside of the level of service area.

136

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.24: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing dog parks.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

137

Fishing

Public Parks: 1. Mill Race Park 2. Oakbrook Park

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

Two (2) park sites within the city offer residents access WR ĆVKLQJ DUHDV 7KHVH VLWHV RIIHU DPSOH DFFHVV WR WKH majority of the residential areas within the city when HYDOXDWHG ZLWK D ĆYH PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD

138

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

)LJXUH $FFHVV /26 PDS LOOXVWUDWLQJ D PLOH VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ ĆVKLQJ ORFDWLRQV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

139

Gymnastics Centers

Public Parks: 1. Foundation for Youth

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

The Foundation for Youth (FFY) facility is the city’s primary destination for gymnastics, and provides VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR PRVW UHVLGHQWLDO DUHDV LQ WKH FLW\ apart from a few areas west of I-65.

140

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.26: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing public gymnastics centers.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

141

Indoor Ice Rinks

Public Parks: 1. Hamilton Community Center Ice Arena

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

The only ice rink in the city is located at the Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena within Lincoln Park. This location provides ample access for all residential areas east of Interstate 65, while those west of the interstate are all outside of the service area.

142

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.27: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor ice rinks.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

143

Pools (Indoor & Outdoor)

Public Parks: 1. Donner Aquatics Center 2. Foundation for Youth

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

There are two (2) park sites that offer pool access (one indoor and one outdoor). Collectively, these sites SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR PRVW UHVLGHQWLDO DUHDV LQ the city apart from portions of the neighborhoods west of I-65.

144

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.28: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor and outdoor pools.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Indoor Recreation + Community Centers

Public Parks: –

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV

(none)

Summary:

Currently, there are no city-owned recreation centers within the city, and therefore, no residential areas KDYH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV ZLWKLQ WKH VHOHFWHG VHUYLFH DUHD parameters.

146

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.29: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor recreation and community centers.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

147

Senior Centers

Public Parks: 1. Mill Race Center

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

There is one (1) senior center within the city located at Mill Race Center. This membership-based facility is owned by the City of Columbus, however, is not managed by the Department. Regardless of RZQHUVKLS WKLV FHQWHU SURYLGHV VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR DOO UHVLGHQWLDO DUHDV ZKHQ HYDOXDWHG ZLWK D ĆYH PLOH service area.

148

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.30: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing senior centers.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

149

Skate Parks

Public Parks: 1. Clifty Park

)DFLOLW\ 7\SH 6SHFLDO 8VH 6HUYLFH $UHD PLOHV Summary:

There is one (1) skate park within the city, which is ORFDWHG DW &OLIW\ 3DUN 7KLV IDFLOLW\ SURYLGHV VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV WR D VLJQLĆFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH H[LVWLQJ residential areas within the city, however, those to the far west and northwest are outside of the service area.

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

Figure 3.31: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing skate parks.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Image: CPRD, 2017.

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

3.4

summary of needs + priorities

3.4.1 Key Findings

,QWHUPHGLDWH 3ULRULW\ 1HHGV

After the completion of the existing conditions analysis DQG WKH QHHGV DVVHVVPHQW SURFHVVHV WKH NH\ ĆQGLQJV of the ten (10) individual analysis and engagement techniques were analyzed cumulatively. Using the SURFHVV RI WULDQJXODWLRQ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG E\ WKH greatest number of individual analysis techniques represent the highest priorities for the City to address within this plan.

,Q DGGLWLRQ D QXPEHU RI QHHGV ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG DV intermediate priorities. Many of these needs have some degree of overlap with the high priority needs mentioned above, and should also be considered when solutions are crafted to address the high priority needs.

It should be noted that other valid “needs� may exist outside of this grouping, however, based on this SURFHVV DUH QRW VXIĆFLHQWO\ TXDQWLĆDEOH DW WKLV SRLQW LQ time to necessitate specialized focus.

+LJK 3ULRULW\ 1HHGV Based on this planning process and methodology, the following were the high priority needs selected to be addressed with the greatest degree of detail within the Master Plan Vision (Part 4 of this report). The number following each need indicates the percentage of total DQDO\VLV WHFKQLTXHV ZKLFK LGHQWLĆHG WKDW SDUWLFXODU need or priority. 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7.

,QWHUPHGLDWH QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG LQFOXGHG 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

)OH[LEOH PXOWL SXUSRVH IDFLOLWLHV

Improved outreach and promotion (30%) ,PSURYHG VLJQDJH DQG ZD\ĆQGLQJ

Pools (indoor and outdoor) (30%) Pickleball courts (30%) Senior programs + events (30%)

Indoor recreation + community centers (70%) Bikeways and trails (60%) Natural experiences + programs (60%) $GGLWLRQDO SDUNV DQG JUHHQVSDFHV

,QGRRU UHFUHDWLRQ SURJUDPV

*ROI FRXUVHV DQG SURJUDPV

Improvements to existing facilities (40%)

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES Q

PRIORITY NEEDS

HIGHEST PRIORITY )LJXUH &KDUW LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKH KLJKHVW SULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES Q

PRIORITY NEEDS

INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY

)LJXUH &KDUW LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKH LQWHUPHGLDWH SULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part three : needs + priorities assessment

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

PRIORITY NEEDS

LOWER PRIORITY

)LJXUH &KDUW LOOXVWUDWLQJ WKH ORZHU SULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

04 master plan vision

Image: CPRD, 2017.

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.1

visioning process

4.1.1 Purpose of a "Vision"

4.1.2 Visioning Workshop

The vision articulated herein represents the long-range direction, goals, and aspirations of the City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Department which are intent on PHHWLQJ WKH KLJK SULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKLV planning process. This vision, anchored in community engagement and consensus, shall serve as the decisionmaking framework for prioritizing investment in the City’s parks and recreation facilities, amenities, and SURJUDPV RYHU WKH QH[W ĆYH \HDUV DQG EH\RQG

The foundation for this visioning effort was established in a collaborative workshop setting where the Project Team, the Department, representatives from the City government, key project stakeholders, and the general public had the opportunity to weigh in on strategies to DGGUHVV WKH KLJK SULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG LQ 3DUW RI this report.

The engagement and analysis processes preceding this chapter revealed a parks system in limbo between “good� and “great.� In general, it was evident that many of the project stakeholders and workshop participants viewed the parks and recreation system as critically important to the quality of life of city residents, KRZHYHU DOVR DJUHHG WKDW WKHUH DUH VLJQLĆFDQW DUHDV IRU improvement. For example, the majority of the city’s existing parks are older, with facilities and amenities starting to reach the end of their lifecycles. In addition, the design, amenities, and programs associated with ROGHU SDUNV PD\ QRW UHćHFW WKH QHHGV RI FXUUHQW residents. The purpose of this vision is to provide a roadmap for the Department that helps to ensure that every dollar invested in parks and recreation in Columbus in the years to come is helping to move the system from “good to great!� This vision will need to be periodically recalibrated based on unforeseen changes in the system, progress on recommended initiatives, available funding, and/or changes in community needs and priorities.

The Master Plan Visioning Workshop was held on June 7th, 2017, at the Donner Center in Columbus. The workshop was publicly advertised by the Department, in accordance with City ordinances associated with meeting advertisement. Announcements were sent out to the general public in advance via a variety of media – both hard-copy and digital – including the Department’s social media page(s), the project webpage, hard copy notices, and email blasts. The Visioning Workshop began in the morning with D SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH ĆQGLQJV IURP WKH ([LVWLQJ Conditions Analysis and Needs Assessment by the Project Team to the Department and key project VWDNHKROGHUV 7KH ĆQGLQJV IURP WKHVH SURFHVVHV served to organize the discussion which followed. The remainder of the Visioning Workshop was spent in a charrette-style setting where the Project Team worked hand-in-hand with the participants to develop high-level solutions that endeavored to meet the highSULRULW\ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG The workshop concluded with a public open house in the evening, where the general public was invited to come and review the progress and provide critical input to the Project Team that would help establish the Vision for this plan.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

In total, 37 people participated in the Visioning Workshop and its associated community open house, representing the following community organizations: – Columbus Parks and Recreation Department – Columbus Parks Board – Columbus Park Foundation – Columbus Planning Department – Columbus Regional Health – Foundation For Youth – Healthy Communities – ColumBike – DLZ Architects and Engineers – Columbus Pickleball Club – Columbus East Dog Park – Mom’s Club – Columbus City Council – Snider Recreation The agendas, sign-in sheets, and presentations from the Visioning Workshop and Open House can be found in Section 6.7 of the Appendix.

4.1.3 Vision Framework The feedback obtained during the Visioning Workshop established a framework for the Project Team to IXUWKHU UHĆQH DQG GHYHORS DQG XOWLPDWHO\ LQIRUPHG D series of vision subsystems; categorical groupings of aligned recommendations and initiatives designed to meet high priority needs: 1. 2. 3. 4.

New Park Spaces Indoor Recreation Bikeways + Trails Natural Areas + Experiences Improving the Existing System

Each of these subsystems, and their associated recommendations, will be discussed in detail in the sections to follow.

Figure 4.1: Stakeholder visioning workshop participants.

160

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Figure 4.2: Community visioning workshop participants.

Figure 4.3: Community visioning workshop participants.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

161

Image: CPRD, 2017.

162

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.2

guiding principles, goals, + objectives

4.2.1 Embracing the Role of Parks in the 21st Century A community’s investment in parks – both existing and new – is critically important because there is now, as parks advocates have long preached anecdotally, a TXDQWLĆDEOH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ D FRPPXQLW\èV SDUN system (in both size and quality), and its overall quality of life, sustainability, and economic capacity. Parks are critical infrastructure; just as much as quality roads, schools, and utilities, and serve as the “gatekeeper” to a community’s quality of life. The old model of parks – one where the biggest decisions park directors cared to champion was whether to purchase a blue or green playground – is dead. Parks today are immeasurably more complex, and are being asked by their leaders and constituents to do more than merely provide places for play and recreation, as critically important as those activities are. In addition, today’s parks are being asked to directly and quantitatively impact community health, social equity, sustainability, and economic development, to name only a few. Gone also is the model through which parks facilities and services are being funded and delivered. In the past, many parks departments across the U.S. existed as municipal subsidies, relying solely (or at least largely) on the general fund for both operational and capital dollars. Today, communities must embrace a more progressive model of service delivery; one in which both public sector and private sector collaboratively increase community-wide quality of life through the support and development of their most important economic, environmental, and social tools: parks!

'HĆQLQJ D VW &HQWXU\ 3DUN Following are seven (7) overarching principles of the “21st Century Parks “model described above, which Columbus should seek to emulate in both existing and future parks and facilities.

The 21st Century Park must be…. ðćH[LEOH

3DUNV WKDW KDYH DQ LQWHQWLRQDOO\ êćH[LEOHë GHVLJQ DQG program are able to adapt different trends in both usage and desired activities over time, allowing the park the ability to stay consistently activated year after year.

…interconnected!

Parks must be interconnected, by multiple modes of transport, between other parks and facilities in the system, key community destinations (e.g. downtown), and the community’s residential areas. 21st Century Parks aren’t satellites, but rather, woven into the fabric – and infrastructure – of the community.

ðPXOWL JHQHUDWLRQDO

Parks aren’t just for kids! The design and program of a park space must appeal to a wide spectrum of ages, abilities, and ethnicities to be consistently activated. 21st Century Parks blend interactions between these diverse user groups, as well as provide opportunities IRU DJH VSHFLĆF OHLVXUH DQG UHFUHDWLRQ

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

163

Ă°PXOWL VHDVRQDO

Parks should be as consistently activated year-round as possible. 21st Century Parks anticipate and help facilitate “off-season� usage through the inclusion of ZLQWHU VSHFLĆF IDFLOLWLHV DQG VHDVRQDO SURJUDPV DQG events.

‌activated and engaging!

The 21st Century Park must facilitate a wide array of GLIIHUHQW DFWLYLWLHV ZLWKRXW FRPSURPLVLQJ WKH ćH[LELOLW\ of the park space. There should be “something for everyoneâ€? to do, especially at the city’s most popular park sites. Some amenities may be provided outright (such as pickleball), while others are self-directed and WDNH SODFH LQ RQH RI WKH PDQ\ êćH[ĂŤ DUHDV RI WKH SDUN (bocce ball, slacklining, picnicking, pick-up games, etc.).

‌integrated with technology!

Like it or not, mobile technology is here to stay and the design and program of 21st Century Parks must embrace it in order to stay relevant. 21st century parks should anticipate the users’ desire for a different type of “connectivity� by providing Wi-Fi hotspots, VR-based interpretative experiences, online park/trail maps, real-time event announcements, and park (or SDUN V\VWHP VSHFLĆF PRELOH DSSOLFDWLRQV 7KH 1R barrier preventing greater usage of many parks and programs is a generalized lack of what there is to do, when, and where; the effective use of technology can help mitigate this barrier.

ðDEOH WR \LHOG PXOWLSOH EHQHĆWV EH\RQG play and recreation!

The value of parks and greenspaces extends well beyond play alone, as important as play is. A community’s investment in parks – both existing and new – is critically important because there is now, as parks advocates have long preached anecdotally, D TXDQWLĆDEOH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ D FRPPXQLW\èV park system (in both size and quality), and its overall quality of life, sustainability, and economic capacity. Parks also have the ability to directly impact public health, increase social equity, serve as conduits for social services and education, reduce pollution and congestion, treat and hold stormwater, and to serve as catalysts for investment and redevelopment (to name only a few)!

164

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

4.2.3 Mission of the Parks Department The Mission of the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department is to enrich lives and build community. A NH\ GHĆQLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKLV PLVVLRQ LV WKH IRFXV on providing and facilitating community recreation ĆUVW DQG DWKOHWLF FRPSHWLWLRQ VHFRQG 7KH IDFLOLWLHV programs, and services provided by the Department PXVW HTXLWDEO\ UHćHFW WKH QHHGV DQG SULRULWLHV RI WKH community as a whole, and not succumb to meeting the needs of only the loudest, most vocal voices. A key point of discussion during the early phases of WKH YLVLRQLQJ SURFHVV ZDV DQ HIIRUW WR EHWWHU GHĆQH WKH Department’s role in the future of sports tourism in Columbus. As has been previously noted, Columbus has historically supported regional sports tourism – hosting sporting events which draw outside visitors to visit and spend money in Columbus - as an economic development tool. The Columbus Area Visitors Center (CAVC) Sports Council commissioned a study in early 2017 to help inform the future viability of this approach. The study concluded that sports tourism was a viable economic development tool in Columbus and should continue to be pursued despite challenges associated with venue availability and regional competition. The study also recommended multiple capital projects which would be needed to maximize the value of the larger sports tourism strategy. It is not the intent of this master planning process to HLWKHU YHW RU YDOLGDWH WKH ĆQGLQJV RI WKDW VWXG\ EXW rather to apply the comprehensive needs and priorities LGHQWLĆHG ZLWKLQ WKLV SURFHVV WR EHWWHU GHĆQH WKH Department’s role in supporting sports tourism. It is possible that some of the study’s recommendations ü VSHFLĆFDOO\ WKRVH UHODWHG WR LQGRRU IDFLOLWLHV PD\ EH PXWXDOO\ EHQHĆFLDO WR WKH 'HSDUWPHQW LQ KHOSLQJ WR PHHW WKH QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG ZLWKLQ WKLV PDVWHU SODQ process, however, any partnership and/or joint-use agreement between the Department and the CAVC (or other sports tourism partners) should ensure that the general public will have adequate and equitable access to the facilities that their tax dollars are helping to fund.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Any facilities developed primarily to support sports tourism should be funded and maintained by the CAVC and/or other community partners rather than by the Department so as not to impede the Department’s DELOLW\ WR SURYLGH WKH FLW\èV UHVLGHQWV ZLWK VXIĆFLHQW DQG equitable access to quality recreation-based facilities, programs, and events.

The Mission of the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department is to enrich lives and build community $ NH\ GHĆQLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLF of this mission is the focus on providing and IDFLOLWDWLQJ FRPPXQLW\ UHFUHDWLRQ ĆUVW DQG DWKOHWLF FRPSHWLWLRQ VHFRQG 7KH IDFLOLWLHV SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV SURYLGHG E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW PXVW HTXLWDEO\ UHćHFW WKH QHHGV DQG SULRULWLHV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ DV D ZKROH DQG not succumb to meeting the needs of only the ORXGHVW PRVW YRFDO YRLFHV

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

166

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.3

new park spaces

4XDQWLI\LQJ WKH 1HHG

4.3.2 Develop Currently Owned Parcels

The needs assessment revealed that if projections of future population increase are realized, the Department will need to acquire approximately 128 acres of additional, developed park land by 2030 to maintain its current level of service (approximately 15 acres per 1,000 residents).

During the visioning process, the Project Team worked with the Department and project stakeholders to determine high-level strategies to start addressing the need for additional developed park land proactively DQG LQFUHPHQWDOO\ 7KH ĆUVW DQG RIWHQ IDVWHVW VWHS WR increasing park acreage is to program/build-out the undeveloped parcels of land already owned by either the Department, the City, and/or the Columbus Park Foundation, which include: – SR-46 Park Foundation parcels (155 acres - see Section 4.6) – Northbrook Park (52 acres) – 8th Street (No Name) Park and Park Maintenance Facility (28.8 acres) – Amberly Park (adjacent to Clifty Park) (17 acres see Section 4.6) – Proposed Haw Creek Park Greenway (16.1 acres) – Everroad Park (25 acres) – Former Wastewater Treatment Site (61.4 acres)

It should be noted that the acreage for Amberly Park, Northbrook Park, 8th Street Park, and Everroad Park (all of which are currently unprogrammed and together total approximately 110.5 acres) was included within the 2017 Acreage LOS total, as these properties were actively maintained by the Department and/or contained a trail segment at the time of the study. As such, the acquisition of 128 acres of new park land is in addition to the development/programming of these existing 110 acres.

Together, these parcels represent approximately 355 acres of potential additional park land readily available for development. Note: the acreage for each of the parcels and/or groupings of parcels was derived either from data provided to the 3URMHFW 7HDP E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW DQG RU SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH GIS data. When GIS data was utilized, the acreage was determined by using the parcel’s legal acreage or calculated acreage, whichever was larger.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

167

NORTHBROOK PARK CLA

IR

N MO

TD

RIV

E

PAR PA RK K EN NT TRA AN NC CE CE FU F UTU TURE UR RE E COMMU OM O MM MU UN NIITY TY PARK PA RK R K SPA ACE CE W HA

CR

EE

K

FU UTU TUR RE E NEI EIGH IGH GHBO ORH RHOO OOD PA P ARK RK SPA AC CE E

ROCKY F

A NM

RR

AD RO

ORD R OAD

Figure 4.4: Aerial image illustrating the location of Northbrook Park (Aerial: Google, 2017).

EVERROAD PARK

N O RT NO TH HB B RO O OK O K PAR ARK ARK

OP P EN FAR A RM M LA LAND ND

N

NA TI

W HA

O

NA

E CR

LR

EK

OA

D

T T ET TRE H S TR 25TH 25T

Figure 4.5: Aerial image illustrating the location of Everroad Park (Aerial: Google, 2017).

168

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

FORMER WASTEWATER PLANT SITE M LL MI L RA AC CE PA ARK RK

JA ACKSON

ST

DOWNTOWN

FL F LA LAT AT T TRO RO R OCK CK RIVE RI RIVE ER NA N ATU TURA RAL AR REA A

CE C ENT NTRA RA AL MI M DD DLE E SC CHO OOL OL

CUMM CU MM MIN NS

TH T HE C CO OMM M ON ONS EK CRE HAWENWAY GRE SR-

CITY HAL CI ALL LL WAT W WA A AT TER ER S ST T

46 R-46 SR

FL

AT RO C

K

RI

VE

46

R

FO ORM RMER ER WAS ASTE TE TEWA EWA WATE WATE ER TR T REA EATM TMEN ENT TP PL LAN NT SIITE TE

Figure 4.6: Aerial image illustrating the location of the former wastewater treatment plant site (Aerial: Google, 2017).

8TH STREET PARK NOBL NO LIT ITT TT PA ARK RK

CK JA SO N ST RE ET

IN DI

CK RO T A FL

R VE

RI

AN AP O LI SR D

MIILL M L RAC CE P RK PA R

CP C PRD RD MAIN MA NT TE EN NA AN NC CE FA ACI C LI LIT TY Y

ST

SE ND LI

MILL LL RAC A E STAT ST ATIO ION IO N

WN

MIILL M L RACE ACE AC CENT NTER NT R

BRO

Y

ST

11T 1 1T TH STRE TR ET TR ET

Figure 4.7: Aerial image illustrating the location of 8th Street Park (Aerial: Google, 2017).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

169

4.3.3 The Flatrock River Park Corridor

Greenways and Blueways

One of the most compelling long-range opportunities LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKLV SODQQLQJ SURFHVV ZDV WKH potential to create a contiguous riverfront park corridor along Flatrock River, extending from Water Street south of downtown north to Donner Park. If fully developed and connected, this corridor represents approximately 466 acres of contiguous public park land composed of the following existing parcels (from south to north) already owned by the City of Columbus and/ or the Columbus Park Foundation: – Former Wastewater Treatment Site (61.4 acres) – SR-46 Greenway (72 acres) – SR-46 Park Foundation Parcels (155 acres) – Tipton Park (0.1 acres) – Mill Race Park/Mill Race Center (83 acres) – 8th Street (No Name) Park and Park Maintenance Facility (28.8 acres) – Park Maintenance Facility site (12.5 acres) – Noblitt Park (46 acres) – Donner Park (32 acres)

1HZ ([LVWLQJ 0L[HG 8VH DQG 5HVLGHQWLDO Developments

Of these parcels, 8th Street Park represents the most VLJQLĆFDQW LPPHGLDWH RSSRUWXQLW\ DV LW LV WKH RQO\ parcel separating Noblitt Park from Mill Race Park to the south. It should be noted that as of 2017, Donner Park, Noblitt Park, Mill Race Park, and the Mill Race Center were fully developed, however, managed and programmed as individual properties. Additionally, the development RI D ĆYH EORFN RII VWUHHW SHGHVWULDQ FRUULGRU DORQJ 17th Street would be required to link Donner Park and the existing People Trail west to Noblitt Park (see Section 4.5 for additional detail).

4.3.4 Acquire Additional Acreage Over time, as the city continues to grow, it is likely that the Department will need to proactively acquire additional park land beyond what is currently owned. The acquisition of new park land should be focused in DUHDV H[SHULHQFLQJ VLJQLĆFDQW UHVLGHQWLDO JURZWK DQG within the following:

170

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The City should proactively acquire additional park land adjacent to its waterways, especially any land WKDW LV ZLWKLQ WKH ćRRGSODLQ 7DUJHW JURZWK DUHDV IRU further exploration include the approximately 200 acres of land currently owned by the mine operator along the northern stretch of the Flatrock River and the approximately 145 acres of undeveloped/vacant land between Northbrook Park and Everroad Park along the Haw Creek.

Any time there is a new mixed-use or residential GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYHG WKH &LW\ VKRXOG ĆUVW ZRUN ZLWK the developer to ensure that appropriate, meaningful greenspaces are provided within the development that help meet the daily recreation and open space needs of its future residents. Examples of potential future growth and/or redevelopment areas include: Columbus Municipal Airport Mixed-Use Development – Blackwell Park could be expanded by 12-27 acres onto land owned by the Columbus Board of Aviation Commissioners to the north as part of a larger mixedused development. This land would be an ideal location IRU DGGLWLRQDO ĆHOGV RI SOD\ WKDW FRXOG KHOS PHHW WKH VSRUWV WRXULVP QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG E\ WKH &$9& DV ZHOO DV neighborhood-scale recreation amenities to serve the future mixed-use development. Shadow Creek Farms Park - Given the relatively small number of parks and recreation facilities located west of I-65, it will be critical that the Department look for additional park land in this area of the city. During the Visioning Workshop, participants discussed the potential of “acquiring� the existing recreation space within the Shadow Creek Farms residential development (located southwest of the intersection of I-65 and W 200 S). This approximately 25-acre parcel contains a large DPRXQW RI ćH[LEOH JUHHQVSDFH VRPH QDWXUDO DUHDV D UHWHQWLRQ SRQG VRFFHU ĆHOG DQG EDVHEDOO VRIWEDOO backstop. In addition, there are approximately 4,500 feet of paved walking trails. A small, paved parking area

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

SHADOW CREEK FARMS PARK W 200 200 00 S

65

SH S HAD A OW W CRE REEK REEK EK FAR ARMS RM MS S N IG NE IGHB GHB BOR ORHO RHO HOOD OD

STA TE ER INT

PA R

S 22

5W

DU UK KE E ENERG NE ER RG GY DENO DE OIS S CRE EEK SUBS SU UBSTA BS STA TATI T ON O

MID MI MID DDL DLE LE L E VI VIEW W DR DR

K

VI

EW

DR

IV

E

FUTU FU TURE TU R RES SIID DEN NTI TIAL A AL NE NEIG EIG GHBOR HB BOR O HO OOD OD EXPA EXPA EX PANS N IO NS ION N

Figure 4.8: Aerial image illustrating the approximate location of the proposed Shadow Creek Farms Park (Aerial: Google, 2017).

is provided towards the southern end of Park View Drive. This “private� park space is currently owned/ managed by the residential community. Walesboro Airport Mixed-Use Development - At the time of this study, the City had been exploring various proposals to redevelop the abandoned Walesboro Airport property into a mixed-use commerce center. Given this property’s isolated location in the far southern portion of the city where no parks or recreation facilities currently exist, the Department should advocate that the developer provides land and/ or facilities to help meet the daily recreation needs the potential workforce which could be employed by any future commercial development. Abbey Place Development – At the time of this study, the Council was reviewing proposed plans for the development of a 312-unit subdivision in the northwestern corner portion of the city (south of the intersection of Lowell Road and County Road N. 200 W.), called Abbey Place. The preliminary plans for this development, which were provided to the Project

Team to review, indicate the inclusion of approximately 10-15 acres of park land. Given that the location of this proposed development is within an underserved portion of the city, the Department should work with the Developer to ensure that the design and program of the proposed park space will meet the new residents’ daily parks and recreation needs. The City should develop and adopt park development standards to ensure that design, scale, location, and program of these spaces is meaningful and seeks to PHHW WKH QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG ZLWKLQ WKLV SODQ UHJDUGOHVV of who provides them. In addition, the City should develop and adopt a Park Impact Fee (PIF) to help offset the increased cost associated with providing additional recreation facilities and amenities for a growing population. Given the healthy real estate market at the time of the study, it is recommended that a park impact fee structure should be established as quickly as possible.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

171

FLATROCK RIVER PARK CORRIDOR

Figure 4.9: Aerial image of the proposed Flatrock River Park Corridor (Aerial: Google, 2017).

172

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

173

3ULRULWL]HG *URZWK Regardless of current ownership, the development of new park properties should be prioritized in areas of the city which are currently underserved by existing developed facilities, and/or on parcels which interconnect or expand existing park properties. Examples, in order of relative priority, include (see Figure 4.10): 1. 6KDGRZ &UHHN )DUPV 3DUN DSSUR[LPDWHO\ acres) 2. $EEH\ 3ODFH 3DUN 6LWH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ acres) 3. 8th Street (No Name) Park and Park Maintenance Facility (28.8 acres) 4. 1RUWKEURRN 3DUN DFUHV

(YHUURDG 3DUN DFUHV

6. 65 3DUN )RXQGDWLRQ 3DUFHOV VRXWK RI WKH )ODWURFN 5LYHU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ DFUHV VHH Section 4.6) 7. Former Wastewater Treatment Plant Site (approximately 61 acres) 8. $PEHUO\ 3DUN DFUHV VHH 6HFWLRQ

9. +DZ &UHHN *UHHQZD\ DFUHV VHH 6HFWLRQ 4.6) Together, these high-priority parcels represent the development of approximately 123 acres of existing park properties and 262 acres of new park land. The development of these parcels would ensure that, the city-wide acreage LOS will continue to exceed 15 acres per 1,000 population, despite foreseeable increases in population projected to 2030, by providing at least 238 total acres of additional, developed park land. The Columbus Park Foundation should continue to proactively acquire additional park land for future development, as funds become available (see Section 4.3.4).

174

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

NEW PARK LOCATIONS

Figure 4.10: Vision Map illustrating the proposed locations of future park sites.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

176

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.4

indoor recreation

4.4.1 Service Delivery Model 2QH RI WKH PRVW SUHVVLQJ QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH planning process was the need for additional indoor recreation space. Although there are several existing indoor recreation facilities in the city, each has a specialized focus and/or function, with the gap being a centralized, multi-purpose indoor recreation and community center managed by the Department.

It is envisioned that this new multi-generational facility would be the hub of indoor recreation in the city, creating a hybrid service delivery model that combines the aspects of the “hub and spoke” and “venue-based” models (Barth D. , 2016). Following is a brief description of each of the indoor recreation “venues” and their primary function:

Figure 4.11: Diagram illustrating the venue-based hub and spoke model for indoor recreation in Columbus.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

177

4.4.2 Building Vision + Program The highest priority that emerged from the community engagement and needs assessment processes was the desire for access to additional indoor recreation facilities and programs. The programs assessment revealed that despite offering residents a diverse mix RI SURJUDPPLQJ RSWLRQV LQGRRU DWKOHWLFV DQG ĆWQHVV SURJUDPV ZHUH VLJQLĆFDQWO\ ODFNLQJ GXH WR WKH DEVHQFH of a host facility. At the time of this study, approximately 50% of the Department’s total program offerings took place at indoor facilities, with the Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena being the most popular at 18.8% of the total. The majority of basic indoor recreation programs (e.g. non-specialized programs) took place at the Donner Center (14.5%), within Donner Park, which is host to approximately 30% of the total programs offered by the Department. The Donner Center also serves as the main administrative location for the Department’s staff. The DJH FRQGLWLRQ DQG GHVLJQ RI WKLV IDFLOLW\ VLJQLĆFDQWO\ limit the types of programs and events which it can host, most notably those related to active recreation (basketball, volleyball, indoor pickleball, etc.) and ĆWQHVV ZHLJKW WUDLQLQJ FDUGLR LQGRRU UXQQLQJ HWF

affordable. It was also important to residents that the DUFKLWHFWXUDO GHVLJQ RI WKH IDFLOLW\ UHćHFW &ROXPEXVè historical support of quality design and innovative thinking. In response the feedback at the Visioning Workshop, FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH ĆQGLQJV IURP WKH 1HHGV Assessment process, the proposed indoor center is estimated to be approximately 50,000 gross square feet in size, and would offer residents access to a diverse array of amenities and programs. Examples of potential components/amenities include: – Double gymnasium with moveable partitions, that would be lined to accommodate volleyball, pickleball, and basketball, – Elevated, indoor running track, – 6WDWH RI WKH DUW ĆWQHVV FHQWHU ZLWK ERWK IUHH weights and exercise machines, – Multiple multi-purpose rooms for rentals and ĆWQHVV FODVVHV – Plaza and greenspace for outdoor classes/ programs, – Catering kitchen, – Locker rooms and restrooms, – Storage rooms, – Hospitality/meeting rooms, – Receiving and loading area, – Childcare area, – 2IĆFH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VSDFH IRU WKH Department.

To address these high priority needs, a primary recommendation of this master plan is to develop a new, multi-generational indoor recreation and community center that would serve as the centralized hub for indoor recreation athletics and programming in the city. This center would be supported by the existing, more specialized venue-based centers mentioned above.

In addition to the active amenities and spaces, the SURSRVHG FHQWHU ZRXOG DOVR KDYH D VLJQLĆFDQW VRFLDO component, integrating multiple gathering spaces such as a centralized grand lobby, cafÊ and/or coffee shop, and an outdoor plaza/terrace.

Facility Program

Operational Considerations

During the Visioning Workshop, community participants were asked about the various activities they would like to be accommodated within the new center. The most common responses were included the inclusion of indoor pickleball courts, access to a pool, DQ LQGRRU UXQQLQJ WUDFN DQG ćH[LEOH VSDFH WKDW FDQ accommodate multiple different activities. Participants indicated that Donner Park and the Donner Center are the “center of the parks universe� and that residents’ cost to use the proposed facility needs to remain

178

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The addition of a facility of this scale and program ZRXOG KDYH D VLJQLĆFDQW LPSDFW RQ WKH VWDIĆQJ DQG operations of the Department, likely necessitating the hiring of additional full-time employees to operate, program, and maintain the facility. The Department will also have to develop a programming strategy for this facility that outlines what programs and events it will host, and what will be provided by subcontractors, community partners, and/or the private sector.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

SOCIAL SPACES

INDOOR ATHLETICS

INDOOR FITNESS

SUSTAINABILITY

MULTI-SEASONAL

FLEX SPACES

Figure 4.12: Collage of images from the Irsay Family YMCA at CityWay in Indianapolis, Ind.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

179

POTENTIAL REC CENTER LOCATIONS

Figure 4.13: Vision Map illustrating the potential alternate (general) locations of a new indoor recreation center.

180

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Feasibility Study

Large indoor centers necessitate a high level of ongoing management and maintenance, and as such, can cost more than $1M annually to keep open (depending RQ VL]H DQG SURJUDP *LYHQ WKH VLJQLĆFDQW ĆQDQFLDO investment required – both for initial construction and for ongoing maintenance – it is recommended that the City commission a comprehensive feasibility VWXG\ WKDW ZRXOG EHWWHU LQIRUP WKH ĆQDO SURJUDP VFDOH cost, location, and operational implications prior to proceeding with any further design or funding. This feasibility study should also estimate long-term operational and maintenance costs associated with the facility. Funding to cover the estimated annual recurring costs must subsequently be allocated to the Department’s annual operating budget.

4.4.3 Potential Locations It is highly unlikely, given the population growth projected at the time of this study, that the city could support more than one (1) recreation center of this scale in the foreseeable future. As such, the geographic location of this facility is critically important, as it should be as centralized and accessible as possible to the greater Columbus populace. During the visioning process, multiple potential locations for the proposed indoor recreation and FRPPXQLW\ FHQWHU ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG HDFK ZLWK LWV own set of opportunities and constraints (Figure 4.13). Given the breadth and scope of this study, the feasibility of these individual sites was not studied in detail and will necessitate additional evaluation prior to ĆQDO VLWH VHOHFWLRQ Following is a concise summary of the potential ORFDWLRQV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

1. Donner Park

Donner Park is one of the most logical locations for the proposed center given its existing program/function and relatively central location to a large portion of the Columbus population. As previously noted, Donner Park and the Donner Center are already the home to a VLJQLĆFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQWèV DQQXDO SURJUDP offerings. The park is already viewed by the community as the hub of programming in the city, is home to the

city’s only aquatics facility, and serves as the primary administrative location for the Department. As previously discussed, the Donner Center is in need RI VLJQLĆFDQW UHQRYDWLRQV WKDW ZRXOG PRGHUQL]H QRW just the interior programming and administrative spaces, but also the major infrastructural systems of the building. This renovation will have to take place regardless of the preferred location of the new recreation center, if the Donner Center is to remain operational in the years to come. Building the new center on the 1.5 acres of unprogrammed greenspace immediately east of the existing Donner Center would allow the Department WR FDSLWDOL]H RQ WKH HIĆFLHQFLHV RI D ODUJHU FRQVWUXFWLRQ project by combining – in a phased manner – the construction of the new facility with renovation of the existing Donner Center building. In this scenario, the new facility could conceivably be constructed EHIRUH DQ\ VLJQLĆFDQW LPSURYHPHQWV WR WKH H[LVWLQJ Donner Center would take place, thus minimizing the disruption to the existing programming and administrative activities that take place there. If the new indoor recreation and community center were built adjacent to the existing Donner Center, it is assumed that the two buildings would be interconnected, but would serve different functional purposes. The layout of the older Donner Center is QRW FRQGXFLYH WR LQGRRU ĆWQHVV DQG DWKOHWLFV KRZHYHU FRXOG EH XSGDWHG WR SURYLGH ćH[LEOH PXOWL SXUSRVH rooms for cultural arts and life-skills programs, event/ UHQWDO VSDFH DQG PRGHUQL]HG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RIĆFH spaces. In addition, it is assumed that the existing aquatics facilities/uses would be retained unless otherwise replaced within the new facility. While discussing this idea during the visioning process, it was noted that the community’s perception RI LQFUHDVHG WUDIĆF RQ ORFDO VWUHHWV LQWHULRU WR WKH neighborhoods surrounding Donner Park may be a barrier to implementation. Given that the total programmable square footage of the facility will increase, it is reasonable to assume vehicle trips may DOVR LQFUHDVH KRZHYHU WKH H[WHQW DQG VLJQLĆFDQFH RI WKLV LPSDFW LV GHSHQGHQW XSRQ WKH ĆQDO SURJUDP RI WKH buildings, and is therefore not currently known. The quantity and impact of additional vehicle trips should be evaluated as part of the feasibility study.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

181

DONNER PARK EXISTING PARKING

+/- 50K SF REC CTR

CHESTNUT ST

DONNER CENTER

G IN RK PA

Figure 4.14: Aerial diagram illustrating a potential location within Donner Park to add a 50,000 SF recreation and community center.

2. Downtown

A key component already discussed in Section 4.3.3 is the potential to create an integrated and activated riverfront park corridor. As such, the inclusion of the new recreation center within this proposed corridor is worth consideration, despite constraints associated ZLWK GHYHORSPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH \HDU ćRRGSODLQ Potential locations for further exploration include: – Adjacent to the Mill Race Center within Mill Race Park – Former wastewater treatment plant site south of Water Street.

5HWDLO 5HWURĆW

During the Visioning Workshop, participants discussed WKH YLDELOLW\ RI UHWURĆWWLQJ XQGHUXWLOL]HG ELJ ER[ UHWDLO locations for parks and recreation usage. Underutilized and/or vacated commercial properties can be converted to serve as locations for indoor recreation uses with a few generalized caveats: – In most cases, the roof height of the existing VWUXFWXUH ZLOO QHHG WR EH PRGLĆHG WR DOORZ IRU WKH inclusion of a gymnasium, – Big-box style commercial buildings are often not located within or adjacent to existing park spaces

182

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

which could help support the activation of the recreation center, thus requiring those spaces be omitted or developed as part of the renovation process, – In some cases, such as locations within malls, may necessitate that the Department either become a tenant of the mall (and therefore subject to restrictions of its landlord), or necessitate that the Department acquire the entire mall property (which may be cost prohibitive). – The exterior appearance of many big-box VW\OH VWUXFWXUHV ZLOO OLNHO\ UHTXLUH VLJQLĆFDQW PRGLĆFDWLRQV WR UHćHFW WKH FRPPXQLW\èV GHVLUH IRU DQ DUFKLWHFWXUDOO\ VLJQLĆFDQW VWUXFWXUH 7KH WZR SRWHQWLDO ORFDWLRQV ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ the visioning process for further exploration included the Fair Oaks Mall (2380 25th Street) and the vacant Kroger building northwest of the mall (3110 N National Road). Both locations could support the square footage required for the desired indoor recreation components, however, may be better suited for the larger-scale LQGRRU FRXUWV DQG ĆHOGV GHVLUHG E\ WKH &$9& DV SDUW RI the city’s approach to sports tourism.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

THE DONNER CENTER

Figure 4.15: Entrance to the existing Donner Center (2016).

4.4.4 Future of Donner Center ,I WKH ĆQDO ORFDWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG LQGRRU UHFUHDWLRQ and community center is within Donner Park (and therefore inclusive of the renovation or demolition of WKH H[LVWLQJ 'RQQHU &HQWHU D VLJQLĆFDQW UHQRYDWLRQ RI the Donner Center will be necessary to ensure that it FDQ RSHUDWH VDIHO\ DQG HIĆFLHQWO\ LQWR WKH IXWXUH The Donner Center is a 23,000-square foot, architecturally unique building that opened in 1947 as a gift from William H. Donner. For its entire 70year history, the Donner Center has been the home for youth and adult programs in Columbus (City of Columbus, 2017).

High-priority improvements proposed as part of a complete, phased renovation could include: – 1HZ KLJK HIĆFLHQF\ +9$& V\VWHP – New and/or repaired windows, – Improved integration of technology, including AV in the multi-purpose rooms and facility-wide highspeed WiFi access, – Accessibility improvements (entrances, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.), – Catering/teaching kitchen, – ,PSURYHG VLJQDJH ZD\ĆQGLQJ – Additional public art, – +LJK HIĆFLHQF\ OLJKWLQJ – 8SGDWHG LQWHULRU ĆQLVKHV FDUSHW SDLQW WLOH HWF – Plumbing and mechanical updates as necessary.

8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKH 'RQQHU &HQWHU QHHGV VLJQLĆFDQW repair and investment in order to remain functional. If the Department is to continue operating this center, VLJQLĆFDQW LQYHVWPHQW LQWR LWV VWUXFWXUH DQG V\VWHPV must be made in the near future.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

183

184

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.5

bikeways + trails

+LVWRU\ RI ê3HRSOH 7UDLOVÍ LQ Columbus The development of Columbus’ People Trail system began in earnest in 1985 with the goal of interconnecting the city’s parks, schools, and community destinations. The development of the People Trail System has been greatly supported by the community with the majority of the funding coming from the Columbus Park Foundation (Foundation hereafter). In order to develop WKH PRVW FRQQHFWHG DQG HIĆFLHQW ELF\FOH DQG SHGHVWULDQ network, the Foundation and the Department work closely with the City’s Engineering and Planning Departments as well as Bartholomew County School Corporation and Columbus Regional Health’s Healthy Communities initiative. This coordination allows bike and pedestrian development to be combined with planned infrastructure improvements. At the time of this planning effort, the People Trail System included approximately 23 miles of trails, paths, and bicycle routes (TCPF, n.d.). The Foundation has also worked to secure funding to implement the city’s successful bikeshare program ColumBike, which has eight (8) stations throughout the city, several of which are located within existing park sites. ê7KH YLVLRQ RI ELNH VKDUH LV WR HQFRXUDJH ELF\FOH XVH DV DQ appealing, convenient, active, healthy, environmentally friendly, and congestion reducing transportation option that is accessible to all Columbus area residents, FRPPXWHUV VWXGHQWV YLVLWRUV DQG WRXULVWV DOLNH 7KH Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian plan is the blueprint IRU HQFRXUDJLQJ DQG HQKDQFLQJ WKH H[LVWLQJ 3HRSOH 7UDLO

System and will continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities to coincide with the Bike Share Program’s success.� - ColumBike (Go Healthy Columbus, 2016)

9LVLRQ IRU &RQQHFWLYLW\ Although this planning process does not endeavor to be a comprehensive bikeways and trails master plan, it does seek to articulate a vision for how the trails system in Columbus supports the ongoing development and usage of the city’s parks and recreation facilities. Trails are exceptionally important to Columbus residents, ranking second only to indoor recreation. 7KH FLW\èV ĆUVW ELNHZD\V DQG WUDLOV PDVWHU SODQ ZDV adopted in 2010, and has been updated regularly as progress has been made implementing the People Trails system. The vision for connectivity established during various prior planning efforts was for every resident to be within three (3) blocks – or approximately 1,000 lineal feet – of a People Trail facility. When evaluated with 1,000’ offset, the currently proposed future routes (as illustrated in the People 7UDLOV PDS LQ )LJXUH SURYLGH VXIĆFLHQW DFFHVV IRU approximately 80%-90% of the city’s residential areas. Together, the remaining length of proposed future trails is approximately 9.7 miles.

More than Recreation Alone

In addition to serving as a means of recreation, trails are also critical transportation infrastructure that helps to move people to and between the city’s parks, facilities, and destination without the use of a motor vehicle. When used for transportation, trails help to

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

UHGXFH JUHHQKRXVH JDV HPLVVLRQV WUDIĆF FRQJHVWLRQ and the parking demand at park facilities. Future funding allocated for trail planning, development, DQG PDLQWHQDQFH VKRXOG UHćHFW WKH ODUJHU YLVLRQ RI alternative transportation in Columbus.

5ROH RI 3DUNV 'HSDUWPHQW At the time of this study, the planning, design, and construction of the trail network within Columbus fell under the jurisdiction of the city’s Planning and Engineering Departments, and the maintenance of built trails under the umbrella of the Department. Given the VLJQLĆFDQW RYHUODS LQ PLVVLRQ DQG YLVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH trails system and the parks system, the Department should be “at the table� in future planning and design discussions regarding trails that interface with their parks and/or for trails which they will ultimately maintain. In addition to having a voice in the development SURFHVV LW LV DOVR FULWLFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW WKDW VXIĆFLHQW additional funding is allocated to the Department to offset the additional cost of the increased amount of maintenance as new trails are developed (including the maintenance of the related facilities such as trailheads). This is especially true of any trails developed within ćRRG SURQH DUHDV ZKLFK E\ WKHLU QDWXUH QHFHVVLWDWH D higher level of ongoing maintenance. The notion of “doing more with less� is not a sustainable operating model for the Department, given the current condition of the many of the city’s park facilities, and is QRW UHćHFWLYH RI WKH FXUUHQW 3HRSOH 7UDLOV YLVLRQ $Q\ trail maintenance challenges that currently exist will only be exacerbated as time elapses and additional trails are added.

'HĆQLQJ D ê3HRSOH 7UDLOÍ During the planning process, it became evident that there was some confusion by both residents and city RIĆFLDOV UHJDUGLQJ ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D ê3HRSOH 7UDLO Í To help clarify, at least in the context of this planning HIIRUW WKH 3HRSOH 7UDLO V\VWHP LV EHLQJ GHĆQHG DV Bicycle and Pedestrian Network: This network includes bicycle routes, bike lanes, sidewalks, sidepaths, and the People Trail System.

186

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

The People Trail System: Multi-use routes that are designed, designated, or constructed for recreational pedestrian use or provided as a pedestrian alternative to vehicular routes within the bicycle and pedestrian network. A trail designed, designated, or constructed for pedestrian use may also have other uses, such as bicycling. The People Trail System represents the origin of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Columbus. Over time the initial multi-use path termed the “People Trail� has transformed into a much larger network of paths linked WRJHWKHU E\ OHVV LGHQWLĆDEOH ELF\FOH URXWHV VLGHZDONV and sidepaths. The People Trail System is well-known in Columbus, primarily as a safe location for family recreation. Increasingly the system is also used for bicycle commuting, the walk to school, and other people powered transportation needs. The People Trail System is envisioned by this plan as a subset of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network. Historically, the term “People Trails� has been a brand name that referred to the network of multi-use paths, sidewalks, sidepaths, and bicycle routes that form the basis for walking and cycling recreation in Columbus. However, as the bicycle and pedestrian network has grown, the need to clarify the difference between the bicycle and pedestrian network and the People Trail 6\VWHP KDV DOVR JURZQ &OHDUO\ GHĆQLQJ WKH 3HRSOH Trail System and distinguishing it from the bicycle DQG SHGHVWULDQ QHWZRUN ZLOO EH EHQHĆFLDO IRU GHĆQLQJ maintenance responsibilities and guiding users in search of facilities best suited for family leisure activity and transportation needs. While this People Trail System is not intended to exclude commuters and other non-recreational riders, it is intended to continue to be recognized by leisure seeking individuals and families. %LF\FOH DQG SHGHVWULDQ UHODWHG ZD\ĆQGLQJ DQG WUDLO heads are planned to initially be based on the People Trail System. This focus is based on the belief that the People Trails will be the primary location where users change modes of transportation – unloading their bicycles, strollers, etc. from their vehicles. In contrast, users of the wider system will most likely travel by bicycle or foot directly from home to work, school, or shopping; without a change in mode of transportation.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

EXISTING BICYCLE + TRAIL NETWORK

3-B occk (1,000') Walking 3-Bl g Diist s an nce From Trai al Allig ignm nmen e t

Figure 4.16: Map illustrating a 1,000-foot walking distance from the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

187

Columbus North H.S.

CENTRAL AVE

HOME AVE

19TH ST

TH

Lincoln Park

TH

19TH ST

Columbus Regional Columbus Hospital Regional

Cummins Tech Center

1ST ST

Cummins Tech Center

MCKINLEY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE INDIANA AVE

1ST ST

Donner Park

INDIANA AVE

TH

TH

CHESTNUT ST 11TH ST 8TH ST

5TH ST

4TH ST

The Commons 3RD ST Cummins

Clarion Hotel

46

46

2ND ST

1ST ST

Route to Nashville Future Expansion Menards

ABCStewart

Wal-Mart

Oakbrook Park

TH

11

LVD ER B ELL GO

TH Harrison Ridge Park

TERRACE LAKE RD

DR

JONESVILLE RD

S LE CO County Stadium

W 200 S

Southside Elem.

N TO TIP

D LV SB KE LA

Bartholomew County 4-H Fairgrounds

Route to Walesboro

Figure 4.17: Map illustrating the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in Columbus (Columbus Park Foundation, 2017).

188

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

17TH

Visitor’s Center Public Library

Mill Race Park

LINDSEY ST

8th St Park

JACKSON ST

TH

Cummins Irwin Union Building LHP

Noblitt Park

West Hill Shopping Center

Schmitt Elem.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

HOME AVE

FFY

RD

Cummins Plant One

Cummins Plant One

CALIFORNIA ST

FFY

6TH ST

WESTENEDGE DR

31

7TH ST

7TH ST

6TH ST

RIVER RD

COTTAGE AVE

COTTAGE AVE

CHESTNUT ST

Greenbelt Greenbelt Golf Golf Course Course

9th St Park

9th St Park

3RD ST 2ND ST

FairOaks Mall

Lincoln ParkCSA

Hospital

11TH ST

4TH ST

The Commons 4TH ST Cummins

CSA

FRANKLIN AVE LAFAYETTE AVE

Visitor’s Center Public Library

5TH ST

FairOaks Mall 25th St. Shops

17TH ST

8TH ST

8TH ST

The Commons ons ns ns 3RD ST Cummins 2ND ST

CALIFORNIA ST

HOME AVE

CHESTNUTSTST WASHINGTON FRANKLIN AVE NIA ST CALIFOR LAFAYETTE AVE

JACKSON ST

11TH ST LINDSEY ST

TH

5TH STT

TH

Donner Park

TH ST 17TH

Cummins Irwin Union Building LHP

LAFAYETTE AVE

Mill Race Park

Cummins IIrwin Union Ir Irw Building LHP

LINDSEY STT

Noblitt Park

H.S.

APOLIS

TH

TH

25th St. Columbus Shops North

N INDIAN

Mill Race Park

Donner Park

Visitor’s isitor’ ttor’ to tor or’ r’s Center C Public Library

TH

JACKSON ST

Noblitt Park

WASHINGTON ST

FRANKLIN AVE

Station Locations

CENTRAL AVE

Station Locations

Owen’s Bend

To Owen’s Bend ››

TH

To Owen’s Bend ››

part four : master plan vision

Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian Network “A people powered transportation network.”

Columbus Municipal Airport

ARNOLD ST CUNNINGHAM DR.

IUPUC Ivy Tech

POSHARD RD

LHP

Legend MIDDLE RD

Park Facility TAYLOR RD

CENTRAL AVE

Blackwell Soccer Fields Freedom Field Playground

Northbrook Park

Parkside School

Route to Hope Future Expansion

School Location

PARKSIDE DR

Business Location

TAYLOR RD

MARR RD

BikeShare Station

Richards Elem.

Current Streets

31ST ST.

Everroad Park

ISC

CENTRAL AVE

Columbus North H.S. 25th St. Shops

HOME AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

chmitt Elem.

Par-3 Golf Course

Eastbrook Plaza

FairOaks Mall CSA

Holiday Center

25TH ST

Multi-use paths are intended to provide uninterrupted or minimally interrupted movement over distances of a mile or more for a variety of purposes and users, such as pedestrians.

25TH ST

Clover Center

Lincoln Park

Existing Sidepaths

Target

TH

Proposed Sidepaths

Smith Elem.

Columbus Regional Hospital

19TH ST

A sidepath is an extra-wide sidewalk along one side of a street within the street right-of-way. Sidepaths are designed to carry both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sidepaths have an advantage over bicycle lanes by having a curb seperating the vehicle and bicycle traffic.

McCullough’s Run Park

17TH ST

17TH ST COTTAGE AVE

Existing Multi-Use Path Proposed Multi-Use Path

TALLEY RD

Northside Middle St. B’s

MIDDLE RD

Mead Village Park

MARR RD

WESTENEDGE DR

ROCKY FORD RD

Greenbelt Golf Course

Existing Sidewalks

MARR RD

9th St Park

7TH ST

6TH ST

Proposed Sidewalks

31

10TH ST Goodwill Kohl’s AMC Showplace

Wal-Mart

Sidewalks are intended to be located in the street right-of-way to connect pedestrians to their homes and destinations. The distance traveled by a pedestrian on a local sidewalk is expected to be less than one mile.

Clifty Elem.

FFY Cummins Plant One Cummins Tech Center

MCKINLEY AVE

TH CSA Fodrea

ST

46

Clifty Park

Amberley Park

Existing Bicycle Lanes

Columbus East H.S.

Proposed Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are designated areas of the street which are reserved for the exclusive use by bicyclists. They are typically established with pavement markings and signs along routes.

Dog Park

S GLADSTONE AVE

STA TE

Proposed Bicycle Routes Bicycle routes are streets that have been designated and marked with signage as bicycle routes. Local streets are particularly well suited for bicycle routes.

Columbus Christian

INDIANA AVE

Pence Park

Existing Bicycle Routes

Morningside Park McDowell Adult Ed.

Existing Sharrows Shared lane markings or “Sharrows” are street markings placed on city streets to inform bicyclists and motorists where a travel lane is shared by both.

TH

Trail Head Trail heads are most appropriatly located at places where people change modes of transportation - exiting their vehicles to begin a walk, jog, or bicycle ride. Trail heads should provide access to the People Trails and act as identification markers. Map revised August 30 2017

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

189

A map of the People Trail System (dated October of 2017) can be found in Figure 4.17. This map will be continually updated as the comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Plan is updated and the People Trail System grows and additional potential infrastructure opportunities are realized. The increasing size and complexity of the People Trail system and the generalized lack of understanding over what constitutes a People Trail suggest that a larger, V\VWHP ZLGH VLJQDJH ZD\ĆQGLQJ DQG EUDQGLQJ HIIRUW LV ZDUUDQWHG 7KH DERYH GHĆQLWLRQ ZDV GHULYHG IURP an updated excerpt of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian 3ODQ DV DQ LQLWLDO VWHS LQ SURYLGLQJ FODULĆFDWLRQ WR RXU public about our trail system. However, additional work RQ WKH FODULĆFDWLRQ RI UROHV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DUH VWLOO necessary.

7DUJHW *DSV In general, Columbus exhibits good north-south connectivity in the central portion of the city. In addition, there are established trail routes connecting the downtown to the residential developments to the west of I-65. There are however notable gaps in connectivity in the downtown core, the eastern portion of the city, and in the proximity of connecting the people trail system to the schools. The Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan should be a tool in helping to prioritize the improvements to the People Trail System. At the time of this study, there were no existing or planned routes that extend to the Walesboro Airport (southernmost portion of the city), Shadow Creek Farms Park (southwestern portion of the city), or to the Abbey Place Park in northern quadrant of the city. If the city acquires or develops park spaces in these areas, the Department should seek to identify viable future trail routes which lead to them, and provide trailhead amenities at them.

7UDLOKHDGV $ WUDLOKHDG IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ LV GHĆQHG DV any public space that is directly accessible to the trail system, which also provides dedicated paved parking and other core trail-related amenities. Regardless of the level of system-wide connectivity, a portion of

190

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

users will still prefer to drive to a park or other public facility to access the trail system. At a minimum, trailhead sites should provide users with access to basic trail-related amenities such as WUDLO VLJQDJH ZD\ĆQGLQJ ELNH UDFNV ZDWHU IRXQWDLQV pet waste stations, and paved parking Trailheads that are located along heavily traveled routes (such as The Big Loop), and/or those within larger parks, should provide users with a greater YDULHW\ RI DGGLWLRQDO WUDLO VSHFLĆF DPHQLWLHV VXFK DV – Bicycle lockers – Bikeshare stations – Repair stations – Air stations – Vendors/Vending machines (for concessions and bicycle supplies) – Emergency call stations – Restrooms Ten (10) primary trailheads locations are proposed at existing park spaces, which include: 1. Mill Race Park 2. Noblitt Park 3. Donner Park / Donner Center 4. Blackwell Park Lincoln Park / Hamilton Community Center 6. Clifty Park 7. McCullough’s Run 8. Harrison Ridge Park 9. Oakbrook Park 10. Greenbelt Golf Course Five (5) additional trailheads locations are also proposed at future parks, which include: 11. Northbrook Park 12. Everroad Park 13. Flatrock Creek Natural Area 14. Shadow Creek Farms Park (if acquired) Abbey Place Park (if acquired)

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

FUTURE BICYCLE + TRAIL NETWORK The vision for connectivity is for every Columbus resident to be within three (3) blocks – or DSSUR[LPDWHO\ OLQHDU feet – of a People Trail facility.

3-B occk (1,000') Walking 3-Bl g Diist s an nce From Trai al Allig ignm nmen e t

Figure 4.18: Map illustrating a 1,000-foot walking distance from the future bicycle and pedestrian network.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

191

192

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.6

natural areas + experiences

4XDQWLI\LQJ WKH 1HHG The various engagement and analysis processes revealed that Columbus residents really value and enjoy nature-based destinations and experiences, however, many of these are lacking within the city’s existing parks and recreation system. Examples include: – Nature centers, – Resource-based (nature) parks or accessible natural areas, – Hiking/nature trails (soft-surface), – Mountain bike trails, – Nature-based programs, – Water access points. To help address this need, it is recommended that the Department develop new, resource-based facilities and programs, and integrate nature-based experiences within existing parks where valuable natural resources currently exist.

1HZ 5HVRXUFH %DVHG )DFLOLWLHV There are several existing, undeveloped park properties which may be viable candidates for the inclusion of resource-based facilities, programs, and experiences, including:

Flatrock River Natural Area

2QH RI PRVW VLJQLĆFDQW RSSRUWXQLWLHV LGHQWLĆHG ZLWKLQ this master plan is for the development of the Flatrock River Park Corridor, as discussed in Section 4.3.3. A key component of this corridor, from an acreage VWDQGSRLQW LV WKH FXUUHQWO\ XQGHYHORSHG ćRRGZD\ ODQG north of SR-46 that is owned by the Foundation.

Composed of multiple parcels which total approximately 155 acres, this potential park property contains riparian woodlands, open agricultural land, and is bordered by both the Flatrock River to the north and the east. The presence of existing natural resources, lack of development potential, and adjacency to Mill Race Park (within the proposed Flatrock River Park Corridor), make this site an ideal location for resource-based amenities and experiences in Columbus. The vision for the Flatrock River Natural Area is to be the nature-based hub for programming and experiences in Columbus. This park space would eventually connect over the Flatrock River into Mill Race Park via a pedestrian bridge, and would serve as an additional trailhead location. Similar to the design intent of Mill Race Park, anything constructed on this SURSHUW\ PXVW DQWLFLSDWH WKH HIIHFWV RI UHJXODU ćRRGLQJ and water movement. Access to the site would need to be provided from SR46, and would need to be coordinated with the ongoing discussions associated with the future realignment of the rail line. Preliminary concepts available at the time of this study suggest that at least one proposed future route would bisect the park from the south to the north. If this concept becomes the preferred alternative, the Department should proactively advocate that the proposed route should disturb as little of the existing woodlands as possible, and that a grade-separated crossing for pedestrians moving east to west in the park be provided.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

193

FLATROCK RIVER NATURAL AREA DO OW WN N TO TOWN WN WN M LL MI L R AC AC E PA PA RK PARK K

CK

FUTU FU T RE TU RE N ATU NA TURA UR RA AL AR A R EA EA

ER

SR-4 6 GR

F

O TR A L

V RI

EEN

6

WAY

SR-4

Figure 4.19: Aerial image illustrating the location of the proposed Flatrock River Natural Area (Aerial: Google, 2017).

Potential components of this future park space could include: – Native vegetation and habitat, – Nature trails, – Water access point, – Pedestrian bridge into Mill Race Park, – Off-street paved parking, – Multiple picnic shelters, – Interpretative exhibits/signage, – Nature playspace, – Outdoor adventure race course, – Zip-line/high-ropes course, – Restroom/storage building.

194

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Amberly Park

Amberly Park is a 17 acre, undeveloped park space located immediately east of Clifty Park. At the time of the study, Amberly Park was separated from the larger Clifty Park property by Clifty Creek, which forms its northern and western borders. This parcel is composed of both existing woodland areas and open prairie. Access to this parcel from the Clifty Park trail system could be provided by the addition of a pedestrian bridge. Potential components of this future park space could include: – Native vegetation and habitat, – Soft-surface nature trails, – Interpretative signage, – Picnic shelter, – Creek access.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

AMBERLY PARK CLI

FTY

CR

AM MBE ERL RLY NEIG NE GHB BOR O HOOD HOO HO OD D

EEK

C IF CL FTY PAR ARK K Figure 4.20: Aerial image illustrating the location of the Amberly Park property (Aerial: Google, 2017).

Northbrook Park

Northbrook Park is a largely undeveloped 52-acre park space composed of multiple parcels that are owned by the City and The Columbus Park Foundation. The parcel is composed of a combination of large open DJULFXOWXUDO ĆHOGV WR WKH ZHVW ULSDULDQ ZRRGODQGV running north/south along Haw Creek, and a maintained greenway trail on to the east. The distribution of existing, developed park facilities leaves this portion of the city largely underserved. As such, the vision for this property would be to include both resource-based and community-based park amenities. The resource-based amenities would be located within the existing woodland areas surrounding Haw Creek. The western portion of the park space fronts existing residential developments, some of which are still expanding. As such, this portion of the property would be ideal for the more traditional park amenities VXFK DV VSRUWV FRXUWV PXOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV UHVWURRPV etc. There is an existing park access point located near

the intersection of Clairmont Dr. and Spring Valley Dr. which would likely become the main entrance to the traditionally programmed portion of the park space. It is also envisioned that this parcel would become a key trailhead location for the existing People Trail network that passes through it. The topography and linear nature of the green spaces to the east of Haw Creek leaves them largely underutilized. As such meaningful programming and/ or access points should be added to better activate this portion of the park space. Any remaining underutilized greenspaces should be converted to native prairies DQG RU ZLOGćRZHU DUHDV ZKLFK ZRXOG SURYLGH additional wildlife and pollinator habitant and require less ongoing maintenance. Potential resource-based park components could include: – Native vegetation and habitat spaces along the Haw Creek, – Soft-surface nature trails, – Interpretative signage/educational exhibits,

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

HAW CREEK GREENWAY

G REE GR E E NB EE EENB N B EL E T GO G O LF OLF L F C OU OUR RS SE EE EET RE R S T REE ST H STR TH 8T 8TH 8T

C E NT CE N T RA RAL MII DD D LE LE SC CH H OO HOO OOL EET R EET RE S T REE ST D STREE RD R 3RD 3R

CENT

VE RAL A

H AW

CREE

K

SR-

46

WAST W WA A ST S TEW T EW WAT T ER ER T R EA TREA TR EATM AT TM M EN ENT PL P L AN ANT S SII T TE E

Figure 4.21: Aerial image illustrating the alignment of the proposed Haw Creek Greenway (Aerial: Google, 2017).

– Picnic shelter(s), – Creek access, – Pedestrian bridge over Haw Creek near the intersection of N. Marr Rd. and S. Station Dr. Potential community-based park components could include: – Paved parking areas on both the east and west sides of the park, – A playground on both the east and west sides of the park, – /DUJH PXOWL SXUSRVH WXUI ĆHOG IRU VSHFLDO HYHQWV VSRUWV SUDFWLFH ĆHOGV – 5k adventure race course (temporary), – Multi-purpose sports courts for basketball, pickleball, tennis, etc., – Additional community garden space, – Restroom building, – Trailhead amenities.

196

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Haw Creek Greenway

The Haw Creek Greenway is a proposed linear greenway corridor which follows a branch of Haw Creek near downtown. Composed of multiple parcels, the greenway extends from the former wastewater treatment plant site in the southern portion of downtown north to the Greenbelt Golf Course. The majority of the greenway follows the alignment of Central Avenue and 8th Street. At the time of the study, the corridor between SR46 and the Greenbelt Golf Course already contained a paved People Trail at the top of the creek bank, however, lacked access to the natural areas below. Given the immediate adjacency of Haw Creek and its unique riparian ecosystem, the Department should consider extending access to these environments via a combination of soft-surface trails, paved trails, and boardwalks. The design of any amenities within these areas must take into account the potential effects of UHJXODU ćRRGLQJ

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

The Department should work with the City to convert any mowed turf within this corridor to native plant species. In addition, the trail should be extended south, across SR46 to the former wastewater treatment plant site, in the event that site redevelop to become a park space, residential development, other public amenity.

Everroad Park

Located just south of Northbrook Park, the 25acre Everroad Park property shares many similar characteristics with its northern neighbor in both context and vision. At the time of this study, Everroad 3DUN ZDV FODVVLĆHG DV D JUHHQZD\ SDUN DQG FRQVLVWHG of largely inaccessible and underutilized mowed greenspace, a trail segment, and woodland habitat along the eastern bank of Haw Creek. All of the parcels which form Everroad Park are currently owned by the City of Columbus. Unlike Northbrook Park, the Everroad Park property LV VLJQLĆFDQWO\ QDUURZHU WKXV OLPLWLQJ WKH SRWHQWLDO programming options. Although there is an existing ROW access point at the terminus of 30th Street, an RIĆFLDO HQWUDQFH ERWK SHGHVWULDQ DQG YHKLFXODU LV lacking. Similar to the Vision for Northbrook Park, XQGHUXWLOL]HG SRUWLRQV RI JUHHQVSDFH ü VSHFLĆFDOO\ those to the west of the existing trail should converted to a lower-maintenance no-mow landscape. A dedicated park entrance and a small parking lot should be added at the terminus of 30th Street. The SDUN FRXOG EHQHĆW IURP WKH DGGLWLRQ RI WUDLO VSHFLĆF amenities. The existing amenities of nearby parks ZRXOG VXJJHVW WKDW WKLV DUHD ZRXOG EHQHĆW IURP WKH addition of neighborhood-scale amenities such as a playground and picnic shelter.

– Interpretative signage/educational exhibits along the trail and/or creek, – Creek access point – Picnic shelter, – Neighborhood-scale playground, – Dedicated park entrance and small parking area.

4.6.3 Leveraging Existing Resources In addition to the new facilities proposed above, the Department should look for ways to embrace and activate the natural resources within the city’s existing parks. Examples of these assets include: – Riparian woodlands and habitats, – Water bodies/streams, – Native prairies, – Wetlands. Perhaps the greatest opportunity that exists is to increase the visibility and accessibility of the city’s existing waterways and riparian ecosystems. Almost 50% of the city’s existing parks are located immediately adjacent to a river, creek, or lake, including: – Mill Race Park – 8th Street Park – Noblitt Park – Lincoln Park – Amberly Park – Clifty Park – McCullough’s Run – Greenbelt Golf Course – Northbrook Park – Everroad Park – Oakbrook Park

As previously noted the Department and the Foundation should explore opportunities to expand this park property by acquiring additional acreage to the north where large undeveloped parcels of land currently exist. The potential availability of these parcels is not currently known. Potential park components could include: – Native vegetation and habitat spaces along the Haw Creek, – Multi-purpose greenspace east of the existing trail, Figure 4.22: Haw Creek Greenway area as of 2016.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

197

WATERWAYS OF COLUMBUS FLATROCK RIVER

NOBLITT PARK 8TH STREET PARK MILL RACE PARK

DOWNTOWN

TIPTON PARK FLATROCK RIVER NATURAL AREA

WASTEWATER PLANT SITE

FLATROCK RIVER Figure 4.23: Aerial image illustrating the major waterways of Columbus (Aerial: Google, 2017).

198

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

AIRPORT NORTHBROOK PARK EVERROAD PARK HAMILTON CENTER LINCOLN PARK

MCCULLOUGH'S RUN

GREENBELT GOLF COURSE

HAW CREEK

CLIFTY PARK AMBERLY PARK

COLUMBUS DOG PARK

CLIFTY CREEK

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

199

200

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.7

improving the existing system

4.7.1 Moving from Good to Great! $ NH\ WKHPH RI WKLV 9LVLRQ LV ĆQGLQJ ZD\V WR LPSURYH the existing system of parks and recreation facilities and programs in Columbus. This notion was validated by the various analysis tasks of the Needs Assessment, but importantly, also by the project stakeholders, workshop participants, and survey respondents. This section will explore system-wide strategies for LPSURYHPHQW DV ZHOO DV SDUN DQG SURJUDP VSHFLĆF recommendations, with the goal of moving the Department from “good� to “great.�

6\VWHP :LGH $UHDV RI )RFXV Following are descriptions of system-wide principles that should be applied when improvements are made to existing parks and facilities. These recommendations DUH UHćHFWLYH RI ERWK WKH H[LVWLQJ FRQGLWLRQ RI the park spaces and the principles of the “21st Century Park� as described in Section 4.2.1.

Embrace Place

Unfortunately, when it comes to the public realm, not all “spaces� – or parks for that matter - end up becoming true “places.� Today, people desire and seek out authentic, meaningful, and unique places where there are a variety of things to do and experience. As such, any future improvements to existing parks should incorporate a place-based approach to design and programming. Placemaking, as coined by the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is more than just “better design.� It is a collaborative process that engages the end users in the planning and design process, the product of which

UHćHFWV DQG FHOHEUDWHV WKH êSK\VLFDO FXOWXUDO DQG VRFLHWDO LGHQWLWLHVÍ WKDW GHĆQH WKH SODFH DQG FRPPXQLW\ at-large.

“With community-based participation at its FHQWHU DQ HIIHFWLYH 3ODFHPDNLQJ SURFHVV FDSLWDOL]HV RQ D ORFDO FRPPXQLW\èV DVVHWV LQVSLUDWLRQ DQG SRWHQWLDO DQG LW UHVXOWV LQ the creation of quality public spaces that FRQWULEXWH WR SHRSOHèV KHDOWK KDSSLQHVV DQG well-being. A great public space cannot be measured by its physical attributes alone; it must also serve people as a vital community resource in which function always trumps form. :KHQ SHRSOH RI DOO DJHV DELOLWLHV DQG VRFLR economic backgrounds can not only access DQG HQMR\ D SODFH EXW DOVR SOD\ D NH\ UROH LQ LWV LGHQWLW\ FUHDWLRQ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH WKDW LV when we see genuine Placemaking in actionâ€? 3URMHFW IRU 3XEOLF 6SDFHV . A placemaking approach that is grounded in collaborative and equitable community involvement produces solutions that involve and integrate all components of the community, from the built environment to the numerous interstitial spaces of the “public realmâ€? where residents spend a large portion of their daily lives. If Columbus is to be one of the most desirable “people placesâ€? in the region, then it’s planning and design processes must be people-led. Good design alone does not guarantee that a “spaceâ€? will become a true “place.â€?

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

201

Additional information on placemaking tools and resources can be found by visiting the Project for Public Spaces website at www.pps.org.

Activate Before You Renovate

0DQ\ RI WKH FLW\èV H[LVWLQJ SDUN VLWHV ZRXOG EHQHĆW substantially from increased activation (bringing more users to the site on a regular basis), through increased programming facilitated by the Department, and/or the addition of self-directed activities. The Department should also look for ways to repurpose existing, underutilized facilities to meet current community needs (such as converting an under-utilized tennis court to pickleball courts). Today, park users want the ability to interact with their park environment on their own terms, for their own SXUSRVHV 3URYLGLQJ YDU\LQJ VL]HV RI ćH[LEOH VSDFHV and low-cost, interactive amenities helps to facilitate a wide variety of user-directed activities. Unfortunately, these amenities and spaces are often missing within older, more traditional park sites. Examples of these amenities could include: – 0RYHDEOH IXUQLWXUH DQG ćH[LEOH VHDWLQJ DUHDV – Wi-Fi hotspots, – Group picnic shelters, – Flexible, well-drained greenspace, – Public art, – Table games, – Lawn games (ping-pong, cornhole, ladder golf, etc.), – Barbeque grills, – Nature play areas, – Stage/performance areas, – Low-cost overhead lighting. In addition, the Department should explore the SRVVLELOLW\ RI SURYLGLQJ SDUN VSHFLĆF VHDVRQDO DQG or one-off events throughout the year. Examples of potential events could include: – Live music, – Movies in the park, – Yoga (or similar) in the park, – Dance parties, – Markets (farmer’s markets, holiday markets, etc.), – Playground programs/events, – Food truck gatherings, – Game nights, – Social-services/outreach events (community health).

202

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Figure 4.24: Fitness equipment at Mill Race Park (2016).

Affect Public Health

One of the most powerful impacts that a parks system can have is to directly and quantitatively improve health of the people which use it. As part of a larger, systemic approach, parks facilities and programs can work to combat some of society’s most pressing health concerns – both physical and mental – including childhood obesity, heart disease, depression, and Type 2 diabetes to name only a few. Unfortunately, just providing amenities available for UHFUHDWLRQDO SXUSRVHV RIWHQ LVQèW VXIĆFLHQW DORQH the effort must be more strategic and will likely need to involve one of more community partners (e.g. local health care providers, insurers, therapists etc.). In addition, to test the effectiveness of varying approaches and justify future investment/value, the Department must attempt to quantify the impact of its efforts by diligently collecting benchmark and performance data. – There are many ways that the Department could begin to strategically affect public health, however, the following are some immediate, “low-hanging fruitâ€? opportunities; – Designate all parks and facilities in Columbus

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Increase Sustainability

As a curator of the city’s most treasured greenspaces, environmental sustainability should continue to be a high-priority for the Department when it makes decisions regarding maintenance practices, equipment purchases, and land management policies. The Department should evaluate opportunities to convert unused mowed turf spaces to native grasses DQG RU ZLOGćRZHU DUHDV 5HJXODUO\ PRZLQJ DUHDV which are rarely used represents a waste of the Department’s already limited time and resources, and results in the unneeded production of greenhouse gases by the mowing equipment and/or the vehicles which transport them. It is therefore recommended that these spaces either be improved to facilitate more regular and meaningful usage, or are converted to QDWLYH ZLOGćRZHU DUHDV DQG WDNHQ RXW RI WKH PRZLQJ schedule. Figure 4.25: View of the natural area at McCulloughs Run (2016).

–

– –

– –

as “smoke free.� According to the Indiana State Department of Health, 21% of Bartholomew County residents smoke, contributing to approximately 131 smoking-related deaths, 178 adversely affected births, and 3,923 smokingrelated illnesses (ISDH, 2017). Partner with a local community health provider (such as Columbus Regional Health) to develop a “Park Prescription� program. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) website (www.nrpa.org) offers numerous resources and case studies on park prescription programs across the U.S., Offer free or low-cost health-based programming DQG HYHQWV KHDOWK IDLUV JURXS \RJD EDVLF ĆWQHVV programming), ,QFRUSRUDWH ĆWQHVV DQG H[HUFLVH HTXLSPHQW DQG community garden spaces within larger community parks, and/or within lower-income areas of the community, Provide educational signage at park facilities that SURYLGH XVHUV ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ GLIIHUHQW ĆWQHVV RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG WKH EHQHĆWV RI KHDOWK\ OLIHVW\OHV Provide healthy snack and drink options in vending machines at concession venues.

In addition, and wherever feasible, the Department should continue to utilize products and services which can be purchased locally. Examples include regularly purchased items such as bathroom supplies, branded DSSDUHO DQG ZRUN XQLIRUPV DQG ćHHW YHKLFOHV DV well as bulk materials such as mulch, fertilizers, and lumber. When motorized vehicles and equipment are purchased, preference should be given to those which utilize fuel sources other than – or in addition to – fossil fuels. Recycled and/or renewable materials should also be utilized when possible. For example, damaged timber benches could be replaced with ones made from recycled plastic, and/or worn out timber decking could be replaced with composite decking (provided it contains recycled content).

'HYHORS 6LJQDJH DQG :D\ĆQGLQJ 6WDQGDUGV

During the site evaluation process, the Project Team observed the use of a wide variety of different signage types and styles, as well as multiple interpretations RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQWèV RIĆFLDO ORJR $V VXFK LW LV recommended that the Department commission the GHYHORSPHQW RI VLJQDJH ZD\ĆQGLQJ DQG EUDQGLQJ standards which it can begin to apply across the system. These standards will help to ensure a more uniform appearance of park spaces from the public roadways, increase clarity of directional and

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

203

informational signage, and ensure a higher level of brand recognition for the Department. It is recommended that all park entry (or monument) signage be illuminated, either internally or externally, to ensure low-light legibility. Additionally, all monument signage should include the park site’s address to facilitate location by both visitors and emergency responders. The addition of new signage should be implemented over time, as park improvements are made and/or funds become available. The highest priority should be given to updating the signage and key destination parks and any new parks. Examples include: – Mill Race Park – Donner Park – Lincoln Park – Clifty Park – Blackwell Park

Integrate Technology

3DUN V\VWHPV OLNH WKHLU SDWURQV ĆQG WKHPVHOYHV amid a technological revolution. As people change how they interact with – and leverage – the use of technology, so must a community’s parks! There are two key opportunities, in the near term, to increase the integration of technology system-wide: – The development of a Columbus Parks and Recreation mobile application (app), and – The addition of community Wi-Fi access within destination parks and facilities.

Examples include (in order of priority): 1. Mill Race Park 2. Donner Park 3. Clifty Park 4. Blackwell Park 5. Lincoln Park As technology improves and subsequently reduces the cost and complexity of “public� Wi-Fi access, consideration should be given to adding additional hotspots in smaller, neighborhood-scale parks and at key trailhead locations. 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D SDUN VSHFLĆF PRELOH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV RI VLJQLĆFDQW YDOXH 2QH RI WKH PRVW RIWHQ H[SUHVVHG reasons that prevent residents from better utilizing their parks system is a generalized lack of awareness of what there is going on, or what there is to do. This trend was validated by the public opinion survey (as discussed in Section 3.2). As more and more people UHO\ RQ WKHLU SKRQHV IRU VFKHGXOLQJ *36 DQG ĆWQHVV tracking, a mobile application would help better connect them with the greatest amount of relevant information.

The addition of Wi-Fi access at key park sites and facilities is a “low-hanging fruit� opportunity, and often less complicated than many managers anticipate. In the future, all destination parks and facilities managed by the Department should provide at least one (1) outdoor public Wi-Fi hotspot. Indoor facilities, such as recreation and community centers, aquatics centers, and event venues, should provide high-speed Wi-Fi access throughout the entire facility. It is anticipated that the addition of public Wi-Fi within the city’s parks will occur incrementally, however, priority should be given to existing indoor facilities and key destination parks.

Figure 4.26: Digital "table tennis" at Ninth Street Park (2016).

204

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

The mobile application should also help facilitate the VDIH DQG HIĆFLHQW XVH RI WKH 3HRSOH 7UDLO QHWZRUN E\ providing real-time access to maps, trail routes, and WUDIĆF LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH DSS VKRXOG DOVR VHUYH DV D means of distributing critical information in realtime, such as weather alerts, program start times and cancellations, registration deadlines, and safety alerts. ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKH DGGLWLRQ RI D SDUNV VSHFLĆF mobile application would supplement, but not replace, the continued use of existing technologies such as social media platforms and the Department’s website.

Increase Universal Accessibility

Columbus’ parks system includes both new parks and facilities, as well as older, historic ones. Regardless of their age, many of the Department’s parks necessitate ongoing investment in improvements to increase the overall accessibility of the park space to ensure equitable access and participation across the widest range of abilities. Universal accessibility goes beyond just traditional, code-based ADA accessibility. In the words of Ron Mace from the Center for Universal Design at North

Carolina State University, universal design is “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (University of Missouri, 2017). The proven principles of universal design should be the cornerstone of any new park design and/or major improvement project. This is especially true of parks which serve to large events DQG WKRVH ZKLFK VHUYH VSHFLĆF VSRUWV WRXULVP UHODWHG functions such as tournaments. To improve accessibility system-wide, the Department should focus on: – Ensuring accessible routes between key amenities within a park space, – Ensuring accessible routes from accessible parking spaces into the larger park space, – Ensure that if EWF is used as a play surface, that it is regularly checked and maintained to the appropriate standards for an accessible surface, – Considering the use of an alternative, stabilized play surface (such as poured-in-place rubber or rubber tiles), for destination playgrounds, – Incorporating sensory-based experiences and amenities within new and existing playgrounds, – Ensuring that accessible routes to transfer areas within playgrounds are provided, – Consider adding at least one (1) special-needs swing at each swing set location, – Ensuring that at least one (1) accessible seating area is provided immediately adjacent to each playground area, – Ensuring that at least one (1) accessible picnic table is provided at each area where there is a picnic shelter, – Ensuring that at least one (1) accessible seating area is provided per park site, – Providing accessible routes to spectator seating areas at all tournament facilities (examples include Blackwell Park/Dick Wigh Soccer Complex, Clifty Park, and Lincoln Park), – Updating restroom facilities to ensure they meet applicable codes and standards.

Figure 4.27: Inaccessible route at the Morningside Park playground (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Figure 4.28: Greenbelt Golf Course (2016).

4.7.3 Vision for Golf Having recently taken over the operation of two (2) municipal golf courses (one 9-hole course, and one 18hole par 3 course), Columbus is unique in that it is one of the few municipalities that are getting into the “golf business,â€? rather than attempting to get out. Throughout the project process, it was apparent that the city’s municipal golf courses were viewed as important community assets by project stakeholders, however, the presence of a half-dozen local private courses competing for players in the region necessitates that the Department better identify and GHĆQH LWV ĂŞQLFKHĂŤ LQ WKH JROI PDUNHWSODFH The majority of the private courses in the area are substantially more expensive than the Department’s facilities, thus making affordability a primary differentiator. As such, the Vision for municipal golf in Columbus is for the Department to provide affordable, quality golf facilities focused on providing residents with opportunities for recreational play and skill development.

206

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Both of the existing golf courses are in need of VLJQLĆFDQW LPSURYHPHQWV QRWDEO\ WR WKHLU FOXEKRXVHV (both of which require major renovations). The irrigation system of the Par 3 course was replaced in 2016, and it is anticipated that the irrigation system at Greenbelt will need to be replaced in the next three to ĆYH \HDUV The cost of any improvements proposed must be weighed against the potential increase in rates necessary to offset those improvements. Additionally, the Department should look for ways to lower annual operating costs of the facilities wherever possible. At the time of this study, the Department was only in its second season of operating the courses and as such, golf-related programs and events only accounted for approximately 4% of the total programs offered by the Department in 2016. As the operations of the courses stabilize, the Department should strive to diversify these offerings by providing additional skilldevelopment programs and special events, provided demand for such programs exists.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Figure 4.29: Youth soccer team at Blackwell Park (CPRD, n.d.).

4.7.4 Programs + Events

The programming and event hubs envisioned include:

As noted in the Programs Assessment (Section 2.5), the Department offered 117 unique programs at 13 separate locations throughout the city in 2016. Overall, the Department offers a good distribution of program types and the cost of the majority of programs is likely affordable for many residents. Donner Park serves as the primary hub of recreation programming in the city, hosting approximately 30% of programs and events offered by the Department in 'RQQHU 3DUN LV VXSSRUWHG E\ ĆYH VDWHOOLWH programming hubs which work together to distribute the program offerings more equitably across the community. These hubs will serve as the primary host sites for different types and scales of programs and events throughout the year, tailored to the unique setting, context, and capacity of the offering facility/location. It should be noted that this vision does not exclude the ability to offer programs and events at other sites (which is encouraged), but rather, provides a distribution framework for core offerings by program typology.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Donner Park Lincoln Park Columbus Gymnastics Center Clifty Park Blackwell Park

6. Flatrock River Natural Area (proposed)

Nature and Outdoor Adventure Programs

As previously stated, nature-based programs and experiences are important to Columbus residents, but are largely lacking system-wide. The Department should consider adding nature programs and outdoor adventure programs to its offerings by initially leveraging resources within existing parks and facilities. As plans are further developed for the new park spaces recommended within Section 4.6, outdoor and nature programs and events should also be established to support them. Nature-based programs should focus primarily on education, and will likely be geared more towards youth participants. In contrast, outdoor adventure

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

207

Figure 4.30: Gym Buddies special-needs gymnastics class at the Columbus Gymnastics Center (CPRD, n.d.)..

programs will likely require unique skillsets, and appeal more to teens and adults.

Active Senior Programs

In 2016, the Department provided only one program 6HQLRU *ROI /HDJXH WDUJHWHG VSHFLĆFDOO\ DW WKH VHQLRU population in Columbus. The Mill Race Center – a Cityowned and membership-based Senior Center in Mill Race Park – is currently the only public senior center in Columbus. Despite the presence of the Mill Race Center – which is not managed by the Department - the Department may wish to consider further evaluating the need and/ RU GHVLUH IRU VHQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV DQG HYHQWV DW existing park sites that are distributed throughout the city, as travel can often be challenging for senior residents. If the population continues to age in place, WKH GHVLUH IRU VHQLRU VSHFLĆF SURJUDPV DQG HYHQWV ZLOO likely continue to increase.

Indoor Fitness and Athletics

The lack of an indoor recreation and community FHQWHU WKDW SURYLGHV D J\PQDVLXP DQG ĆWQHVV DUHD VLJQLĆFDQWO\ OLPLWV WKH DPRXQW DQG W\SH RI LQGRRU recreation programs the Department can offer. If the

208

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

vision for a new indoor center (as described in Section 4.4) is realized, the Department would be able to RIIHU D GLYHUVLĆHG SRUWIROLR RI LQGRRU SURJUDPV DQG events that includes an increased focus on athletics DQG ĆWQHVV $ GHWDLOHG SURJUDP DQG HYHQW VWUDWHJ\ should be developed as part of the feasibility study recommended in Section 4.4.

Program Locations

None of the programs offered by the Department in 2016 took place west of I-65, which is an area where the city anticipates additional future residential growth. At the time of this study, there were only two (2) neighborhood park facilities located west of 1-65; Harrison Ridge Park and Oakbrook Park. Both park sites offer a playground, basketball court, parking, SLFQLF VKHOWHU DQG ODUJH ćH[LEOH JUHHQVSDFHV +DUULVRQ Ridge Park also offers two (2) tennis courts. It is recommended that the city evaluate the feasibility of offering a limited amount of programming at these facilities, especially during the summer months when many children are home from school. This feasibility study should take into account the possibility of acquiring Shadow Creek Farms Park and determine what programs, if any, could be offered at that location.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Figure 4.31: Damaged tennis court surface at the Richard's School Park Tennis Courts (2016).

3DUN 6SHFLĆF ,PSURYHPHQWV Following is a list of summarized key improvements and maintenance tasks for each of the city’s existing, developed park spaces. This list of potential projects ZDV LQIRUPHG E\ WKH ĆQGLQJV IURP WKH 3URMHFW 7HDPèV site evaluation process, as well as direct feedback from the Department regarding maintenance and repair needs. Note: A detailed list of all desired improvements and currently known needed repairs for each park space can be found in the Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) in Section 4.8 of this report. All planning-level estimates of cost are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

Blackwell Park/Wigh Soccer Complex Improvements: $6,579,000 Maintenance/Repair: $2,101,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Provide additional accessible seating areas near large gathering/spectator areas associated with WKH VRFFHU ĆHOGV DQG IRRWEDOO ĆHOG – Repair large gaps in accessible playground surfacing, especially those around key activity points or where the surfacing abuts hardscape.

– Activate the natural area behind the Dick Wigh Soccer Complex. – $GG NH\ WRXUQDPHQW ĆHOG LPSURYHPHQWV VXFK DV D SUHVV ER[ QHZ JUDQGVWDQGV ĆHOG OLJKWLQJ VFRUHERDUGV DQG V\QWKHWLF WXUI ĆHOGV – Add additional restrooms to the west. – $GG NH\ ĆHOG XSJUDGHV VXFK DV QHZ GXJRXWV VFRUHERDUGV DQG RXWĆHOG LQĆHOG LPSURYHPHQWV

Clifty Park Improvements: $5,858,000 Maintenance/Repair: $1,286,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Complete renovation of the Jolie Crider Skate Park. – Add additional shelters throughout the park. – Provide pathway connections to existing People Trails. – Add a second playground near Indiana and Marr – Provide accessible routes to accessible spectator seating areas. – Provide accessible routes between the various ball diamonds on the eastern portion of the site. – Provide accessible seating areas along the People Trail.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

209

Columbus Dog Park

Everroad Park

Improvements: $132,000 Maintenance/Repair: $7,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Develop paved parking lot, provide accessible parking space(s) and routes into the dog park. – Provide accessible route into each of the dog areas. – Provide an accessible seating area in each of the dog areas. – Add picnic tables or other seating options beneath the shelter. – Install springs on main entry gate so that it closes automatically after entry. – Add additional dog-related amenities (such as obstacle equipment) within the dog areas.

Improvements: $1,754,000 Maintenance/Repair: $0 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Upgrade existing seating areas to be accessible. – Add neighborhood amenities such as parking, playgrounds, picnic areas/shelters, trail amenities, and signage (See Section 4.3)

Donner Park Improvements: $590,000 Maintenance/Repair: $621,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Upgrade existing playground equipment and surfacing. Provide accessible seating areas around the playground, and accessible routes to them. &RQYHUW HQJLQHHUHG ZRRG ĆEHU PXOFK (:) play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Add additional pickleball courts; provide accessible route to the them from interior of park and/or parking area. – Provide accessible route to existing basketball court. If underutilized, consider converting to pickleball. – Update park entry signage

Eighth Street Park Improvements: $6,000,000 Maintenance/Repair: $0 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Develop into programmed extension of Mill Race Park (see Section 4.3) – Develop site program plan, master plan, and construction cost estimate.

210

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Foundation for Youth Improvements: $293,000 Maintenance/Repair: $664,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Upgrade the playground to provide new equipment, accessible seating area(s), and convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/ or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Upgrade gymnastics equipment, including the ćRRU ćRRUFRYHULQJ DQG VRXQG V\VWHP – Add air conditioning unit for the gymnasium. – Exterior hardscape repair to sidewalks and parking lot (including drainage improvements). – Comprehensive HVAC system upgrades. – Repair to windows and doors.

Greenbelt Golf Course Improvements: $458,000 Maintenance/Repair: $1,475,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Provide accessible picnic/seating area near clubhouse. – Add enclosed golf cart area – Add a rest station along the People Trail w/ seating, bike rack, small shade structure. – Triage repair and improvements to the clubhouse including exterior painting/repair, roof repair, and adding a powered automatic door opener to main entrance. – Future substantial interior renovation including XSGDWHV WR Ć[WXUHV IXUQLVKLQJV EXLOGLQJ V\VWHPV – Major course upgrades, including repair to the irrigation system, fencing/netting, restroom improvements, IDEM upgrades, and drinking fountains. – Parking lot; resurface and paint.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Hamilton Community Center and Ice Arena Improvements: $3,699,000 Maintenance/Repair: $3,244,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Improvement to the rink/rink systems, including the cooling system, ice pit waste and recirculation systems, pumps, and rink lighting. – Building improvements including the addition of a EDFN XS JHQHUDWRU ćRRULQJ UHSODFHPHQWV ZLQGRZ repair, additional conference room space, security system upgrades, PA system upgrades, event decking, and program equipment. – ADA improvements, including providing an accessible table in Fireside Community Hall and adding powered automatic door opener to front/ main entrance.

Harrison Ridge Park Improvements: $311,000 Maintenance/Repair: $131,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Upgrade playground area to include newer, universally accessible equipment, accessible seating areas, and rubberized safety surfacing. – Repair hardscape to ensure accessible routes are provided between parking spaces and core site amenities. – Grade of walk between parking lot and the playground appears to be too steep to be an accessible route, despite being the shortest. – Remove trip hazards in the concrete sidewalks along accessible routes. – Remove trip hazard at the entrances to both playgrounds. – Resurface/repair tennis courts.

Lincoln Park Improvements: $3,140,000 Maintenance/Repair: $497,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Field and tournament improvements including XSJUDGLQJ ĆHOG OLJKWLQJ GXJRXW VWUXFWXUHV SRZHU supply infrastructure, and irrigation system improvements, and concessions areas. – Accessibility improvements to the existing playground including converting EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or

ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard, and adding an accessible swing with appropriate access route. – Provide accessible route to the basketball court from accessible the parking area. – Relocate/re-stripe the accessible parking space adjacent to the playground; there is no accessible route leading from it to the play space due to the 6� concrete curb separating it from the sidewalk.

McCullough’s Run Park Improvements: $229,000 Maintenance/Repair: $35,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Embrace the natural areas/woodlands to the south by providing soft-surface trails, interpretative signage, seating areas/picnic areas, and access to Clifty Creek. – Add new park entry/monument signage and a water fountain to support the athletic activities WKDW WDNH SODFH DW WKH PXOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOG – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard.

Mead Village Park Improvements: $41,000 Maintenance/Repair: $7,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Update monument/entry signage to new standard. – Provide accessible route from parking lot to the ground-level of the playground. Currently, there is an accessible route to the play structure, but wheelchair users are forced to enter the play structure, leaving no accessible route to any seating areas, the basketball court, and/or the other ground-level play structures. – Consider adding an accessible swing.

Mill Race Park Improvements: $1,642,000 Maintenance/Repair: $1,002,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – New, modernized amphitheater w/ utility infrastructure upgrades. – Repairs to existing amenities including shelters,

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

211

boardwalks, trails, sports courts, bridges, and restrooms. – Ensure elevator to the top of the Tower Clock (observation tower) is in a safe and functional RSHUDWLQJ FRQGLWLRQ UHPRYH JUDIĆWL DQG DGG security camera(s). – Provide accessible routes to the special-needs swings, accessible seating areas adjacent to the playground, and accessible seating areas along the Round Lake promenade. – Upgrade existing play equipment, convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard.

Morningside Park Improvements: $110,000 Maintenance/Repair: $19,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Repair fencing and update monument/entry signage. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Improve accessibility within the park by ensuring that main walkway accommodates the minimum ADA turning radius at playground entry points, and removing any trip hazards and grade issues leading from the walkway to the playground ramp. – Consider expanding the informal community garden, if demand exists within the neighborhood; ĆQG D QHLJKERUKRRG SDUWQHU WR DVVLVW LQ WKH maintenance/management.

Ninth Street Park Improvements: $55,000 Maintenance/Repair: $4,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Repair existing fencing and add pedestrian-scale lighting. – Update entry signage. – Provide paved walk from alley to the playground; ensure existing walkway between the playground and the basketball courts meets the applicable standards for an accessible route (width and turning radius).

212

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Noblitt Park Improvements: $471,000 Maintenance/Repair: $21,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Develop site master plan to determine programs and amenities. – Add disc-golf course, and trailhead amenities such as bike racks, updated map kiosk, and water fountain(s). – Add site lighting, additional picnic shelter, and updated park signage. – Pave/improve parking areas; provide a marked, accessible parking space with an accessible route to the trail network. – Repair existing ball diamond for recreational-level play (or remove). – Embrace the natural areas/woodlands to the south by providing soft-surface trails, interpretative signage, seating areas/picnic areas, and access to the Flatrock River.

Northbrook Park Improvements: $3,600,000 Maintenance/Repair: $0 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Develop site master plan for park development into a community/resource based park (see Section 4.3 for additional detail on program and amenities). – Add trailhead amenities, such as a shelter, bike racks, water fountain, etc. – Add updated monument/entry signage. – Upgrade existing seating area along the trail to be accessible.

Oakbrook Park Improvements: $299,000 Maintenance/Repair: $55,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Upgrade existing playground with new equipment and accessible seating areas. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Repair trip hazards present along walkways and trails.

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

Par 3 Golf Course

The Commons

Improvements: $283,000 Maintenance/Repair: $406,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Course improvements, including pond renovation. – Clubhouse improvements, including improved restrooms, new drinking fountain. – Future complete clubhouse renovation, interior/ exterior. – Provide accessible seating/picnic areas outside the clubhouse; there are accessible picnic tables, however, they are in a lawn area. – Consider adding powered automatic door opener to front/main entrance. – Repairs to existing fencing and IDEM items. – Add a maintenance building.

Improvements: $1,035,000 Maintenance/Repair: $59,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Add dedicated, accessible on-street parking space near the front entry. – Upgrade and repair existing playground (indoor). – 5HSDLU FKLOOHUV ZRRG ćRRULQJ DQG FXUWDLQV

Pence Street Park Improvements: $186,000 Maintenance/Repair: $19,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Improve parking lot; add an accessible route accessible parking spaces into the park space or between any of the components within the park space including the playground, picnic area, basketball court, and large shelter. – Convert EWF play surface to a stabilized resilient surface, such as synthetic turf, poured in place rubber, and/or rubber tiles or ensure that the EWF surface meets the ASTM F 1292-04 standard. – Add site lighting at the playground, ball court, and shelter.

Richards School Park Improvements: $11,700 Maintenance/Repair: $91,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – 5HVXUIDFH FRXUW WR UHSDLU VLJQLĆFDQW FUDFNV ZKLFK present trip hazards. Consider dual striping to allow for pickleball use as well. – Add entry/monument signage. – Repair/replace existing fence.

The Donner Center and Aquatics Center Improvements: $3,319,000 Maintenance/Repair: $9,000 .H\ 3URMHFWV – 5HSODFH ĆOWHU VDQG IRU FKLOGUHQèV SRRO – Expand splash-play area. – Add a powered automatic door opener at front/ main entrance. Currently, visitors needing assistance must ring a door bell at the front entry to gain assistance entering the building, which is a VLJQLĆFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW ĂŞH[SHULHQFHĂŤ IRU WKRVH XVHUV when compared to the unrestricted access of ablebodied individuals. – While architecturally unique and historic, the 'RQQHU &HQWHU LV QHHG RI VLJQLĆFDQW XSJUDGLQJ DQG repair. Given the building’s age, there are likely many ADA challenges which should be resolved through further, technical study (See Section 4.4).

Tipton Park Improvements: $20,700 Maintenance/Repair: $0 .H\ 3URMHFWV – Provide a sidewalk/plaza space (with supporting landscaping) which links the monument to the existing pedestrian network

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

213

214

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

4.8

opinion of probable costs

4.8.1 Methodology

4.8.2 Disclaimer

To facilitate the budgeting and project prioritization process, the Project Team developed an orderof-magnitude opinion of probable cost (OPC) for cumulative costs of the capital improvements proposed in the Master Plan Vision.

Please note this OPC is made based on the Project 7HDPèV H[SHULHQFH DQG TXDOLĆFDWLRQV DQG UHSUHVHQWV WKHLU EHVW MXGJPHQW DV H[SHULHQFHG DQG TXDOLĆHG professionals generally familiar with the industry. However, since the Project Team has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding, market conditions, or unknown site conditions, the Project Team cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction cost will not vary widely from the planning-level opinions of probable construction cost described below.

The estimated costs, in 2017 dollars, include generalized allowances for design services, FRQWLQJHQF\ DQG FRQWUDFWRU PDUN XS SURĆW ZKHUH applicable. Unless otherwise noted, these estimates exclude any unknown costs associated with permitting, mitigation, land acquisition, and utility infrastructure. Costs for bikeways and trails are generalized, and are largely intent on providing only a high-level perspective of the capital needs required to implement the system currently planned by the city. As previously stated, at the time of this study, the Department was not responsible for the capital costs associated with the development of the bicycle and pedestrian network (including the People Trails), but rather is responsible for the maintenance of 23 miles of the existing People Trail network.

Because these recommendations represent a series of planning-level concepts for further development, exclusive of any engineering or detailed site design, unknown site conditions or constraints may exist which LPSDFW WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ FRVW $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH ĆQDO design, scale, materials selection, and delivery method RI WKH SURMHFWV ZLOO KDYH D VLJQLĆFDQW LPSDFW RQ ĆQDO cost. Costs should be continually evaluated throughout the design and documentation process of each construction-based project through consultation with a professional cost estimator. For the purposes of this master plan, all sub-total costs include a contingency of 20%, as well as an 18% allowance for design services and contractor general FRQGLWLRQV DQG SURĆW

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

7RWDO /RQJ 5DQJH 9LVLRQ &RVW Based on costs derived from current market trends and/or similar projects, the complete implementation of the long-range (20-30 year) Master Plan Vision, as articulated herein, is estimated to cost approximately $82M, which can be further broken down into the Master Plan Vision subsystems, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

New Park Spaces Indoor Recreation Bikeways + Trails Improvements to Existing Parks $GGLWLRQDO 6WXGLHV 3ODQV

$17.4M $17.0M $9.6M $37.3M

The Improvements to Existing Parks subsystem represents the largest aggregate of potential cost, which at $37.3M, accounts for approximately 46% of the total vision estimate. As previously discussed, these costs represent improvements to existing parks and facilities which will have to be implemented over time, alongside new, high-priority capital improvement projects. Of the $37.3M aggregate total, improvements to the existing park sites - intent

on moving them from “good to great� – account for $25.5M (68.5%), with the remaining $11.8M (31.5%) being associated with necessary maintenance or repair tasks. Please note that these costs represent the complete implementation of the Master Plan Vision, which may take several decades. A detailed action plan for years 1-5 can be found in Part 5 of this report. Additionally, it should be noted that these costs are for capital improvements only (unless otherwise stated), and exclude any operational costs associated with the addition of programs, events, and FTE’s. Accurately estimating these costs should take place as programs are developed on an annual basis, and/or as part of a larger operational business plan.

4.8.4 Costs by Vision Subsystem Following are summarized, high-level estimates for each of the Master Plan Vision projects and/or initiatives, as described herein. A more detailed cost estimate spreadsheet that includes information related to units, unit prices, and conditional notes can be found in Section 6.7 of the Appendix.

Improvements to Existing Parks + Facilities ($37.3M)

New Park Spaces ($17.4M)

Indoor Recreation ($17.0M) Additional Studies + Plans .

Bikeways + Trails ($9.6M)

Figure 4.32: Chart illustrating the distribution of estimated capital costs by Vision subsystem.

216

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

2017-2021 Columbus Parks & Recreation Master Plan Long-Range Master Plan Vision - Order of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Cost Range Vision - Order of Magnitude Opinion of Probable Costs Item No. Item Description

Quantity

Unit

Unit Price

Raw Costs

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

Quantity

Unit

Unit Price

Raw Costs

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

1. New Park Spaces Item No. Item Description

1.1 1 2 3 4 5 6

$17,419,050

High-Priorty Park Development on Existing "Public" Parcels 8th Street Park + Maintenance 28.8 AC $150,000 Facility Northbrook Park 52.0 AC $50,000 Everroad Park 25.0 AC $50,000 Haw Creek Greenway 16.1 AC $25,000 SR-46 Flatrock River CPF Parcels 145.0 AC $25,000 Amberly Park 17.0 AC $25,000

$4,320,000

$5,961,600

Urban community park space within floodway

$2,600,000 $1,250,000 $402,500 $3,625,000 $425,000

$3,588,000 $1,725,000 $555,450 $5,002,500 $586,500

SUBTOTAL $12,622,500

$17,419,050

Resource-based park w/ neighborhood amenities Resource-based park w/ neighborhood amenities Greenway + natural area Resource-based park Resource-based park Note: Costs DNI conditioned structures, permitting, land acquisition.

2. Indoor Recreation Item No. Item Description

2.1 1

2.2 1

New Indoor Facilities Multi-Gen Indoor Recreation and Community Center Hub

$16,974,000 Quantity

Unit

40,000 SF

Unit Price

Raw Costs

$250

$10,000,000

$13,800,000

SUBTOTAL $10,000,000

$13,800,000

Donner Center Renovation

Item No. Item Description

1 2

23,000 SF

$100

$2,300,000

$3,174,000

SUBTOTAL

$2,300,000

$3,174,000

New Bikeway + Trail Segments Remaining Previously Planned Segments Estimated Additional Segments Required

Item No. Item Description

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

DNI land acquisition, Donner Center renovation

Interior renovations and infrastructure upgrades, DNI expansion.

$9,569,472 Quantity

Unit

Unit Price

Raw Costs

9.7

MI

$352,000

$3,414,400

$4,711,872

10.0

MI

$352,000

$3,520,000

$4,857,600

SUBTOTAL

$6,934,400

$9,569,472

4. Improvements to Existing Parks + Facilities 4.1

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

Major Improvements to Existing Indoor Facilities

3. Bikeways + Trails 3.1

Long-

Quantity

Unit

Unit Price

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

Remaining, previously identified bicycle and pedestrian routes as of October 2017. Estimated additional mileage of routes needed to satisfy the 1,000' walking distance.

$37,274,112 Raw Costs

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

Blackwell Park/Dick Wigh Soccer Complex IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$4,767,400 $1,522,480 $6,289,880

$6,579,012 $2,101,022 $8,680,034

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$4,244,800 $932,100 $5,176,900

$5,857,824 $1,286,298 $7,144,122

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$95,500 $5,100 $100,600

$131,790 $7,038 $138,828

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$105,000 $6,370 $106,370

$144,900 $8,790 $146,790

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$427,370 $450,000 $877,370

$589,771 $621,000 $1,210,771

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$10,000 $0 $10,000

$13,800 $0 $13,800

Clifty Park

Columbus Dog Park

Donner Center

Donner Park

Eighth Street Park (No Name Park)

Figure 4.33: Summarized opinion of probable cost for the various capital projects proposed in the Long-Range Vision.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

217

4.7

4.8

4.9

Everroad Park IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$10,000 $0 $10,000

$13,800 $0 $13,800

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$212,500 $481,250 $693,750

$293,250 $664,125 $957,375

Foundation for Youth (FFY)

Greenbelt Golf Course IMPROVEMENTS $332,000 MAINT./REPAIR $1,069,000 SUBTOTAL $1,401,000

$458,160 $1,475,220 $1,933,380

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$2,680,500 $2,350,799 $5,031,299

$3,699,090 $3,244,103 $6,943,193

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$225,000 $95,000 $320,000

$310,500 $131,100 $441,600

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$2,275,025 $360,200 $2,635,225

$3,139,535 $497,076 $3,636,611

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$155,000 $25,000 $180,000

$213,900 $34,500 $248,400

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$30,000 $5,000 $35,000

$41,400 $6,900 $48,300

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$1,190,000 $726,400 $1,916,400

$1,642,200 $1,002,432 $2,644,632

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$60,000 $13,600 $73,600

$82,800 $18,768 $101,568

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$40,215 $3,000 $43,215

$55,497 $4,140 $59,637

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$326,000 $15,000 $341,000

$449,880 $20,700 $470,580

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$22,500 $0 $22,500

$30,100 $0 $30,100

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$177,000 $40,000 $217,000

$244,260 $55,200 $299,460

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$205,000 $294,000 $499,000

$282,900 $405,720 $688,620

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$135,000 $13,600 $148,600

$186,300 $18,768 $205,068

4.10 Hamilton Center

4.11 Harrison Ridge Park

4.12 Lincoln Park

4.13 McCullough's Run

4.14 Mead Village Park

4.15 Mill Race Park

4.16 Morningside Park

4.17 Ninth Street Park

4.18 Noblitt Park

4.19 Northbrook Park

4.20 Oakbrook Park

4.21 Par 3 Golf Course

4.22 Pence Street Park

Figure 4.34: Summarized opinion of probable cost for the various capital projects proposed in the Long-Range Vision (cont.).

218

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part four : master plan vision

4.23 Richard's School Tennis Courts IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$8,500 $66,000 $74,500

$11,730 $91,080 $102,810

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$750,000 $42,706 $792,706

$1,035,000 $58,934 $1,093,934

IMPROVEMENTS MAINT./REPAIR SUBTOTAL

$15,000 $0 $15,000

$20,700 $0 $20,700

4.25 The Commons

4.26 Tipton Park

5. Additional Studies + Plans Item No. Item Description

5.1 1 2 3 4 5.2 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

Additional Studies Park Impact Fee Study Signage and Wayfinding Design Standards Park Design Guidelines Bond Study Park-Specific Master Plans Indoor Recreation Center Feasibility Study Updated Conditions Assessment Donner Center Flatrock River Park Corridor Master Plan Northbrook Park Master Plan McCullough's Run Park Master Plan Everroad Park Master Plan Amberly Park Master Plan Shadow Creek Farms Park Program & Mgmt. Plan

$528,000 Quantity

Unit

Unit Price

1

AL

$30,000

$30,000

$36,000

1

AL

$25,000

$25,000

$30,000

1

AL

$50,000

$50,000

$60,000

Determine design and program guidelines for each park type. Determine capacity, timing, and approach. Partner with TPL or similar.

1

AL

Raw Costs

Incl. Soft Costs/Contigency Notes

$25,000

$25,000

$30,000

SUBTOTAL

$130,000

$156,000

1

AL

$75,000

$75,000

$90,000

1

AL

$15,000

$15,000

$18,000

1

AL

$125,000

$125,000

$150,000

1 1 1 1

AL AL AL AL

$20,000 $20,000 $15,000 $20,000

$20,000 $20,000 $15,000 $20,000

$24,000 $24,000 $18,000 $24,000

1

AL

$20,000

$20,000

$24,000

SUBTOTAL

$310,000

$372,000

MASTER PLAN LONG-RANGE VISION TOTAL:

Determine impact fee amount, projections, and language. Create basic standards for various scales and types of parkrelated signage.

Include space plan, operations, management, and program plan Update existing conditions assessment - inform cost to renovate. Includes Noblitt Park, Mill Race Park, Flatrock River Natural Area, and Eighth Street Park. Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy Determine program capacity, infrastructure needs, maintenance needs, etc.

$81,764,634

Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, the Contractor's method of determining prices or competitive bidding or market conditions. Therefore, our opinions of probable construction costs provided for herein are made on the basis of experience and represent our best judgment as Landscape Architects familiar with the construction industry. The firm cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or the construction cost will not vary from our opinions of probable costs. If the Owner wishes greater assurances as to the construction cost, we recommend the employment of an independent cost estimator.

Figure 4.35: Summarized opinion of probable cost for the various capital projects proposed in the Long-Range Vision (cont.).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

219

05 5-year action plan

222

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

5.1

process + methodology

0HWKRGRORJ\ The Long-Range Vision articulated in Part 4 of the Master Plan represents approximately $82M worth of needed and/or desired capital improvements in the city’s parks and recreation system, distributed over dozens of individual projects. When using the recent past as a benchmark, it is likely that this vision will take 20 to 30 years to realize if the Department’s capital spending levels remain similar. The purpose of this section of the report is to help craft a 5-year action plan that seeks to meet existing, high-priority needs while at the same time moving the Department incrementally closer to realizing the long-range vision. Once order of magnitude costs of the vision were understood, the Project Team conducted an Implementation Workshop with City staff, the Parks Department, the Columbus Park Board, and representatives from the community to help

SULRULWL]H DUHDV RI IRFXV IRU WKH QH[W ĆYH \HDUV DV well as potential funding sources and approaches. The following Action Plan seeks to articulate those priorities and provide a high-level roadmap for investment in the Columbus Parks and Recreation V\VWHP IRU WKH IRXUWK TXDUWHU RI WKURXJK ĆVFDO year 2021. A complete list of all the long-range vision projects and their potential costs is provided as an exhibit to this memo.

([LVWLQJ )XQGLQJ $QDO\VLV The Project Team analyzed the Department’s approved budgets for FY2012-FY2017 to help determine the potential spending capacity for new capital projects in the future. For FY2012-2017, the Department spent an average of approximately $1.33M annually on capital improvements. For the purposes of this Action Plan, it is assumed that this level of spending will UHPDLQ FRQVLVWHQW RYHU WKH ĆVFDO \HDUV

+LVWRULFDO 6SHQGLQJ RQ &DSLWDO ,PSURYHPHQWV )< )<

$2,158,209

$2,081,031 $1,227,276

$1,352,655 $822,115 $350,186 Figure 5.1: Chart illustrating the changes in capital spending by the Department from FY2012-FY2017.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

223

224

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

5.2

proposed funding approach

2YHUYLHZ Given the scale of the vision and the level of need within the existing system, multiple funding mechanisms will be necessary to make a meaningful LPSDFW LQ WKH QHDU WHUP 7KH ĆUVW RI WKHVH LV WKH traditional, “pay as you go” approach which continues to leverage the existing annual departmental budget for capital improvements. If recent trends in funding remain consistent, this funding mechanism would provide a capital capacity of approximately $4.25M IURP WKH IRXUWK TXDUWHU RI WKURXJK ĆVFDO \HDU 2021, in $1M annual increments. The pay as you go strategy will allow for incremental improvements to the existing system, however, will preclude construction of a new indoor recreation and community center (estimated cost of $13M-$15M), and the renovation of the Donner Center ($3M+). Both of these high-priority projects far exceed the existing annual capital capacity of the Department, and will require an alternate funding mechanism, such as a general bond or revenue bond, which will provide a ODUJH DQG LPPHGLDWH LQćX[ RI GROODUV WKDW FDQ EH SDLG back over time.

During the Implementation Workshop, the Project Team was informed that the Department’s bonding capacity is approximately $16M. Following is a summary of the high-priority Action Plan items, projects, and/or geographic areas to be supported by each of the proposed funding mechanisms.

%RQGLQJ To help realize one of the highest priority vision initiatives, it is recommended that the Department leverage its $16M bonding capacity to develop a new, 40,000-50,000 square foot indoor recreation and community center, as proposed in Section 4.4 of the Master Plan. Additionally, the Department should leverage the remaining available bond funds to improve, or demolish, the existing Donner Center, which is in need of substantial renovations to remain usable. A IHDVLELOLW\ VWXG\ WKDW SURYLGHV D PRUH ĆQH JUDLQHG description of the scale, program, and cost of each of WKHVH LQLWLDWLYHV LV QHHGHG WR EHWWHU LQIRUP WKH ĆQDO bond amount as well as the viability of re-use for the existing Donner Center.

Action Plan: Bonding (est. $16M capacity) New Indoor Recreation + Community Center Recommendation

New Indoor Recreation + Community Center (40K SF) Donner Center Renovations

Budget

$13,800,000 $3,174,000

$16,974,000 Notes

Assumes 40K SF building, $250/SF construction cost, excludes land acquisition costs Assumes $100/SF renovation cost

Figure 5.2: Chart illustrating the 5-year action plan items associated with the bonding funding strategy.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

3D\ $V <RX *R

or focus on improving some of the city’s lowest-scoring park sites.

The Department’s $1.3M annual funding capacity for capital projects derived from their municipal budget will allow for incremental, high-priority improvements to the existing system, intent on moving the city’s parks system from “good to great.� These initiatives are spread across three (3) spending categories:

1. New Park Development

Projects in this category represent the development and/or acquisition of new park spaces in the city, the most important of which is Phase 1 of Northbrook Park (as described in Section 4.3). Northbrook Park, which is largely undeveloped, and is located in one of the most underserved areas of the city. In addition, this action plan recommends that the Department aggressively pursue the acquisition and/or negotiation of access and management rights to the privately-owned “park� parcel(s) in the Abbey Place development (north side of the city), and the Shadow Creek Farms development in the also underserved west side of the city.

2. Improvements to Existing Facilities

Many of the city’s existing parks and facilities are in need of both improvements and additional maintenance and/or repair. It is important to distinguish the difference between these two. Improvements are items that add value, increase programmatic capacity, and/or increase the activation of a park site/facility, while maintenance items are intent on repairing an existing amenity and/or site condition so that it provides its originally anticipated value. The Project Team worked in concert with the Department to identify all known maintenance tasks as well as desired improvements for each of the existing, developed park sites. In total, these needs equated to over $37M, approximately one third of which were tasks designated as maintenance/repair. As such, the action plan sets aside a dedicated annual pool RI PDLQWHQDQFH VSHFLĆF IXQGV WR KHOS DGGUHVV WKHVH existing needs. The areas of focus for improvements for existing parks and facilities seek to meet some of the highest priority QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH QHHGV DVVHVVPHQW LQFOXGLQJ bikeways and trails, natural areas and experiences, indoor recreation, and golf course improvements, and/

3. Planning and Design

7KH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV DOVR LGHQWLĆHG D QHHG IRU additional studies and/or plans required to fully realize the long-range vision. Many of these items are necessary in the near-term in order to make progress on some of the high-priority improvements within this action plan. The planning and design category is broken into two JURXSV 7KH ĆUVW JURXS LQFOXGHV QHHGHG êVWXGLHV Í which are system-wide, policy-based documents such as a park impact fee study and park design guidelines. The development of these documents is necessary in the near term to ensure that the City is able to capitalize on the private sector to help deliver/fund park projects. 7KH VHFRQG FDWHJRU\ LQFOXGHV VLWH VSHFLĆF PDVWHU SODQV and/or feasibility studies which provided additional detail on key high-priority park development projects such as the indoor recreation and community center, Northbrook Park, and the Flatrock River Park Corridor. Following is a summary of the key action items and/or areas of proposed investment within existing parks and facilities for Q4 of 2017 through FY2021.

3D\ $V <RX *R $OORFDWLRQ Planning + Design

New Park Development 9%

33%

Improvements To Existing Parks + Facilities

Figure 5.3: Chart illustrating the distribution of capital investment proposed by the pay-as-you-go funding strategy.

226

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part five : 5-year action plan

$FWLRQ 3ODQ 3D\ $V <RX *R HVW 0 FDSDFLW\ IRU 4 )< )<

New Parks

$1,750,000 Recommendation

Northbrook Park - Phase 1 8th Street Park - Phase 1 Acquire "Shadow Creek Farms" Park Acquire "Abbey Place" Neighborhood Park

Budget

$1,000,000 $750,000 $0 $0

Improvements to Existing Parks and Facilities Recommendation

Notes

Add neighborhood-scale amenities, access to natural areas/water, greenspace, restroom/storage bldg., parking/vehicular access on west side at Clairmont Drive Add urban community park components; paved parking area, multi-purpose greenspace, and trailhead amenities. Acquire ownership or usage rights Acquire ownership or usage rights

$3,064,000

Budget

Notes

Improved Nature Access

$80,000

Noblitt Park and McCullough's Run, basic access and amenities including nature trails, interpretative signage, picnic shelters, water access, seating areas, etc.

Tournament Field Upgrades Mill Race Park Donner Park

$250,000 $150,000 $300,000

Partner with/ Tourism Board; focus on Lincoln Park and Blackwell Park Shelter and facility improvements, DNI amphitheater Destination accessible playground and pickleball expansion

Par 3 Golf Course

$125,000

Key Course/facility upgrades, including Phase 1 improvements to clubhouse

Greenbelt Golf Course

$300,000

Key Course/facility upgrades, including Phase 1 improvements to clubhouse

Indoor Facility Improvements

$250,000

Key infrastructure improvements to Hamilton Center, Gymnastics Center.

ADA Improvements

$200,000

Morningside Park Pence Street Park

$50,000 $50,000

$50k annually 2018-2020, system-wide. Prioritize destination parks and/or facilities. Highly-visible park improvements and upgrades Highly-visible park improvements and upgrades

Additional Trailhead Amenities

$94,000

At key "loop" trailheads (Donner, Mill Race, Lincoln, Noblitt, and Blackwell)

Update Signage at Key Parks

$100,000

Skate Park Repair/replacement

$115,000

General Maintenance and R/R Fund

$1,000,000

Planning + Design Recommendation

Studies Park Impact Fee Study

Begin with destination parks/facilities (Mill Race, Donner, Clifty, Lincoln, Blackwell) Phase 1 - demo existing structure, replace with a reduced scale, semi-custom installation that also includes a pump-track. Expand if demand/use justifies in future. $250,000 annually 2018-2021, distributed system-wide. Prioritize health/safety issues, and those within low-scoring parks and/or destination parks.

$486,000 Budget

$36,000

Notes

Determine impact fee amount, projections, and language.

Signage and Wayfinding Design Standards

$30,000

Create basic standards for various scales and types of park-related signage.

Park Design Guidelines Bond Study

$60,000 $30,000

Determine design and program guidelines for each park type. Determine capacity, timing, and approach. Partner with TPL or similar.

$90,000

Include space plan, operations, management, and program plan

Park-Specific Plans Indoor Recreation + Community Center Feasibility Study Updated Cond. Assessment - Donner Center Flatrock River Park Corridor Master Plan Northbrook Park Master Plan McCullough's Run Park Master Plan Shadow Creek Farms Park Program & Mgmt. Plan

$18,000

Update existing conditions assessment - inform cost to renovate.

$24,000 $24,000

Includes Noblitt Park, Mill Race Park, Flatrock River Natural Area, and Eighth Street Park. Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy Full site master plan with phased implementation strategy

$24,000

Determine program capacity, infrastructure needs, maintenance needs, etc.

$150,000

Figure 5.4: Chart illustrating the 5-year action plan items associated with the pay-as-you-go funding strategy.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

227

%LNHZD\V 7UDLOV $V QRWHG LQ WKH ĆQGLQJV IURP WKH 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQW bikeways and trails are one of the most important recreation amenities to Columbus residents. The funding, development, and management of the “People Trail� system in Columbus involves the participation of three (3) main parties. The Columbus Park Foundation D QRW IRU SURĆW RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ UHVSRQVLEOH for raising the capital funds necessary to construct new people trails in Columbus, the planning and design of which are overseen by the City’s engineering and planning departments. The primary role of the Parks and Recreation Department is in the maintenance and repair of the existing trails, as well as trail/trailhead amenities within its existing parks. Given that the Department does not play a capital role in the development of new trails, the majority of the action plan initiatives recommended to support the development of the People Trail system are associated with the addition of new trailheads and trailhead DPHQLWLHV ZLWKLQ GHVWLQDWLRQ SDUNV VSHFLĆFDOO\ WKRVH along the primary “loop� trail system. That said, the Department should advocate for the implementation of high-priority trail segments which better connect the city’s residents and destinations to its park systems. 7KH PRVW VLJQLĆFDQW DQG SUHVVLQJ RSSRUWXQLW\ LV IRU WKH development of an off-street trail connection between Donner Park and Noblitt Park to the west. This linkage is critical to connect the city’s downtown population

to the future indoor recreation and community center site, as well as for the interconnection of the Flatrock River Park Corridor (as described in Section 4.5 Master Plan Vision). In general, Columbus exhibits good north-south connectivity in the central portion of the city. In addition, there are established trail routes connecting the downtown to the residential developments to the west of I-65. There are however notable gaps in connectivity in both the downtown core and in the eastern portions of the city. The Department should advocate for the development of trails within these areas. As new residential communities develop in the northwestern portion of the city (between I-65 and the Flatrock River), the City should also consider expanding the trail system to reach this area. In addition, the Department should advocate for participation in the next update of the People Trails Master Plan, which should be undertaken in the QHDU IXWXUH *LYHQ WKH VLJQLĆFDQW RYHUODS LQ PLVVLRQ and vision between the trails system and the parks system, the Department should be “at the table� in future planning and design discussions regarding trails that interface with their parks and/or for trails which they will ultimately maintain. In addition to having a voice in the development process, it is also critically LPSRUWDQW WKDW VXIĆFLHQW DGGLWLRQDO IXQGLQJ LV DOORFDWHG to the Department to offset the additional cost of the increased amount of maintenance as new trails are developed.

E R V ER C RIV O CK LATRO FL FLA F

NOBLITT PARK

19TH STREE T

DONNER PARK

R S TR R ST C A M O RE CA S YC SY

T ET E EE

RY ER ETER E M ET T Y C EM C I TY CI CITY

T ET EE RE S TR N U T ST TN T ST HES CH

Figure 5.5: Aerial illustrating the location of the "missing People Trail link" between Donner Park and Noblitt Park (Aerial: Google, 2017).

228

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part five : 5-year action plan

3DUWQHUVKLSV )XQGUDLVLQJ There are several categories of improvements which lend themselves to – or will necessitate – partnerships and capital fundraising efforts to implement given their cost, target user group, and/or location. Examples of projects which will likely necessitate some level of fundraising (through sponsorships, donations, naming rights, etc.) include: – Repairing/upgrading the James A. Henderson Playground and The Lucky Climber at The Commons, which is anticipated to cost approximately $750,000. – Additional funds to bridge any gap between the ERQGLQJ FDSDFLW\ DQG WKH ĆQDO FRVW RI WKH SURSRVHG indoor recreation and community center and/or the Donner Center renovation. – Major infrastructural improvements needed at both of the city’s golf courses. Potential project types which lend themselves to partnerships include: – The development of premium improvements to key tournament sites which help to support the Columbus Area Visitors Center’s (CAVC) vision for sports tourism in Columbus. Potential SURMHFW W\SHV LQFOXGH ĆHOG LPSURYHPHQWV OLJKWLQJ V\QWKHWLF WXUI ĆHOGV DGGLWLRQDO VSRUWV ĆHOGV and support facilities (press boxes, grandstands, restrooms, etc.) at Lincoln Park, Clifty Park, and/or Blackwell Park.

– Any improvements needed at the Columbus Gymnastics Center should be coordinated with the Foundation For Youth (who manages the adjacent FFY Center) to see if there are any areas of alignment and synergy. The cost of mutually EHQHĆFLDO LPSURYHPHQWV VKRXOG EH VKDUHG equitably between the two organizations. – As previously noted, partnership with the Columbus Park Foundation will be critical to LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH SULRULW\ WUDLO VHJPHQWV LGHQWLĆHG in this master plan. It is anticipated that this partnership will be coordination-based, rather WKDQ ĆQDQFLDO XQOHVV DGGLWLRQDO IXQGLQJ VWUHDPV for trail development are made available to the Department.

3RWHQWLDO $OWHUQDWLYH )XQGLQJ Sources Smaller improvements and/or projects can more easily be implemented over time within the existing budget VWUXFWXUH KRZHYHU WKH V\VWHP ZRXOG EHQHĆW IURP the use of additional, alternative funding sources that will increase the Departments capacity for both new capital projects and ongoing maintenance and repair. Following is a brief summary of potential alternative funding sources that should be explored by the Department.

Figure 5.6: Photo of the James A. Henderson Playground and Lucky Climber at The Commons (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

229

Grants

There are many sources of potential funding through grants, and while considerable time is required to manage these opportunities and respond to their deadlines, the information contained within this report can be useful in submitting for these grants. As part of this planning effort, the Project Team created a list of commonly used grant sources administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). This list is not comprehensive, as the availability of resources at both the state and federal levels are constantly changing. Additionally, there is no guarantee implied that the various Vision initiatives meet all the requirements of each individual funding source. As such, it is highly recommended that the City employ the services a professional grant writer to assist in the important activity of monitoring and responding to potential opportunities, as the long-term implementation of the Master Plan Vision will likely require them.

State Programs: President Benjamin Harrison Conservation Trust Fund (PBHCTF) The President Benjamin Harrison Conservation Trust Fund (PBHCTF), formerly the Indiana Heritage Trust, was established in 1992 to assist in the acquisition and protection of lands that represent outstanding natural resources and habitats, or have recreational, historical RU DUFKDHRORJLFDO VLJQLĆFDQFH $GGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ on funding requirements and amounts can be obtained by contacting the PBHCTF at (317) 233-1000 (IDNR, 2017). Bicentennial Nature Trust (BNT) The Bicentennial Nature Trust program was created by the State of Indiana in 2012 to celebrate Indiana’s 200th anniversary in 2016. The BNT is designed to encourage local participation, so each project requires a $1:1 match. To ensure availability of funds for a wide variety of projects across the state, a cap of $300,000 has been set for the BNT portion of an individual project, which may only be used for the acquisition of land, and not for capital improvements, stewardship, or programming. The BNT Project Committee, responsible for administering the funds, meets on a

230

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

quarterly basis. The submission deadlines include February 1st, May 1st, August 1st, and November 1st of each year (IDNR, 2017).

Federal Programs: Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program is a matching assistance program that provides funding for the acquisition and/or development of multi-use recreational trail projects. The Indiana RTP will provide 80% matching reimbursement assistance for eligible projects. Applicants may request grant amounts ranging from a minimum of $10,000 up to a maximum of $200,000. Applications are available online or from the Division of Outdoor Recreation and are typically due May 1st of each calendar year (IDNR, 2017). Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The Land and Water Conservation Fund was passed by Congress in 1965 to assist eligible governmental units in the provision of new parks and/or expansions of existing parks through a matching assistance program that provides grants for 50% of the cost for the acquisition and/or outdoor recreation facilities. The Land and Water Conservation Fund grants are available for projects that range from $10,000 up to a maximum of $200,000. All applications are available online at the IDNR website, and must be post-marked by June 1st of each calendar year for consideration (IDNR, 2017). DNR Shooting Range Program The Department of Natural Resources Shooting Range grant program is an assistance program for the GHYHORSPHQW RI ULćH KDQGJXQ VKRWJXQ DQG DUFKHU\ facilities designed to provide the citizens of Indiana ZLWK DGGLWLRQDO DQG VDIHU SODFHV WR ĆUH WKHLU JXQV DQG train hunter education students. The project sponsor (the City) must fund the upfront cost of the project and will be reimbursed for a maximum of 75% of the expenses incurred for the project per the terms of the project agreement. Applicants may request a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $100,000. At the time of the application the project sponsor must have at least 25% of the total project cost available. The local share may include tax levies, bond issues, and/or the or the donated value of cash, labor, equipment and materials (IDNR, 2017).

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part five : 5-year action plan

Additional information on IDNR grants can be found by visiting http://www.in.gov/dnr/outdoor/8328.htm.

Park Impact Fees

Given the amount of future residential grown potential in the region, it is recommended that the City implement a park impact fee (PIF) to help offset the additional burden placed on the Department by new developments and an increasing population. If new developments add additional homes and/or increase population density in currently developed areas, the demand for parks and recreation facilities within those areas will also increase. Park impact fees are payments required by the City of new developments to offset the cost of the additional public parks and open spaces which are necessary to support those developments. PIFs help to shift the

FRVW RI ĆQDQFLQJ QHFHVVDU\ SDUN ODQG DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG development from the general taxpaying resident to WKH SULPDU\ EHQHĆFLDULHV RI WKH QHZ IDFLOLWLHV WKRVH within the new developments). Despite the common sentiment expressed by the private sector, little evidence exists to suggest that impact fees have limited new development (APA, 2017). An adopted city ordinance is required to implement D 3,) 7KH ĆUVW VWHS RI WKLV SURFHVV ZRXOG EH WR KLUH a specialized consultant to assist in drafting this ordinance, and the cost policy which supports it. It is recommended that the City begin this process immediately, to ensure they capitalize on the greatest amount of redevelopment possible.

Figure 5.7: Community input workshop attendee participating in the "Priority Funding" exercise station (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

231

Image: CPRD, 2017.

232

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

5.3

plan adoption

5.3.1 Final Public Plan Presentation The final draft version of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation System Master Plan was presented to the general public at 6:00 PM on December 7th, 2017. The presentation was led by representatives of the Project Team, and was held at the Donner Center in Columbus. The public meeting was publicly advertised by the Department in advance, per City ordinance. During the presentation, representatives from the Project Team highlighted the overall planning process, the summarized findings from the Existing Conditions Analysis and Needs Assessment, provided a detailed overview of the overall Master Plan Vision, and detailed the proposed five (5) year implementation and action plan. A copy of the presentation agenda, sign-in sheets, and presentation slides can be found in Section 6.8 of the Appendix. In total, 19 participants representing at least 10 different organizations/groups attended the final presentation. Following the conclusion of the presentation, the Project Team remained in the room

to answer any questions participants had. Participants were also provided with comment sheets (as part of the agenda) on which comments/questions could be written and provided to the Project Team. A PDF version of the final draft presentation was uploaded to the project website where residents review it prior to its formal adoption by the Columbus Park Board. As part of the ongoing, editing process, minor typographical and/or numerical errors were found within the Final Draft Master Plan document (and/or its supporting products) and corrected prior to adoption, however, no key action items, directions, or core content was altered after the presentation.

5.3.2. Park Board Resolution for Adoption On December 14, 2017, the Columbus Park Board voted unanimously to adopt the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as described herein. A signed copy of the resolution is included on page 235.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

233

(page intentionally left blank)

234

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part five : 5-year action plan

Figure 5.8: Columbus Park Board resolution adopting the 2017-2021 Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

235

references + appendices

238 238

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.1 AC ADA APA ASLA BCSC BNT CAAC CAMPO CAVC CPRD CY DNI Esri EWF FFY GIS , IDNR LF LOS LS LWCF MI MPI

commonly used acronyms

Acre American Disabilities Act American Planning Association American Society of Landscape Architects Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation Bicentennial Nature Trust The Columbus Area Arts Council Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Columbus Area Visitors Center Columbus Parks and Recreation Department Cubic yard Does not include Environmental Services Research Institute Engineered Wood Fiber Foundation for Youth Geographic Information Systems ,QWHUVWDWH Indiana Department of Natural Resources Linear foot/feet Level of service Lump sum Land Water Conservation Fund Mile Market Potential Index

NACTO N.D. NRPA NTS OPC PBHCTF PIF PPS ROW RTP SC SCORP SF SFIA SPI SR U.S. TPL

National Association of City 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 2IĆFLDOV No date National Recreation and Parks Association Not to scale Opinion of probable cost President Benjamin Harrison Conservation Trust Fund Park impact fee Project for Public Spaces Right of way Recreational Trails Program Steering Committee State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Square foot/feet Sports and Fitness Industry Association Spending Potential Index State Road United States Trust for Public Land

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

239

240 240

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.2

references + citations

-BBarth, D. (2009). Providing Equity for Parks and Recreation Facilities; Alternatives for Calculating Level of Service (LOS). FRPA Journal, Spring 2009. Barth, D. (2016). Alternatives for Determining Parks and Recreation Level of Service. American Planning Association PAS Memo, 6-7.

-CCity of Columbus. (2012). City of Columbus ADA 7UDQVLWLRQ 3ODQ. Columbus: City of Columbus. City of Columbus. (2016). 7KHUDSHXWLF 5HFUHDWLRQ Program. Retrieved from City of Columbus: https://www.columbus.gov/recreationandpark s/programs/Therapeutic-Recreation/ City of Columbus. (2017). $'$ 7UDQVLWLRQ 3ODQ Retrieved from City of Columbus: http:// columbus.in.gov/careers/ada-transition-plan/ ada-transition-plan/

City of Columbus. (n.d.). Columbus Parks & Recreation. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from City of Columbus, Indiana: http://www.columbus. in.gov/parks-recreation/ City of Columbus. (n.d.). 1RWLFH 8QGHU 7KH $PHULFDQV. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http:// www.columbus.in.gov/careers/ada-transitionplan/public-notice/ Columbus Area Visitors Center. (n.d.). Guide to the Architecture of Columbus, Indiana. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from Visit Columbus Indiana: http://columbus.in.us/artarchitecture/guide-to-the-architecture/ Columbus Park Foundation. (2017, August 10). Columbus Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Map. Columbus, Indiana: The Columbus Park Foundation and the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department. CPRD. (n.d.). Program and/or event photo. Columbus, Indiana: Columbus Parks and Recreation Department. Crompton, J. (2007). &RPPXQLW\ %HQHĆWV DQG 5HSRVLWLRQLQJ 7KH NH\V WR SDUN DQG recreation's future viability. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

City of Columbus. (2017). Donner Center. Retrieved from City of Columbus: http:// columbusparksandrec.com/facilities-parksand-rental-information/facility-listing/donnercenter/

-EEsri. (2014). 12B: 7UDGLWLRQDO /LYLQJ Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

241

Esri. (2014). 1D: Savvy Suburbanites. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. Esri. (2014). 5E: Midlife Constants. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. Esri. (2015). 7DSHVWU\ 6HJPHQWDWLRQ 0HWKRGRORJ\ Retrieved from http://downloads.esri. com/esri_content_doc/dbl/us/J9941Tapestry _Segmentation_Methodology.pdf Esri. (2015). 7DSHVWU\ 6HJPHQWDWLRQ 0HWKRGRORJ\ Retrieved from http://downloads.esri.com/esri _content_doc/dbl/us/J9941Tapestry_ Segmentation_Methodology.pdf ESRI. (2016). Sports and Leisure Market Potential. Esri. (2016). Tapestry Segmentation: Area 3URĆOH *R +HDOWK\ &ROXPEXV Columbus Bike Map. Go Healthy Columbus.

-IIDNR. (2015). 7KH ,QGLDQD 6WDWHZLGH &RPSUHKHQVLYH Outdoor Recreation Plan 2016-2020. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from http:// ZZZ LQ JRY GQU RXWGRRU ĆOHV FKDS SGI ISDH. (2017). 7KH 6WDWH RI 7REDFFR &RQWURO Bartholomew County. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana State Department of Health.

-MMertes, J. D. (1996). Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Guidelines. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

-GGoogle. (2017). Aerial Image Capture from Google Earth. Google. Greater Columbus Indiana Economic Development Corporation. (n.d.). Advanced Manufacturing. Retrieved November 8, 2016, from Greater Columbus Indiana Economic Development: http://www.columbusin.org/site-selection/ targets/advanced-manufacturing/

- H-

-NNACTO. (2014). Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: National Association of &LW\ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 2IĆFLDOV NRPA. (2016). 2016 NRPA Field Report Park and Recreation Agency Performance Benchmarks. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

-P-

Harnik, P. (2003). The Excellent City Park System; What 0DNHV LW *UHDW DQG KRZ WR *HW 7KHUH San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land.

Project for Public Spaces. (2016). What is Placemaking? Retrieved June 21, 2016, from Project for Public Spaces: http://www.pps.org/reference/ what_is_placemaking/

Harnik, P. (2014). Chapter 3: Parkland per 1,000 Residents by City. In 2014 City Park Facts. Washington, D.C., District of Columbia: The Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence.

242

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part six : appendices

-S-

University of Missouri. (2017). Accessibility and ADA Education. Retrieved from Universal Design: http://ada.missouri.edu/universal-design.php

Schmucker, D. L. (2012). Columbus Parks and Recreation Department Comprehensive 5-year Park System Master Plan. Fishers, IN: Cornerstone Planning & Design. Sports & Fitness Industy Association. (2016). 2016 6SRUWV )LWQHVV DQG /HLVXUH $FWLYLWLHV 7RSOLQH Participation Report.

-TTCPF. (n.d.). 7KH 3HRSOH 7UDLO 3URMHFW. Retrieved from The Columbus Park Foundation: http:// www.columbusparkfoundation.org/thepeople-trail-project/ The Columbus Park Foundation. (2016). Projects. Retrieved from The Columbus Park Foundation: http://www. columbuspark foundation.org/projects/

-UU.S. Census Bureau. (2016). 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Washington D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. 5HWULHYHG IURP KWWSV IDFWĆQGHU FHQVXV JRY U.S. Census Bureau via Community Analyst. (2016). Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2015 and 2020. Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). 86'$ 15&6 2IĆFLDO 6RLO 6HULHV 'HVFULSWLRQ View By Name. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from United States Department of Agriculture: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname. aspx

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

243

244 244

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.3

list of ĆJXUHV

PART ONE Figure 1.1: Budget history for the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department from FY2012FY2017. Figure 1.2: Donner Park (2016). Figure 1.3: Mill Race Park (2016). Figure 1.4: Lincoln Park (2016). Figure 1.5: Mead Village Park (2016). Figure 1.6: Public realm methodology diagram. Figure 1.7: Planning process diagram. Figure 1.8: Planning process brand image.

PART TWO Figure 2.1: Project base map illustrating the "planning area" and the location of existing park and recreation facilities. Figure 2.2: McCulloughs Run (2016). Figure 2.3: Bridge over the Flatrock River, as seen from its eastern bank, south of Mill Race Park. Figure 2.4: The Commons (2016). Figure 2.5: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Traditional Living segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.6: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Traditional Living segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.7: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Midlife Constants segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.8: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Midlife Constants segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.9: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Savvy Suburbanites segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.10: Graphic summary, created by Esri, of the lifestyle characteristics of the Savvy Suburbanites segment (Esri, 2014). Figure 2.11: Chart illustrating the distribution of existing parks by park typology.

Figure 2.12: SiteScore™ Park Site Evaluation Matrix. Figure 2.13: Ninth Street Park (2016). Figure 2.14: Mead Village Park (2016). Figure 2.15: Morningside Park (2016). Figure 2.16: Pence Street Park (2016). Figure 2.17: Richard's School Park Tennis Courts (2016). Figure 2.18: Harrison Ridge Park (2016). Figure 2.19: McCulloughs Run (2016). Figure 2.20: Oakbrook Park (2016). Figure 2.21: Amberly Park (2016). Figure 2.22: Mill Race Park (2016). Figure 2.23: Mill Race Park (2016). Figure 2.24: Lincoln Park (2016). Figure 2.25: Donner Park (2016). Figure 2.26: Donner Park (2016). Figure 2.27:Blackwell Park (2016). Figure 2.28: Noblitt Park (2016). Figure 2.29: Noblitt Park (2016). Figure 2.30: Clifty Park (2016). Figure 2.31: Eighth Street Park (2016). Figure 2.32: SR-46 Greenway (2016). Figure 2.33: Everroad Park (2016). Figure 2.34: Northbrook Park (2016). Figure 2.35: The Commons (2016). Figure 2.36: Hamilton Community Center (2016). Figure 2.37: Foundation For Youth (2016). Figure 2.38: Greenbelt Golf Course (2016). Figure 2.39: Columbus Dog Park (2016). Figure 2.40: Tipton (2016). Figure 2.41: Donner Center (2016). Figure 2.42: Par 3 Golf Course (2016). Figure 2.43: Accessible playground at Mead Village Park (2016). Figure 2.44: Freedom Fields accessible playground at Blackwell Park (2016). Figure 2.45: Inaccessible route to ADA ramp at Morningside Park Playground (2016). Figure 2.46: Accessible route from ADA parking space to playground and park proper missing at Pence Street Park (2016).

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Figure 2.47: Trip hazard present at Harrison Ridge Park (2016). Figure 2.48: Lack of ADA spectator seating at Clifty Park (2016).

PART THREE Figure 3.1: Community input meeting (2016). Figure 3.2: Community input meeting participants (2016). Figure 3.3: Community input meeting participants (2016). Figure 3.4: Community input meeting participants (2016). Figure 3.5: Community input meeting participant (2016). Figure 3.6: Acreage LOS chart. )LJXUH )DFLOLWLHV /26 FKDUW UHćHFWLQJ RQO\ &LW\ owned facilities. )LJXUH )DFLOLWLHV /26 FKDUW UHćHFWLQJ &LW\ DQG County-owned facilities. Figure 3.9: Access LOS map illustrating a 1-mile service DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ PXOWL SXUSRVH ĆHOGV Figure 3.10: Access LOS map illustrating a 1-mile service area from all existing playgrounds. Figure 3.11: Access LOS map illustrating a 1-mile service area from all existing trailheads. Figure 3.12: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing baseball diamonds. Figure 3.13: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing basketball courts. Figure 3.14: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing community rooms. Figure 3.15: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing public golf courses. Figure 3.16: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing pickleball courts. Figure 3.17: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ UXJE\ ĆHOGV Figure 3.18: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ VRFFHU ĆHOGV Figure 3.19: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing softball diamonds. Figure 3.20: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing tennis courts. Figure 3.21: Access LOS map illustrating a 3-mile service area from all existing volleyball courts. Figure 3.22: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing boat ramps. Figure 3.23: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing community centers. Figure 3.24: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing dog parks. Figure 3.25: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile VHUYLFH DUHD IURP DOO H[LVWLQJ ĆVKLQJ ORFDWLRQV

246

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

Figure 3.26: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing public gymnastics centers. Figure 3.27: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor ice rinks. Figure 3.28: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor and outdoor pools. Figure 3.29: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing indoor recreation centers. Figure 3.30: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing senior centers. Figure 3.31: Access LOS map illustrating a 5-mile service area from all existing skate parks. Figure 3.32: Chart illustrating the highest priority QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV Figure 3.33: Chart illustrating the intermediate priority QHHGV LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV Figure 3.34: Chart illustrating the lower-priority needs LGHQWLĆHG GXULQJ WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV

PART FOUR Figure 4.1: Stakeholder visioning workshop participants (2016). Figure 4.2: Community visioning workshop participants (2016). Figure 4.3: Community visioning workshop participants (2016). Figure 4.4: Aerial image illustrating the location of Northbrook Park (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.5: Aerial image illustrating the location of Everroad Park (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.6: Aerial image illustrating the location of the former wastewater treatment plant site (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.7: Aerial image illustrating the location of 8th Street Park (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.8: Aerial image illustrating the approximate location of the proposed Shadow Creek Farms Park (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.9: Aerial image of the proposed Flatrock River Park Corridor (Image: Google, 2017). Figure 4.10: Vision Map illustrating the proposed locations of future park sites. Figure 4.11: Diagram illustrating the venue-based hub and spoke model for indoor recreation in Columbus. Figure 4.12: Collage of images from the Irsay Family YMCA at CityWay in Indianapolis, Ind. Figure 4.13: Vision Map illustrating the potential alternate (general) locations of a new indoor recreation center. Figure 4.14: Aerial diagram illustrating a potential location within Donner Park to add a 50,000 SF indoor recreation center. Figure 4.15: Entrance to the existing Donner Center (2016).

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

part six : appendices Figure 4.16: Map illustrating a 1,000-foot walking distance from the existing bicycle and pedestrian network. Figure 4.17: Map illustrating the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in Columbus (Columbus Park Foundation, 2017). Figure 4.18: Map illustrating a 1,000-foot walking distance from the future bicycle and pedestrian network. Figure 4.19: Aerial image illustrating the location of the proposed Flatrock River Natural Area (Aerial: Google, 2017). Figure 4.20: Aerial image illustrating the location of the Amberly Park property (Aerial: Google, 2017). Figure 4.21: Aerial image illustrating the alignment of the proposed Haw Creek Greenway (Aerial: Google, 2017). Figure 4.22: Haw Creek Greenway area as of 2016. Figure 4.23: Aerial image illustrating the major waterways of Columbus (Aerial: Google, 2017). Figure 4.24: Fitness equipment at Mill Race Park (2016). Figure 4.25: View of the natural area at McCulloughs Run (2016). Figure 4.26: Digital "table tennis" at Ninth Street Park (2016). Figure 4.27: Inaccessible route at the Morningside Park playground (2016). Figure 4.28: Greenbelt Golf Course (2016). Figure 4.29: Youth soccer team at Blackwell Park (CPRD, n.d.). Figure 4.30: Gym Buddies special-needs gymnastics class at the Columbus Gymnastics Center (CPRD, n.d.).. Figure 4.31: Damaged tennis court surface at the Richard's School Park Tennis Courts (2016). Figure 4.32: Chart illustrating the distribution of estimated capital costs by Vision subsystem. Figure 4.33: Summarized opinion of probable cost for the various capital projects proposed in the Long-Range Vision. Figure 4.34: Summarized opinion of probable cost for the various capital projects proposed in the Long-Range Vision (cont.).

Figure 5.5: Aerial illustrating the location of the "missing People Trail link" between Donner Park and Noblitt Park (Aerial: Google, 2017). Figure 5.6: Photo of the James A. Henderson Playground and Lucky Climber at The Commons (2016). Figure 5.7: Community input workshop attendee participating in the "Priority Funding" exercise station (2016). Figure 5.8: Columbus Park Board resolution adopting the 2017-2021 Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

PART FIVE Figure 5.1: Chart illustrating the changes in capital spending by the Department from FY2012FY2017. Figure 5.2: Chart illustrating the 5-year action plan items associated with the bonding funding strategy. Figure 5.3: Chart illustrating the distribution of capital investment proposed by the pay-as-you-go funding strategy. Figure 5.4: Chart illustrating the 5-year action plan items associated with the pay-as-you-go funding strategy.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

247

248 248

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.4

appendix i: plan introduction

Note:

Components within Section 6.4 include:

This section of the appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document. In some print and/ or digital versions of this document, the contents of Section 6.4 have been omitted due to length.

–

Department organizational chart

A digital copy of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document, containing the full appendices, may be obtained by contacting the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

249

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.5

appendix ii: existing conditions

Note:

&RPSRQHQWV ZLWKLQ 6HFWLRQ LQFOXGH

This section of the appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document. In some print and/ or digital versions of this document, the contents of Section 6.4 have been omitted due to length.

– – –

&RPSOHWHG SDUN VLWH HYDOXDWLRQ IRUPV &ROXPEXV $'$ 7UDQVLWLRQ 3ODQ SDUN HYDOXDWLRQV Programs database (raw data).

A digital copy of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document, containing the full appendices, may be obtained by contacting the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.6

appendix iii: needs assessment

Note:

Components within Section 6.6 include:

This section of the appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document. In some print and/ or digital versions of this document, the contents of Section 6.4 have been omitted due to length. A digital copy of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document, containing the full appendices, may be obtained by contacting the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department.

– – –

–

.LFN 2II :RUNVKRS VLJQ LQ VKHHW DJHQGD PLQXWHV DQG SUHVHQWDWLRQ VOLGHV &RPPXQLW\ LQSXW PHHWLQJ VLJQ LQ VKHHW V DJHQGD SUHVHQWDWLRQ VOLGHV Stakeholder interviews/focus groups WDONLQJ SRLQWV VKHHW VLJQ LQ VKHHWV DQG QRWHV Copy of the public opinion survey questionnaire and raw survey data.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.7

appendix iv: master plan vision

Note:

Components within Section 6.7 include:

This section of the appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document. In some print and/ or digital versions of this document, the contents of Section 6.4 have been omitted due to length.

– –

9LVLRQLQJ :RUNVKRS VLJQ LQ VKHHWV DJHQGDV DQG SUHVHQWDWLRQ VOLGHV 2SLQLRQ RI SUREDEOH FRVW GDWDEDVH IXOO ORQJ UDQJH YLVLRQ.

A digital copy of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document, containing the full appendices, may be obtained by contacting the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

2 0 1 7-2 0 2 1 C I T Y

OF

C O L U M B U S P A R K S + R E C R E AT I O N S Y S T E M M A S T E R P L A N

6.8

appendix v: implementation

Note:

Components within Section 6.8 include:

This section of the appendix contains supporting information utilized in the creation of, or referenced within, the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document. In some print and/ or digital versions of this document, the contents of Section 6.4 have been omitted due to length.

– –

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ :RUNVKRS DJHQGD VLJQ LQ VKHHWV )LQDO 'UDIW SXEOLF SUHVHQWDWLRQ DJHQGD VLJQ LQ VKHHWV DQG SUHVHQWDWLRQ VOLGHV

A digital copy of the 2017-2021 City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Master Plan document, containing the full appendices, may be obtained by contacting the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department.

B R O W N I N G D AY M U L L I N S D I E R D O R F

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.