2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan by MKSK

2014 COLUMBUS RECREATION AND PARKS MASTER PLAN COLUMBUS RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER

2014

2014 COLUMBUS RECREATION AND PARKS MASTER PLAN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS COLUMBUS RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT

MKSK

Alan D. McKnight – Director Steve Aumiller – Assistant Director Terri Leist – Assistant Director Mollie O’Donnell – Planning and Design Maureen Lorenz – Staff Liaison

Mark Kline – Senior Principal Andrew Overbeck – Senior Associate Aron Fraizer – Associate Luis Huber-Calvo – Planner Tyler Clark – Planner Danielle Myers – Planner

RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION

PROS CONSULTING

Karla Rothan, President Jeffrey McNealey, Vice President Jennifer Adair Darnita Bradley Kathy Espy Linda Logan Dave Paul Barry Pickett Mataryun Wright

Leon Younger – President Jeffrey Bransford – Senior Project Manager ETC INSTITUTE Ron Vine – Vice President

STEERING COMMITTEE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steve Aumiller Eric Brandon Antony Brodie Tim Donovan John Gloyd Elaine Hostetler Scott Jones Terri Leist Jeffrey McNealey Maureen Murphy Vince Papsidero Craig Seeds Nicole Smith Christina Snyder Marilyn Taylor Malik Willoughby Jean Winters

Kathleen Bailey Shannon Zee Cross John Ehlers Latrice Holmes Gloria Humes Ava Johnson Becky Obester Geoffrey Phillips Elwood Rayford Pam Reeves D Searcy Shawn Thomas Doreen Uhas-Sauer Robin Watson Judy White Tiffany White

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1

Section 1: Introduction

PAGE 11

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

PAGE 27

Section 3: Public Engagement

PAGE 63

Section 4: Community Survey and Level Of Service

PAGE 77

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

PAGE 107

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

PAGE 179

Appendices

Separate Document

FIGURES AND TABLES Section 1: Introduction Figures Figure Figure 1.1

Title Master Plan Study Areas

Tables Page

Table

Title

Page

Table 1.1

Area Commissions and Civic Associations by Study Area

Table 1.2

CRPD Organizational Chart

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis Figures Figure

Title

Tables Page

Table

Title

Page

Figure 2.1

Existing Columbus Parks - Aerial

Table 2.1

Park Classification System and Acreage

Figure 2.2

Existing Parks by Typology - Citywide

Table 2.2

Park Facilities

Figure 2.3

Existing Columbus and Regional Trail System

Table 2.3

Inventory of Community Centers

Figure 2.4

Existing Water Trails and Access

Table 2.4

Metro Park System Acreage (Franklin County Only)

Figure 2.5

Existing Community Centers, Pools, and Spraygrounds

Table 2.5

Branch YMCA Facilities (Franklin County Only)

Table 2.6

Population and Parkland of Nearby Municipalities

Figure 2.6

Existing Parks and Facilities by Other Jurisdictions

Table 2.7

Use Restrictions of Nearby Municipalities

Figure 2.7

Adjacent Municipalities

Table 2.8

Tapestry Segmentation LifeMode Group Descriptions

Figure 2.8

City of Columbus Boundary

Table 2.9

Figure 2.9

Columbus Population

MORPC 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2035 Growth and Land Use Forecast

Figure 2.10

Columbus Age Segments

Table 2.10

National Participatory Trends - General Sports

Figure 2.11

Race and Ethnicity Distribution

Table 2.11

National Participatory Trends - Aquatics

Figure 2.12

Hispanic Population

Table 2.12

National Participatory Trends - General Fitness

Figure 2.13

Columbus Income Levels

Table 2.13

National Participatory Trends - General Recreation

Figure 2.14

Columbus, Ohio and National Income Levels

Table 2.14

Columbus Participatory Trends - General Sports

Figure 2.15

ESRI Tapestry Segmentation Lifemode

Table 2.15

Columbus Participatory Trends - Fitness

Figure 2.16

Population Change: 2000 to 2010

Table 2.16

Columbus Participatory Trends - Outdoor Activity

Figure 2.17

Land Use: 2009 Existing Conditions

Table 2.17

Figure 2.18

Population Change: 2010 to 2035

Parkland for Columbus and Similar Medium-LowDensity Cities

Figure 2.19

Land Use: 2035 Projection

Table 2.18

2014 Trust for Public Land ParkScore

Section 3: Public Engagement Figures Figure

Title

Page

Figure 3.1

Public Workshops Announcement Flyer

Figure 3.2

Facilities Respondent Households Have Used or Visited in CRPD Parks During the Past 12 Months

Figure 3.3

How often do you participate in Recreation and Parks programs and leagues?

Figure 3.4

Recreation programs respondents have used in CRPD Parks or facilities over the past 12 months

Figure 3.5

Are these trail systems accessible to your neighborhood?

Figure 3.6

How often do you use the City trail and bikeway system?

Figure 3.7

How often do you use the regional trail systems?

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Section 4: Community Survey and Level Of Service Figures Figure

Title

Page

Figure 4.1

Survey Respondents

Figure 4.2

How Respondent Households Rate Their Level of Satisfaction Regarding the Recreation Programs, Parks, Trails and Other Services of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department

Figure 4.3

Reasons Why Respondent Households Use Parks, Recreation Facilities or Programs of the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks Department

Figure 4.4

Reasons Why Respondent Households Do Not use Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Parks, Recreation Facilities or Programs More Often

Figure 4.5

How Respondent Households Would Allocate $100 in Funds if it was Available for the City of Columbus Parks, Trails, Sports, and Recreation Facilities

Figure 4.6

Benefits from Parks, Trails and Recreation Facilities and Programs that Are Most Important to Respondent Households

Figure 4.7

Have Respondent Households Visited any of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Parks During the Past 12 Months?

Figure 4.8

Facilities Respondent Households Have Used or Visited in the City of Columbus Parks During the Past 12 Months

Figure 4.9

How respondent households rate the overall condition of all the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department parks they have visited

Figure 4.10

Facilities that Respondent Households Currently Have a Need for

Figure 4.11

How respondents need for Facilities are being met

Figure 4.12

Have Respondent Households Participated in any Recreation Programs Offered by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department During the Past 12 Months?

Figure 4.13

Ways that Respondent Households Learn About Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Programs and Activities during the Past 12 Months

Figure 4.14

How respondent households rate the overall quality of recreation programs or activities in which they have participated?

Figure 4.15

Programs that Respondent Household Currently Have a Need for

Figure 4.16

How respondents need for Programs are being met

Figure 4.17

Have Respondent Households Visited or Used any of the Community Centers Operated by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Over the Past 12 Months

Figure 4.18

Ways Respondent households Travel to the Community Centers They Have Used

Figure 4.19

Potential Programming Spaces Respondent Households Would Use if Developed at Community Center

Figure 4.20

Program spaces that Children in Respondent Households Would Use the Most Often

Figure 4.21

Program Spaces that Adults in Respondent Households Would Use the Most Often

Figure 4.22

Existing Parks By Type - Citywide

Figure 4.23

Unmet Needs for Facilities And Programs - Overall

Figure 4.24

Unmet Needs for Facilities - Walking and Biking Trails

Figure 4.25

Unmet Needs for Facilities - Small Neighborhood Parks

Figure 4.26

Unmet Needs for Facilities - Large Community Parks

101

Figure 4.27

Figure 4.27 Unmet Needs for Facilities - Overall

101

Figure 4.28

Unmet Needs for Programs - Adult Fitness and Wellness Programs

102

Figure 4.29

Unmet Needs for Programs - Community Special Events/Festivals

103

Figure 4.30

Unmet Needs for Programs - Nature Programs and Outdoor Education

104

Figure 4.31

Unmet Needs for Programs - Overall

105 Tables

Table

Title

Page

Table 4.1

Park Facility Standards - Citywide

Table 4.2

Park Facility Standards by Study Area

Table 4.3

Level of Service for Walking and Biking Trails by Study Area

Table 4.4

Level of Service for Small Neighborhood Parks by Study Area

Table 4.5

Level of Service for Large Community Parks by Study Area

100

FIGURES AND TABLES Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies Figures Figure

Title

Tables Page

Figure 5.1

Parks and Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

109

Figure 5.2

Parks Visited by Planning Team

111

Figure 5.3

Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - In-Town Study Area

113

Figure 5.4

Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Central Study Area

117

Figure 5.5

Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - North Study Area

121

Figure 5.6

Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Southeast Study Area

Figure 5.7

Table Table 5.1

Title

Page

System-wide Strategies

133

Table 5.2

Strategies for Neighborhood Parks

135

Table 5.3

Strategies for Community Parks

137

Table 5.4

Strategies for Regional Parks

139

Table 5.5

Strategies for Natural Areas

141

Table 5.6

Strategies for Special Use Parks

143

Table 5.7

Strategies for Acquisition

145

Table 5.8

Strategies for Forestry

146

125

Table 5.9

Urban Tree Canopies and Canopy Goals for Benchmark Cities

147

Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Southwest Study Area

129

Table 5.10

Description of Existing Maintenance Modes

148

Figure 5.8

Neighborhood Parks

132

Table 5.11

List of Parks and Facilities by Maintenance Zone

150

Figure 5.9

Community Parks

133

Figure 5.10

Regional Parks

133

Figure 5.11

Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks

134

Figure 5.12

Community Parks

136

Figure 5.13

Regional Parks

138

Figure 5.14

Natural Areas

140

Figure 5.15

Special Use Parks

142

Figure 5.16

All Parks

144

Figure 5.17

Citywide Tree Canopy

147

Figure 5.18

Existing Maintenance Zone Boundaries

149

Figure 5.19

Proposed Greenway System - Citywide

Figure 5.20

Potential Greenway Expansions and Connections - Citywide

Table 5.12

Strategies for Maintenance

151

Table 5.13

Strategies for Multi-Use Trails

154

Table 5.14

Strategies for Blueways

156

Table 5.15

Strategies for Aquatics

158

Table 5.16

Community Centers Ranges

160

Table 5.17

Community Center Scorecard

162

Table 5.18

Facility Assessment/Customer Service Scorecard

163

Table 5.19

Facility Assessment/Customer Service Parameters

163

Table 5.20

Overall Strategies

165

Table 5.21

Small Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

166

153

Table 5.22

Strategies for Small Community Centers

167

155

Table 5.23

Medium Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

168

Figure 5.21

Existing Blueway System - Citywide

157

Table 5.24

Strategies for Medium Community Centers

169

Figure 5.22

Prioritization For Aquatic Facilities (Outdoor Pools & Spraygrounds)

159

Table 5.25

Large Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

170

Figure 5.23

Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

161

Table 5.26

Strategies for Large Community Centers

171

Figure 5.24

Small Centers Visited by Planning Team

166

Table 5.27

Figure 5.25

Medium Centers Visited by Planning Team

168

Program Lifecycle Analysis - Current Distribution and Recommendations

172

Figure 5.26

Large Centers Visited by Planning Team

170

Table 5.28

Cost Recovery and Subsidy Program Categories

173

Table 5.29

Strategies for Recreation Programs

175

Table 5.30

Strategies for Communications

175

Table 5.31

Partnership Management

177

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan Figures Figure

Title

Tables Page

Table

Title

Page

Figure 6.1

Revenues by Source

196

Table 6.1

Action Plan Matrix for Parks and Facilities

182

Figure 6.2

Expenses by Type

196

Table 6.2

Action Plan Matrix for Recreation Facilities

190

Figure 6.3

Proposed Organizational Chart

200

Table 6.3

Action Plan Matrix for Recreation Programs

192

Table 6.4

Action Plan Matrix for Organizational Management

192

Table 6.5

Action Plan Matrix for Partnerships

194

Table 6.6

National Median Cost Recovery Rates

197

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Section 1: Introduction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan will set the course for the next 10+ years of improvements and advancements for the department. This plan updates priorities, identifies needed improvements, and assesses current planning and operations to ensure that the department fulfills its mission “to enrich the lives of our citizens.” To accomplish this Master Plan, the planning team and the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department (CRPD) studied current needs and determined the ability of current facilities to meet those needs, anticipated growth areas and demand for future services, analyzed socioeconomic trends and changes in preferences, and recommended strategies and tactics to implement needed improvements. The Master Plan was driven by an extensive public process that included outreach to neighborhoods, a statistically-valid survey and stakeholder and staff interviews. The planning team held a Public Workshop in each of the five identified Study Areas in November and December of 2013. This process engaged more than 120 residents one-on-one and resulted in 1,100 additional public comments online. In May 2014, the planning team returned to present key findings, recommendations and strategies to the public. More than 60 people attended and provided input in-person, and another 230 participated online, providing 1,200 additional comments. Concurrent with the public process, a Community Interest and Opinion Survey was conducted to determine how well the current park system meets existing needs of Columbus residents. The survey reached 1,811 households across the City of Columbus. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with agencies and individuals that are closely partnered with the CRPD. The planning team also conducted interviews with CRPD staff and other City Departments. This input was a key building block of the Master Plan, helping to inform plan recommendations and strategies. The Master Plan was also informed by site visits to more than 60 parks and facilities and 20 community centers to assess conditions, quality and needed improvements. To identify local and national demographic and park trends, the planning team used U.S. Census data, population and land use forecasts from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, and benchmarking analysis from the Trust for Public Land, the Sports & Fitness Industry Association and other sources. Level of Service analysis compared how well the City of Columbus is meeting national and regional standards in terms of service and delivery. Taken together, this input, professional observation, and analysis provides the foundation for strategies and tactics to improve how CRPD serves Columbus residents. There are numerous successes to build on. Since the previous Master Plan in 2003, CRPD has added more than 1,000 acres of parkland, opened 22 new parks, added 18 new trail miles, and invested in community centers, spraygrounds, pools, and

sport fields. While CRPD falls short in terms of Level of Service standards in many areas, the plan couples this information with survey results and public input to prioritize improvements and investment. Facilities most in demand include walking and biking trails, small neighborhood parks, and large community parks. Programs in demand include adult fitness and wellness, community events, nature programs and outdoor education. Community Centers and Programming improvements are also required. While many centers have been renovated and/or expanded in recent years and the department has successfully been able to update approximately one center per year, more needs to be done to improve service delivery. Maintenance and security and the consistency and quality of center offerings need to be improved system-wide. The department also needs to consider revenue-generating capabilities to leverage cost recovery for larger centers and certain programs to bring budget allocations more in line with national standards for efficiency. This will require a regional approach to program delivery, better communication and outreach, and stronger partnerships. Improving maintenance standards of parks, facilities and community centers was another key need identified throughout this planning process. Proper maintenance supports higher property values in the community, reduces crime and vandalism, and promotes a higher level of civic pride. The Department also plays an important role in the environmental health of the City of Columbus. The department is charged with managing and planting street trees within the city. Since 2003 it has planted more than 18,000 street trees city-wide. City parkland also represents 12.2% of the City’s tree canopy, and the department is on the front lines of combatting the loss of tree to the Emerald Ash Borer. Additional, significant investment will be necessary to meet the City’s tree canopy goal and to replace lost and damaged trees. The department should continue to prioritize preservation of property that buffer stream corridors, provide wildlife habitat, and protect the city’s tree canopy. This Master Plan provides an action plan for the continued growth, innovation and effectiveness for the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department. Accomplishing all of these improvements and investment will require CRPD to explore other funding models and to collaborate and cooperate with other City departments and public and private sector partners. To effectively plan for the future, there are numerous organizational and budgetary changes that are necessary going forward to allow for greater operational efficiency and functionality. While this will require additional work following this Master Plan, the department will be in a better position to serve existing and future residents of the City of Columbus.

Section 1: Introduction

SECTION 1 HEADING

TOPIARY GARDEN AT DEAF SCHOOL PARK Topiary Garden located in Downtown Columbus was dedicated in 1992, but has a past spanning back to the 19th century when it was part of the Ohio School for the Deaf campus. 10

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 HEADING The 2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan begins by reviewing the purpose and process of the planning effort. Departmental organizational structure, roles and responsibilities are also introduced, as well as accomplishments made by the department in the ten years since the last Master Plan. The importance of parks to the Columbus community is also outlined, setting the stage for the improvements recommended by the Master Plan. Finally, this section explains how to use this plan, summarizing each of the major sections and orienting readers to the content and topics within.

INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The Columbus Recreation and Parks Department (CRPD) is revisiting and revising its 2003 Master Plan to update priorities, identify needed improvements, and assess current planning and operations. This Master Plan builds off the Department’s mission statement “to enrich the lives of our citizens” and will set the course for the future of the Department. The goals of the 2014 Master Plan are to: • Review the 2003 Master Plan and assess how well the expectations of that effort have been met • Study current needs and determine the ability of current facilities to meet these needs • Anticipate growth areas and demand for future services • Understand and document trends since 2003 and the changes in population and attitudes • Identify opportunities to integrate with facilities in adjacent park districts and other City of Columbus departments

PROCESS To accomplish the Master Plan, CRPD engaged three firms. MKSK lead the master planning process and public process. PROS Consulting conducted service delivery, operations and programming analysis to assess current conditions, outline national and local trends and provide a direction for future improvements. ETC Institute performed the Community Survey to document how well the Department is meeting the needs of the Columbus citizenry. The planning team took a multifaceted approach to public engagement, data gathering and analysis. The process was guided by a CRPD-led Steering Committee and an Advisory Committee made up of representatives from Neighborhood Civic Associations and Area Commissions. The planning team met with these two committees throughout the process to share information, gain input and develop recommendations. At critical junctures of the process, the planning team also met with the Recreation and Parks Commission for review, input and approval.

Establishing Study Areas While the Master Plan is intended guide the future of the entire park system, given the size of the city and the breadth of parks, facilities, and programs the park system was divided into five geographic Study Areas. The Study Areas are: In-Town, Central, North, Southeast and Southwest. The Study Areas and the Civic Associations and Area Commissions contained within each are shown in Table 1.1. These Study Areas allowed the planning team to begin to focus in on specific issues and needs within each area and helped to organize the public input process in a more streamlined fashion. 12

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Table 1.1 Area Commissions and Civic Associations by Study Area

IN-TOWN 5th by Northwest AC Brewery District AC Columbus Southside AC Downtown Residents’ Association of Columbus Franklinton AC German Village AC

Harrison West Society Italian Village AC Livingston AC Near East AC North East Area AC University AC Victorian Village AC

CENTRAL Clintonville AC Colonial Hills CA East Columbus CA Kenwood Area Resident CA Milo-Grogan AC

North Central AC North Linden AC Northeast AC Riverside Heights CA Shady Hill Estates CA South Linden AC

NORTH Ballymeade CA Far North Columbus Communities Coalition Far Northwest Coalition Monohan Homeowners CA Northland Community Council

Northwest CA River Landing CA Saddlebrook CA Scioto Trace CA Scioto Woods CA Shannon Hts/Kilbannon/ Kildaire CA The Glen CA

SOUTHEAST Berwick CA Berwyn East CA Berwyn West CA Eastmoor CA Far East AC Far South Columbus AC James Road Neighborhood CA Leawood and Walnut Ridge CA North Eastmoor CA

Peacekeepers CA Pinecress East Neighborhood CA Rathburn Woods CA Renewed Hope CA Shady Lane Park CA Southeast Community Coalition Thunderbird Acres CA Willis Park CA

SOUTHWEST Chesapeake Farms Homes CA Far West Coalition CA Greater Feder Road CA

Greater Hilltop AC Southwest AC West Point CA Westland AC

Figure 1.1 Master Plan Study Areas

NORTH STUDY AREA

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

In-Town Study Area

Hydrology

Central Study Area

Major Roads

North Study Area Southeast Study Area Southwest Study Area

Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS: FALL 2013

PUBLIC MEETING: MAY 21, 2014

120+ 1,100

Public Workshops

Meeting Participants

Total respondents to our 1st Online Survey

Participants at the first Public Workshop in the North Study Area.

Public Engagement The public process was essential to the success of this Master Plan effort. With the Study Areas determined, the planning team held a Public Workshop in each Study Area in November and December of 2013. The purpose of these early workshops was to introduce the planning process and gain input from residents. More than 120 residents attended the workshops. Input was also sought online via CRPDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website and an online survey input form completed by 1,100 residents. This initial interaction with the public helped to define a direction for the Master Plan. The planning team held a city-wide Public Meeting May 21, 2014, to present key findings, recommendations and strategies. More than 60 people attended and provided input in-person, and another 230 participated online, providing 1,200 additional comments. In addition to the public input process, a Community Interest and Opinion Survey was conducted to determine how well the current park system meets existing needs. The survey was mailed to 7,000 Columbus residents and was completed by 1,811 households representing a balanced cross-section of the city. The results have a 95% level of confidence and a precision rate of at least +/-2.3%. This 14

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

230

Total respondents to our 2nd Online Survey

1,200

Total Online Comments

Participants at the May public meeting gave input on Master Plan recommendations

statistically valid survey is a key building block of the Master Plan and helped to inform plan recommendations and strategies.

Interviews and Data Gathering The planning team bolstered the public process and survey effort with numerous other sources of information. Site visits were conducted for more than 60 parks and facilities and 20 community centers to assess conditions, quality and needed improvements. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with agencies and individuals that are closely partnered with CRPD. The planning team also conducted interviews with CRPD staff and other City departments. To identify local and national demographic and park trends, the planning team used U.S. Census data, population and land use forecasts from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, and benchmarking analysis from the Trust for Public Land and other sources.

Integrating Plans and Initiatives The planning process was also informed by current and recent planning processes and ongoing city initiatives. Neighborhood plans helped to identify areas of the city that

DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION The Columbus Recreation and Parks Department’s mission is to “enrich the lives of our citizens.” The Department accomplishes this by providing active and passive recreational activities, programs and facilities for Columbus citizens of all ages in accessible, affordable and safe environments. The Department also maintains parks, multiuse trails, city trees, golf courses, nature preserves and recreational facilities, and it promotes the preservation and wise use of the city’s natural resources. The Department also encourages cultural and physical diversity through its planned activities, the programs offered, and by means of the staff it hires. The Department fulfills its mission with a staff of 279 full-time and 1,130 part-time employees. The latter number includes seasonal employees. Its budget for 2014 is $38.4 million. The Department is divided into the following three divisions that work together to deliver recreation and parks facilities and services to the residents of Columbus.

1. Administration

The public process generated more than 2,300 comments both in-person and online.

need additional parkland and strategies that could help to achieve improvements. The Mayor’s Green Team efforts helped guide recommendations for increasing the City’s urban tree canopy and identified how CRPD could take a leadership role. Recommendations for improving bicycle access to the Department’s trail system and to trail systems by adjoining municipalities was directly informed by planning efforts by the City of Columbus Bike Plan and MORPC’s regional trail system plans.

A Holistic Approach It is important to note that this Master Plan is influenced by multiple sources of information. Any one data point, any one survey question, any one planning team observation, or any one stakeholder opinion can’t be taken in isolation. All of these pieces of information work together to inform the direction of CRPD. The planning team examined all information holistically to develop a complete and balanced understanding of the park system that exists today and define the direction over the next 10 years.

The Administration Division supports CRPD’s mission of providing high-quality recreation and park programs and services to the community. Key sections included in this division are Fiscal, Safety, Human Resources, and Development. Other administrative areas include Information Systems, Warehouse Operation, Visitor Services, and Media Relations. Fiscal The Fiscal Section provides leadership, management, and support for the Department’s budget, working with the Department’s budget and revenue teams. This section provides management and support for the warehouse operation, purchasing, and the accounting functions that include accounts payable and receivable, and revenues. Human Resources This Section operates as the caretakers of CRPD’s most valuable resource: its employees. Planning and Design This section oversees the Capital Improvement Budget and Funds for planning and design of facilities, parks, preserves and properties. Responsibilities include building renovations and development, park/playground improvements and development, and greenway trail development. The section is also responsible for land acquisition and the Parkland Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION Table 1.2 CRPD Organizational Chart

RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OPERATIONS

PERMITS

PARKS

DEVELOPMENT/ MARKETING

GOLF

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

SPONSORSHIPS

MEDIA

VOLUNTEERS

FORESTRY

FACILITIES

WAREHOUSE

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

FISCAL

PURCHASING

ACCOUNTS

BUDGETS

REVENUE

HUMAN RESOURCES

PERSONNEL

PAYROLL

LABOR RELATIONS

BENEFITS

PLANNING AND DESIGN

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

PLANNING

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RECREATION AND PROGRAMS

ARTS

SPORTS

COMMUNITY CENTERS

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION

HOCKEY

CAPITAL KIDS

SENIORS

BUSINESS MANAGER

APPLICATION FOR PURPOSE PRIDE AND SUCCESS (APPS)

COMMUNITY RECREATION

SPECIAL EVENTS

OUTDOOR EDUCATION/ RECREATION

AQUATICS

Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Dedication Ordinance, and manages information with databases and a Geographic Information System (GIS). The section monitors properties for encroachments, endangered species and use and holds all private leases. Planning and Design staff also works directly with the community in the design of parks.

2. Operations Key sections within the Operations Division include Development and Marketing, Permits, Golf, Maintenance, Forestry, and Safety. Development and Marketing This section works with all divisions and sections of the Department to increase financial and personnel resources and to promote a positive image in the community. The major components of this section are Marketing, Grants, Sponsorships, Volunteers, and Private Leisure Assistance for Youth (P.L.A.Y.), a program that provides grants for children from financially challenged families to participate in CRPD fee-based programs. Permits The Permit Section manages and operates five athletic complexes (basketball and volleyball rentals), eight enclosed shelter houses for rent by private groups, and four municipal marinas (Griggs Reservoir, O’Shaughnessy Reservoir, and two at the Hoover Reservoir). The section processes permits for street closures, special activities in all CRPD parks and on Columbus waterways, public and private boating activities, and sites for private weddings. The Permit Section accepts payments for permits and for other user-fee-based programs and services (e.g., rentals, gyms, and league fees). Golf Golf is the only CRPD division that is structured to be selfsustaining. Revenues generated through greens fees, cart rentals, tournaments, rentals, and concession sales support Golf Division operations. A portion of the revenue generated (10 percent) is dedicated to debt retirement. Enterprise funds also support the division’s operational expenses. Park Maintenance Staff provide professional grounds and facilities maintenance services across the city’s 220 square miles. Hundreds of sites are serviced, including parks, playgrounds, lakes, swimming pools, community centers, athletic complexes, facilities, ball diamonds, bikeways, tennis and basketball 18

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The Golden Hobby Shop is operated by the Arts Division and acts as a consignment store for senior citizens’ hand-made crafts.

courts, public gardens, signage, and wildlife management areas. Facilities Maintenance This division maintains over 100 buildings, parks facilities and other physical assets in a safe, effective and economical manner to provide quality places and opportunities for the public to recreate. Forestry and Horticulture The Forestry Section manages, maintains, and protects trees growing on public streets and in parks and other public spaces. The primary goal of the Forestry Section is to manage the urban forest efficiently so the public health, safety, and welfare are preserved. The section is responsible for trees growing on more than 2,000 miles of streets, 400 miles of alleys, and CRPD’s 382 parks. The horticultural crew operates two greenhouses, maintains the Topiary Garden at Deaf School Park and the Park of Roses at Whetstone Park (the largest municipal rose garden in the country), and plants floral displays throughout downtown parks as well as Goodale and Schiller Parks.

Safety The Safety Section provides training to employees, oversees the purchase of safety equipment, and monitors CRPD Safety Manual.

3. Recreation and Programs Key sections within the Recreation and Programs Division include Community Recreation, Sports Office, Special Events, Arts, and Aquatics. Community Recreation Community Recreation operates 29 Community Centers throughout the city. Staff members administer the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Summer Nutrition Program, which serves free lunches at more than 260 locations. During the summer, Community Recreation operates more than 295 camp weeks, which serve thousands of youth in Central Ohio. Recreation clubs and playgrounds serve thousands more. Community Recreation hosts a wide variety of special events, field trips, and partner programs (with the Columbus Crew and Columbus Blue Jackets). Community Recreation serves the needs of youth and families in the community, working closely with Community Recreation Councils in each area. The Community Recreation Section has a strong volunteer base, which keeps this section heavily involved in community activities and in touch with the changing needs of citizens. Therapeutic Recreation The Therapeutic Recreation Program sponsors and conducts recreational activities modified to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation offers a broad spectrum of leisure experiences to enhance an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical, social, and lifetime recreational interests. These programs include aquatic fitness classes; bowling; golf; weight training; wheelchair sports; Addressing Community-Oriented Recreational Needs (ACORN), an after-school program; and The Summer of Fun and Adventure Day Camp. Therapeutic Recreation welcomes and encourages everyone, including the non- disabled, to participate. Outdoor Education/Recreation

environmental educational center. Experiential educational classes include nature studies, camping, canoeing, archery, Native American studies, rock climbing, kayaking, and many other outdoor recreational activities. This section also teaches environmental classes for schools and groups at Community Centers. Aquatics The Aquatics Section operates 7 outdoor swimming pools and 3 spraygrounds during the summer, and the indoor Columbus Aquatic Center year-round. Summer instructional classes in sailing and canoeing are also offered. Other classes and programs provided for Columbus-area residents include learn-to-swim, boating and water safety, instructorlevel first-aid and CPR, life-guarding, water aerobics, adult masters, special needs, conditioning, senior adults, and year-round competition for youth. Special Events The Special Events Section provides professional event coordination assistance and resource materials to hundreds of public, private, and non-profit organizations that annually host festivals and special events in parks and on public property. This section also issues event permits, coproduces events for the city, and administers a sponsorship program for community events. Sports The Sports Office plans, organizes, and coordinates sports activities, leagues, tournaments, and special events for youth and adults that provide opportunities for their physical, mental, and social needs during their leisure time. The Sports office also operates its own permitting, both online and at Community Centers, as well performs its own maintenance on its own sports fields. Arts The Arts Section produces and presents quality performing and literary arts programs that promote the enjoyment and appreciation of the arts and help develop creative potential through exploration, education, and skill building. The section offers a wide range of program formats and curricula to diverse as well as targeted audiences, some of which take place at the Cultural Arts Center, thus serving a variety of interests and skill levels at a central location.

The Outdoor Education Section provides outdoor recreational opportunities for all ages, some of which are among the most popular and well-attended programs offered by the Department. This section manages Indian Village Camp, a riverfront park with hiking, fishing, and an Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE 2003 The Columbus Recreation and Parks Department has made numerous accomplishments since the last Master Plan in 2003. The system has grown by 1,016 acres of new parkland for preservation or future development, at an average of 101.6 acres per year. Five new dog parks (Big Walnut, Godown, Spindler, Three Creeks, and Wheeler) have been added as well as the opening of 22 new developed parks, such as the Scioto Mile, Hard Road Park, Sharon Meadows Park, and Alkire Woods Park (For a full list, see right) Significant improvements have been made at community centers, pools and spraygrounds. Lazelle Woods Community Center opened in 2005, the first new center to open in the city since 1990. CRPD continues to make an effort to renovate approximately one center per year. Since 2003, Dodge Community Center, Whetstone Community Center, Beatty Community Center, Brentnell Community Center and Milo Grogan Community Center have been renovated. The current renovation cycle is ongoing with the renovation of the Westgate Community Center (built in 1963) nearly complete and Glenwood Community Center (built in 1916) about to start. The department has also continued its commitment to aquatics, renovating the pool at Dodge Park in 2012, and creating three new spraygrounds at Barnett, Blackburn and Indian Mound Community Centers. The current renovation cycle of pools includes Maryland Pool (opened summer 2014), Lincoln Pool (renovation begins 2014), and Deshler Park Pool (design begins 2014).

the past 10 years, volunteers have contributed 1,541,316 hours at a value of $26.5 million. Investing in parks and facilities invites the community to invest time and energy in parks and facilities creating a virtuous cycle that benefits the entire city.

Accomplishments Since 2003 at a Glance... Facilities

1,016

Acres of New Parkland

New Developed Parks

Trail Miles For the Alum Creek Trail

New Dog Parks

New Spraygrounds

Renovated Pool

New Community Center

Dodge Pool

Lazelle Woods Community Center

Sustainability

Multi-Use Trail development continues with the development of the Camp Chase Trail on the west side. Since 2003, 18 trail miles of the Alum Creek Trail were developed on the east side, with the completion of missing connections expected by 2015.

18,742

To better direct the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to protect conservation and natural areas, the Nature Preserve Advisory Council was created. The council oversees CDRPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 95 Conservation Areas. The sustainability contributions to the city were also significant with 18,742 new trees planted city-wide along city streets and in parks and open spaces.

New Fitness Coordinators

New Turf Fields

Programmatic improvements were also made for sports activities and community centers. Online registration was instituted for recreation programs, summer camp registration and adult sports leagues. Fitness Coordinators were added to more than 15 centers to manage fitness equipment, train staff, track use, and maintain and replace equipment. Investments also continued at revenue producing sports facilities like Berliner Park where 11 new turf infields, a concession stand, new lights and irrigation where added. This has helped to support the popularity of this facility that has generated more than $12 million in economic impact through annual tournaments. Volunteerism is also strong in city parks and facilities. Over 20

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

New Trees Planted

Along city streets, parks, and open spaces

Programmatic Improvements

At Berliner Park

Economic Impact

$12 Million

Economic Impact Generated through tournaments held at Berliner Park

Volunteers

1.5 Million

Volunteer Hours

$26.5 Million

Economic Value

Contributed from 2003 - 2013

Contributed by Volunteers

New Developed Parks Since 2003 Neighborhood Parks: Albany Crossing Park Alkire Woods Park Cedar Run Park Lehman Estates Park Harrison Park Haydens Crossing Park Jefferson Woods Park New Beginnings Park Prestwick Commons Reynolds Crossing Park Side by Side Park Sharon Meadows Park Williams Creek Park Winchester Farms Walden Park

Community Parks: Hard Road Park Godown Road Park

Opened Lazelle Woods Community Center in 2005

Regional Parks: North Bank Park Scioto-Audubon Park Special Use: Bicentennial Park Highbluffs Park Scioto Mile Promenade

Acquisitions/Extensions since 2003 Hayden Falls Extension Davis Property Hanford Village Extension* Shannon Road Parkland*

Roosevelt Park Extension Walnut Hill** Parkland Hilliard Run Parkland

* In Progress ** Former Golf Course

Volunteers contributed 1,541,316 hours

Instituted online registration for recreation programs, summer camps and adult sports leagues

Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF PARKS Before discussing the data, public input and recommendations of this Master Plan, it is important to consider the vital role that recreation and parks facilities play in the social, physical, environmental and economic health of our community. Continued investment in parks and facilities provides a multitude of benefits for cities including, improving public health, creating public gathering spaces, connecting residents, workers, and visitors to nature, and spurring economic development and revitalization. In recent years, a growing body of academic research and economic studies have explored the linkages between public health and the built environment, quantifying the environmental and economic benefits of greenspace and outlining the social benefits of having easy access to recreation and park spaces.

Community Benefits Recreation and park facilities promote neighborliness and social inclusion by providing a venue for special events and daily interaction. These spaces and places are anchors in the community’s they serve, creating a destination for visitors and residents alike. The benefits of these facilities on the physical and mental development of children is substantial, teaching children critical social skills and increasing the brain’s capacity for learning (Howard Hughes Medical Center, 1999). Research also supports the widely held belief that community involvement in neighborhood parks correlates to lower levels of crime. Access to parks and recreational facilities has been linked to reduction in crime and juvenile delinquency (Witt and Crompton, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1997). After expanding recreational facilities in Fort Myers, Florida and starting an outreach program, police reported a 28% drop in juvenile arrests (Hartmann and Depro, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 2006). The physical health of the community also improves with increased access to recreation and park facilities. A CDC study demonstrated that access to parks and open space lead to a 25.6% increase in the percentage of people exercising three or more times per week. Due to the growing obesity epidemic, the CDC has called for the construction of more parks and playgrounds to improve the nation’s health and well-being. The environmental benefits of parkland are also substantial. Trees buffer air pollutants and generate oxygen. Natural buffers along streams and rivers clean water by filtering particle pollutants from agricultural runoff and managing stormwater. American Forests estimates that trees in the nation’s metropolitan areas provide $400 billion in stormwater retention. 22

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The Scioto-Olentangy bike trail provides access to numerous parks and connects neighborhoods to downtown.

All of these positive factors of parks and recreation facilities combine to make a strong economic impact for the communities that they serve. An ongoing study and survey by the Knight Foundation has found that parks, tree-lined streets, playgrounds and trails contribute to what they call “community attachment.” Cities with higher ranking of community attachment are not only more likely to retain and attract residents, but they are also more successful, demonstrating higher economic rates of Gross Domestic Product growth over time. (Knight Soul of the Community: Why People Love Where They Live and Why it Matters, 2010).

Parks are anchors in the communities they serve, creating a destination for visitors and residents alike.

25.6%

$400 Billion

Value of stormwater retention provided by trees in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s metropolitan areas

Increase in the percentage of people exercising three or more times per week resulting from access to parks and open space

Access to parks benefit the physical and mental development of children, increasing the brainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity for learning Section 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION HOW TO USE THIS PLAN The 2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan is divided into the following sections.

Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis This section catalogs current parks and facilities within Columbus Recreation and Parks. It also examines how City of Columbus parks fit into the regional park system and how it relates to the park systems in adjacent municipalities. Looking to the future, the second part of this section focuses on the trends that will impact the department in the next 10-plus years. This includes changing demographics, socioeconomics, and land use and population forecasts. Local and national trends in sports and recreation programs are also analyzed. Finally, how Columbus ranks compared to other cities nationally is examined.

Public Engagement The Public Engagement section describes how the planning team worked with residents, stakeholders and department staff to develop strategies for improvement. The resulting public input is summarized along with stakeholder and staff interviews. This process informed the vision for the future of CRPD.

Community Survey and Level of Service Two critical portions of the Master Plan process are discussed in this section. The first, the Community Interest and Opinion Survey outlines the statistically-valid survey methodology and highlights major findings. This is followed by a Level of Service Analysis that compares existing parks and facilities to regional standards for service today and five years into the future. Where appropriate, survey results and Level of Service information are combined, beginning to suggest priorities for improvements in certain Study Areas.

Needs Assessment and Strategies This section couples general site visits of parks and site assessments of community centers with specific recommendations for strategic improvements. These strategies and tactics combine data, trend analysis, public and stakeholder input to create a framework for success.

Implementation and Action Plan The Implementation Section outlines an Action Plan Matrix for prioritizing and planning for improvements. This matrix identifies strategies, tactics, leadership and partnership roles. Order of magnitude operational and capital costs are also quantified. This section concludes with recommended organizational changes to both streamline the department and aid in the implementation efforts. 24

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Section 1: Introduction

SECTION 2 1 HEADING

GRIGGS BOATHOUSE In addition to being the home to The Ohio State University Rowing Team, the Griggs Boathouse has event rental space overlooking Griggs Reservoir. 26

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDSSECTION ANALYSIS 1 HEADING

This section catalogs current parks and facilities within Columbus Recreation and Parks. It also examines how City of Columbus parks fit into the regional park system and how it relates to the park systems in adjacent municipalities. Looking to the future, the second part of this section focuses on the trends that will impact the Department in the next 10-plus years. This includes changing demographics, socioeconomics, and land use and population forecasts. Local and national trends in sports and recreation programs are also analyzed. Finally, how Columbus ranks compared to other cities nationally is examined.

INTRODUCTION This section examines internal and external forces that will shape the need for future park investment over the next 10plus years. This starts with understanding where the existing park system is today and its relationship to other adjacent jurisdictionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; park systems and regional park systems that surround the City of Columbus. In addition to analyzing current park typologies and how they measure up to national standards, current community centers and program offerings are also inventoried. Detailed demographic analysis examines where the City is today and the trends that will impact the facilities, programs and services that will need to be provided to address the City of Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; increasingly diverse population. The population will not only grow by nearly 100,000 by 2023, but it will also become more ethnically diverse and have a greater proportion of residents aged 55 or older. To understand where these populations live in the City of Columbus today, a high level lifestyle analysis was performed that combines socioeconomic, age, race and ethnicity data and ties it to a geographic location. To further understand where the city is growing, the planning team also analyzed growth and land use trends of the Central Ohio region. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) prepares land use and population forecasts every five years. From this, trends can be identified that show where growth is most likely to take place. The planning team isolated this MORPC data for the City of Columbus boundaries and looked at how the city grew from 2000 and 2010 and then analyzed land use and growth projection forecast for the city for 2035. Finally, the planning team examined national and local trends in parks, facilities, and programming. This trend analysis shows what activities and sports people are involved in and can begin to suggest how the market is changing and how CRPD can adjust to meet it. National benchmarks from the Trust for Public Land were also gathered to understand where the City of Columbus ranks on a national level and how it compares to cities of similar size and density. Taken together, all of this information is the first step in understanding the park system that the City has today and the steps it needs to take to keep up with local growth, demographic and national trends and the preferences of its citizenry.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Existing Facilities

14,397 10,047 4,350

37.29

Total Acres of Parkland Land Acres Water Acres

Acres per 1000 Residents For 2013 Population

382

Total Parks/Areas

184

Playgrounds

92.45

Trail Miles Total Existing System

184

Playgrounds

183

Multipurpose Fields

Tennis Courts

Basketball Courts

Community Centers

Outdoor Pools

Aquatic Center

Spraygrounds

Boat Ramp Facilities

Skate Park

Dog Parks

Parks by Category

Neighborhood Parks

Community Parks

8 32

Regional Parks Special Use Parks

Golf Courses

Reservoirs

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Conservation/Natural Areas

Parkland Reserves

Operations/Non Park Areas

New Trail Connections

Existing Recreation Programs

1,000+

Recreation Programs For 2013

420

Sports Programs

189

Fitness Programs

295

Weeks of Summer Camps

Therapeutic Recreation Programs

Riverfront Transformation

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES OVERVIEW OF PARKS AND FACILITIES The Columbus Recreation and Parks Department manages, maintains and plans for 14,397 acres of parkland throughout the City of Columbus. Each type of parkland serves a different purpose within the community. The different park typologies and purposes are described and identified geographically on the following pages. For two of the major types of parklandâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Neighborhood Parks and Community Parksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;there are national standards for acres per 1,000 residents established by the National Recreation and Parks Association. City-wide, CRPD is close to the lower end of the standard for Neighborhood Parks and in need of improvement in terms of Community Parks. There are numerous facilities within these parks. CRPD manages and maintains 183 multi-purpose sports fields, 104 softball fields, 63 basketball courts, 93 tennis courts, and 184 playgrounds in addition to other outdoor amenities. There are currently 92.45 miles of Multi-Use trails that connect parks and neighborhoods to one another and provide key recreation opportunities and commuting access to much of the city. CRPD also maintains and manages many Special Use Parks. Primarily concentrated within Downtown Columbus and within the In-Town neighborhoods, these parks are some of the most visible in the city and are home to numerous special events and community festivals. In addition to active parks that have multiple recreational uses, CRPD also plays an important role in conservation. The department has more than 1,400 acres of conservation and natural areas. Park and conservation holdings predominate along many of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s river and stream corridors and wetland areas, providing an important environmental buffer and protecting habitat while also maintaining a degree of public access. There is currently one designated Water Trail within the city along the Olentangy River, with numerous other access points along river and stream corridors and at reservoirs city-wide. Not all parkland is currently designated for use. The department also holds more than 760 acres of property that could become active parkland when needs warrant or when development and operating funds become available. This strategic approach is one method in ensuring that there is ample future park space available to Columbus residents.

TOP: Water feature at Franklin Park BOTTOM: Goodale Park gazebo

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 2.1 Existing Columbus Parks - Aerial

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology City of Columbus Park Major Roads

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES EXISTING PARKS BY TYPE - CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Table 2.1 Park Classification System and Acreage Description

Acres Per 1,000 population (NRPA Standard)

Acres Per 1,000 population (Columbus)

Total Acreage

Neighborhood Parks

Developed park serving a neighborhood (1/2 mile radius). Usually contains playground, basketball, picnic tables, walks, and field game area. Sometimes has parking and shelter

1-2

0.95

766.05

Community Parks

Serves a larger area (2-3 miles radius) and has more facilities than a Neighborhood Park. Usually contains tennis courts, picnic areas, athletic fields, shelters, playground, parking lot, etc.

5-8

1.72

1,380.51

Regional Parks

Serves a large regional area with various facilities and uses often athletic related. Examples: Berliner Park, Anheuser-Busch, and Three Creeks. Other Regional parks are less developed and provide more natural areas.

Varies

2.84

2,277.41

Special Use Parks

Area providing unique or special attraction, usually without traditional park structures and facilities. Examples: Park of Roses, Darby Hill, Bicentennial Park, Cultural Arts Center and Dodge Skateboard Park

Varies

0.16

126.02

Golf

Property used as golf course

Varies

1.20

965.40

Reservoir

Land and Water associated with the three Columbus reservoirs

Varies

7.97

6,398.03

Neighborhood Open Space

Park area with no playground or other facilities but mowed regularly. Sometimes has picnic tables and benches

Varies

0.27

216.48

Conservation/ Natural Area

Conservation/Natural Area: Parkland acquired to protect and preserve significant natural areas, wetlands, ravines, usually along waterways. No development planned. Limited public access.

Varies

21.12

1,418.39

Parkland Reserve

Property acquired through donation or purchase that will most likely be developed into a park. Development will occur when need and/or funds are available

Varies

0.95

762.04

Operations/NonPark Area

Usually a maintenance area, offices, nursery, etc.

Varies

0.11

86.92

37.29

14,397

Park Type

TOTAL

Table 2.2 Park Facilities Facility Type

Total Facilities

Picnic Shelter Medium (50-100 person capacity)

1.00

Large Shelter (100+ person capacity)

4.00

Multi-Purpose Field (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse,/Rugby/ Cricket/Kickball)

183.00

Baseball Field

6.00

Softball Field

104.00

Basketball Courts

63.00

Tennis Courts

93.00

Disc Golf Course

2.00

Playgrounds Dog Parks

184.00 4.00

Sand Volleyball Courts

Skate Park

1.00

Trails (Miles)

92.45

Outdoor Pools

7.00

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 2.2 Existing Parks by Typology - Citywide

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park and Reservoirs

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve Conservation/Natural Area Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES Figure 2.3 Existing Columbus and Regional Trail System - 92.45 Miles of Trails OLENTANGY TRAIL ALUM CREEK TRAIL HERITAGE TRAIL

BIG WALNUT TRAIL

I-670 TRAIL

SCIOTO TRAIL

DARBY CREEK TRAIL

BLACKLICK CREEK TRAIL

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads Existing City of Columbus Trail Existing Regional Trail City of Columbus Park

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

3 Miles

NORTH

Figure 2.4 Existing Water Trails and Access OLENTANGY RIVER WATER TRAIL O’SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR BOAT RAMPS

HOOVER RESERVOIR BOAT DOCKS/MOORING AND BOAT RAMPS

Olentangy Parklands Fishing Access (Worthington P and R)

315

Dow Nelson Field access by Worthington High School Broad Meadows Pedestrian Bridge

SCIOTO RIVER Northmoor Park Tuttle Park

GRIGGS RESERVOIR MARINA, BOATHOUSE AND BOAT RAMPS

OSU Drake Union Building, access by OSU permission Lower Olentangy Confluence Park

BIG WALNUT CREEK

Northbank Park Scioto Audubon Boat Ramps Greenlawn Park

ALUM CREEK

SCIOTO RIVER

0’

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Columbus Recreation & Parks Boat Ramps/Marinas

Hydrology

Columbus River Access

City of Columbus Park

Regional River Access

Major Roads Designated Water Trail

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND PROGRAMS OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY CENTERS The Columbus Recreation and Park Department operates a total of 29 community centers throughout the city. Most centers include amenities such as a craft room, gymnasium, fitness center, weight room, kitchen, and general purpose meeting space. Some also include specialized features including a boxing center, billiards room, wood shop, or an auditorium. Centers range in size from 42,323 square feet (Martin Janis) to 8,230 square feet (Brentnell). For the purposes of description and analysis in this master plan the centers were divided into three categories: small (less than 19,000 sq. ft.), medium (19,000-30,000 sq. ft.), and large/ multi-generational (greater than 30,000 sq. ft.). The master planning process included an on-site evaluation of 20 community centers. This included an examination of the physical condition of each facility, observations of activity levels, and an assessment of the interaction between users, staff, and the center amenities. In an effort to acquire valuable information for recommendation purposes, center managers and key staff were interviewed to understand each centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective from the front lines. Individual community center assessments are found later in this plan that summarize the key findings of consultant visits as well as the opinions of staff, users, and the consulting team for each site. Overall, the greatest strength of the community centers in the parks and recreation system are the highly-dedicated and talented staff that manage the facilities and provide services to users. Areas for improvement involve facility hygiene and maintenance, inefficient operating hours, lack of effectiveness in coordinating and scheduling programs and services, and organizational impediments to marketing and communication.

Arts programs provide a studio atmosphere where students are supplied with proper equipment and instruction to execute their ideas.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS CRPD provides a wide variety of activities and services to the residents of Columbus. Department staff are responsible for the management and implementation of recreation programs, special community-wide events, and the operation of multiple facilities. Employees are engaged year round in planning, implementing, conducting, and evaluating programs and events. All functions within the Department combine to provide hundreds of programs in the areas of fitness, athletics, aquatics, sports, nature, youth camps, and special events. The Department also operates numerous specialized facilities, community centers and a variety of parks. In addition to the provision of services provided directly by

Table 2.3 Inventory of Community Centers Center

Table 2.3 Inventory of Community Centers

Zip

Built

SqFt

Zip

Built

SqFt

Barack

43207

1964

31,742

Indian Mound

Center

43207

1975

10,170

Barnett

43227

1965

32,093

Lazelle Woods

43081

2005

27,453

Beatty

43203

1951

24,820

Linden

43211

1951

23,343

Blackburn

43205

1967

39,301

Marion-Franklin

43207

1972

35,555

Brentnell

43219

1975

8,230

Martin Janis

43211

1978

42,323

Carriage Place

43235

1990

20,167

Milo Grogan

43201

1973

16,267

Dodge

43215

2005

31,772

Schiller

43206

1917

40,424

Douglas

43211

1993

24,423

Sullivant Gardens

43223

1976

11,130

Driving Park

43206

1980

11,853

Thompson

43201

1959

35,500

Far East

43227

1971

17,200

Tuttle

43201

1975

11,257

Feddersen

43224

1965

35,297

Westgate

43204

1963

26,580

Gillie

43229

2001

19,900

Whetstone

43214

1956

39,940

Glenwood

43223

1916

15,063

William Adams

43219

1975

10,630

Holton

43204

1975

10,130

Woodward

43229

1976

15,403

Howard

43219

1990

20,157

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 2.5 Existing Community Centers, Pools, and Spraygrounds LAZELLE WOODS COMM. CENTER WOODWARD PARK COMM. CENTER CARRIAGE PLACE COMM. CENTER

GILLIE COMM. CENTER FEDDERSEN COMM. CENTER

LINDEN COMM. CENTER HOWARD COMM. CENTER

WHETSTONE COMM. CENTER TUTTLE COMM. CENTER

DOUGLAS COMM. CENTER & WINDSOR POOL

MARTIN JANIS COMM. CENTER

BRENTNELL COMM. CENTER

THOMPSON COMM. CENTER & COLUMBUS AQUATIC CENTER

KRUMM COMM. CENTER

DODGE COMM. CENTER & POOL

MILO GROGAN COMM. CENTER

HOLTON COMM. CENTER

BARNETT COMM. CENTER & SPRAYGROUND

WESTGATE COMM. CENTER FAR EAST COMM. CENTER

GLENWOOD COMM. CENTER & POOL

BEATTY COMM. CENTER & MARYLAND POOL

SULLIVANT GARDENS COMM. CENTER

BLACKBURN COMM. CENTER & SPRAYGROUND

SCHILLER COMM. CENTER

BARACK COMM. CENTER & LINCOLN POOL INDIAN MOUND COMM. CENTER & SPRAYGROUND

DRIVING PARK COMM. CENTER & FAIRWOOD POOL MARION FRANKLIN COMM. CENTER & POOL

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads Community Centers Pool Sprayground

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND PROGRAMS CRPD, partnerships with other organizations are utilized throughout the service area. Through formal and informal cooperative relationships, partners assist with delivering select programs, training of staff, granting access to specialized facilities, and providing support to programs with supplies and materials.

PRIORITIES AND CORE PROGRAM AREAS The mission of CRPD is to “enrich the lives of our citizens.” To help achieve this mission, it is important to identify core program areas based on current and future needs to create a sense of focus around specific program areas of greatest importance to the community. Public recreation is challenged by the premise of being all things to all people, especially in a community such as Columbus. The philosophy of the core program area assists staff, policy makers, and the public focus on what is most important. Program areas are considered as core if they meet a majority of the following categories: • The program area has been provided for a long period of time (over 4-5 years) and/or is expected by the community. • The program area is so operationally intensive that it singularly consumes a significant portion (5% or more) of the entire department’s overall total budget (e.g., 5% of CRPD’s $34 million budget would be $1.7 million).

Community centers, the Cultural Arts Center, the Davis Performing Arts Center, and the Golden Hobby Shop are major facilities within the Arts program area that provide visual arts, performing arts, dance, music, exhibitions, artist talks, camps, workshops and classes for ages Pre-K through Seniors of all skill levels. The goals of the program area are to provide a studio atmosphere where students are supplied with proper equipment and instruction to execute their ideas; to encourage students of all ages and skill levels to confidently explore multiple mediums; to expose students to programming that is interesting, relevant, and has educational value; and to provide opportunities for students to experience guest artists, speakers, and programs related to the arts. Located downtown across from Bicentennial Park, the Cultural Arts Center provides exhibition space and adult classes in ceramics, painting, beading, and a variety of other visual arts. The Davis Performing Arts Center, located near Deaf School Park, contains two theater spaces that host a various of shows and classes. The Golden Hobby Shop is located in the heart of German Village and acts as a consignment shop for senior citizens’ handcrafted items.

Fitness

• There are facilities designed specifically to support the program area.

CRPD offers a variety of opportunities in the Fitness program area for the residents of Central Ohio to get more active and fit. Programs range from cardio classes at community centers to walking clubs and fitness center memberships. The Department strives to offer low cost memberships while providing high-quality fitness facilities. Goals of the Fitness program area include promoting increased participation to achieve active lifestyles, increasing the number of facilities offered with upgraded fitness rooms, and ensuring staff are adequately trained to be sure participants are getting safe guidance in fitness training.

• The agency controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market.

Outdoor Education

• The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year. • The program area has wide demographic appeal. • There is a tiered level of skill development available within the programs area’s offerings. • There is full-time staff responsible for the program area.

In consultation with department staff, the planning team identified the following core program areas:

Aquatics The Aquatics program area aims to provide aquatic opportunities for individuals six months and up. In addition to providing learn-to-swim programs, the Department also offers programs on the skills of boating, sailing, and canoeing. CRPD aquatic facilities are also used for training lifeguards and learn to swim instructors. The goals of the program area are to provide an outstanding learn to swim program for all ages during the indoor season and outdoor summer season, and to provide inexpensive open swim times for all residents to enjoy. 38

Arts

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

CRPD’s Outdoor Education program provides environmental education and outdoor programming to residents of all ages in the City of Columbus and surrounding communities. Free and low cost programs are offered year round. These programs include activities such as after school enrichment classes, school field trips, winter and summer day camps, scout and youth group programming, and special events. The goals of the program area include instilling a lifelong appreciation for the outdoors through collaborative learning, fostering environmental and community stewardship, and providing hands on service learning projects for participants to learn about the environment and their relationship to the community.

environment. Sports and fitness programs teach a progression of physical skills and help participants achieve and maintain a healthy lifestyle. After-school programs provide opportunities for participants to develop awareness and skills as they relate to education, leisure and recreation. Outreach activities provide advocacy and support to the community. Summer camp programs encourage awareness, appreciation, knowledge and skill development as part of various day camp activities.

Special Programs

The Therapeutic Recreation program area provides services ranging from social recreational enrichment, sports, fitness, after-school programs, outreach activities, and summer camps.

CRPD offers and administers a variety of special programs aimed at specific segments of the community with the overall goal of increasing access to facilities and activities for everyone. Examples of these programs include: â&#x20AC;˘

APPS (Applications for Purpose, Pride, and Success), which serves to enrich the lives of youth and young adults (ages 14-21) through programs focused on building life skills, character development, employment, post-secondary education, and other components that foster success in life.

â&#x20AC;˘

P.L.A.Y., which provides grants to youth 18 years and younger in the Columbus area who meet certain financial criteria to allow them to participate in fee based programs of Columbus Recreation and Parks.

â&#x20AC;˘

Youth First, which through a competitive application process, awards and provides grants to local youth sports organizations with the purpose of reducing or eliminating participation costs for middle-school age children.

Sports Activities such as basketball, baseball, soccer, softball, flag football, tennis, and hockey are included in the Sports program area. Special interest and emerging programs such as futsal and pickle ball are also provided by this area. In addition, CRPD staff manage several leagues and/or tournaments in various sports. The goals of these programs are to promote sports and healthy lifestyles through a variety of programs, generate revenue, and to offer high-quality leagues and tournaments to participants.

Summer Camps The summer camps provided by CRPD offer the children of Central Ohio opportunities to explore their creative and physical self while participating in supervised activities such as sports, drama, nature, art, and dance. Campers also investigate careers in fields including public safety and public health. The Summer Camp program area aims to provide parents with the assurance that their children will be well supervised, engaged in activities and are having fun. A major goal of the program area is to build self-confidence, increase social skills, give youth opportunities to practice effective problem solving and decision making, and to create a positive experience.

Existing Recreation Programs at a Glance 30 184

Arts

189

Fitness

Therapeutic Recreation The Therapeutic Recreation program area provides services ranging from social/recreational enrichment, sports, fitness, after-school programs, outreach activities, Adventure Center programs, and summer camps. The program is located at the Franklin Park Indoor Adventure Center, which features a climbing wall and a high ropes course. Social/recreational enrichment programs create opportunities for participants to interact with one another in a positive, constructive

Aquatics

Outdoor Education

420

Sports

295

Weeks of Summer Camps

46 3

Therapeutic Recreation Special Programs

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

PARKS AND FACILITIES BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS INTRODUCTION YMCA There are also 10 YMCA facilities within the City of Columbus that serve residents of the region with various recreation and programming facilities, both indoor and outdoor. There are a number of urban YMCA locations, but for the most part they are located in the more suburban areas of the City. These often have pool facilities, gyms, recreation fields, and programming similar to that offered by CRPD. Table 2.4 Metro Park System Acreage (Franklin County Only) Park Battelle Darby

6,584

Blacklick

289

Blendon

653

Heritage Trail

Highbanks

300

Inniswood

123

Pickerington

1,170

Prairie Oaks

1,276

Sharon Woods

761

Three Creeks Walnut Woods Metro Park

When planning for future improvements and additional parkland, it is important to consider parks and facilities that serve the needs of Columbus residents and those of the larger metropolitan region. When analyzing the Level of Service needs of the City of Columbus, the regional facilities operated by Metro Parks and the YMCA were taken into account (see page 90).

Acres

1,100

Alum Creek Greenway

Big Walnut Greenway

Blacklick Creek Greenway

309

Scioto Audubon

120

Rocky Fork

1,003

Scioto South

620

Walnut Woods

1,032

Camp Chase Trail

Miscellaneous

Totals

15,528

Metro Parks The Metro Parks system, which is funded by Franklin County taxpayers, has more than 15,500 acres of parkland just within Franklin County at 18 different parks. Though the majority of these parks are located on the suburban/rural fringes of the county, Metro Parks recently built the Scioto Audubon Metro Park (2007) on the Whittier Peninsula just south of Downtown Columbus in a collaboration with CRPD. CRPD also cooperates with Metro Parks on other parks. Both organizations have jointly developed and operate Three Creeks Park and Metro Parks manages and maintains the Olentangy Greenway Multi-Use trail. Plans to extend this trail to Highbanks Metro Park north of I-270 will create a MultiUse trail linkage that connects to Scioto Audubon Metro Park on the south.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Table 2.5 Branch YMCA Facilities (Franklin County Only) Facility Name

Square Footage

Downtown YMCA

168,173

Eldon & Elsie Ward Family YMCA

30,876

Hilltop YMCA

23,359

North YMCA

46,314

Gahanna YMCA

215,996

Hilliard Ray Patch Family YMCA

49,708

Vaughn E. Hairston YMCA

34,298

Jerry L. Garver YMCA

28,376

Hilltop-Cherry Creek YMCA

8,370

Hoover Y-Park

10,564

Total

616,034

Figure 2.6 Existing Parks and Facilities by Other Jurisdictions HIGHBANKS METRO PARK

GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK

NORTH YMCA

ROCKY FORK METRO PARK

SHARON WOODS METRO PARK

BLENDON WOODS METRO PARK

HILLIARD/RAY PATCH FAMILY YMCA

HERITAGE TRAIL METRO PARK GAHANNA YMCA DOWNTOWN YMCA

PRAIRIE OAKS METRO PARK

ELDON & ELSIE WARD FAMILY YMCA

HILLTOP YMCA CHERRY CREEK YMCA

BLACKLICK WOODS METRO PARK SCIOTO AUDUBON METRO PARK

JERRY L. GARVER FAMILY YMCA THREE CREEKS PARK PICKERINGTON PONDS METRO PARK

VAUGHN E. HAIRSTON YMCA

BATTELLE DARBY CREEK METRO PARK

WALNUT WOODS METRO PARK

HOOVER Y-PARK

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Cemetery

Hydrology

Other Jurisdiction Boundary

Major Roads

YMCA Location

City of Columbus Park Metro Park Parks in Other Jurisdictions Golf Courses (Private and Public) Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

PEER COMPARISON ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS Adjacent jurisdictions were also considered as part of this Master Plan. Since municipalities size parks and facilities to meet the needs of their citizens, this data was not included in the Level of Service Analysis. However, it is important to note that it is likely that Columbus residents that live in nearby cities use these facilities and it is also likely that nearby residents of other municipalities use City of Columbus facilities. Table 2.6 lists the adjacent municipalities and the amount of parkland in each. Only Groveport has more parkland per thousand residents (38) than Columbus (37.29). Table 2.7 lists adjacent municipalities and what regulations are in place for non-residents that wish to use their facilities. All allow residents of other cities to use their facilities, but have some restrictions and require additional fees.

Table 2.6 Population and Parkland of Nearby Municipalities Parkland Acreage

Population (2013)

Parkland per Thousand

Bexley

150

13,445

11.5

Canal Winchester

225

7,393

30.4

1,098

43,607

25.5

Gahanna

775

34,501

22.7

Grandview Heights

6,943

7.5

Grove City

395

37,490

10.7

Groveport

190

5,632

Hillliard

326

28,435

11.6

New Albany

904

8,829

113

Pickerington

150

19,085

7.9

Reynoldsburg

275

36,526

7.6

Upper Arlington

180

34,420

5.3

Westerville

600

37,530

16.2

Whitehall

157

18,503

8.7

Worthington

221

13,837

Municipality

Dublin

Table 2.7 Use Restrictions of Nearby Municipalities Residency Requirement

Non-Resident Use

Bexley

Yes

Yes, restricted

Canal Winchester

Yes

Dublin

Community

Non-Resident Charge Varies

Yes

Varies. 50% - 95% increase for school district residents. 95%-190% increase for non residents

Gahanna

Yes

Varies

Grandview Heights

Yes

Varies. 49% to 61% increase for residents

Grove City

Yes

Groveport

Hillliard New Albany

Yes, with restrictions for the Yes Big Splash Water Park Yes

Varies 50% to 73% increase for residents

Yes

Varies. 33% - 94% increase for school district residents and non residents

Yes

For memberships, 11%-37% increase for non residents

Pickerington

Yes

22%-28% increase for non residents

Reynoldsburg

yes

Yes. $56.00

Upper Arlington

Yes

Yes, with restrictions

Yes

Westerville

Yes

Varies

Whitehall

Yes

Yes, Varies.

Worthington

Yes

Varies. 25%-42% increase for residents

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 2.7 Adjacent Municipalities

WESTERVILLE DUBLIN

WORTHINGTON

NEW ALBANY

HILLIARD GAHANNA

UPPER ARLINGTON

GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS

CITY OF COLUMBUS WHITEHALL

BEXLEY

REYNOLDSBURG

PICKERINGTON GROVE CITY

GROVEPORT CANAL WINCHESTER

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads City of Columbus Park Other Jurisdiction Boundary

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Demographic Analysis provides an understanding of the population within the City of Columbus. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments, income levels, race, and ethnicity. It is important to note that future projections are all based on historical patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the projections could have a significant bearing on the validity of the final projections.

Demographic Overview The total population of the City of Columbus had an increase of approximately 9.6% from 711,470 in 2000 to 787,033 in 2010. The current population estimate for 2013 is 802,411, and it is projected to reach 838,107 in 2018, and total 909,369 by 2028. According to the U.S. Census reports, the total number of households in the city has increased by approximately 9.1%, from 301,534 in 2000 to 331,602 in 2010. Columbus is estimated to have 338,751 households in 2013, and is expected to grow to 383,203 households by 2028. The target area’s median household income ($40,341) and per capita income ($23,592) are well below both state and national averages. Based on the 2010 Census, the population of the City of Columbus is much younger (31.4 years) than the median age of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that by 2028, the city will undergo an aging trend, with the 55+ group being the only age segment experiencing growth. The distribution by age segments is expected to be balanced between the four major age groupings based on 2028 forecasts. The estimated 2013 population of City of Columbus is mostly White Alone (61.74%), with the Black Alone (27.08%) group as the only minority representing more than 5% of the total population. From 2000 to 2010, the target area’s racial composition underwent slight diversification, as the White Alone category dropped from 67.93% to 61.46%, and the Black Alone segment increased from 24.47% to 27.98%. In the period between censuses, those of Hispanic Origin more than doubled, from 2.46% in 2000 to 5.64% in 2010. Future projections show that by 2028 the city will slowly become more diverse, but the White Alone (56.73%) group will remain the majority. Based on 2028 projections, the largest minority will be the Black Alone (28.87%) group, followed by Some Other Race (5.38%) and Asian (4.88%). The Hispanic ethnic group will continue growing, and represent 10.78% of the population by 2028.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Methodology Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in September 2013 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, and estimates for 2013 and 2018 as obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear regression was utilized for projected 2023 and 2028 demographics. The geographic boundary of the City of Columbus was utilized as the demographic analysis boundary shown in Figure 2.8.

Race And Ethnicity Definitions The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis. • American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment • Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam • Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands • White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa • Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race

Figure 2.8 City of Columbus Boundary

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology City of Columbus Park Major Roads

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

600,000

400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 2000 Census

RACE AND ETHNICITY In analyzing race and ethnicity, the target area is fairly diverse. The 2013 estimate shows that the majority of the population falls into the White Only (61.74%) category. In the time between Censuses of 2000 and 2010, the city recognized some diversification as the White Only category reduced from 67.93% to 61.46%, while the Black Alone segment increased from 24.47% to 27.98%. In the same 10-year period, those of Hispanic Origin more than doubled their representation from 2.46% to 5.64%. Predictions for 2028 expect the target area to be 56.73% White Alone, while the Black Alone will be the largest minority (28.87%), followed by Some Other Race (5.38%) and Asian (4.88%). The Hispanic ethnic group will grow to represent 10.78% of the population based on 2028 projections. See Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

2010 Census

2013 2018 2023 2028 Estimate Projection Projection Projection

Figure 2.10 Columbus Age Segments 55+ 35-54

80%

35-54

55+

100%

20%

2000 Census

18-34 <18

40%

18-34

60%

<18

Over time, the overall composition of the population is projected to undergo an aging trend. The Census results from 2000 and 2010 show slight decreases in the three youngest age segments, while the 55+ group grew from 15.3% to 17.9% of the population. Future projections through 2028 show that each age segment, except the 55+ group, will undergo small, but steady, decreases in size as compared to the population as a whole. The 55+ segment is expected to steadily grow to represent approximately 25.8% of the population by 2028, making the distribution of the four age segments nearly equal. This is consistent with general national trends where the 55+ age group has been growing as a result of increased life expectancies and the baby boomer population entering that age group. See Figure 2.10.

909,369

500,000

AGE SEGMENT Evaluating the distribution by age segments, the City of Columbus is somewhat balanced between youth, young adult, family, and senior populations. In 2010, the largest segment by population is the 18-34 age group representing 33% of the total population, and the smallest is the 55+ segment which constitutes 15.3%.

874,269

700,000

838,107

800,000

802,441

The City of Columbus has witnessed a gradual increase in population in recent years. From 2000 to 2010, the target areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total population experienced an increase of 9.6% (from 711,470 to 787,033), or an annual growth rate of nearly 1%. This is almost equal to national growth averages, which were just over 1% annually. Projecting ahead, the total population of the city is expected to continue to increase over the next 15 years. Based on predictions through 2028, Columbus is expected to have approximately 909,369 residents living within 383,203 households. See Figure 2.9.

900,000

787,033

POPULATION

Figure 2.9 Columbus Population

711,470

CITY OF COLUMBUS POPULACE

2010 Census

2013 2018 2023 2028 Estimate Projection Projection Projection

Figure 2.11 Race and Ethnicity Distribution 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

2000

2010

2013

Census

Estimate

White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian

2018

2023

Projection Projection

2028 Projection

Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races

Figure 2.12 Hispanic Population 100%

HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME

All Others

The City of Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income characteristics demonstrate steady growth trends. The median household income was $37,897 in 2000 and $40,341 in 2013. It is projected to grow to $53,809 by 2028. The median household income represents the earnings of all persons age 16 years or older living together in a housing unit. The per capita income, is also projected to increase from $20,450 in 2000 and $23,592 in 2013 to $29,990 by 2028 (Figure 2.13).

80% 60% 40% 20% 10.78%

2.46% 5.64%

2000

2010

Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)

2028

Figure 2.13 Columbus Income Levels

$29,990

2023

Projection

$53,809

2018

Projection

$28,231

2013

Estimate

$50,754

2000

Census

$27,281

$23,592

$10,000

$20,450

$20,000

$40,341

$30,000

$47,537 $37,897

$40,000

$66,087

$55,058

$50,000

$63,804 $50,807

$60,000

$70,279

$70,000

As seen in Figure 2.14, Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s median household income ($40,341) is well below the state ($48,071) and national ($52,762) averages. Per Capita Income ($23,592) is also below state ($25,618) and national ($27,915) averages. Future predictions expect that both Median Household Income and Per Capita income for the area will increase to $53,809 and $29,990, respectively, by 2028.

2028

Projection

Median Household Income Average Household Income Per Capita Household Income

Figure 2.14 Columbus, Ohio and National Income Levels

$40,000 $30,000

$52,762 $48,071 $40,341

$50,000

$27,915 $25,618 $23,592

$20,000 $10,000

Median Household Income

Columbus Ohio National

Per Capita Household Income

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

HIGH LEVEL LIFESTYLE ANALYSIS TAPESTRY SEGMENTATION LIFEMODE DATA In addition to considering demographic trends, the planning team also conducted a high level lifestyle analysis that combines socioeconomic with demographic factors. Tapestry Segmentation LifeMode data supplied by ESRI for the Columbus region identifies where certain types of residents live within the city. For example, this information shows where there is a higher proportion of immigrant populations (along SR 161 east of I-71, and along the far east and far west side of Broad Street), larger concentrations of seniors (on the far north, far south and far east sides), a high degree of students (along SR 315, I-670 west and Alum Creek just north of I-670) and greater Table 2.8 Tapestry Segmentation LifeMode Group Descriptions LifeMode Group High Income

(High Society) AboveAverage Incomes

(Upscale Avenues)

City Dwellers (Metropolis)

Young City Dwellers

(Solo Acts)

Seniors

(Senior Styles)

Students and Military

(Scholars & Patriots)

Description Residents are affluent and well educated. They represent slightly more than 12 percent of all US households but generate nearly one-quarter of the total US income. Most households are married couple families who live in affluent neighborhoods.

Median Income $100,216

amounts of younger, aspirational families (southwest, southeast and northeast parts of the city). While this represents a current “snapshot” in time, it provides another layer of information in terms of how best to serve an increasingly diverse population. The descriptions of the LifeMode groups can be found below and the map at right identifies the areas of the city where each group makes up a predominant portion of the population. Additional information can be found online at http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/tapestry

Table 2.8 Tapestry Segmentation LifeMode Group Descriptions LifeMode Group Young Working Families

(High Hopes)

Similar to the High Society segments, many in this group are also well educated with above-average earnings. However, their housing choices reveal their distinct preferences, from high-rises to singlefamily homes.

$65,912

Residents live and work in America’s cities in older, single-family homes or row houses built in the 1940s or earlier. Ages among the segments range from Generation Xers to retirees; households include married couples with children and single parents with children.

$39,031

Residents are mainly singles who prefer city life. Many are young, just starting out in more densely populated US neighborhoods; others are well-established singles who have no home ownership or child-rearing responsibilities. Second only to High Society, residents of this group tend to be well-educated, working professionals.

$39,234 to $84,612

More than 14.4 million households in the nine Senior Styles segments comprise one of the largest summary groups. Median income is attributable mostly to retirement income or Social Security payments. Their choice of housing depends on their income; this group may reside in single-family homes, retirement homes, or high-rises.

$41,334

Shared traits for this group include youth, with the attendant lower incomes, and atypical environments such as college life or military service. Because of their transient lifestyle and lifestage, their home ownership rate is low.

$24,047 $41,240

New Americans

(Global Roots) Ethnically Diverse Working Families

(Family Portrait) Older Working Families

(Traditional Living) Rural & Small Town Residents

(Factories and Farms

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Higher Income Rural & Small Town Residents

(American Quilt)

Description

Median Income

These residents are a mix of married couples, single parents, and singles who seek the “American Dream” of home ownership and a rewarding job. Most live in single-family houses or multiunit buildings; approximately half own their homes.

$40,928

Ethnic diversity is the common thread among the eight segments in Global Roots. Typical of new households, Global Roots’ residents are young, earn modest incomes, and tend to rent in multiunit buildings. Half of all households have immigrated to the United States within the past 10 years.

$26,283 $42,725

Family Portrait has the fastest-growing population of the summary groups, with more than 30 percent of residents of Hispanic descent. The neighborhoods are predominantly composed of homeowners who live in single-family homes.

$16,339 $69,522

This group is composed of working, settled families. The group’s higher median age of 37.8 years also conveys their lifestage—a number of older residents who are completing their child-rearing responsibilities and anticipating retirement.

$38,460 $52,987

Residents represent rural life from small towns and villages to farms. Employment in manufacturing and agricultural industries is typical in these small, settled communities across America. Most households are families, either married couples or married couples with children.

$37,716

Location in America’s small towns and rural areas links the four segments in American Quilt. Unlike Factories and Farms, this group also includes workers in local government, service, construction, communication, and utilities. Households are also more affluent, and more likely to be homeowners.

$41,953

Figure 2.15 ESRI Tapestry Segmentation Lifemode

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Seniors (Senior Styles)

Hydrology

Students and Military (Scholars and Patriots)

Major Roads High Income (High Society)

Young Working Families (High Hopes)

Above-Average Incomes (Upscale Avenues)

New Americans (Global Roots)

City Dwellers (Metropolis)

Ethnically Diverse Working Families (Family Portrait)

Older Working Families (Traditional Living) Rural & Small Town Residents (Factories and Farms) Higher Income Rural & Small Town Residents (American Quilt) Unclassified

Young City Dwellers (Solo Acts) Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS MORPC POPULATION FORECAST Introduction In addition to analyzing demographic data, the planning team also obtained population growth and land use projection information from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC). Conducted as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) on a five-year basis, these forecasts shape investments in transportation infrastructure by predicting which parts of the 11 county region will be growing and how development patterns will change over time. MORPC develops these scenarios based on adaptation of local land use plans, trends in development policies and the demands of the marketplace. These scenarios assume development will occur in already developed areas that have existing infrastructure and capacity and are not in environmentally sensitive areas. Evaluating this information can be valuable to CRPD in planning for future investment and anticipating future needs. These projections are continually being updated by MORPC. The MTP is currently being updated and MORPC is also working on a new regional growth scenario study, Insight 2050 that will complete its first phase of analysis by the end of 2014. CRPD should continue to review and monitor this information and analysis work to refine future plans as new development scenarios and forecasts are released and actual population growth is documented. The planning team isolated these forecasts for the City of Columbus, and compared 2010 information with the outlook for 2035. While the methodology used by MORPC results in slightly different projections as those determined by the U.S. Census and ESRI data and the straight line linear regression methodology used by the planning team, this data is another useful layer of information as CRPD looks to the future and where it will likely need to consider increased investment, facilities and services going forward. The following pages review the changes in population from 2000 to 2010 and existing land uses and then the projections for population growth and land use change for 2035 (see pages 52-55).

2000-2010 Growth Between 2000 and 2010 the region grew by 190,700 people. While a good amount of this growth was in suburban areas of the city and outside of I-270, there was also substantial growth In-Town. The Southwest, Central, and North study areas experienced modest population growth between three and 5.6 percent, adding 20,846 residents. The largest growth, however, took place in the In-Town Study Area which includes downtown and nearby neighborhoods. This part of the city increased by 34,518 new residents between 2000 and 2010 following a national and regional trend of population growth returning to the urban core. The Southeast Study Area lost population during this time period, dropping 7.3% and losing more than 50

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Since 2000, Downtown Columbus has gained population and more residential development is underway.

12,000 residents. The modest suburban growth and decline in the Southeast area is largely attributed to the economic downturn, the housing slow down and the increase in foreclosure rates that occurred in the latter half of the decade.

2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2035 Growth and Land Use Forecast The seven county region studied by MORPC is slated to grow by 20% over the next 25 years. The City of Columbus during that time period is projected to grow by 13.6%, or 123,822 residents. The following MORPC data that predicts where population growth will occur throughout the City was reviewed by the planning team. This information has been broken down by the five Study Areas defined by this planning process and highlights for each area can be found in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9 MORPC 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2035 Growth and Land Use Forecast

NORTH

MORPC 2035 PROJECTED GROWTH RATES

The North Study Area is projected to continue its strong growth curve into 2035 with 13.6% growth and an increase in population of 28,134 residents. Continued growth along the SR 161/Sawmill Parkway/Hard Road corridors and the Polaris area is expected as is substantial growth along the Columbus/New Albany border. The Northland area has recently experienced an influx of immigrant population and this trend is expected to continue with strong growth projected in this area as well. NORTH 13.6%

CENTRAL More modest growth is projected in the Central Study Area as many neighborhoods, especially east of I-71 are largely built out. Still, growth is expected to increase 12.2% and add 12,163 residents. Areas around Riverside Hospital, Easton Town Center, Ohio Dominican University and Port Columbus, and infill in the Linden neighborhood are projected to add the most population.

CENTRAL 12.2%

SOUTHWEST 15.1%

IN-TOWN 13.2% SOUTHEAST 22.9%

IN-TOWN Continued downtown residential growth as well as infill in close-in residential neighborhoods will lead to a population increase in the In-Town Study Area of 13.2%, or 17,513 residents. The Arena District and the northeastern portion of Downtown Columbus will have the most growth, as well as continued residential growth in Franklinton, the Short North, Weinland Park, the Franklin Park area and German and Merion Village. Development proposals announced in 2013 through 2014 suggest continued high growth for the In-Town Study Area.

SOUTHWEST The Southwest Study Area is projected to grow by 15.1%, adding an additional 20,508 residents. This significant growth in residential population is spread throughout this area, but areas around Big Run Park and close to the casino and Ohio Health Doctorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s West hospital are projected to see the biggest gains in population.

SOUTHEAST The Southeast Study Area is projected to have the strongest growth than any other part of the city by 2035, growing by 22.9% and adding 35,080 new residents. The vast majority of this growth is predicted to be concentrated around Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Obetz and Groveport. Other expected growth areas are in the Eastland area around the I-270/US 33 interchange, and around the I-70/Hamilton Road and US 33/Gender Road interchanges. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS Figure 2.16 Population Change: 2000 to 2010 (Data Source: MORPC)

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads Net Population Change (100 People)

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

3 Miles

NORTH

Figure 2.17 Land Use: 2009 Existing Conditions (Data Source: MORPC)

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Agriculture

Hydrology

Parks

Major Roads

Other Open Space

Civic, Healthcare and Education

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Office Commercial Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

POPULATION AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS Figure 2.18 Population Change: 2010 to 2035 (Data Source: MORPC)

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Percent Change in Population (by TAZ)

Hydrology

Below 10%

Major Roads

10 - 100%

Net Population Change (100 People)

101% - 1,000% 1,001% and Above

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

NORTH

Figure 2.19 Land Use: 2035 Projection (Data Source: MORPC)

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Agriculture

Hydrology

Parks

Major Roads

Other Open Space

Civic, Healthcare and Education

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Office Commercial Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

TRENDS IN RECREATION AND PARKS INTRODUCTION Information released by Sports and Fitness Industry Association’s* (SFIA) 2014 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Participation reveals that the most popular sport and recreational activities include: fitness walking, treadmill, running/jogging, free weights and bicycling. Most of these activities appeal to both young and old alike, can be done in most environments, are enjoyed regardless of level of skill, and have minimal economic barriers to entry. These popular activities also have appeal because of the social aspect. For example, although fitness activities are mainly self-directed, people enjoy walking and biking with other individuals because it can offer a degree of camaraderie. Fitness walking has remained the most popular activity of the past decade by a large margin. Walking participation during the latest year data was available (2013), reported over 117 million Americans had walked for fitness at least once. From a traditional team sport standpoint, basketball ranks highest among all sports, with nearly 24 million people reportedly participating in 2013. Team sports that have experienced significant growth in participation are rugby, lacrosse, field hockey, ice hockey, gymnastics, beach volleyball, and ultimate Frisbee– all of which have experienced double digit growth over the last five years. Most recently, rugby, field hockey, and lacrosse underwent the most rapid growth among team sports from 2012 to 2013. In the past year, there has been a slight 0.4% decrease of “inactives” in America, from 80.4 million in 2012 to 80.2 million in 2013. According to the Physical Activity Council, an “inactive” is defined as an individual that doesn’t take part in any “active” sport. Even more encouraging is that an estimated 33.9% of Americans above the age of 6 are active to a healthy level, taking part in a high calorie burning activity three or more times per week. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2014 was utilized to evaluate national sport and fitness participatory trends. SFIA is the number one source for sport and fitness research. The study is based on online interviews carried out in January and February of 2014 from more than 19,000 individuals and households.

*In 2012, the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) came into existence after a two-year strategic review and planning process with a refined mission statement-“To Promote Sports and Fitness Participation and Industry Vitality”. The SFIA was formerly known as the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA).

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Sport climbing is a growing local sport in Central Ohio

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS Basketball, a game originating in the U.S., is the sport with the heaviest participation level among the traditional “bat and ball” sports, with almost 24 million estimated participants. This popularity can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively small number of participants, the limited amount of equipment needed to participate, and the limited space requirements necessary – the last of which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at the majority of American dwellings as a drive-way pickup game. As seen in Table 2.10, since 2008, squash and other niche sports like lacrosse and rugby have seen strong growth. Squash has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport, as it has seen participation levels rise by nearly 115% over the last five years. Based on survey findings from 20082013, rugby and lacrosse have also experienced significant growth, increasing by 80.9% and 66% respectively. Other sports with notable growth in participation over the last five years were field hockey (31.4%), ice hockey (27.9%), gymnastics (25.1%), and beach volleyball (18.5%). From 2012 to 2013, the fastest growing sports were rugby (33.4%), field hockey (19.2%), lacrosse (12.8%), and squash (9.6%). During the last five years, the sports that are most rapidly declining include wrestling (45.2% decrease), touch football (down 32%), and slow pitch softball (28.9% decrease). In terms of total participants, the most popular activities in the general sports category in 2013 include basketball (23.7 million), tennis (17.7 million), baseball (13.3 million), outdoor soccer (12.7 million), and slow pitch softball (6.9 million). Although three out of five of these sports have been declining in recent years, the sheer number of participants demands the continued support of these activities.

Table 2.10 National Participatory Trends - General Sports Participatory Levels Activity

Percent Change 2012 to 2013

2008 to 2013

Aquatic Exercise has a strong participation base, but has recently experienced a downward trend. Aquatic exercise has paved the way for a less stressful form of physical activity, allowing similar gains and benefits to land based exercise, including aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and better balance. Doctors have begun recommending aquatic exercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients with bone or joint problems due to the significant reduction of stress placed on weightbearing joints, bones, muscles, and also the affect that the pressure of the water assists in reducing swelling of injuries.

2008

2012

2013

Baseball

15,539

12,976

13,284

2.4%

-14.5%

Basketball

26,108

23,708

23,669

-0.2%

-9.3%

Cheerleading

3,192

3,244

3,235

-0.3%

1.3%

Field Hockey

1,122

1,237

1,474

19.2%

31.4%

Football, Flag

7,310

5,865

5,610

-4.3%

-23.3%

Football, Tackle

7,816

6,220

6,165

-0.9%

-21.1%

Football, Touch

10,493

7,295

7,140

-2.1%

-32.0%

Table 2.11 National Participatory Trends - Aquatics

Gymnastics

3,975

5,115

4,972

-2.8%

25.1%

Participatory Levels

Ice Hockey

1,871

2,363

2,393

1.3%

27.9%

Lacrosse

1,092

1,607

1,813

12.8%

66.0%

Racquetball

4,611

4,070

3,824

-6.0%

-17.1%

Roller Hockey

1,569

1,367

1,298

-5.0%

-17.3%

654

887

1,183

33.4%

80.9%

Soccer (Indoor)

Rugby

4,487

4,617

4,803

4.0%

7.0%

Soccer (Outdoor)

13,996

12,944

12,726

-1.7%

-9.1%

Softball (Fast Pitch)

2,331

2,624

2,498

-4.8%

7.2%

Softball (Slow Pitch)

9,660

7,411

6,868

-7.3%

-28.9%

Squash

659

1,290

1,414

9.6%

114.6%

Tennis

17,749

17,020

17,678

3.9%

-0.4%

Track and Field

4,604

4,257

4,071

-4.4%

-11.6%

Ultimate Frisbee

4,459

5,131

5,077

-1.1%

13.9%

Volleyball (Court)

7,588

6,384

6,433

0.8%

-15.2%

Volleyball (Sand/ Beach)

4,025

4,505

4,769

5.9%

18.5%

Wrestling

3,335

1,922

1,829

-4.8%

-45.2%

Note: Participation figures are in the 000â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the US Population ages 6 and over

Large Increase

(Greater than 25%)

Moderate Increase

(0% to 25%)

Moderate Decrease

(0% to -25%)

Large Decrease

(Less than 25%)

NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY Swimming is unquestionably a lifetime sport. Swimming activities* have remained very popular among Americans, and both competition and fitness swimming have witnessed an increase in participation recently. Fitness swimming is the absolute leader in multigenerational appeal with over 26 million reported participants in 2013, a 13.5% increase from the previous year (Table 2.11) *In 2011, recreational swimming was broken into competition and fitness categories in order to better identify key trends.

Percent Change

2008

2012

2013

2012 to 2013

9,512

9,177

8,483

-7.6%

-10.8%

Swimming (comp.)

N/A

2,502

2,638

5.4%

N/A

Swimming (fitness)

N/A

23,216

26,354

13.5%

N/A

Activity Aquatic Exercise

Note: Participation figures are in the 000â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the US Population ages 6 and over

2008 to 2013

Large Increase

(Greater than 25%)

Moderate Increase

(0% to 25%)

Moderate Decrease

(0% to -25%)

Large Decrease

(Less than 25%)

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS National participatory trends in general fitness have experienced some strong growth in recent years. Many of these activities have become popular due to an increased interest among people to improve their health by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of activities that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by nearly anyone with no time restrictions. The most popular fitness activity by far is fitness walking, with over 117 million participants in 2013, which was a 2.9% increase from the previous year. Other leading fitness activities based on number of participants include running/ jogging (over 54 million), treadmill (48.1 million), and hand free weights (43.2 million), and weight/resistant machines (36.3 million). Over the last five years, the activities that are growing most rapidly are high impact aerobics (up 47.1%), yoga (up 36.9%), running/jogging (up 31.9%), cardio kickboxing (28.7% increase), and group stationary cycling (up 27.8%). Most recently, from 2011-2012, the largest gains in participation were in boxing for fitness (8.7% increase), Tai Chi (up 8.3%), and high impact aerobics (up 7.1%). See Table 2.12. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

TRENDS IN RECREATION AND PARKS

Table 2.12 National Participatory Trends - General Fitness Participatory Levels

Percent Change

2008

2012

2013

2012 to 2013

Aerobics (High Impact)

11,780

16,178

17,323

7.1%

47.1%

Aerobics (Low Impact)

23,283

25,707

25,033

-2.6%

7.5%

Aerobics (Step)

9,423

9,577

8,961

-6.4%

-4.9%

Activity

Boxing for Fitness Calisthenics Cross-Training

2008 to 2013

N/A

4,831

5,251

8.7%

N/A

8,888

9,356

0.0%

5.3%

N/A

7,496

6,911

-7.8%

N/A

Cardio Kickboxing

4,905

6,725

6,311

-6.2%

28.7%

Elliptical Motion Trainer

24,435

28,560

27,119

-5.0%

11.0%

Fitness Walking

110,204

114,029

117,351

2.9%

6.5%

Free Weights (Barbells)

25,821

26,688

25,641

-3.9%

-0.7%

Free Weights (Dumbells)

N/A

32,309

N/A

Free Weights (Hand Weights)

N/A

43,164

N/A

6,818

5,075

5,314

4.7%

-22.1%

Martial Arts Pilates Training

9,039

8,519

8,069

-5.3%

-10.7%

Running/Jogging

41,097

51,450

54,188

5.3%

31.9%

Stair Climbing Machine

13,863

12,979

12,642

-2.6%

-8.8%

Stationary Cycling (Group)

6,504

8,477

8,309

-2.0%

27.8%

Stationary Cycling (Recumbent)

11,104

11,649

11,159

-4.2%

0.5%

Stationary Cycling (Upright)

24,918

24,338

24,088

-1.0%

-3.3%

Stretching

36,235

35,873

36,202

0.9%

-0.1%

Tai Chi

3,424

3,203

3,469

8.3%

1.3%

Treadmill

49,722

50,839

48,166

-5.3%

-3.1%

Weight/Resistant Machines

38,844

38,999

36,267

-7.0%

-6.6%

Yoga

17,758

23,253

24,310

4.5%

36.9%

Note: Participation figures are in the 000â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the US Population ages 6 and over

Large Increase

(Greater than 25%)

Moderate Increase

(0% to 25%)

Moderate Decrease

(0% to -25%)

Large Decrease

(Less than 25%)

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Nationwide, basketball remains of the most popular sports.

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL RECREATION Results from the SFIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Topline Participation Report demonstrate increased popularity among Americans in numerous general recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or with a group, and are not limited by time restraints. In 2013, the most popular activities in the general recreation category include road bicycling (over 40 million participants), freshwater fishing (nearly 38 million participants), and day hiking (over 34 million participants). From 2008-2013, general recreation activities that have undergone very rapid growth are adventure racing (up 159%), non-traditional/off-road triathlons (up 156%), traditional/road triathlons (up 139.9%), and trail running (up 49.7%). In-line roller skating, horseback riding, and skateboarding have all seen a substantial drop in participation, decreasing by 40%, 29.4%, and 21.8% respectively over the last five years. See Table 2.13.

Table 2.13 National Participatory Trends - General Recreation Participatory Levels

Percent Change

Activity

2008

2012

2013

2012 to 2013

2008 to 2013

Adventure Racing

809

1,618

2,095

29.5%

159.0%

Archery

6,180

7,173

7,647

6.6%

23.7%

Bicycling (Mountain)

7,242

7,265

8,542

17.6%

18.0%

Bicycling (Road)

38,527

39,790

40,888

2.8%

6.1%

average in four (4) categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; general sports by activity, fitness by activity, outdoor activity, and money spent on miscellaneous recreation. The City of Columbus shows high market potential index numbers for all categories. As seen in the tables below, the following sport and leisure trends are most prevalent for residents within City of Columbus. Cells highlighted in yellow indicate the top three scoring activities based on the purchasing preferences of residents.

Bicycling (BMX)

1,896

1,861

2,168

16.5%

14.3%

Climbing (Sport/ Indoor/Boulder)

4,642

4,355

4,745

9.0%

2.2%

Climbing (Traditional/Ice/ Mountaineering)

2,175

Fishing (Fly)

5,849

5,848

5,878

0.5%

Fishing (Freshwater)

42,095

39,002

37,796

-3.1%

-10.2%

Fishing (Saltwater)

14,121

12,000

11,790

-1.8%

-16.5%

Golf

28,571

25,280

24,720

-2.2%

-13.5%

Hiking (Day)

31,238

34,519

34,378

-0.4%

10.1%

Horseback Riding

11,457

8,423

8,089

-4.0%

-29.4%

Roller Skating, In-Line

10,211

6,647

6,129

-7.8%

-40.0%

Skateboarding

8,118

6,227

6,350

2.0%

-21.8%

Activity

MPI

Trail Running

4,537

5,806

6,792

17.0%

49.7%

Participated in Aerobics

110

543

1,075

1,390

29.3%

156.0%

Jogging/ Running

115

Participated in Pilates

102

Participated in Swimming

Triathlon (NonTraditional/Off Road) Triathlon (Traditional/Road) Note: Participation figures are in the 000â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for the US Population ages 6 and over

2,189

2,319

5.9%

6.6%

Table 2.14 Columbus Participatory Trends - General Sports Activity

MPI

Participated in Baseball

113

Participated in Basketball

129

Participated in Football

136

Participated in Golf

Participated in Soccer

122

Participated in Softball

112

Participated in Tennis

116

Participated in Volleyball

112

Table 2.15 Columbus Participatory Trends - Fitness

943

1,789

2,262

26.4%

139.9%

Large Increase

(Greater than 25%)

Moderate Increase

(0% to 25%)

Moderate Decrease

(0% to -25%)

Large Decrease

(Less than 25%)

LOCAL SPORT AND MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service in the City of Columbus. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US national average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The city is compared to the national

Participated in Walking for Exercise

Participated in Weight Lifting

112

Participated in Yoga

105

Table 2.16 Columbus Participatory Trends - Outdoor Activity Activity

MPI

Participated in Archery

110

Participated in Backpacking/Hiking

106

Participated in Bicycling (mountain)

105

Participated in Bicycling (road)

104

Participated in Fishing (fresh water)

Participated in Fishing (salt water)

102

Participated in Horseback Riding

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

NATIONAL BENCHMARKS INTRODUCTION The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conducts an annual survey of parkland within the 60 largest U.S. cities and has developed a ParkScore ranking system that examines three characteristics of park systems: acreage, services and investment, and access. For the City of Columbus, TPL considers the acreage of both the city park system and the Metro Park system that are within municipal boundaries. This includes 7,903 acres of city parkland and 2,958 acres of Metro Park parkland. Based on this information, Columbus has a score of 41, which ranks it 47th nationally. When looking at the ParkScores of other more highly ranked cities, those that are more dense and compact geographically tend to score higher. The geographic spread of the City of Columbus as a result of its aggressive annexation policies and the fact that much of the park infrastructure is located in the 1950s pre-annexation portions of the city, is undoubtedly one of the reasons why it ranks toward the bottom of the 60 largest cities in the country. While not a perfect metric, this is an opportunity to measure how the City of Columbus compares to park systems in other cities and provides insights into how the system could be improved in the future.

the national median of 5.0 acres.

PARKSCORE METRICS

CREATING A BETTER PARK SYSTEM

For the ParkScore, cities are given a ranking of one to five benches, where five is the best and one indicates a need for improvement. Columbus received the most points for acreage (20), which equally weighs median park size and park acres as a percentage of city area. Park acres as a percent of city area was 8.1% for Columbus, compared to a national median of 9.3%. When compared against cities of a similar density and size, Columbus remains toward the middle of the rankings and below the median for medium low density cities of 8.4% (see Table 2.16). Columbusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; median park size of 7.1 acres, however, was greater than

There is clearly room for improvement across all metrics measured by the TPL. In order to improve the park system, providing better access and increasing the geographic distribution of park facilities is needed. CRPDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planned investment in new parks and multi-use trails will begin to improve these aspects of the park system. However, more will need to be done. The remainder of this Master Plan will examine the issues facing CRPD and recommend strategies for creating a park system that better serves its residents now and into the future.

A new measure available this year compares acres of designed park areas and natural park areas. Columbus has slightly more designed park areas than natural, although similar cities like Austin, Dallas and Raleigh have protected far greater amounts of natural areas. Services and investment is another important metric in the ParkScore system. It awards points based on two measures: playgrounds per resident and total spending per resident. Columbus has 1.9 playgrounds per 1,000 resident compared to a national median of 2.1 and it spends a total $73 per resident, meeting the national median. At $34 per resident, Columbus exceeds the national median of $17 per resident in Capital Spending. Access is scored based on the percentage of the population living within a ten-minute walk of a public park (one half mile). That half mile must be entirely within the public road network and uninterrupted by physical barriers such as highways, train tracks, rivers, and fences. Forty-nine percent of Columbus residents live within a half mile of a park, compared to the national median of 65%.

Table 2.16 Parkland for Columbus and Similar Medium-Low-Density Cities (Trust for Public Land) Adjusted City Area (Acres)

Total Parkland (Acres)

Percent Parkland

Austin

186,902

27,398

14.7%

Dallas

215,676

23,331

10.8%

Raleigh

91,399

12,879

14.1%

Columbus

133,309

10,861

8.1%

Cincinnati

48,724

6,821

14%

3,441

3,380

Atlanta

84,250

4,418

5.2%

3,290

1,128

Toledo

51,643

2,716

City

Median For Medium-Low-Density Cities

5.3%

Natural And Designed Parkland By City (Acres) 15,124 9,761 2,478

12,274 13,570

10,401 5,690

5,141

1,067 and 1,128

8.4%

Designed Areas: Parklands that have been created, constructed, planted, and managed primarily for human use, including neighborhood parks, sports fields, plazas and municipal cemeteries. Natural Areas: Pristine or reclaimed lands that are open to the public and left largely undisturbed and managed for their ecological value (i.e., wetlands, forests, deserts). They may have trails and occasional benches, they are not developed for any recreation activities beyond walking, running, and cycling.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Table 2.17 2014 Trust for Public Land ParkScore Rank

City

Score

Rank City

Score

Minneapolis

Los Angeles

New York

73.5

Nashville

Boston

72.5

Columbus

Portland

72.5

Houston

San Francisco

72.5

Miami

Washington

Wichita

Denver

Jacksonville

38.5

Sacramento

Santa Ana

San Diego

Memphis

Aurora

68.5

San Antonio

Virginia Beach

68.5

Oklahoma City

33.5

Omaha

67.5

Mesa

32.5

Oakland

Charlotte

Seattle

Indianapolis

27.5

Albuquerque

63.5

Louisville

27.5

Chicago

62.5

Fresno

Kansas City

62.5

New Orleans

San Jose

Philadelphia

57.5

Raleigh

Milwaukee

Colorado Springs

Long Beach

Baltimore

53.5

Cleveland

52.5

St Louis

Corpus Christi

Detroit

Honolulu

Phoenix

Tampa

Austin

Riverside

47.5

Las Vegas

Anaheim

Arlington

Dallas

Bakersfield

Fort Worth

Tulsa

Atlanta

Tucson

El Paso

43.5

Columbus TPL Parkscore Scorecard

47 41

Out of 60 Most Populated Cities (2013 Rank: 37/50)

Total Points (Weighed) Out of 100 Max

Columbus Scored 2 out 5 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Park Benchesâ&#x20AC;&#x153;

Acreage

Total Points for Acreage

Points for Median Park Size (7.1 Acres)

7 Spending

Out of 40 Max

Out of 20 Max

Points for Parkland as Percent of City Area (8.1%) Out of 20 Max

Services & Investment

Total Spending*: $59,257,365 (2013)

National Rank for Columbus

Total Points for Services & Investment Out of 40 Max

Operating Spending*: CBUS: $39 per resident Median: $63 per resident

Capital Spending*:

CBUS: $34 per resident Median: $17 per resident

Points for Spending Per Resident

Playgrounds per 1,000 Residents (1.9)

Out of 20 Max

Access

Total Spending*:

CBUS: $73 per resident Median: $73 per resident

16 49

*Includes spending by both CRPD and Metro Parks (Source: 2014 TPL City Park Facts)

Out of 40 Max

About ParkScore Scoring

Adjusted Spending*:

Reflecting Price of Living CBUS: $81 per resident Median: $81 per resident

Total Points for Access

Total Raw Score Each city can earn a maximum of 120 points, which is then normalized to a scale out of 100

Other Park Facts

49%

Percent of Columbus residents within a 1/2 of a Park

7.5

People Serviced Per Park Acre

Section 2: Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis

SECTION 3 1 HEADING

PUBLIC MEETING #2 The planning team reviewed the major strategies and recommendations with the public May 21, 2014 at the Martin Janis Senior Center. 62

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SECTION 1 HEADING

The Public Engagement section describes how the planning team worked with residents, stakeholders and department staff to develop strategies for improvement. The resulting public input is summarized along with stakeholder and staff interviews. This process started to inform the vision for the future of CRPD.

PUBLIC PROCESS OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION This Master Planning effort was guided by a public process that engaged the community on a number of different levels. Throughout the process, the planning team met with a Steering Committee that was comprised of CRPD staff, other City department heads, and the vice president of the Recreation and Parks Commission. An Advisory Committee made up of Area Commission members was also convened. The planning team met with both groups on a nearly monthly basis to shape the plan, gain critical input and insight, and received feedback on ideas, recommendations and strategies. The Recreation and Parks Commission also received timely updates and provided input a critical stages of the planning process.

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND ONLINE INPUT To gain input from the public, the planning team and CRPD held a series of public workshops in November and December of 2013. Based on Area Commission and Civic Association boundaries, the city was divided into five geographic Study Areas. These represent the In-Town, North, Central, Southeast and Southwest portions of the City. These areas were defined based on their similarities of land use and development patterns and allowed the planning team to focus its analysis and field work. Prior to meeting with the public, the planning team visited a selection of parks based on typologies in each Study Area. Then, a public workshop was held in each of the five study areas to gain input and ideas from the public on how CRPD could better serve residents in the next ten years. More than 120 attendees total came to these five workshops and provided valuable insights in terms of how they currently use recreation and parks facilities, what facilities are currently missing in their neighborhoods, and how the department could better serve their needs. A summary of each of the five neighborhood meetings can be found in the subsequent pages. In addition to holding in-person meetings, meeting materials and survey forms were also made available online for those who could not participate in the public workshops. Available from November 2013 to January 2014, the online survey generated 1,197 responses. While not part of the statistically valid Community Interest and Opinion Survey that was conducted during the winter, these responses are additive to the overall process and are another source of information that CRPD can take into account when prioritizing improvements and investment. A summary of this input is also provided in this section. A city-wide public meeting was held May 21, 2014, to summarize public input, the results from the Community Interest and Opinion Survey and draft recommendations. More than 60 members of the public attended the meeting and provided input on the direction of the Master Plan. 64

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The planning team held a public workshop in each of the five Study Areas.

This information was also shared online, with 230 people providing additional input.

STAKEHOLDER AND STAFF INTERVIEWS The planning team also conducted a series of stakeholder interviews with allied organizations, user groups and partners. These groups provided key insights and provided key information in terms of how these special interest groups use and partner with CRPD. The planning team conducted similar interviews with CRPD staff and department heads. The resulting information helped to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for CRPD.

Figure 3.1 Public Workshops Announcement Flyer

Section 3: Public Engagement

PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY

• Expanded hours at community centers and pools

Concurrent with the public workshops, the meeting materials and questions were posted online for additional input from the public. The results of both the in-person and online input are summarized here and provide an additional layer of information and serve to reinforce the results that were gathered by the Community Interest and Opinion Survey (see page 78).

• More staff, better maintenance and safety • More restroom facilities • More natural areas, access to nature programs and passive wildlife viewing opportunities • Better advertising of programs and activities, maps of facilities • Mobile app for programs and registration • Free wi-fi

Parks and Facilities Over the past 12 months the top three facilities households have used most are Small Neighborhood Parks (80.3%), Large Community Parks (78.1%), and Walking and Biking Trails (76.5%). Fifty-six percent of households visit park facilities within their neighborhood at least per week. Improvements that would encourage households to use park facilities more often include: • More interconnected multi-use trail system and greater trail access to neighborhoods and other parks

In certain Study Areas, residents had more specific needs for improvements and facilities. The North and Southeast Study Areas expressed a need for more neighborhood and community parks and better playground facilities and shelters. The North and Central areas of the City, especially at the second Public Meeting indicated a need for an outdoor pool facility. The In-Town Study area, especially toward the western portion of the study area in the 5xNW neighborhood expressed a need for more park space.

• Wider, less congested multi-use trails

Figure 3.2 Facilities Respondent Households Have Used or Visited in CRPD Parks During the Past 12 Months 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Small neighborhood Parks

76.5%

Playgrounds

53.4%

Nature trails and outdoor education

50.6%

Outdoor lakes/ponds

42.5%

Wildlife conservation areas

41.8%

Indoor community Centers

41.1%

Picnic shelters

39.4%

Outdoor swimming pools/spray grounds

31.4%

Outdoor amphitheater/outdoor stage

24.6%

Reservable shelters

24.2%

Indoor swimming/aquatics

23.7%

Off-leash dog parks

21.6%

Youth soccer fields

20.2%

Outdoor tennis courts

19.1%

Outdoor basketball courts

Disc golf courses Golf courses Adult softball fields

80%

78.1%

Walking and biking trails

Youth baseball fields

70%

80.3%

Large community parks

Athletic Complexes

60%

13.3% 12.2% 10.8% 9.4% 9.3% 7.6%

Football/lacrosse fields

6.4%

Youth softball fields

5.5%

Other:

7.3%

Eighty percent (80%) of respondent households have used small neighborhood parks over the past 12 months. Other facilities respondent households have used or visited in the City of Columbus Parks during the past 12 months include: large community parks (78.1%), walking and biking trails (76.5%), playgrounds (53.4%), nature trails and centers (50.6%), and outdoor lakes/ponds (42.5%).

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

SHARE YOUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF

COLUMBUS RECREATION AND PARKS Your City, Your Community, Your Parks

Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan Please join us at the Martin Janis Senior Center for a PUBLIC

MEETING in which we will

present preliminary findings and recommendations from the Recreation and Parks Master Plan. This will be the last opportunity for the planning team to hear what YOU have to say about the future of YOUR parks

When:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 6 PM - 8 PM

Where:

MARTIN JANIS SENIOR CENTER 600 EAST 11TH AVENUE COLUMBUS, OH 43211

This event is FREE and open to the general public For more information please visit parks.columbus.gov

The city-wide public meeting May 21, 2014, allowed participants to review and comment on Master Plan recommendations.

Section 3: Public Engagement

PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY Community Centers and Programs Over the past 12 months, the top three sports and recreation programs that individuals or members of households have participated in include, Community Special Events and Festivals (38.4%), Adult Fitness and Wellness Programs (29.3%) and Youth Sports Programs (28.8%). Thirty-seven and a half percent of respondents participate in programs and leagues on a weekly basis. Improvements that would encourage households to participate more include:

Figure 3.3 How often do you participate in Recreation and Parks programs and leagues?

More than twice a week

9.9%

Never

24.7%

• Longer hours at all centers

Once or twice a week

27.6%

• Better advertising in advance of programs • Program information available on multiple platforms: mailer, email, website • Greater accessibility

25.2% Once or twice a year

• Greater variety in programs, more diversity • Having programs that aren’t just geared toward seniors and kids Similar to needs expressed for parks and facilities, the North and Southeast Study Areas indicated a need for additional community center facilities to serve their communities. The In-Town and Central Study Areas also requested longer hours and weekend hours for exercise facilities, programs and activities.

12.6% Once or twice a month

By the percentage of respondents, 9.8% of respondents participate in Recreation and Parks programs and leagues at least more than twice a week. Other amounts include: Once or twice a week (27.8%), once or twice a month (12.6%), once or twice a year (25.2%), and Never (24.7%).

Figure 3.4 Recreation programs respondents have used in CRPD Parks or facilities over the past 12 months: 0%

10%

20%

30%

Community special events/festivals Adult fitness and wellness programs

29.3%

Youth sports programs

28.8%

Youth Summer camps

19.1%

Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes

19.1%

Outdoor Education

16.7%

Youth Learn to Swim programs

16.6%

Gymnastics and tumbling programs

16.5%

Youth theater, dance, singing, musical instruments classes

13.1%

Senior programs

13.0%

Youth painting, arts, sculpturing classes

12.4%

Preschool programs/early childhood

12.2%

Adult sports programs

12.0%

Water fitness programs

11.4%

Youth fitness and wellness classes

10.9%

Tennis lessons and leagues

7.4%

Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical instrument classes

7.3%

Before and after school programs

6.8%

Martial arts programs Golf lessons/clinics Programs for people with disabilities Hockey/figure skating Other:

40% 38.4%

5.8% 3.2% 2.4% 2.1% 7.8%

Based on the sum of respondent households’ top four choices, (38.4%) of respondent households currently participate in community special events and festivals the most often. Other programs that respondent households currently participate in the most often include: Adult fitness and wellness programs (29.3%), and Youth Sports Programs (28.8%).

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Multi-Use Trails Nearly 26% of those attending the Public Workshops and online survey respondents use the City’s Multi-Use Trail system on a weekly basis. More than 48% report that the trails are accessible to their neighborhoods, however there were a great deal of requests for improved access. Improvements that would encourage households to participate more include: • Improved access (both on-street bike facilities and off-street trails) to better connect neighborhoods and parks with the larger trail network • Better east-west connectivity • Addressing bicycle safety and education and resolving conflicts between bicyclists, walkers, runners and other trail users • Improved signage and wayfinding on-trail and to trailhead locations

The Southwest Study Area is eagerly awaiting completion of the Camp Chase Trail and numerous comments were received that expressed a need to connect that new trail to the neighborhoods that surround it. Similarly, the Southeast Study Area and Central Study Area are interested in neighborhood and park connections to the soon-to-becompleted Alum Creek Trail. Participants in the Public Workshops and online also expressed a need to increase access to the City’s waterways to allow for expanded recreational use. Respondents pointed out that the Multi-Use Trail system and the emerging “water trail” system are complimentary uses and need to be considered as such as new facilities are planned and implemented. Figure 3.5 Are these trail systems accessible to your neighborhood? 0%

10%

20%

30%

Yes

• Bike stations with tools and pumps • Better promotion of the existing system

40%

50%

48.7%

33.5%

Specific issues mentioned by many respondents included congestion on the Olentangy Trail and the need for better access across and along busy thoroughfares such as High Street, 161, Bethel Road and Morse Road to access trails.

By the percentage of respondents, 48.7% of respondents consider trail systems accessible to their neighborhood. Other answers include: No (33.5%), and Somewhat (17.8%).

Figure 3.6 How often do you use the City trail and bikeway system?

Figure 3.7 How often do you use the regional trail systems?

Somewhat

17.8%

More than twice a week Never

15.1%

More than twice a week

6.8%

12.0%

8.6% Never

13.9%

34.4%

Once or twice a week

23.0%

17.6%

Once or twice a year

Once or twice a week

21.1%

Once or twice a month

By the percentage of respondents, 12% of respondents use the City trail and bikeway system at least more than twice a week. Other amounts include: Once or twice a week (13.9%), once or twice a month (21.1%), once or twice a year (17.6%), and Never (15.1%).

Once or twice a year

Once or twice a month

27.1%

By the percentage of respondents, 6.8% of respondents use the regional trail systems at least more than twice a week. Other amounts include: Once or twice a week (8.6%), once or twice a month (23%), once or twice a year (27.1%), and Never (34.4%).

Section 3: Public Engagement

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS INTRODUCTION In developing the Master Plan for the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department, the planning team conducted a series of interviews with special interest groups and key stakeholders. These interviews revealed opinions, interests, and goals from the perspective of agencies and individuals that are closely partnered with CRPD, and the feedback obtained will play an integral role in the planning process and future success of the department. Interviews conducted included the following participants: Key Stakeholders • Karla Rothan - Recreation and Parks Commission • Steve Whitman - The Whitman Group • Chad Jester - Nationwide Insurance • Nathan Wymer - Nationwide Insurance • John O’Meara - Director of Columbus Franklin County Metro Parks • David Celebrezze - Greenspot Coordinator, City of Columbus • Andrew Roberts - Columbus YMCA • Jeff McNealey - Recreation and Parks Commission and Metro Parks Board • Keiana Mitchell - The Crew Soccer Foundation • Dale E. Heydlauff - American Electric Power

Special Interest Groups • Jerry Halloway - Friends of Alum Creek

Stakeholder & Special Interest Group Interview Summary • Need to engage in more strategic planning to incorporate input from partners of the park system • Better connect parks, engage in more effective community outreach, identify and eliminate duplication of services • Need to improve existing parks and facilities • Enhance security in the parks and facilities to gain trust of users and ensure a safe experience • Find new sources of stable funding to encourage financial sustainability • Need to improve marketing strategy and create a stronger social media presence • Need to develop and train future leaders in the organization • Need to offer a proper balance of well-connected, highly accessible parks and trails with a variety of recreation services that is inclusive of all types of users • Department needs to play a more prominent role in environmental stewardship • Expand the trail system to provide better connectivity and accessibility

• Paul Carlson - Columbus Department of Technology • David Rutter - Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission • Claire Jennings - Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission • Laura Fay - Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed (F.L.O.W.) • Friends of Parks Groups • Sports Groups • Fishing and Boating Groups

The YMCA of Central Ohio includes 12 Full Facility Branches in the Columbus Metro Area, in addition to outdoor facilities and Educare Centers

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

KEY STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES What are your expectations of the partnership you have with the City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Department? In general, the interaction of the department with key stakeholders are friendly in nature, but those interviewed suggested there are many opportunities to strengthen these relationships to create more effective partnerships. Opinions suggest that there is a dire need to do more strategic planning that incorporates input from partners of the system. There are numerous opportunities for improvement within the system that could be easily achieved if the department found more ways to involve partners and seek feedback. Key stakeholders interviewed also mentioned that the Recreation and Parks Department showed signs of having low morale. Stakeholders also suggested collaboration should lead to better connectivity of parks, more effective community outreach, identifying and eliminating duplication, and shared strategies on pricing and service delivery.

and implement succession planning due to the fact the department is losing people rapidly and there is not a strong mentoring program to develop and train future leaders in the organization. What are the key issues that you and your Commission deal with that the Master Plan needs to address?

Schiller Park benefits from the effort and dedication of the volunteer organization Friends of Schiller Park

What are the key outcomes you would like to see come from the Master Plan? Key stakeholders interviewed provided a variety of desired outcomes from the Master Plan process. The most common responses indicated a strong need to improve the existing parks and facilities of the department, especially improvements to infrastructure. A new philosophy to parks in the downtown area to incorporate more modern, urban designs and attractive landscaping and green spaces is giving a much needed boost to the downtown area. Developing parks along roadways and increasing the amount of activities in the parks downtown and along the riverfront is greatly improving the visibility and value of the department to its users. The department must also enhance security in its parks and facilities to gain the trust of users and ensure a safe experience. Finding new sources of stable funding that encourage financial sustainability is also a primary concern of key stakeholders. Currently, the City doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the financial capability to manage their assets, and this needs to be addressed quickly. Many suggest the development of a maintenance endowment for parks to ensure the funds are always available to keep parks well maintained and attractive. Many also suggest determining the actual total cost to maintain each park and facility to establish the necessary funding level of a potential endowment dedicated to park and facility maintenance. Key stakeholders also expressed a need for an improved marketing strategy. It will be crucial for the planning process to identify the needs of the community and understand the priorities of local residents and incorporate those needs and wants into future developments of the system. The department must improve the logistics of its social media operation and deliver a more complete message that effectively captures its audience through a strengthened social media presence. The final desired outcome mentioned by key stakeholders was to develop

Key Stakeholders of the department identified numerous areas of concern they believe need to be addressed in the Master Plan. Many of the issues identified in interviews deal with the operation and organizational structure of CRPD. The role of the Commission will need to be evaluated during the planning process. The Commission is currently ineffective due to its lack of political power and their inability to have input on policies of the department. The general perception is that the Commission is advisory only because it lacks true power and does not govern as a board. The Commission is considered atypical when compared to other Boards in and around the city. Those interviewed also indicated CRPDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity is unclear to its users at times. The local population has a tendency to confuse the department with the Metro Parks system, and the Master Plan should work towards establishing CRPD brand so that the department is easily identifiable as its own entity. CRPD must also strengthen its partnerships with similar agencies, such as Metro Parks, local schools, and the YMCA, and collaborate in a way that each agency complements the other and addresses any gaps and overlaps in service for the Columbus area as a whole. Another key issue among stakeholders is how the operations of the Department are funded. Many feel there are untapped resources available to the department and that the department should identify all available funding sources and develop a plan to solicit those sources that will create financial sustainability. According to key stakeholders, the Department should also address the facilities and services it provides to the community and evaluate if they are creating sufficient value among users. The community centers of the system are a hot topic and many believe the current lineup of facilities are inconsistent and not effectively serving the local population. The Master Plan needs to develop a comprehensive plan for the future of the centers, and identify solutions to issues surrounding the centers; such as, large centers versus smaller community centers, whether to adopt a regional approach, the effectiveness of intergenerational centers, the need for more quality facilities, the need for heightened security, creating a safer environment for users and staff, improvements to infrastructure, and alleviating gaps/overlaps in service coverage. The Department must also evaluate the needs and interests of the community and ensure the expectations specific to the demographic characteristics Section 3: Public Engagement

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS of each service area are being satisfied, especially among high-risk areas and the senior population. Interviewees believe it will be important to strengthen advocacy within the community and create a strong sense of unity through programming aimed at attracting large groups (i.e. festivals, concerts, etc.) and celebrating the history and culture unique to each area. Opinions agree that the riverfront should remain a primary focus for the future development of the system, and this locale should be used as a spring board for implementing and executing new strategies and recommendations outlined in the Master Plan. What do you feel the Recreation and Parks System is mandated to do? The system is mandated to provide a thorough mix of programs and services through well-maintained parks and facilities to promote health and wellness, recreation, environmental stewardship, and culture, in order to appeal to the needs and interests of the entire community. The department has a duty to create safe, secure, and positive experiences that act as a driving force in unifying and celebrating the community. The Master Plan should provide a framework for the department to offer the proper balance of well-connected, highly accessible parks and trails with a variety of recreation services inclusive of all types of users. The plan should incorporate strategies and processes that would enable the department to deliver award-winning, best in practice results. The Mayor and City Council are beginning to view the Recreation and Parks Department as an economic development tool and the new Master Plan must put systems in place to allow the department to efficiently and effectively assume the role of a revenue generator for the city. Are there performance measures you would like us to instill into the Master Plan? Responses indicated a variety of performance measures that stakeholders would like to see included in the Master Plan. Establishing key metrics within the system and understanding data on attendance, user type, and community needs will be vital to the future success of the department. These measures must be closely tracked and analyzed on a siteby-site basis, as well as the system as a whole, and the Master Plan should identify the proper time increments for evaluation. Improvements to the website are overdue, and enhancements should add interactive elements that incorporate the ability to collect a tapestry of user information and provide a platform for useful feedback. A goal of the consulting team in the planning process should be to provide CRPD with metrics that are clearly understood and demonstrate objective outcomes. The Master Plan must also delve into financial performance measures and provide a template for evaluating costs and developing cost benefit 72

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Scioto Audubon Metro Park is an existing partnership between CRPD and Metro Parks

goals and strategies that lead to informed decisions in the future.

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP RESPONSES What are your expectations of the partnership you have with the City of Columbus Parks and Recreation Department? The expectations of the Department and the partnership arrangement tend to vary among special interest groups. Many times collaboration with partners lacks consistent structure and functions on a case by case basis. Although most groups interviewed feel their relationship with the parks is cordial, there is an underlying issue of communication within existing partnerships. This lack of communication has contributed to a level of frustration that is suppressing the potential for collaboration between the Department and its partners. There is also a sense that the Department lacks some core competencies that could be easily provided by special interest groups associated with the system. The Department needs to rely on partnerships and capitalize on each groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capabilities to provide better experiences for users through more efficient operations. What are the key outcomes you would like to see come from the Master Plan? The most common outcome desired among special interests groups interviewed is for the Department to expand and improve its outdoor recreational spaces. There is a severe shortage of natural open space and athletic fields within the system. Interview responses indicated a desire for the Master Plan to take a thorough inventory and establish level of service standards to identify where the department is lacking sufficient resources. Development of a strategic plan to improve the state of the systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facilities, specifically community centers, would be helpful in

providing a road map for incorporating new facilities in the future and improving or removing existing sites. Interviewees also suggested a need to improve access to departmental resources, such as connecting trails to neighborhoods and adding and improving access points along waterways. Another goal of the Master Plan should be to seek additional funding through corporate partnerships/sponsorships and potentially developing an endowment fund to help support maintenance of departmental assets.

does a good job on the basic functions of the partnership, there is a common perception that there is a substantial amount of unmet potential. The Department needs to take more initiative in collaborating with its partners and be more receptive to suggestions and ideas for growth. Most agencies interviewed have an extensive list of new opportunities that would benefit both sides, but it seems that the Department isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always interested in entertaining new ideas.

What are the most pressing concerns that we need to be aware of in developing this Master Plan as it applies with your partnership with the city?

Does your partnership agreement spell out the expectations of the city and your group financially?

Given the nature of the Department, some of the most pressing concerns expressed by partners of CRPD pertain to environmental issues, and the department must play a more prominent role in environmental preservation and fulfill its duty to stewardship. Also, the Master Plan must develop a comprehensive maintenance plan for parks and facilities to maintain a quality standard and implement proper routine maintenance. Expansion of the trail system and better connectivity and accessibility of the parks is another area of interest for groups collaborating with the department, which will be much more attainable if CRPD takes advantage of the vast partnership opportunities that are available. The quality of facilities within the system are inconsistent and subpar as a whole, and the Master Plan must determine the appropriate next steps for improvement and provide clear strategic direction for CRPD to follow into the future. Where do you see yourselves in the future as it applies to your partnership with the city? The general perception among focus groups interviewed is that all agencies currently partnered with the Recreation and Parks Department see an excess of unrealized potential. A variety of agencies are very eager to work with the Department, but most feel there is little enthusiasm in return. The consensus is that every partnering agency has an abundance of ideas on how the Department could help their organization grow (and vice versa), but the response and participation from CRPD comes off as somewhat lackadaisical at times. This is perplexing to the partnering organizations because it seems very apparent that both sides have a lot to offer and even more to gain by establishing solid partnerships. It is very important that CRPD takes the time to nurture their existing partnerships to strengthen them for the future.

For the most part, all groups interviewed feel that financial agreements with CRPD are clear, fair, and equitable. In certain circumstances, there were some who perceive that funding can be unfair at times and the city needs to pay their fair share on major repairs. Overall, partners of the department have very detailed agreements from a financial standpoint, and these agreements are generally accepted to be very fair and reasonable. Do you have performance measures you track on how well the partnership is working? Feedback from interviews with partners of the Department revealed that is a lack of performance measures in place and this is an opportunity for growth within the planning process. Groups associated with CRPD are interested in establishing shared goals with the Department and improve the lines of communication within partnership arrangements for a more collaborative effort. The Master Plan should aim to put the necessary performance measures into place that will breed more productive relationships with partners of the department. Who do you see as a partnering person within the city responsible for making your relationship work in the best way? The general consensus is that CRPD works well with its partners overall and they are responsive and willing to help, but many believe there are opportunities to improve communication within partnerships, which will lead to more effective interaction in the future. Some feel the Department should seek more feedback and consider input from partners when addressing difficult issues.

Is the city staff delivering on the expectations from the partnership in terms of how to keep them informed, involved in meetings, communication, etc.? All groups interviewed agreed that CRPD are good partners to work with and communicate well. Although the city Section 3: Public Engagement

STAFF INTERVIEW SUMMARY METHODOLOGY The planning team interviewed staff during a two-day work session in December of 2013. From the information gathered, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis was created. The following information was created from those interviews as well as observations and discussions with the community.

STRENGTHS City and community support for CRPD is strong at the moment with the recent public passage of a bond issue that set aside capital dollars for community centers, multiuse paths, pools, parks, playgrounds and equipment. CRPD has a good relationship with the Mayor’s Office, other City departments, special interest groups and corporate sponsors. Much of this credit goes to the strong leadership of the organization. As the department looks to improvements, design standards, including green design standards, have been put in place for parks, facilities and buildings. The Department has also developed good standards for lighting and trails. Programmatically, the department has cultivated community center staff that know their communities, customers and the value of the services they provide. The department benefits from a high degree of community—the equivalent to 57 full time employees. The department maintains and manages its downtown parks well through strong corporate partnerships and setting up an endowment. These parks are the showcase of the system since they are the home of many special events annually.

WEAKNESSES There are numerous areas where staff indicated weaknesses that need to be addressed. Community Centers Many are outdated and too small to meet community and program needs. Programs are often not well matched to the populations that are served by the centers. Senior services is not as well integrated into as many centers as it could be. Parks and Facilities Additional land acquisition is needed in underserved areas of the city. Sports fields city-wide are outdated and in need of improvements. While design standards exist, a set of overall design principles are needed to support key outcomes. Operations Internal sections within Recreation and Parks operate under a silo mentality and communication needs to improve to create a more integrated approach to comprehensive 74

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

A department strength is good volunteer support, with over 2.5 million hours supported by volunteers in the department, which is equivalent to 57 full time staff.

planning and problem solving at all levels. Many staff feel over-extended and operational budgets don’t meet community expectations. Full-time staff is lacking in therapeutic recreation, marketing, grant-writing, forestry, GIS staff, maintenance, sports and the permit office. Part-time staff are limited and turnover is high. Low bids and poor quality contractors on park buildings have resulted in quality issues. Maintenance The department’s 14-day mow cycle and Mode Three mowing standards doesn’t meet the public expectations for safe, clean and green parks. Equipment lifecycle management is not being followed and there is no maintenance management software or work order system in place. Revenue Generation Rental facilities, community centers and competitive sports fields all require upgrades to maintain competitiveness. Allowing for online permitting and the lack of weekend permitting hours limits users of the system.

OPPORTUNITIES Staff interviews generated numerous opportunities for the department. Operations Standards for park maintenance, program services, facility management, customer service, permitting and development need to be created to improve management. The functional management structure should be updated to more accurately depict roles and responsibilities, streamline management and reduce the silo mentality within the department. One example of reorganization would be to

consider moving property management and natural resource management under parks. Finally a training system should be developed for staff to address needs and achieve a higher level of consistency in customer service, program development, efficiency management, cost of services, partnership management, pricing of services, marketing of services, business management, and policy management. Budget Cost of service assessment and cost recovery goals for community center, programs and special use facilities will help to support the Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation budget. The budget process should engage staff members so they have greater ownership and responsibility.

Lack of park safety will keep people from using parks

Community Centers Community centers should have greater flexibility over when centers are open and closed to better serve their communities. From a facility standpoint, community centers could do more to serve more age groups and a wider population. These include developing a true nature center, making fitness and wellness a core function and program, the addition of indoor heated pools for seniors and therapeutic recreation, considering adding after school programs as a core service, and adding vans to each community center site. Stronger connections should be made between the Art Center and community centers in the system to share programmatic resources. Another indoor field house is also needed for sports services. Maintenance CDRP has established modes for maintenance for each park throughout the city. Maintenance standards should be upgraded system-wide from a Mode Three maintenance cycle to a Mode Two maintenance cycle to increase safety, aesthetics and usability. An equipment replacement schedule should be instituted to keep operations costs down and staff productivity high. Refer to Strategies for Maintenance on pages 148-149 of this document for additional information. Marketing A marketing and branding plan for the system should be created and the Department should invest in a true marketing department.

that match the service expectations of the public such as reinvesting in existing assets and finishing ambitious projects like the connected multi-use trail system. Instituting higher maintenance standards is critical to improving the image of the parks system in the eyes of the public and increasing safety. The Department is currently hampered budgetarily by not being able to grow budgets through earned income. Solving this problem would allow the department to better invest in revenue producing facilities and cover operational costs. Communication improvements are also paramount. Department divisions need to work together and directors and managers need to cooperate to maximize effectiveness. Roles need to be better defined and cross training needs to occur across divisions to better integrate the system. Communication externally is just as important as communication internally. The Department needs to do a better job of marketing itself to attract more users and make it easier to take advantage of facilities and programs. The Department could also do a better job of building its brand, differentiating itself from and to tell its story and let residents know what it does and how it positively impacts the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy, healthfulness and well-being. Operationally, one of the biggest concerns is retaining quality people to become full-time employees. A key piece of this is developing and fostering new leadership and allowing younger tenured leadership in the department to emerge.

THREATS CRPD staff felt that not having a clear vision for the department and everyone working toward it was the biggest overall threat. There was a definite need identified to become proactive as opposed to being reactive. A big part of this is related to having operational budgets Section 3: Public Engagement

SECTION 4 1 HEADING

WESTGATE PARK Westgate Park, established in 1925, is an anchor for the historic Westgate community on the west side of Columbus. 76

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

COMMUNITY SURVEY AND LEVEL OF SERVICESECTION ANALYSIS 1 HEADING

This section builds on the public input and staff and stakeholder interview process by providing a summary of the major findings from the Community Interest and Opinion Survey. The 1,811 household survey respondents provided valuable information to the master planning process as a critical data point to consider as planning for the future of CRPD begins to take shape. Another essential part of this master planning analysis is a Level of Service Analysis that compares existing parks and facilities to national and regional standards. The resulting analysis identifies where parks and facilities meet standards and where there is room for improvement. This section concludes with a basic analysis of geographic priorities by Study Area. Where there is sufficient data, the survey results and Level of Service information are combined to suggest priorities per Study Area, and in other cases just the survey data is broken down per Study Area. Section 5 of this report will take this information, as well as information gathered in previous sections, and recommend strategies for moving ahead.

COMMUNITY INTEREST AND OPINION SURVEY OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY The planning team conducted a Community Interest and Opinion Survey Winter of 2014 to help establish priorities for parks and recreation facilities, programs and services within the community. The survey was designed to obtain statistically valid results from households throughout the City of Columbus. The survey was administered by mail and by phone. The planning team worked extensively with the City of Columbus officials in the development of the survey questionnaire. This work allowed the survey to be tailored to issues of strategic importance to help determine recreation and parks priorities for the community. A seven-page survey was mailed to a random sample of 7,000 households within the City of Columbus boundaries. Approximately three days after the surveys were mailed each household that received a survey also received an automated voice message encouraging them to complete the survey. In addition, about two weeks after the surveys were mailed, the planning team began contacting households by phone. Those who had indicated they had not returned the survey were given the option of completing it by phone. The goal was to obtain a total of at least 1,800 completed surveys. The planning team met that goal with a total of 1,811 surveys completed. The results of the random sample of 1,811 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision rate of at least +/-2.3%.

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING

The Community Interest and Opinion Survey asked respondents, among other things, to convey the quality of programs offered by CRPD.

Since 1998, Leisure Vision (a division of ETC Institute) has conducted household surveys for needs assessments, feasibility studies, customer satisfaction, fees and charges comparisons, and other parks and recreation issues in more than 700 communities in over 45 states across the country.

parks and recreation facilities more often; priority recreation programs, parks, facilities and trails to improve or develop; priority programming spaces to have in planned community centers and aquatic facilities; potential attendance for planned indoor community centers and outdoor aquatic centers; etc.

The results of these surveys has provided an unparalleled data base of information to compare responses from household residents in client communities to “National Averages” and therefore provide a unique tool to assist organizations in better decision making.

To keep the benchmarking data base current with changing trends, Leisure Vision’s benchmarking data base is updated on an annual basis and only uses citizen survey results going back a maximum of five years in current benchmarking averages.

Communities within the data base include a full-range of municipal and county governments from 20,000 in population through over 1 million in population. They include communities in warm weather climates and cold weather climates, mature communities and some of the fastest growing cities and counties in the country. “National Averages” have been developed for numerous strategically important parks and recreation planning and management issues including: customer satisfaction and usage of parks and programs; methods for receiving marketing information; reasons that prevent members of households from using

Results from household responses for the City of Columbus were compared to National Benchmarks to gain further strategic information.

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.1 Survey Respondents

NORTH STUDY AREA

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

In-Town Study Area

Hydrology

Central Study Area

Major Roads

North Study Area

Individual Survey Respondent

Southeast Study Area Southwest Study Area

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

COMMUNITY INTEREST AND OPINION SURVEY OVERALL SYSTEM Overall a majority of respondent households to the Community Interest and Opinion Survey are Very Satisfied (31%) and Somewhat Satisfied (29%) with recreation programs, parks, trails and other services of CRPD. Access is also critically important to users, with 73% of respondent households reporting that they use City parks and facilities because they are close to their homes and residences. Improving physical fitness and health is one of the top reasons why respondent households use parks and facilities (50%) and it rates as most important benefits (66%). Another key finding, especially as it compares to national benchmark figures, are reasons why household respondents do not use City parks and facilities. Forty-six percent of respondents in Columbus answered: “I do not know what is being offered,” compared to the National Average of 21%. While there are other reasons listed, this answer stood out and could be related to data collected on marketing efforts (see Figure 4.4). Budgetary priorities were also addressed by the survey and a clear direction was suggested by the results. Asked how they would allocate a hypothetical $100 in funds, $72 of those dollars would go to improvements/maintenance of existing parks ($29), improvements/development of walking, biking, hiking and running trails ($23) and improvements to existing community centers ($20). Figure 4.3 Reasons Why Respondent Households Use Parks, Recreation Facilities or Programs of the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks Department: 0%

20%

40%

60%

Enjoyment of outdoors

73%

Close to our home/residence

73%

Improved physical fitness & health

47%

Connecting with nature

47%

Availability of parking

37%

Safety of parks & facilities

33%

Program or facility offered

30%

Operating hours are convenient

29%

Fees are affordable

28%

Facilities have right amenities

26%

Good customer service by staff Quality of programs

5% 9%

18% 14%

Somewhat Satisfied Neutral 26% Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 31%

Thirty-one percent (31%) of respondent households are somewhat satisfied with the recreation programs, parks, trails and other services of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department. Other levels of satisfaction include: Very satisfied (29%), neutral (26%), somewhat dissatisfied (9%) and very dissatisfied (5%).

Figure 4.4 Reasons Why Respondent Households Do Not use Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Parks, Recreation Facilities or Programs More Often: 0% I do not know what is being offered

10%

19% 17%

Use services of other agencies

13%

Facilities do not have right equipment

13%

Fees are too high Facilities are not well maintained Lack of quality programs

13% 11% 11% 10% 8%

Lack of accessibility

Lack of transportation

13%

Poor customer service by staff

Quality of instructors

12%

Classes are full

Seventy-three percent (73%) of respondent households’ participate in parks, recreation facilities or programs of the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks Department because of the enjoyment of the outdoors. Other reasons include: Close to our home and residence (73%), improved physical health and fitness (50%), parks are well maintained (47%), and connecting with nature (47%).

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Registration for programs is difficult Other

50%

Cbus: 21% Nat: 13%

Program or facility is not offered

Facility operating hours not convenient

40%

Columbus: 39% National: 33%

Program times are not convenient

Use programs or facilities in other cities

30%

National: 21%

Too busy Too far from residence

20%

Columbus: 46%

Registration for programs is easy

Other

Very Satisfied

29%

80%

50%

Parks are well maintained

Figure 4.2 How Respondent Households Rate Their Level of Satisfaction Regarding the Recreation Programs, Parks, Trails and Other Services of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department:

4% 12%

Forty-six percent (46%) of respondent households do not use Columbus Recreation and Park Department parks, recreation facilities or programs more often because they do not know what is being offered. Other reasons include: Too busy (39%), too far from residence (21%), program or facility is not offered (19%) and program times are not convenient (17%).

Figure 4.5 How Respondent Households Would Allocate $100 in Funds if it was Available for the City of Columbus Parks, Trails, Sports, and Recreation Facilities: Other

Improvements/development of outdoor swimming pools/spraygrounds

Improvements/maintenance of existing parks

$13 $29

Improvements to existing community centers

$20

Improvements/development of walking, biking, hiking & running trails

$23 $9 Improvements/development of sports fields

If respondent households had an additional $100 in funds to spend on City of Columbus parks, trails, sports, and recreation facilities, respondent households would spend ($29.00) on improvements and maintenance of existing parks. Other fund allocations include: Improvements and development of walking, biking, hiking & running trails ($23.00), improvements to existing community centers ($20.00), improvements and development of outdoor swimming pools and spray grounds ($13.00), improvements and development of sports fields ($9.00) and toward other means ($6.00).

Figure 4.6 Benefits from Parks, Trails and Recreation Facilities and Programs that Are Most Important to Respondent Households: 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Improve physical health & fitness

66%

Make Columbus a more desirable place to live

35%

Improve mental health & reduce stress

34%

Preserve open space & environment

31%

Help reduce crime

31%

Increase property values in surrounding area

22%

Increase opportunities for cultural interaction

11%

Protect historical attributes of City

10%

Help attract new residents & businesses Promote tourism to City Other

7% 2% 2% Most Important

2nd Most Important

3rd Most Important

Based on the sum of respondent household top three choices, (66%) of respondent households most important benefit from parks, trails and recreation facilities and programs is improves physical health and fitness. Other most important benefits include: Makes Columbus a more desirable place to live (35%), improves mental health and reduces stress (34%) and preserves open space and the environment (31%).

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

COMMUNITY INTEREST AND OPINION SURVEY PARKS AND FACILITIES Columbus is outperforming the national benchmark when it comes to visitation of parks within the system. When it comes to rating park condition, however, the “excellent” rating is higher for the national benchmark and most Columbus residents would rate parking and facilities as “good.” An interesting story also emerges in terms of the top parks and facilities need. Small neighborhood parks, large community parks and walking and biking trails are among the top three in terms of use and need. They are also among the top three in terms of need being met, although there are still more than 50% of the population who do not have 100% of their needs met for these parks and facilities. When compared to the national benchmark, the need for neighborhood parks, community parks and walking and biking trails also far outpaces other city park systems, suggesting a need for additional investment. While the need met figure is certainly lower for other park and facility types, there is also a corresponding lack of demand for these types of facilities. This is not to declare these unimportant, but going forward there is certainly a prioritization emerging that aligns the greatest need with the greatest demand systemwide. More detailed geographic analysis is provided in the Level of Service portion of this section (see page 90).

Figure 4.8 Facilities Respondent Households Have Used or Visited in the City of Columbus Parks During the Past 12 Months 0% Small neighborhood parks Walking & biking trails Large community parks Playgrounds Nature trails & centers Picnic shelters Outdoor lakes/ponds Wildlife conservation areas Reservable shelters Indoor community centers Outdoor swimming pools/spray grounds Off-leash dog parks Outdoor amphitheater/outdoor stage Outdoor basketball courts Outdoor tennis courts Youth soccer fields Golf courses Indoor swimming/aquatics Youth baseball fields Football/lacrosse fields Adult softball fields Disc golf courses Youth softball fields Other

20%

40%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Columbus: 84% Yes National: 80%

Columbus: 16%

National: 20%

Eighty-four percent (84%) of respondent households indicated that yes they have visited Columbus Recreation Parks Department parks during the past 12 months. Fourteen percent (14%) stated that they have not visited Columbus Recreation Department Parks during the past 12 months.

Figure 4.9 How respondent households rate the overall condition of all the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department parks they have visited

60%

71% 64% 63% 45% 43% 42%

Excellent

20%

40%

60%

80%

Columbus: 27% National: 34%

33% 31% 24% 24% 21% 17% 17% 15% 11% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 7% 6% 5% 3%

Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondent households have used small neighborhood parks over the past 12 months. Other facilities respondent households have used or visited in the City of Columbus Parks during the past 12 months include: Walking and biking trails (64%), large community parks (63%), playgrounds (45%), nature trails and centers (43%), and picnic shelters (42%).

Figure 4.7 Have Respondent Households Visited any of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Parks During the Past 12 Months?

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Columbus: 60%

Good

Fair

Poor

National: 54%

Columbus: 12% National: 11%

Columbus: 1% National: 1%

Based on the percentage of respondents who have visited parks, (60%) rate the overall condition of the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks Department parks they have visited as good. Other respondent households ratings include: Excellent (27%), fair (12%) and poor (1%).

Figure 4.10 Facilities that Respondent Households Currently Have a Need for: 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Walking & biking trails

80%

Columbus: 75% (249,696 households) National: 60%

Small neighborhood parks

Columbus: 72% (239,748 households) National: 55%

Large community parks Outdoor picnic shelters Nature preserves/conservation areas Outdoor lakes/ponds Playgrounds Indoor fitness & exercise facilities Outdoor swimming pools/spray grounds Indoor swimming pools/leisure pools Indoor running/walking track Indoor performing/cultural arts center Fenced off-leash dog parks Outdoor basketball courts Indoor senior center Indoor basketball/volleyball courts Outdoor tennis courts Golf courses Youth soccer fields Youth baseball fields Outdoor ice skating rink Football/lacrosse fields Youth softball fields Adult softball fields Outdoor disc golf Adult soccer fields Outdoor skateboarding parks Other

70%

Columbus: 77% (254,339 households) National: 69%

61% 55% 49% 49% 47% 42% 41% 41% 33% 30% 29% 27% 27% 27% 22% 20% 19% 19% 17% 15% 14% 13% 12% 12% 4%

Figure 4.11 How respondents need for Facilities are being met: 0% Large community parks Walking & biking trails Small neighborhood parks Playgrounds Outdoor picnic shelters Nature preserves/conservation areas Adult softball fields Outdoor lakes/ponds Youth baseball fields Golf courses Outdoor tennis courts Youth soccer fields Youth softball fields Football/lacrosse fields Indoor basketball/volleyball courts Fenced off-leash dog parks Outdoor basketball courts Adult soccer fields Outdoor swimming pools/spray grounds Outdoor disc golf Indoor senior center Indoor performing/cultural arts center Indoor fitness & exercise facilities Indoor swimming pools/leisure pools Indoor running/walking track Outdoor skateboarding parks Outdoor ice skating rink Other

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13% 4% 6% 16% 4% 3% 27% 6% 15% 32% 42% 4% 6% 5% 19% 27% 44% 7% 7% 18% 29% 39% 6% 10% 18% 32% 35% 13% 7% 18% 31% 31% 8% 10% 20% 28% 34% 11% 11% 19% 28% 32% 12% 9% 20% 27% 32% 12% 8% 21% 30% 29% 12% 8% 23% 25% 33% 14% 10% 19% 26% 31% 16% 9% 23% 27% 26% 15% 15% 18% 25% 28% 18% 14% 16% 22% 30% 8% 13% 28% 23% 28% 16% 12% 24% 23% 25% 20% 16% 18% 20% 26% 20% 15% 20% 21% 24% 25% 15% 18% 17% 25% 22% 14% 23% 19% 22% 24% 16% 19% 17% 24% 28% 17% 21% 17% 17% 32% 19% 20% 11% 18% 44% 14% 15% 10% 18% 52% 16% 12% 9% 11% 59% 9% 29% 2% 2% 33%

48% 48%

100% Needs Met

75% Needs Met

50% Needs Met

25% Needs Met

0% Needs Met

Seventy-seven percent (77%) or 254,339 households currently have a need for walking and biking trails. Other facilities that respondent household currently have a need for include: Small neighborhood parks (75% or 249,696 households) and large community parks (72% or 239,748 households).

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

COMMUNITY INTEREST AND OPINION SURVEY RECREATION PROGRAMS In terms of recreation programs, Columbus is behind the national benchmark with 24% of household respondents reporting that they had taken part in any programs over the past year, compared with 35% nationally. However, those that did participate in programs were overall impressed, with 34% rating the quality as excellent and 58% rating the quality as good. Improving how residents learn about programs and activities is one potential area for improvement that was highlighted in Public Workshops and Stakeholder and Staff Interviews and was also echoed in the survey results. Columbus households are far more likely to find out from talking to friends and neighbors (50%) than from a department brochure (36%). Nationally, a department brochure is the top way other residents in other cities learn about programs and activities (63%). When needs for programs and needs met for programs were analyzed, another top three emerged. Adult Fitness and Wellness Programs, Community Special Events and Festivals, and Nature Programs and Outdoor Education where by far the most needed programs and outpace the national benchmark. However, other program needs also merit discussion based on needs and the current ability of the department to meet them. These include Water Fitness Programs, Adult Sports Programs, Adult Painting, Arts, and Sculpture Classes, Senior Programs, Youth Learn to Swim Programs and Youth Sports Programs. More detailed program and geographic analysis is provided in the Level of Service portion of this section (see page 90).

Figure 4.13 Ways that Respondent Households Learn About Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Programs and Activities during the Past 12 Months: 0%

20%

60%

80%

100%

Cbus: 24% National: 35%

Columbus: 76% No National: 65%

Twenty-four percent (24%) of respondent households have participated in recreation programs offered by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department over the past 12 months and (76%) of respondent households have not.

0% Excellent

20%

40%

60%

80%

Columbus: 34% National: 37%

National: 63%

Good

Columbus: 58% National: 53%

30%

Television

28%

Fair

24%

City website 16%

School fliers/newsletters

13%

Conversations with staff

11%

E-mail blasts

10% 9%

Fifty percent (50%) of respondent households learn about Columbus Recreation and Parks Department programs and activities from friends and neighbors. Other ways respondent households learn about Columbus Recreation and Parks Department programs and activities include: Recreation and Parks Department Brochure (36%), fliers at recreation and park facilities (32%), television (30%) and newspaper (28%).

40%

Yes

60%

Columbus: 32% Nat: 18%

Newspaper

Other

20%

Columbus: 36%

Recreation/Park Department Brochure

Radio

Figure 4.14 How respondent households rate the overall quality of recreation programs or activities in which they have participated?

Columbus: 50% National: 41%

From friends & neighbors

Fliers at Recreation/Parks facilities

40%

Figure 4.12 Have Respondent Households Participated in any Recreation Programs Offered by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department During the Past 12 Months?

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Columbus: 8% National: 8%

Poor

Columbus: 0% National: 1%

Don't Know

Columbus: 0% National: 1%

Based on the percentage of respondent households who have participated in programs or activities, (58%) rate the overall quality of recreation programs or activities they have participated in as good. Other respondent household ratings of the overall quality of recreation programs or activities they have participated in include: Excellent (34%), fair (8%) and less than (1%) stated poor.

Figure 4.15 Programs that Respondent Household Currently Have a Need for: 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Columbus: 51% (170,443 households) National: 48%

Adult fitness & wellness programs

Columbus: 50% (166,133 households) National: 39%

Community special events/festivals

Columbus: 42% (138,278 households) National: 32%

Nature programs & outdoor education Water fitness programs

35%

Adult sports programs

32%

Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes

30%

Senior programs

30%

Youth Learn to Swim programs

28%

Youth sports programs

27%

Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical classes

27%

Youth summer camps

25%

Youth fitness & wellness classes

23%

Youth theatre, dance, singing, musical classes

23%

Youth painting, arts, sculpturing classes

23%

Martial arts programs

23%

Gymnastics & tumbling programs

22%

Programs for people with disabilities

22%

Before & after school programs

21%

Preschool programs/early childhood

20%

Tennis lessons & leagues

18%

Golf lessons/clinics

15%

Hockey/figure skating

13%

Other

Figure 4.16 How respondents need for Programs are being met: 0%

20%

Community special events/festivals Youth sports programs Before & after school programs Senior programs

22%

Adult fitness & wellness programs Youth Learn to Swim programs Youth fitness & wellness classes

17%

Youth painting, arts, sculpturing classes

18%

Water fitness programs

14%

Martial arts programs

13%

Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical classes

12% 9%

15%

13%

19%

14%

19%

18% 21% 19%

17%

11%

22% 31% 30% 29% 32% 37%

22%

32%

24%

22%

32%

24% 25%

16%

75% Needs Met

21%

20%

17% 22%

24%

33%

19%

26%

11%

20%

37%

23%

100% Needs Met

17%

21%

12%

11%

20%

17%

15%

15% 11%

13%

22%

32% 18%

28%

12%

14%

16%

14%

16%

Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes

21%

19%

14%

20%

Programs for people with disabilities

Other

14%

19%

15%

23%

16% 18%

29% 17%

26%

18%

Youth theatre, dance, singing, musical classes

16% 26%

12%

27%

18%

15%

19%

Gymnastics & tumbling programs

Hockey/figure skating

15%

20%

15%

24%

18%

Adult sports programs

14%

20%

22%

19%

13%

23%

20%

21%

100% 13%

25%

23%

20%

Youth summer camps

80% 18%

23%

22%

Preschool programs/early childhood

Golf lessons/clinics

60% 28%

24%

Nature programs & outdoor education

Tennis lessons & leagues

40% 29%

39%

11%

50% Needs Met

29% 41%

25% Needs Met

0% Needs Met

Fifty-one percent (51%) or 170,443 respondent households currently have a need for adult fitness and wellness programs. Other programs that respondent households currently have a need for include: Community special events and festivals (50% or 166,143 households), nature programs and outdoor education (42% or 138,278 households), water fitness programs (35%, 117,387 households).

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

COMMUNITY INTEREST AND OPINION SURVEY COMMUNITY CENTERS Fifty-three percent of respondent households have visited or used community centers in the past year. While many of the centers are within walkable neighborhoods, half of the respondents report that they are most likely to drive to the centers. When it comes to improving programming and facilities at these centers, the top three respondent households would use if developed include, Walking and Jogging Track, Weight Room and Cardiovascular Equipment, and a Leisure Pool. When that answer was split between children and adults, different priorities emerged. For children, the top three include Leisure Pools, Arts and Crafts Rooms, and Walking and Jogging Tracks. For adults, the top three shift to Walking and Jogging Track, Weight Room and Cardiovascular Equipment and Exercise Facility for Adults 50 years and older.

Figure 4.17 Have Respondent Households Visited or Used any of the Community Centers Operated by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department Over the Past 12 Months:

Yes: 53%

No: 47%

Forty-seven percent (47%) of respondent households have used or visited community centers operated by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department over the past 12 months and (53%) have not.

Figure 4.18 Ways Respondent households Travel to the Community Centers They Have Used:

Figure 4.19 Potential Programming Spaces Respondent Households Would Use if Developed at Community Center: 0%

20%

40%

Walking & jogging track 45%

Exercise facility for adults 50 years/older

45%

Aerobics/fitness/dance class space

44%

Space for meetings, parties, banquets

50%

Drive

Warm water for therapeutic purposes

Walk

Lanes for lap swimming

Bike Public Transportation

28%

Fifty percent (50%) of respondent households drive to the community center they have used. Other means of transportation respondent households use to travel to the community centers they have used include: Walk (28%), bike (17%) and public transportation (5%).

52%

Leisure pool (water slides, sprays, etc.)

17%

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

42% 41%

Arts & crafts room

38% 36%

Areas for water aerobics

33%

Rock climbing/bouldering wall

28%

Child care area Multi-court gymnasium/field house

80%

74%

Weight room/cardiovascular equipmentâ&#x20AC;Ś

60%

24% 22%

Preschool program space

18%

Classroom space

18%

Racquetball/handball courts

17%

Space for teens

16%

25-meter competition pool

14%

Indoor soccer/lacrosse

13%

Other

Seventy-four percent (74%) of respondent households would use a walking and jogging track. Other potential programming spaces respondent households would use include: Weight room and cardiovascular equipment area (52%), leisure pool (45%), exercise facility for adults 50 years and older (45%), aerobics, fitness and dance class space (44%), Space for meetings, parties and banquets (42%).

Figure 4.20 Program spaces that Children in Respondent Households Would Use the Most Often: 0%

10%

15%

20%

Leisure pool (water slides, sprays, etc.)

20%

Arts & crafts room

13%

Walking & jogging track

13%

Child care area

10%

Preschool program space

Rock climbing/bouldering wall

Space for teens

Multi-court gymnasium/field house

Aerobics/fitness/dance class space

Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area

Space for meetings, parties, banquets

Indoor soccer/lacrosse

Lanes for lap swimming

Warm water for therapeutic purposes

Exercise facility for adults 50 years/older

Classroom space

Areas for water aerobics

25-meter competition pool

Racquetball/handball courts

Other

1% Most Often

2nd Most Often

3rd Most Often

Based on the sum of their top three choices, (20%) of children in respondent households would use a leisure pool with water slides, sprays etc. the most often. Other program spaces that children in respondent households would use the most often include: Arts and crafts room (13%) and walking and jogging track (13%).

Figure 4.21 Program Spaces that Adults in Respondent Households Would Use the Most Often: 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Walking & jogging track

35%

40% 42%

Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area

25%

Exercise facility for adults 50 years/older

23%

Aerobics/fitness/dance class space

18%

Warm water for therapeutic purposes

17%

Leisure pool (water slides, sprays, etc.)

15%

Space for meetings, parties, banquets

14%

Lanes for lap swimming

12%

Areas for water aerobics

11%

Arts & crafts room

Rock climbing/bouldering wall

Multi-court gymnasium/field house

Racquetball/handball courts

25-meter competition pool

Child care area

Indoor soccer/lacrosse

Classroom space

Preschool program space

Space for teens

Other

30%

2% Most Often

2nd Most Often

3rd Most Often

Based on the sum of respondent household top three choices, (42%) of adults in respondent households would use the walking and jogging track the most often. Other program spaces that adults in respondent households would use the most often include: Weight room and cardiovascular equipment area (25%), exercise facility for adults 50 years and older (23%).

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION TO LEVEL OF SERVICE

Survey respondents identified walking and biking trails, such as the Scioto Mile shown above, as the facility they have the most need for.

Level of Service Standards are guidelines that define service areas based on population that support investment decisions related to parks, facilities and amenities. Level of Service Standards can and will change over time as the program lifecycles change and demographics of a community change. The planning team evaluated park facility standards using a combination of resources. These resources included: National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines, recreation activity participation rates reported by the Sports and Fitness Industry Associationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (SFIA) 2013 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Participation as it applies to activities that occur in the United States and the Columbus area, community and stakeholder input, findings from the prioritized needs assessment report and general observations. This information allowed standards to be customized to the City of Columbus (see Table 4.1). The Level of Service guidelines were applied to the existing acreage of parks, amounts of facilities and square footage of community centers in the City of Columbus, also taking into account Metro Parks and YMCAs. A Level of Service analysis was not conducted for programs and activities due to a lack of proper data, although the Community Interest and Opinion Survey data provides insight into potential priorities. These standards should be viewed as a guide. The 88

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment related to the particular situation and needs of the community. By applying these facility standards to the population of Columbus, gaps and surpluses in park and facility/amenity types are revealed. Currently, there are needs to be met in Columbus to meet the needs of the community now and in the future. The standards outlined are not aggressive, but are conservative. However, it will likely not be physically or financially feasible to meet every standard. For Columbus to meet the needs of the community; parks, trails and recreation facilities need to be a priority for the future. Total park acreage, which includes reservoirs, meets the Level of Service standards. Nearly every individual park type has a clear need given current levels of service, with the exception of reservoirs, conservation/natural areas and operations. Current amounts of outdoor amenities are also in need, with the exception of softball fields, basketball courts and playgrounds. In this section of the report, city-wide parks and facilities are reviewed base on Level of Service recommendations. This is followed by a Level of Service analysis for each study area for park typologies and trails to provide additional geographic information.

Figure 4.22 Existing Parks By Type - Citywide

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park and Reservoirs

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve Conservation/Natural Area Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Table 4.1 Park Facility Standards - Citywide 2013 Inventory - Developed Facilities

Park Type

Neighborhood Parks

Columbus Inventory

Metro Parks

YMCA Facilities

Total Inventory

Current Service Level based upon population

766.05

0.95

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

1,380.51

1.72

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

2,277.41

2.84

acres per

1,000

Special Use

126.02

0.16

acres per

1,000

Golf

965.40

1.20

acres per

1,000

6,398.03

7.97

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

216.48

0.27

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

1,418.39

16,946.36

21.12

acres per

1,000

Reservoir

15,527.97

Parkland Reserve

762.04

0.95

acres per

1,000

Operations/Non-Park Area

86.92

0.11

acres per

1,000

Total Park Acres

14,397.25

15,527.97

29,925.22

37.29

acres per

1,000

Picnic Shelter Medium (50-100)

1.00

33.00

34.00

1.00

site per

23,601

Large Shelter (100+)

4.00

10.00

14.00

1.00

site per

57,317

183.00

1.00

field per

4,385

Baseball Field

6.00

1.00

field per

133,740

Softball Field

104.00

1.00

field per

7,716

Basketball Courts

63.00

64.00

1.00

field per

12,538

Tennis Courts

93.00

1.00

court per

8,628

Disc Golf Course

2.00

1.00

court per

401,221

OUTDOOR AMENITIES:

Multi-Purpose Field (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse/Rugby/Cricket/ Kickball)

Playgrounds

1.00

184.00

142.00

326.00

1.00

site per

2,461

4.00

1.00

5.00

1.00

site per

160,488

1.00

court per

Skate Park

1.00

site per

802,441

Trails (Miles)

92.45

281.45

0.35

miles per

1,000

Outdoor Pools

7.00

1.00

site per

114,634

1.66

SF per

person

Dog Parks Sand Volleyball Courts

Recreation Facilities (Square Feet)

718,322.00

2013 Estimated Population

802,441

2018 Estimated Population

838,107

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

189.00

616,034.00 1,334,356.00

2013 Inventory - Developed Facilities (Continued)

Park Type (Repeated)

Recommended Service Levels

2013 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

2018 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

Neighborhood Parks

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

224

Acre(s)

Need Exists

296

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

3.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

130

Acre(s)

Need Exists

237

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

676

Acre(s)

Need Exists

712

Acre(s)

Golf

1.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

238

Acre(s)

Need Exists

292

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Reservoir Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

185

Acre(s)

Need Exists

203

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

21.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Need Exists

654

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

31.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Picnic Shelter Medium (50-100)

1.00

site per

20,000

Need Exists

Sites(s)

Need Exists

Sites(s)

Large Shelter (100+)

1.00

site per

50,000

Need Exists

Sites(s)

Need Exists

Sites(s)

Multi-Purpose Field (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse/ Rugby/Cricket/Kickball)

1.00

field per

4,000

Need Exists

Field(s)

Need Exists

Field(s)

Baseball Field

1.00

field per

10,000

Need Exists

Field(s)

Need Exists

Field(s)

Softball Field

1.00

field per

8,000

Meets Standard

Field(s)

Need Exists

Field(s)

Basketball Courts

1.00

field per

20,000

Meets Standard

Field(s)

Meets Standard

Field(s)

Tennis Courts

1.00

court per

6,000

Need Exists

Court(s)

Need Exists

Court(s)

Disc Golf Course

1.00

court per

50,000

Need Exists

Court(s)

Need Exists

Court(s)

Playgrounds

1.00

site per

2,500

Meets Standard

Site(s)

Need Exists

Site(s)

Dog Parks

1.00

site per

50,000

Need Exists

Site(s)

Need Exists

Site(s)

Sand Volleyball Courts

1.00

court per

10,000

Need Exists

Court(s)

Need Exists

Court(s)

Skate Park

1.00

site per

50,000

Need Exists

Site(s)

Need Exists

Site(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Outdoor Pools

1.00

site per

50,000

Need Exists

Site(s)

Need Exists

Site(s)

Recreation Facilities (SF)

2.00

SF per

person

Need Exists

270,526

Need Exists

341,858

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres OUTDOOR AMENITIES:

NOTES: â&#x20AC;˘

Conservation/Natural Area land for Metro Parks include conservation and preservation lands

â&#x20AC;˘

Columbus park acres make up 48% of total park acres

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Table 4.2 Park Facility Standards by Study Area 2013 Inventory by Study Area - Developed Facilities

Park Type

Study Area Inventory

Metro Parks

Total Inventory

Current Service Level based upon population

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA Neighborhood Parks

58.09

0.43

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

319.03

2.34

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

134.96

0.99

acres per

1,000

Special Use

35.93

0.26

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

8.83

0.06

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

63.79

3,169.38

23.26

acres per

1,000

Parkland Reserve

1.24

0.01

acres per

1,000

Operations/Non-Park Area

14.00

0.10

acres per

1,000

Total Park Acres

635.87

3,105.59

3,741.46

27.45

acres per

1,000

Trails (Miles)

21.60

37.80

59.40

0.44

miles per

1,000

Neighborhood Parks

141.59

1.36

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

296.29

2.84

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

155.06

1.49

acres per

1,000

Special Use

0.09

0.00

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

30.01

0.29

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

144.51

3,250.10

31.14

acres per

1,000

Parkland Reserve

61.93

0.59

acres per

1,000

acres per

1,000

3,105.59

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

3,105.59

1,037.75

3,105.59

4,143.34

39.70

acres per

1,000

Trails (Miles)

12.00

37.80

49.80

0.48

miles per

1,000

Neighborhood Parks

216.05

1.02

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

246.29

1.16

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

176.46

0.83

acres per

1,000

Special Use

7.92

0.04

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

22.97

0.11

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

324.81

3,430.40

16.22

acres per

1,000

Parkland Reserve

198.17

0.94

acres per

1,000

acres per

1,000

NORTH STUDY AREA

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres Trails (Miles)

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

3,105.59

1,192.67

3,105.59

4,298.26

20.32

acres per

1,000

14.50

37.80

52.30

0.25

miles per

1,000

2013 Inventory - Developed Facilities (Continued)

Park Type (Repeated)

Recommended Service Levels; Revised for Local Service Area

2013 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

2018 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

IN-TOWN Neighborhood Parks

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

3.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

274

Acre(s)

Need Exists

292

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

100

Acre(s)

Need Exists

106

Acre(s)

Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

22.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

31.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

483

Acre(s)

Need Exists

671

Acre(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Meets Standard

Mile(s)

Meets Standard

Mile(s)

Neighborhood Parks

1.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.50

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

104

Acre(s)

Need Exists

109

Acre(s)

Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

21.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

CENTRAL

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

31.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Meets Standard

Mile(s)

Meets Standard

Mile(s)

Neighborhood Parks

1.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

101

Acre(s)

Need Exists

115

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

177

Acre(s)

Need Exists

196

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

2.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

352

Acre(s)

Need Exists

376

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

204

Acre(s)

Need Exists

213

Acre(s)

Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

21.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

1,011

Acre(s)

Need Exists

1,209

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

NORTH

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

31.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

2,258

Acre(s)

Need Exists

2,550

Acre(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Table 4.2 Park Facility Standards by Study Area (Continued) 2013 Inventory by Study Area - Developed Facilities

Park Type

Study Area Inventory

Park Type

Metro Parks

Total Inventory

Current Service Level based upon population

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA Neighborhood Parks

173.94

1.07

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

396.98

2.45

acres per

1,000

1,118.76

6.90

acres per

1,000

Special Use

28.00

0.17

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

67.76

0.42

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

484.54

3,590.13

22.15

acres per

1,000

Parkland Reserve

252.13

1.56

acres per

1,000

Operations/Non-Park Area

72.92

0.45

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

Total Park Acres

3,105.59

3,001.88

3,105.59

6,107.47

37.68

acres per

1,000

Trails (Miles)

23.50

37.80

61.30

0.38

miles per

1,000

Neighborhood Parks

142.24

0.99

acres per

1,000

Community Parks

121.93

0.85

acres per

1,000

Regional Parks

692.18

4.80

acres per

1,000

Special Use

19.82

0.14

acres per

1,000

Neighborhood Open Space

82.77

0.57

acres per

1,000

Conservation/Natural Area

236.97

3,342.56

23.17

acres per

1,000

Parkland Reserve

211.40

1.47

acres per

1,000

acres per

1,000

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres Trails (Miles)

3,105.59

1,641.62

3,105.59

4,747.21

32.91

acres per

1,000

3.80

37.80

41.60

0.29

miles per

1,000

In-Town

Central

North

Southeast

Southwest

2013 Estimated Population

136,282

104,366

211,501

162,087

144,245

2018 Estimated Population

142,340

109,005

220,901

169,291

150,657

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

2013 Inventory - Developed Facilities (Continued)

Park Type (Repeated)

Recommended Service Levels; Revised for Local Service Area

2013 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

2018 Facility Standards Meet Standard/ Need Exists

Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed

SOUTHEAST Neighborhood Parks

1.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

2.50

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

134

Acre(s)

Need Exists

141

Acre(s)

Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

21.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

1.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

31.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Neighborhood Parks

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Need Exists

Acre(s)

Community Parks

2.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

167

Acre(s)

Need Exists

179

Acre(s)

Regional Parks

3.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Special Use

1.00

acres per

1,000

Need Exists

124

Acre(s)

Need Exists

131

Acre(s)

Neighborhood Open Space

0.50

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Conservation/Natural Area

21.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Parkland Reserve

1.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

SOUTHWEST

Operations/Non-Park Area Total Park Acres

31.00

acres per

1,000

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Meets Standard

Acre(s)

Trails (Miles)

0.40

miles per

1,000

Need Exists

Mile(s)

Need Exists

Mile(s)

NOTES: •

Conservation/Natural Area land for Metro Parks include a total of 15,527.97 acres of conservation and preservation lands. For this analysis, this acreage was evenly distributed across each study area (3,105.59 acres/area)

•

Columbus park acres make up 48% of total park acres

•

Metro Parks trails total of 189.00 miles throughout Columbus. For this analysis, this acreage was evenly distributed across each study area (37.8 mi/area).

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Following the Community Interest and Opinion Survey and Level of Service Analysis, the planning team worked with CRPD staff to combine data where possible to begin to suggest geographic priorities. For Walking and Biking Trails, Small Neighborhood Parks, and Large Community Parks, survey results were able to be combined with Level of Service analysis. For other park facilities and programs and activities, geographic priorities were identified using just survey data. This additional data and analysis is not meant to provide the final answer, but is one more piece of information to consider (along with population projections, public meeting input, staff and stakeholder interviews, budgetary priorities, etc.) when planning future improvements and additions to parks and facilities. Figure 4.23 summarizes the overall recommendations for parks, facilities and programs. Using survey information, park facilities that had the largest amount of unmet needs are identified by study area. Then the top three parks and facility types are identified and comparing unmet needs from the survey results and the Level of Service analysis priorities are suggested by study areas. For programs, survey information on largest amount of unmet need are identified for each study area. The top three programs in terms of overall need are also prioritized by study area. Taken together with multiple other pieces of information and data gathered throughout the planning process, this analysis informs the recommendations, strategies and tactics for continued park and facilities improvements that are discussed in the next section of this Master Plan.

The Community Interest and Opinion Survey respondents indicated a strong need for health and wellness programs

Overall Recommendations Facilities • Among their top facility needs overall, respondents indicated a need for walking and biking trails, small neighborhood parks and large community parks. • As parkland is improved or expanded, outdoor skating rinks and outdoor skating parks will fulfill the most unmet needs across the city. • Outdoor skating rinks and outdoor skating parks are well suited for large community parks and should be given priority consideration during future large park community design. Programs • Large community parks should also be designed with priority consideration given to accommodating community special events/festivals and nature programs & outdoor education. • As programs are expanded, arts programs for adults will fulfill the most unmet needs across the city. • Among their top program needs overall, respondents indicated a need for community special events/festivals and nature programs & outdoor education. 96

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.23 Unmet Needs for Facilities And Programs - Overall (Survey and Level of Service) The Community Interest and Opinion Survey and the Level of Service Analysis identify the following unmet needs by study area: NORTH STUDY AREA Respondents indicated a strong need for ice-based facilities (outdoor skating rinks) and programs (hockey/figure skating). Respondents also indicated a strong need for health and wellness programs, which is related to their stated need for indoor running/ walking tracks, tennis lessons, and martial arts programs. The Level of Service Analysis indicates that this area is in need of an additional 101 acres of Small Neighborhood Parks, 177 acres of Large Community Parks, and an additional 16 miles of Walking and Biking Trails.

CENTRAL STUDY AREA An outdoor skating rink in the Central Study Area could not only satisfy the unmet needs of this study area, but adjacent areas, as well. The Level of Service Analysis indicates that this area is in need of an additional 15 acres of Small Neighborhood Parks.

IN-TOWNÂ STUDY AREA

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA Area residents had more unmet needs for both facilities and programs compared to other study areas. Indoor facilities such as a performing/cultural arts center and senior center are relatively specific needs for this area and improvements in these areas could be used to meet unmet needs for arts, fitness, and senior programs. The Level of Service Analysis indicates that this area is in need of an additional 167 acres of Large Community Parks and an additional 16 miles of Walking and Biking Trails.

Respondents indicated a need for youth programs to a greater degree than respondents in other study areas. Among the top program needs city-wide, area residents have the greatest unmet need for nature programs & outdoor education. The Level of Service Analysis indicates that this area is in need of an additional 78 acres of Small Neighborhood Parks.

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA Respondents indicated a strong need for ice-based facilities (outdoor skating rinks) and programs (hockey/figure skating). The Level of Service Analysis indicates that this area is in need of an additional 69 acres of Small Neighborhood Parks.

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

In-Town Study Area

Hydrology

Central Study Area

Major Roads

North Study Area Southeast Study Area Southwest Study Area

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS - FACILITIES Figure 4.24 Unmet Needs for Facilities - Walking and Biking Trails (Survey and Level Of Service) 77% of Columbus residents have a need for walking and biking trails

NORTH STUDY AREA

9.3% with needs met 25% or less

4 1

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

8% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

6.2% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

13.1% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

3.9% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Walking & biking trail improvements should focus on the SOUTHWEST and NORTH areas in order to fulfill unmet needs, based on both Survey results and the Level of Service Analysis. The Level of Service also indicates a need for additional trail miles in the SOUTHEAST.

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Table 4.3 Level of Service for Walking and Biking Trails by Study Area Meet Standard/Need Exists

Study Area

2013

Additional Needed

2018

Additional Needed

In-Town

Meets Standard

Central

Meets Standard

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

North

Need Exists

32 Miles

Need Exists

36 Miles

Fourth Priority

Southeast

Need Exists

4 Miles

Need Exists

6 Miles

Fifth Priority

Southwest

Need Exists

16 Miles

Need Exists

19 Miles

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.25 Unmet Needs for Facilities - Small Neighborhood Parks (Survey and Level Of Service) 75% of Columbus residents have a need for small neighborhood parks

NORTH STUDY AREA

6.5% with needs met 25% or less

4 1

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

13.6% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

7.8% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

14.1% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

12.2% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Survey results suggest Neighborhood Park improvements focus on the SOUTHWEST and CENTRAL areas. The Level of Service Analysis indicates a need for additional acreage in all study areas, with the NORTH and IN-TOWN areas showing the most need for acreage.

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Table 4.4 Level of Service for Small Neighborhood Parks by Study Area Study Area

2013

Additional Needed

2018

Additional Needed

In-Town

Need Exists

78 Acres

Need Exists

84 Acres

Central

Need Exists

15 Acres

Need Exists

22 Acres

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

Meet Standard/Need Exists

North

Need Exists

101 Acres

Need Exists

115 Acres

Fourth Priority

Southeast

Need Exists

69 Acres

Need Exists

80 Acres

Fifth Priority

Southwest

Need Exists

2 Acres

Need Exists

8 Acres

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS - FACILITIES Figure 4.26 Unmet Needs for Facilities - Large Community Parks (Survey and Level Of Service) 72% of Columbus residents have a need for large community parks

NORTH STUDY AREA

5.5% with needs met 25% or less

2 1

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

4% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

5.6% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA 14% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

3.1% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Both Survey results and the Level of Service Analysis suggest Large community park improvements should focus on the SOUTHWEST and NORTH areas in order to fulfill unmet needs.

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Table 4.5 Level of Service for Large Community Parks by Study Area Meet Standard/Need Exists

Study Area

2013

Additional Needed

2018

Additional Needed

In-Town

Meets Standard

Central

Meets Standard

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

100

North

Need Exists

177 Acres

Need Exists

196 Acres

Fourth Priority

Southeast

Meets Standard

Fifth Priority

Southwest

Need Exists

167 Acres

Need Exists

179 Acres

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.27 Unmet Needs for Facilities - Overall (Survey) Over half of respondents reported that their needs were met 25% or less for these facilities NORTH STUDY AREA Outdoor ice skating rink Indoor running/walking track Indoor swimming pools/leisure pools Outdoor skateboarding parks

CENTRAL STUDY AREA Outdoor ice skating rink

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA Outdoor skateboarding parks Outdoor ice skating rink Indoor running/walking track

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA Outdoor ice skating rink Outdoor skateboarding parks Indoor performing/cultural arts center Indoor running/walking track Fenced off-leash dog parks Indoor senior center

FINDINGS • • • •

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA Outdoor skateboarding parks Outdoor ice skating rink

0’

3 Miles

NORTH

Respondents had unmet needs for outdoor facilities in every Study area The SOUTHWEST Study area had the highest number (6) of facility types where less than 25% of needs were met In every study area, a majority of respondents indicated that their needs for outdoor skating rinks were less than 25% met In four of five study areas, a majority indicated that their needs for outdoor stakeboarding parks were less than 25% met

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

In-Town Study Area

Hydrology

Central Study Area

Major Roads

North Study Area Southeast Study Area Southwest Study Area Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

101

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS - PROGRAMS Figure 4.28 Unmet Needs for Programs - Adult Fitness and Wellness Programs (Survey) 51% of Columbus residents have a need for Adult Fitness and Wellness Programs

NORTH STUDY AREA

44.5% with needs met 25% or less

3 1

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

35% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

34.7% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

54.4% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

29.1% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Adult fitness & wellness programs should be expanded in the SOUTHWEST area first and the NORTH area second to fulfill unmet needs.

Legend

102

City of Columbus Boundary

First Priority

Fourth Priority

Hydrology

Second Priority

Fifth Priority

Major Roads

Third Priority

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.29 Unmet Needs for Programs - Community Special Events/Festivals (Survey) 50% of Columbus residents have a need for Community Special Events/Festivals

NORTH STUDY AREA

22.4% with needs met 25% or less

3 1

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

23.4% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

23.6% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

33.4% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA 29% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Community special events/festivals should be expanded in the SOUTHWEST area first and the SOUTHEAST area second to fulfill unmet needs.

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

First Priority

Fourth Priority

Hydrology

Second Priority

Fifth Priority

Major Roads

Third Priority

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

103

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS - PROGRAMS Figure 4.30 Unmet Needs for Programs - Nature Programs and Outdoor Education (Survey) 42% of Columbus residents have a need for Nature Programs and Outdoor Education

NORTH STUDY AREA

28.1% with needs met 25% or less

1 3

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

34.6% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

42.7% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA 34% with needs met 25% or less

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

26.1% with needs met 25% or less

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

FINDINGS

3 Miles

NORTH

Nature programs & outdoor education should be expanded in the IN-TOWN area first and the CENTRAL area second to fulfill unmet needs.

Legend

104

City of Columbus Boundary

First Priority

Fourth Priority

Hydrology

Second Priority

Fifth Priority

Major Roads

Third Priority

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 4.31 Unmet Needs for Programs - Overall (Survey) Over half of respondents reported that their needs were met 25% or less for these programs

NORTH STUDY AREA Hockey/figure skating Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes Tennis lessons & leagues Martial arts programs Youth Learn to Swim programs Water fitness programs

CENTRAL STUDY AREA Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical instrument classes Martial arts programs Hockey/figure skating Adult sports programs

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical instrument classes Hockey/figure skating Programs for people with disabilities Martial arts programs Golf lessons/clinics Tennis lessons & leagues Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes Water fitness programs Youth theatre, dance, singing, musical instruments classes Youth painting, arts, sculpturing classes Senior programs Adult fitness & wellness programs Youth fitness & wellness classes Gymnastics & tumbling programs Adult sports programs

FINDINGS

Gymnastics & tumbling programs Before & after school programs Golf lessons/clinics Martial arts programs Tennis lessons & leagues Hockey/figure skating Adult theatre, dance, singing, musical instrument classes Youth Learn to Swim programs Programs for people with disabilities Youth painting, arts, sculpturing classes Water fitness programs Youth summer camps

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA Hockey/figure skating Golf lessons/clinics Adult painting, arts, sculpturing classes

0’

3 Miles

NORTH

• In every study area, a majority of respondents indicated that their needs for hockey/figure skating programs were less than 25% met. • Respondents had unmet needs for arts programs for adults in every study area. • The SOUTHWEST study area had the highest number (15) of program types where less than 25% of needs were met.

Legend

In-Town Study Area

City of Columbus Boundary

Central Study Area

Hydrology

North Study Area

Major Roads

Southeast Study Area Southwest Study Area

Section 4: Community Survey and Level of Service Analysis

105

SECTION 5 1 HEADING

FEDDERSEN COMMUNITY CENTER Located in Cooke Park, the 35,000 Square Foot Feddersen Community Center has served the North Linden community since 1965. 106

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIES SECTION 1 HEADING

This section of the report combines the information gathered from the public meetings, Community Interest and Opinion Survey, stakeholder and staff interviews, Level of Service Analysis and Prioritization with observations from focused site visits to parks, facilities and community centers. As part of this assessment, the planning team also reviewed current and future plans and conducted additional on-site interviews. The resulting Strategies and Tactics for Parks, Facilities, Community Centers and Programs are outlined in the following pages.

107

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIES INTRODUCTION The Needs Assessment and Strategies section has two major components. The first catalogs the observations and additional information gathered by the planning team during assessment visits to parks, facilities and community centers. The second combines this assessment with all of the data, input, research and analysis to develop strategies and tactics for improvement the Columbus Department of Recreation and Parks.

Strategy Themes Building from CRPD’s mission statement “To enrich the lives of our citizens,” the planning team developed a set of five overarching recommendation themes. These five themes are echoed throughout the recommendations that seek to steadily improve the accessibility, quality, diversity, and financial sustainability of CRPD. • All developed parks, facilities, programs, and services provided by CRPD should be accessible to all Columbus residents. • All parks, facilities, programs, and services should be managed for quality through the use of consistent and strategic standards. • CRPD should provide a broad spectrum of parks, facilities, programs, and services to engage Columbus residents.

Wolfe Park along Alum Creek on the east side of Columbus. The shelterhouse in the distance was constructed in 1935.

• CRPD should develop and offer facilities, programs, and services that generate revenue. • CRPD should develop partnerships to broaden service opportunities and ensure the long-term care of facilities. This needs assessment and strategies build on these established themes and address the following major topic areas: • Parks and Park Facilities • Community Centers • Programming • Marketing and Outreach • Partnerships In the following pages each topic area is broken down into more detailed categories to provide a closer look at different park typologies, center size and infrastructure needs system-wide. Following this section, an Implementation and Action Plan is outlined and cataloged to provide a framework for future improvements and policy initiatives.

Volleyball at Bill McDonald Community Center

108

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 5.1 Parks and Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend In-Town Study Area

Park Visited by Planning Team

Central Study Area

Community Centers Visited by Planning Team

North Study Area Southeast Study Area

Community Centers

Southwest Study Area

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

109

PARKS AND FACILITIES ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION As part of the Master Planning process, the planning team visited 60 parks as well as portions of the multi-use trail system and blueway access points. This was done to assess current conditions, amenities offered, and determine needs for future improvements. To guide this assessment phase of the process, department staff selected a wide range of parks and facility types located within each of the five Study Areas. The parks visited within each Study Area are shown in Figure 5.2 at right. These parks and facilities covered the geographic reaches of the city and included all park typologies. The assessment portion of this section is organized by Study Area. For each area, the number of parks, typology of parks and major amenities are cataloged. Calculations of how many residents are served and what percentage of the total city parkland is located in each area are provided. Following current conditions assessment, observations of issues and potential improvements are identified. After the assessment by Study Area, strategies are outlined to meet the needs for improvements and investment. These strategies combine the assessment observations with information gathered during the demographic and trend analysis, public input, public survey and stakeholder and staff interviews to develop a framework for the Department for future years. These strategies address: 1.0

System-wide Strategies

1.2

Neighborhood Parks

1.3

Community Parks

1.4

Regional Parks

1.5

Natural Areas

1.6

Special Use Parks

1.7 Acquisition 1.8 Forestry 1.9 Maintenance 1.10

Multi-Use Trails

1.11 Blueways 1.12 Aquatics

Parks Visited by Planning Team by Study Area

IN-TOWN Blackburn Park Topiary Garden at Deaf School Park Dodge Park English Park Goodale Park Harrison West Park Karns Park Linwood Park

Mayme Moore Park McKinley Park Moeller Park Nelson Park Schiller Park Tuttle Park Weinland Park Wolfe Park

CENTRAL Audubon Park Brevoort Park Glen Echo Park Harrison Smith Park Joan Park

Linden Park Maloney Park Mock Park Whetstone Park

NORTH Albany Crossing Park Antrim Park Cherrybottom Park Cooper Park Godown Road Park Granville Park Hard Road Park

Lazelle Woods Park Northcrest Park Northgate Park Parkridge Park Prestwick Commons Riverside Green Park Wynstone Park

SOUTHEAST Alumcrest Park Barnett Park Crawford Farms Elk Run Park Independence Village Park Indian Mound Park Jefferson Woods Park

Marion-Franklin Park Schirm Farms Parkland Sills Park Smith Farm Park/Three Creeks Park Walnut Hills Park Winchester Meadows Park

SOUTHWEST Alkire Lakes Park Berliner Park Big Run Park Clover Groff Natural Area Greene Countrie Park

110

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Mentel Memorial Golf Course Spindler Park Westchester Park Westgate Park

Figure 5.2 Parks Visited by Planning Team

LAZELLE WOODS PARK

COOPER PARK

RIVERSIDE GREEN PARK

ANTRIM PARK WHETSTONE PARK

TUTTLE PARK

CHERRYBOTTOM PARK

MOCK PARK

WEINLAND PARK GOODALE PARK SPINDLER PARK

WOLFE PARK

DODGE PARK

BARNETT PARK

WESTCHESTER PARK

BIG RUN PARK

WESTGATE PARK BERLINER PARK SCHILLER PARK

INDIAN MOUND PARK

ELK RUN PARK MARION FRANKLIN PARK

WINCHESTER MEADOWS

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

In-Town Study Area

Hydrology

Central Study Area

City Of Columbus Park

North Study Area

Major Roads

Southeast Study Area

Park Visited by Study Team

Southwest Study Area

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

111

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT IN-TOWN STUDY AREA The In-Town Study Area has 87 total parks facilities, representing 5.9% of citywide parkland acreage and serving 133,665 residents. This Study Area is within the original neighborhoods of the city, including Franklinton, the Near East Side, German Village, Merion Village, the Near Southside, and Victorian and Italian Villages in addition to Downtown Columbus. While there are few large parks and a low amount of total park acreage due to development constraints, there are the greatest number of special use parks and numerous neighborhood parks. The Downtown area has seen significant upgrades to riverfront parks, beginning with Genoa Park in the late 1990s, North Bank Park in 2005, and Bicentennial Park and the Scioto Mile in 2011. Within the neighborhoods, Schiller Park in German Village, Goodale Park in Victorian Village and Franklin Park on the Near East Side are community anchors. Taken together, these older parks and special use downtown parks hold numerous special events and are some of the most iconic parks within the city. Due to their high visibility, these parks have a higher maintenance standard, which is augmented by â&#x20AC;&#x153;friends ofâ&#x20AC;? organizations and corporate partners. As the oldest area of the city, the In-Town Study Area also has a larger share of community centers (10) and pools (6) than any other part of the park system. While this is an asset overall, it also means that maintenance costs or renovation costs are higher given the age of these facilities. As growth has continued beyond the pre-annexation boundaries (1950) of the City of Columbus, this has become more and more difficult given the need to invest in both new facilities for an expanding city and renovating and maintaining existing facilities. The City has recently invested in renovating pools (Dodge Park), new spraygrounds (Blackburn), and renovating community centers (Dodge Park) that significantly upgraded facilities and made them more valuable to the neighborhoods they serve. Although this is the oldest and most urbanized area of the city, there are still opportunities to create new parkland. The removal of the Main Street Dam will create 33 acres of new downtown parkland. There are other smaller parks that can be added to the system as part of redevelopment efforts to serve existing and new neighborhoods. For example, the use of Tax Increment Financing and a developer agreement helped to create Harrison Park, which is part of a new residential development on a former factory site. Other tactics, such as taking advantage of vacant lots can help create new pocket parks (such as Linwood Park) within neighborhoods. Other successful strategies include partnering with new community development, such as Mayme Moore Park adjacent to the King Arts Center.

112

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA SUMMARY

87 Parks in Study Area, including... 10

Community Centers

Pools

Dog Park

Skate Park

IN-TOWN Parks at a Glance: Parks by Category 20

Community Parks

Conservation/Natural Areas

Neighborhood Parks

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Parkland Reserves

Regional Parks

Special Use Park/Facilities

The IN-TOWN Study Area contains...

133,665

5.9%

City of Columbus Residents

of citywide parkland acreage

Figure 5.3 Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - In-Town Study Area

TUTTLE PARK, CC & POOL

IUKA PARK

THOMPSON PARK, CC & CBUS AQUATIC CENTER WEINLAND PARK GOODALE PARK

MARYLAND POOL BEATTY PARK & CC

GENOA PARK

WOLFE PARK

MCFERSON COMMONS

FRANKLIN PARK

DODGE PARK, CC & POOL

BLACKBURN PARK CC & SPRAYGROUND DRIVING PARK CC

DEAF SCHOOL PARK SCIOTO AUDUBON METRO PARK SULLIVANT GARDENS CC SCHILLER PARK & CC

FAIRWOOD POOL BARACK CC & LINCOLN POOL

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

2 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve

Sprayground

Conservation/Natural Area

Community Centers

Pool or Aquatic Facility Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

113

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT IN-TOWN STUDY AREA PARK ASSESSMENTS

PARKS WITHIN STUDY AREA Academy Park Clowsen Field Handford Parkland Holtzman Parkland Battelle Riverfront Park Beatty Park Bicentennial Park Blackburn Park Cody Park Deaf School Park Deshler Park Dodge Park Dream Field Park Driving Park Driving/Fairwood Connector English Park Fairwood Park Frank Fetch Memorial Park Franklin Park Franklinton Cemetery Garfield Center Genoa Park Goodale Park Gowdy Maint. Facility Greenlawn Park Hamilton & Spring Park Hanford Village Park Harrison Park Harrison West Park Harrison/Sullivant Houses Igel/Alum Creek Water Dedication Indianola Park Italian Village Park Iuka Park Karns Park Keller Park Kobacker Park Lincoln Park Linwood Park Livingston Park Livingston/I-70 Parkland Main-Alum Park

Maintenance & Warehouse Operations Martin Park Mayme Moore Park Maynard and Summit Park McFerson Commons Mckinley Park Millbrook Park Moeller Park Moler Street Parkland Neff Street Parkland Nelson Park Northbank Park Ohio Ave Street Park Olentangy Trail - King Ave & Fifth Ave Palsgrove Park Portal Park Richter Workers Memorial Park Rickenbacker House Roosevelt Park Sater Park Saunders Park Sawyer Park Schiller Park Scioto Audubon Park Scioto Peninsula Parkland Sensenbrenner Park Side By Side Park Smith Road Park Southeast Lions Park Southside Park Southwood Park Sullivant Gardens Thompson Park Thurber Park Tuttle Park Weinland Park Westbank Park Westbank Walkway Wheeler Memorial Park Wilson Avenue Parkland Wolfe Park

Parks in Bold were visited by the Planning Team 114

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

OBSERVATIONS • Access to parks could be improved, either from existing bike paths or with on-street facilities (bike and pedestrian) • Pocket parks should be large enough to have an impact and allow for efficient maintenance • Wayfinding and signage could be improved (especially to parks that are off major thoroughfares) • Consistent maintenance standards should be applied throughout all In-Town parks, regardless of location as they are some of the most visible in the City • Mature trees in older parks are an asset that need to be better maintained. New Downtown parks would benefit from a similar commitment to tree planting.

SCHILLER PARK

ADDRESS: 1069 Jaeger Street TYPE: Community Park & Community Center ACRES: 23.45

GAZEBO

WALKWAY

PLAY

TENNIS

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

PICNIC

POND/ LAKE

HARRISON PARK

TOPIARY GARDEN AT DEAF SCHOOL PARK

ADDRESS: 995 Harrison Park Place TYPE: Neighborhood Park ACRES: 3.90

PLAY

Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;BALL

SOFTBALL

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

ADDRESS: 480 East Town Street TYPE: Special Use ACRES: 9.18

WALKWAY

PICNIC

POND/ LAKE

WALKWAY

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

115

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT CENTRAL STUDY AREA The Central Study Area has 58 total parks facilities, representing 8% of citywide parkland acreage and serving 101,362 residents. This area of the city also has some of the most established residential neighborhoods of the city, north of the Ohio State University and east of I-71 inside I-270. Due to focused planning efforts by the Department over the last 40 years, there is a significant concentration of parks and facilities located along the Olentangy River and Alum Creek, where there are also multi-use trails that run north-south. There are numerous conservation/natural area (16) and parkland reserves (9) within this area of the City. Overbrook Ravine Park is one such natural area that helps to protect a unique ravine that feeds into the Olentangy River. On either side of I-71 are traditionally dense neighborhoods that developed from 1920-1950. These have numerous neighborhood parks and community parks that are woven into the existing neighborhood fabric, although connections and walking path layout is stronger in the neighborhoods east of I-71 than in the neighborhoods west of I-71. East of Cleveland Avenue there is a greater amount of industrial land uses and residential uses become more sporadic. Linden Park in the Linden neighborhood is a community anchor, with a community center, fishing pond and a variety of sports fields and facilities. The larger community and regional parks are primarily along the river and creek corridors. Whetstone Park is one of the larger parks in the study area with excellent trail access, neighborhood connectivity and sports facilities. It also has a library, community center, and the Park of Roses. Wolfe Park and Mock Park are larger parks along Alum Creek that have a variety of sports facilities. Wolfe Park also has a four season shelterhouse and Mock Park has indoor sports facilities.

CENTRAL STUDY AREA SUMMARY

58 Parks in Study Area, including... 8

Community Centers

Pools

Multi-Use Trails

Athletic Complex

CENTRAL Parks at a Glance: Parks by Category 9

Community Parks

Conservation/Natural Areas

Neighborhood Parks

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Parkland Reserves

Regional Parks

Special Use Park/Facilities

The CENTRAL Study Area contains...

116

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

102,362

City of Columbus Residents

of citywide parkland acreage

Figure 5.4 Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Central Study Area SHARON MEADOWS PARK

COOKE PARK & FEDDERSEN CC

WHETSTONE PARK & CC

HUY ROAD PARK

CHAMPIONS GOLF COURSE

CLINTON COMO PARK

INNIS PARK

GLEN ECHO PARK

NORTHEAST PARK & HOWARD CC

LINDEN PARK & CC

MOCK PARK MALONEY PARK DOUGLAS CC AND WINDSOR POOL MARTIN JANIS SENIOR CENTER

BRENTNELL CC MILO GROGAN CC

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

2 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve

Sprayground

Conservation/Natural Area

Community Centers

Pool or Aquatic Facility Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

117

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT CENTRAL STUDY AREA PARK ASSESSMENTS

PARKS WITHIN STUDY AREA

OBSERVATIONS • Park quality differs greatly throughout the study area, especially in regard to neighborhood parks • Neighborhood parks are more successful when park facilities and amenities are located on the visible edges of parks where there are more “eyes” on the park • Parks close to the multi-use trail network should be connected • Parks on the eastern edge of the study area need better connections both in terms of bike facilities and sidewalks

Alum Creek Parkland COH Alum Creek/Agler Parkland Alum Creek/Koch Parkland Alum Creek/Miller Parkland American Addition Park Amvet Park Audubon Park Avalon Park Beechwold Park Brentnell Ave Parkland Brentnell Park Brevoort Park Cassady Park Champions Golf Course City Gate Park Clinton-Como Park Cooke Park Cremeans Park Cumberland Woods Park Eagle Grading Parkland Eastern Glen Parkland Glen Echo Park Harrison Smith Park Hayden Park Holt Avenue Parkland Huy Road Park Innis Park Island View Islandview Parkland Joan Park

Kenlawn Park Kenney Park Krumm Park Linden Park Majestic Paint Parkland Makris Parkland Maloney Park Mifflin Parkland Milo-Grogan Park Mock Park Extension Mock Park New Beginnings Park North East Park Northmoor Park Olentangy River Canoe Portage Parkland Olentangy-Broadmeadows Trail Overbrook Ravine Park Parkview Parkland COH Portal Park Pride Park Pumphrey Park Rosemont Parkland Sharon Meadows Park Shepard Park Stonecliff Parkland Webster Park Weiler Parkland Whetstone Park Windsor Park

Parks in Bold were visited by the Planning Team 118

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

• Portions of all parks could be converted to natural areas to reduce maintenance and mowing costs

WHETSTONE PARK

ADDRESS: 3923 North High Street TYPE: Community Park & Community Center ACRES: 136.28

GAZEBO

PLAY

TENNIS

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

POND/ LAKE

BIKEWAY

WALKWAY

BASEBALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

WOODS/ RIVER/CREEK WILDLIFE

AUDUBON PARK

GLEN ECHO PARK

ADDRESS: 2770 Audubon Road TYPE: Neighborhood Park ACRES: 8.74

PLAY

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

ADDRESS: 510 Cliffside Drive TYPE: Neighborhood Park ACRES: 6.8

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

PLAY

B’BALL

PICNIC

WALKWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

RIVER/CREEK

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

119

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT NORTH STUDY AREA The North Study Area has 69 total parks facilities, representing 10% of citywide parkland acreage and serving 207,439 residents. There are multiple development characteristics throughout this study area, although the areas served by park facilities in this part of the city are generally post war suburban development inside I-270 and recent (1990s and 2000s) suburban development outside I-270. This study area is also somewhat disjointed geographically due to annexation patterns and is interspersed by several suburban jurisdictions. The majority of parkland is concentrated along the Olentangy River and Alum Creek corridors, which are well served by respective multi-use trails. Better connectivity and access to these parks and trails is needed as this part of the city is typified by higher-speed arterials that do not have suitable pedestrian or bike facilities. There is no pool or sprayground located in this study area. West of 315 in Northwest Columbus and east of I-71 in Northeast Columbus are the more established suburban development. Antrim Park on the Olentangy River offers multiple sports facilities and trail access on the west side of the study area. Cooper Park on Alum Creek also has trail access and has a large complex of soccer fields. Neighborhood parks are for the most part well-integrated into the surrounding suburban development. Riverside Green Park is one of the most thoughtfully done, with a prominent sign, landscaping, mature tree stands and multiple points of neighborhood access. North and east of I-270 features more recent suburban development. Lazelle Woods Community Center and Park on the eastern side of the study area is the largest facility in this part of the city, with a new community center and multiple sports fields. While the indoor and outdoor portions of the complex are served by different vehicular access points and connections between the two are difficult, this is an impressive facility. Hard Road Park on the western side of the study area has been identified for a potential community center as part of that facility to serve this area of the city. Just like other suburban development patterns of this era in other portion of the city, park spaces in new communities are often on ground that is close to retaining ponds, wetlands or other natural features that could not be constructed upon. As a result, these park spaces can have challenged access and limited usability for outdoor activities when compared to other neighborhood parks in older parts of the city. Albany Crossing, a converted agricultural field, is one exception where the park space has been designed as integral to the neighborhood and facilities located to the visible edges of the site. While lacking in tree canopy and other amenities that would make the park more usable, it is at least accessible to the surrounding community. CRPD has also worked with other jurisdictions to provide 120

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

needed park facilities. Godown Road Dog Park is one example, with CRPD providing the capital and the City of Worthington maintaining the facility. Cherrybottom Park is a conservation area just east of I-270 that protects a large area along Big Walnut Creek. While there is no formal access provided, it is close to Blendon Woods Metro Park. This unique natural area and proximity to a Metro Park provides a potential for a more usable amenity for this part of the City.

NORTH STUDY AREA SUMMARY

69 Parks in Study Area, including... 3

Community Centers

Dog Park

Multi-Use Trails

Athletic Complex

NORTH Parks at a Glance: Parks by Category 8

Community Parks

Conservation/Natural Areas

Neighborhood Parks

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Parkland Reserves

Regional Parks

Special Use Park/Facilities

The NORTH Study Area contains...

207,439

10%

City of Columbus Residents

of citywide parkland acreage

Figure 5.5 Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - North Study Area

PRESTWICK COMMONS WYNSTONE PARK HIGHBLUFFS PARK HARD ROAD PARK

HOOVER RESERVOIR LAZELLE WOODS PARK & CC

COOPER PARK ALBANY CROSSING PARK

RIVERSIDE GREEN PARK CARRIAGE PLACE PARK & CC

WOODWARD PARK & CC

ANTRIM PARK CHERRYBOTTOM PARK

ANHEUSER-BUSCH SPORTS PARK

NORTHTOWNE PARK GILLIE COMM. SENIOR CENTER

DEXTER FALLS PARK

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

2 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve

Sprayground

Conservation/Natural Area

Community Centers

Pool or Aquatic Facility Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

121

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT NORTH STUDY AREA PARK ASSESSMENTS

PARKS WITHIN STUDY AREA

OBSERVATIONS • Better connections for pedestrians and bicyclists are needed to park facilities • Neighborhood parks in new suburban areas need better wayfinding and signage • New neighborhood parks need to be better integrated into overall community design

Albany Crossing Park Albany Crossing Wetland Alum Creek/Cooper Rd Parkland COH Anheuser-Busch Sports Park Antrim Park Beechcroft Park Brandywine Parkland Brookside Woods Park Cannongate Alum Creek Parkland Carriage Place Park Casto Park Chaseland Park Cherrybottom Park Cooper Park Creek Ridge Parkland Devonshire Park Dexter Falls Park Flint Park Forest Park East Park Gelpi Parkland Godown Road Park Gould Park Granville Park Hamilton Road Wetland Nature Preserve Hard Road Park Hickory Woods Park Highbluffs Park Kilbourne Run Parkland Lazelle Woods Park Northcrest Park Northern Woods Park Northgate Park Northtowne Park

Olde Sawmill Park Olenbrook Parkland Olentangy Meadows Parkland Olentangy Parkland Olentangy Parkland - Far North Parkridge Park Pingue Park Preserve East Parkland Prestwick Commons Riverside Green Park Riverside Green South Park Rocky Fork Creek Parkland Rocky Fork/Warner Road Parkland Sancus Park Sawmill Road Parkland Scioto Woods Park Strawberry Farms Park Sugar Run Parkland Summitview Park Sycamore Hills Park Tanager Woods Teaford Parkland Walden Park Waltham Woods Park Wango Parkland Westerford Village Parkland Westerville Woods Parkland Woodbridge Green Park Woodstream Park Woodstream Parkland Woodward Park Worthington Hills Park Wynstone Park

Parks in Bold were visited by the Planning Team 122

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

• There is a lack of pool and community center facilities • Cooperation with suburban municipalities has proven successful and other opportunities should be explored

ANTRIM PARK

ADDRESS: 5800 Olentangy River Road TYPE: Regional Park ACRES: 119.78

PLAY

TENNIS

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

BIKEWAY

WALKWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

RIVER/CREEK FRONTAGE

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

POND/ LAKE

LAZELLE WOODS PARK

RIVERSIDE GREEN PARK

ADDRESS: 575 Lazelle Road/8140 Sancus Boulevard TYPE: Community Park and Community Center ACRES: 41.15

PLAY

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

WALKWAY

ADDRESS: 6650 Canaan Circle TYPE: Neighborhood Park ACRES: 5.62

PLAY

TENNIS

B’BALL

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

WALKWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

123

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA The Southeast Study Area has 83 total parks facilities, representing 23.4% of citywide parkland acreage and serving 158,974 residents. The Southeast has by far the greatest amount of acreage of any of the other four study areas, due to the 1,100 acre Three Creeks Metro Park at I-270 and SR 33, which is co-managed with Metro Parks. Three Creeks is located along and at the confluence of three creeks (Alum, Blacklick and Big Walnut) and has numerous different entry points and experiences from fishing, canoe access, bike trails, etc. Protecting these stream corridors and wetland areas has been a priority for CRPD, and it has 27 conservation and natural areas and 12 parkland reserves in this study area, primarily located along the three creeks and in areas to the eastern edge of the study area. Another large land holding is Walnut Hills Golf Course. Located south of Livingston Avenue, north of I-70 and east of I-270 the course, which has been closed, is slated to be redeveloped into new parkland. This unique piece of property features varied topography and terrain, offering unique views and character not typically seen in Central Ohio. Surrounded by suburban commercial and residential development, this large piece of ground has a great degree of potential. Similar to the Southwest area, the Southeast runs the spectrum from natural and rural areas to urban neighborhoods. While the strong urban grid of neighborhoods begins to transition to more commercial, vacant and industrial land uses south of SR 104, there are a few neighborhood parks and community centers that serve these residents. Marion-Franklin Community Center on Lockbourne Road has a newly-renovated Olympic-size pool, a recently updated community center and a community center with a full kitchen that serves the senior community and the Capital Kids after-school program. Similarly on the east side of the study area along Livingston Avenue, there are older, more established neighborhoods. Barnett Park and Community Center serves this community, and though an older center has some new facilities such as a sprayground. Indian Mound Park and Community Center on Parsons Avenue also has a recently opened sprayground. Marion-Franklin has the only pool in the Southeast Study Area. The Southeast Study Area is also typified by new suburban development. These areas are served by numerous neighborhood parks that have been built as part of new subdivisions. Most seem to have good quality playground equipment, walking trails and a mix of hard-court sports facilities and sports fields. While these parks are sometimes challenged by access and visibility, they all seem wellutilized. Elk Run Park has recently been renovated, with solar-powered light fixtures, bio swales in the parking lot, and a natural area with a compacted aggregate trail. This 124

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

natural area has replaced acres of turfgrass that once had to be mowed and provided a new amenity to the neighborhood. This is a practice to potentially extend to other parks. In the case of newer suburban development, parks are often tucked into less desirable pieces of ground, often along wetlands or retention ponds. This can be difficult ground to work with in terms of providing park space, but in places like Schirm Farms Parkland on Gender Road, CRPD has built walking trails and provided access and connections that are beneficial to the neighborhoods they serve.

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA SUMMARY

83 Parks in Study Area, including... 3

Community Centers

Dog Park

Pool

Spraygrounds

SOUTHEAST Parks at a Glance: Parks by Category 9

Community Parks

Conservation/Natural Areas

Neighborhood Parks

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Parkland Reserves

Regional Parks

Special Use Park/Facilities

Golf Courses

The SOUTHEAST Study Area contains...

158,974

23.4%

City of Columbus Residents

of citywide parkland acreage

Figure 5.6 Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Southeast Study Area

CRAWFORD FARMS PARK

AIRPORT GOLF COURSE

BARNETT PARK & SPRAYGROUND BIG WALNUT PARK & FAR EAST CC WALNUT HILL PARK (FORMERLY GOLF COURSE)

NOE BIXBY PARK MARION-FRANKLIN PARK, CC & POOL

ALUM CREST PARK PORTMAN PARK

SILLS PARK

NAFZGER PARK

SMITH’S FARM

ELK RUN PARK

INDIAN MOUND PARK, CC & SPRAYGROUND

THREE CREEKS PARK

SHADEVILLE NURSERY LOCKBOURNE PARKLAND

0’

2 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve

Sprayground

Conservation/Natural Area

Community Centers

Pool or Aquatic Facility Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

125

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA PARK ASSESSMENTS

PARKS WITHIN STUDY AREA Abbie Trails Park Alum Creek-Smith Farms Alumcrest Park Amberfield Parkland Argus Park Barnett Park Berwick Park Big Walnut Corridor COH Big Walnut Park Bre-Kro Parkland COH Brownlee Circle Park Canini Park Catalpa Parkland Cedar Run Park Certified Oil Parkland Chatterton Park Crawford Farms Park Creekstone Parkland Deems Parkland Deer Lake Parkland Dysart Run Parkland Dysart Run Parkland COH Easthaven Park Echelon Parkland Edgewater Parkland COH Elk Run Addition Elk Run Park Gender Road Parkland Hale Parkland Hamilton Heights Parkland Heer Park Helsel Park Independence Village Park Indian Mound Park Jefferson Woods Park Jefferson Woods Ravine Kelley Park Klingbeil Parkland Kraner Park Lehman Estates Parkland Liv-Moor Park Lockbourne Parkland COH

Long Road Wetland Longwood Wetland Park Mackenbach Parkland Marion-Franklin Park Mason Run Parkland COH Maybury Park M-Five Parkland Nafzger Park Nafzger Park Expansion Noe Bixby Parkland Oak Creek Parkland Portman Park Portman Park Addition Refugee Road Parkland Retreat At Turnberry Reynolds Crossing Park Schirm Farms Parkland Scioto Canal Parkland Shadeville Nursery Shady Lane Park Shelbourne Parkland Sills Park Sol Shenk Parkland Southgate Park Stockbridge Park Three Creeks - Connor Park Three Creeks - Madison Mills Three Creeks - Smith Farm Three Creeks Park Turnberry Golf Course Turnberry Parkland Waggoner Chase Parkland Walnut Hill Park Walnut View Park White Ash Parkland Williams Creek Park Williams Rd Parkland COH Willis Park Winchester Bend Parkland Winchester Meadows Park Winding Creek Park Yorkshire Parkland

Parks in Bold were visited by the Planning Team 126

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

OBSERVATIONS • Community Centers are all located in the older urban and suburban parts of the study area • There is only one pool in the entire study area and it is located in a part of the city that is difficult to access and with a low-degree of connectivity and walkability • Neighborhood parks would all benefit from more consistent signage and wayfinding and greater neighborhood access • Newer neighborhood parks in suburban developments often challenged by site constraints and natural area protection

MARION FRANKLIN PARK

ADDRESS: 2801 Lockbourne Road TYPE: Community Park ACRES: 24

PLAY

B’BALL

SOFTBALL

BASEBALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

WALKWAY

ELK RUN PARK

WINCHESTER MEADOWS

ADDRESS: 3600 Hendron Road TYPE: Neighborhood Park ACRES: 30.69

PLAY

Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;BALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

ADDRESS: 7200 Oliver Winchester Road TYPE: Parkland Reserve ACRES: 16.72

PICNIC SHELTER

WALKWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

PLAY

PICNIC

POND/ LAKE

WALKWAY

RIVER/CREEK FRONTAGE

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

127

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA SUMMARY

The Southwest Study Area has 51 total parks facilities, representing 14% of citywide parkland acreage and serving 141,475 residents. The area includes some older neighborhoods directly west of I-70, but closer to I-270 and farther west features many newer, lower density subdivisions. This is generally an area of the city that is typified by environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and poor draining soils. It is no surprise then, that this area of the city has seven conservation and natural areas and six parkland reserves. The development pattern in the more suburban and undeveloped portion of the city is more disjointed and disconnected, leading to many parks (especially community and regional parks) that are not easily accessible without an automobile. Neighborhood parks in these new neighborhoods often built along the edge of natural areas. While the conservation and natural areas are important buffers and provide significant habitat, there may be opportunities to add more walking paths and educational facilities. Conversely, in developed parks, there are opportunities to return maintained areas to a more natural state, increasing habitat while decreasing mowing and other expenses. Additionally, the City of Columbus has been active in preserving land along the Darby Watershed, in collaboration with partners such as Metro Parks. In the more developed and older parts of this study area, a traditional grid pattern of residential development exists, and a more standard neighborhood park format was observed with mature trees and more typical park amenities. Westgate Park is a great example of how a community park can truly be a neighborhood anchor. It is well-connected to the surrounding community, is well-served by on-street bike facilities, and has a wide variety of sports fields and facilities. The three-season shelter and well-maintained grounds (aided by a neighborhood garden club) and pond, make this an attractive asset to the neighborhood. From a sports facility perspective, the Southwest Study Area has a wide variety of assets from the recently updated Mentel Memorial Golf Course to Lou Berliner Park that hosts regional and national softball tournaments. Spindler Park caters specifically to soccer users and has more than a dozen fields. Glenwood Pool is the only outdoor pool in this study area.

51 Parks in Study Area, including... 3

Community Centers

Golf Course

Pool

Athletic Complexes

SOUTHWEST Parks at a Glance: Parks by Category 7

Community Parks

Conservation/Natural Areas

Neighborhood Parks

Neighborhood Open Spaces

Parkland Reserves

Regional Parks

Special Use Park/Facilities

Golf Courses

The SOUTHWEST Study Area contains...

128

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

141,475

14%

City of Columbus Residents

of citywide parkland acreage

Figure 5.7 Existing Parks by Type, Community Centers and Pools - Southwest Study Area

FRANK’S PARK

HILLIARD GREEN PARK

CLOVER GROFF NATURAL AREA SPINDLER PARK

HOLTON PARK & CC GLENWOOD PARK, CC & POOL

WILSON ROAD PARKLAND

ALTON ROAD PARKLAND

WESTGATE PARK & CC BIG RUN PARK

BERLINER PARK MENTEL MEMORIAL GOLF COURSE

WINWARD FARMS PARK

STONERIDGE PARK

0’

2 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Neighborhood Park

Hydrology

Neighborhood Open Space

Major Roads

Special Use Park or Facility

Regional Park

Golf Course

Community Park

Operations/Non Park Area

Parkland Reserve

Sprayground

Conservation/Natural Area

Community Centers

Pool or Aquatic Facility Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

129

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA PARK ASSESSMENTS

PARKS WITHIN STUDY AREA

OBSERVATIONS • Neighborhood parks could use more consistent signage and wayfinding • Neighborhood parks could use more consistent maintenance (mowing, equipment condition, graffiti removal, etc.) • Sports-specific parks could better serve other users in addition to sports users (facilities such as walking paths, playgrounds, etc.) • Investments in field turf infield at Berliner Park are impressive and important to keep these facilities competitive

Alkire Lakes Park Alkire Woods Park Alton Road Parkland Berliner Sports Park Big Run Park Broad Street Parkland Clean Ohio Alton Parkland Clover Groff Natural Area Clover Parkland Clover-Kenney Park Creekview Parkland Forest Creek Park Frank’s Park Freedom Park Galloway Ridge Park Galloway Road Clean Ohio Parkland Georgesville Green Parkland Georgian Heights Park Glenview Park Glenwood Park Greene Countrie Park Hauntz Park Hilliard Green Park Hilltonia Park Holton Park

Kings Creek Parkland Kingsbury Parkland Lindbergh Park McCoy Park Mentel Memorial Golf Course Prairie Parkland Rhodes Park Riverbend Park Rocky Creek Parkland Scioto-Darby Detention Spindler Addition Spindler Road Park Stephens Drive Park Stoneridge Park Trabue Woods Park Westchester Parkland Westgate Park Westmoor Park Wexford Green Park Willow Creek Addition Willow Creek Park Wilson Road Parkland Winward Farms Park Wrexham Park

Parks in Bold were visited by the Planning Team 130

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

BERLINER PARK

ADDRESS: 325 Green Lawn Avenue TYPE: Regional Park ACRES: 209.7

ATHLETIC COMPLEX

PLAY

SOFTBALL

BIKEWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

RIVER/CREEK FRONTAGE

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

PICNIC SHELTER

POND/ LAKE

WESTGATE PARK

CLOVER GROFF NATURAL AREA

ADDRESS: 455 South Westgate Avenue TYPE: Community Park & Community Center ACRES: 46.3

PLAY

TENNIS

Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;BALL

POND/ LAKE

WALKWAY

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

SOFTBALL

FOOTBALL/ SOCCER

PICNIC

ADDRESS: East Roberts Road TYPE: Parkland Reserve ACRES: 4.28

PICNIC SHELTER

POND/ LAKE

WOODS/ WILDLIFE

RIVER/CREEK FRONTAGE

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

131

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.1 SYSTEM-WIDE STRATEGIES

Figure 5.8 Neighborhood Parks

Looking at the park system as a whole, there are four distinct areas that should be addressed. 1. Acquisition of additional parkland 2. Continued engagement of neighborhood groups 3. Improved access to city parks and facilities 4. Creation of a checklist for minimum park and facility standards

Acquisition Based on the Level of Service analysis and national standards for parkland per 1,000 residents, there are clear areas for improvement. Addressing these current acreage deficits for certain park classifications are all the more critical when the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projected growth is considered. CRPD will need to continue to acquire additional land, convert or reevaluate current land holdings and park uses, and develop strategic partnerships to meet recommended standards for most classifications of parkland. The goals for specific parkland categories will be discussed in the following pages.

Engagement Beyond expanding the park system to better serve existing and future residents, CRDP should continue its practice of working with neighborhood groups and other organizations to improve and maintain parks. As new services, facilities and parks are planned, community input should be sought through multiple platforms, both in person and online. Building on these strong relationships and fostering new ones will enable greater community buy-in and support and create a stronger park system.

Access CRPD is already doing an exemplary job connecting residents to parks, trails and facilities. However, there are numerous neighborhoods that have yet to gain adequate access. Identifying these gaps and anticipating new ones will be critical to increasing both the usability of the park system, but also the health of city residents. This will also require coordination with other city departments, Metro Parks, Franklin County and other surrounding jurisdictions to implement new on-street and off-street infrastructure (Multi-Use Trails are discussed in greater detail on page 152). Within existing parks pedestrian access should also be prioritized, making it easy to walk to various features and amenities. Expanding and connecting sidewalks and pathways from the exterior of parks to interior amenities is a critical step in increasing usability and accessibility.

132

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Standards Acknowledging that parks throughout the city require differing levels of maintenance due to location, usage and facilities, there remains a need to apply a consistent level of service across the entire park system. Developing a checklist for minimum park and facility standards that apply to each park typology would raise the profile of existing assets and guide the design and development of new projects. Combined with increasing the level of maintenance (see page 148) system wide, this approach to consistent quality and service will improve parks and facilities, encourage greater use and lead to greater user satisfaction.

Figure 5.9 Community Parks

Figure 5.10 Regional Parks

Table 5.1 System-wide Strategies Strategy

Tactic Develop strategic partnerships

1.1.1

Acquire enough land to meet recommended standards for all classifications of parkland

Work with other city departments to fold parks into aligning initiatives Reevaluate existing properties and facilities to determine if each meets the needs of CRPD Establish a stewardship plan for each park and determine which parks should have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;friends ofâ&#x20AC;? organization

1.1.2

Continue to work with neighborhood groups to improve and maintain parks

Institute a memorandum of understanding with such groups to ensure a continual commitment Continue to work with Area Commissions, Civic Associations and citizen groups to get feedback and gain input on park improvements and needs Use the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Web site to let the public view project designs and provide input Continue developing multi-use trails throughout the city

1.1.3

Remove access and circulation barriers to city parks

Coordinate with the Columbus Planning Division, and the Transportation and Public Service departments, to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections Make facilities within a park accessible to pedestrians Develop an updated and consistent signage and wayfinding system

1.1.4

Develop a checklist for minimum park and facility standards

Taking under account Master Plan recommendations, engage department staff in development of standards

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

133

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

Figure 5.11 Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks

According to the Community Interest and Opinion Survey, 75% of Columbus residents currently have a need for small neighborhood parks. This is among the top three needs identified by the survey. Neighborhood Parks are classified by the National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA) as parks that range between 5 to 15 acres and serve a quartermile to half-mile service area. From a citywide perspective, the NRPA recommends 1 to 2 acres of Neighborhood Parks per 1,000 residents. Neighborhood parks typically include open space and facilities such as playing fields, playgrounds, and picnic tables. It is recommended that Neighborhood Parks in the City of Columbus meet minimum acreage standards, meet their community and surrounding areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, and meet minimum level of service/maintenance standards.

Prioritization Areas and Acquisition Strategies Currently there are .95 acres per 1,000 residents of Neighborhood Parks in the City of Columbus. To meet the needs of current and future residents, CRPD should aim to increase this to 2 acres per 1,000 residents over the next 10 years. While need exists city-wide, acquiring land for Neighborhood Parks should be prioritized in areas where the most need has been identified. The public process and survey indicated needs in the Southeast, Southwest and North Study Areas. These areas are also at the top of the list when considering the MORPC growth projections and where population will likely be growing the fastest. The Level of Service analysis provides some additional information, identifying needs in every study area, with the greatest acreage needs in the North, Central and Southeast portions of the city. The Level of Service for the Southwest Study Area shows a current and projected short-term need for Neighborhood Parks of between two and eight acres. However, residents in the Southwest area were vocal in the public meetings and survey responses, the department should look into the issue and determine what issues (park maintenance, location, access, or others) may be leading to their expressed need for additional Neighborhood Parks. Outside of these geographic priorities and neighborhood needs, CPRD should strive to meet the benchmark of locating Neighborhood Parks within one-half mile of all neighborhoods. Given that some of these locations are in built-out, urban portions of the city and that land acquisition is not always achievable from a cost standpoint, strategies should be explored to make use of existing city-owned properties and initiatives that could increase the total acreage and distribution of Neighborhood Parks. Potential strategies include identifying city existing land holdings (Parkland Reserve property or City Land Bank properties for example) that could be converted into neighborhood parks in areas of need. As the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blueprint Columbus 134

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Neighborhood Parks are distributed throughout the entire city. The map above shows park locations with a quarter to half mile service radius overlaid with community park one-mile service radii.

green infrastructure program works to convert vacant lots to stormwater facilities, it may also be possible to collaborate on how these projects could incorporate a park use that serves neighborhood residents.

Maintenance and Safety Another key area of demonstrated need from this planning process is the desire of the public to improve the overall maintenance standards, safety and design of existing Neighborhood Parks. Improving the quality of existing parks will make them more usable and help to contribute to the success of the neighborhood that they serve. In some cases, the condition of neighborhood parks in the City of Columbus mimic the condition of the neighborhoods that surround them. To increase the livability of these neighborhoods, the parks that serve them should be held to a greater standard in order to become an asset that can be built upon. To ease the maintenance burden and focus efforts on the most used amenities of these parks, portions of neighborhood parks could be returned to a more natural state after careful consideration of safety issues.

Safety is another consistent resident concern. While some Neighborhood Parks are better at this than others, increasing the â&#x20AC;&#x153;eyes on the park,â&#x20AC;? or passive supervision is a simple design change that would improve safety. For the design of future parks and renovation of existing parks, improving the visibility of parks, park activity centers and amenities from the street edge, walking paths and surrounding houses should be prioritized.

Design In addition to continuing to build Neighborhood Parks in areas of the City where there is an identified need, five Neighborhood Parks should be updated annually. Renovations should focus on a user experience of less than one hour and provide at least five experiences (for example: loop walkways, basketball or tennis court, playground equipment, shelter, ball field). Park improvements that address community and health and wellness (exercise stations, walking trails, etc.) should also be prioritized. The cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Urban Infrastructure Recovery Fund and other alternative funding sources should be considered as a potential funding source to implement these annual park improvements.

Top: Brevoort Park Bottom: Prestwick Commons

Table 5.2 Strategies for Neighborhood Parks Strategy

Tactic Locate neighborhood parks within one-half mile of all neighborhoods Assess the amount of land needed for the next ten years, and determine where it is most in need

1.2.1

Make acquiring land for neighborhood parks a high priority

Prioritize new parks in the Southwest, Central and Southeast Study Areas Identify existing City land holdings (for example: Parkland Reserve property or City Land Bank property) that could be converted into Neighborhood Parks in areas of need. Also consider working together with other City departments to identify other programs and initiatives (such as Blueprint Columbus) where Neighborhood Parks could be included. Require a consistent maintenance standard that is equal to or greater than the surrounding neighborhood

1.2.2

Improve overall maintenance standards, safety and design

Increase visibility of parks and park activity centers from the street edge Preserve a dedicated percentage of park area in a natural state to increase wildlife habitat and reduce maintenance costs Focus on park improvements that address community Health and Wellness

1.2.3

Update 5 neighborhood parks per year

Plan for a length of user experience of less than one hour Update design standards to provide at least 5 experiences Consider use of UIRF and other funding sources to update parks

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

135

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.3 COMMUNITY PARKS

Figure 5.12 Community Parks

Another area of need indicated by the Community Interest and Opinion Survey is Community Parks. Seventy-two percent of respondents cite a need for Large Community Parks. Community Parks are classified by the National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA) as having over 25 acres and serving a one to two-mile service area. From a citywide perspective, the NRPA recommends 5 to 8 acres of Community Parks per 1,000 residents. According to the NPRA, Community Parks typically include facilities for intense recreation, such as swimming pools, and serve nearby neighborhoods. Examples of Community Parks include Goodale Park, Marion Franklin Park and Big Walnut Park. It is recommended that Neighborhood Parks in the City of Columbus meet minimum acreage standards, meet their community and surrounding areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, and meet minimum level of service/maintenance standards. Currently there are 1.72 acres of Community Parks per 1,000 residents. It is recommended that CRPD work to increase this ratio to 4 acres per 1,000 residents over the next 10 years. Areas of need identified by public input and the Community Interest and Opinion Survey include the Southwest and North Study Areas. This need was verified by the Level of Service Analysis. Acquiring necessary land to accomplish this necessary addition of parkland will require pursuing various techniques and partnerships. As part of this process, CRPD should perform an overall assessment of productivity of current Community Park space and amenities. Revenue-producing amenities should be improved and expanded. This could potentially include concessions, upgrades to existing shelters and the addition of more reservable shelters, and bike or other rental activities. The competitive elements (fields, courts, pools, etc.) of all Community Parks should also be upgraded to maximize unrealized revenue streams. Similar to the strategy in place to update one Community Center per year, one Community Park should be renovated annually. Design standards should be created to provide a three-hour user experience and to promote year-round use. To that end, 15 experiences should be provided in each park (a variety of sports facilities, shelters, playgrounds, etc.) to engage and attract residents and park users. Improvements should also focus on health and wellness, connections to the community and support special events. Each Community Park should aim to hold at least three special events annually to engage and involve surrounding residents and neighborhoods in their park. Where a community center is co-located with a park, a stronger connection should be made between center programming and park programming to allow for these two uses to function as and be perceived by the community as one space. Community center and park staff should 136

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Community Parks are distributed throughout the entire city. The map above shows park locations with a 1-2 mile service radius.

collaborate to create true Community Centers that serve their respective neighborhoods. Upgrades should also be made to needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems, Wi-Fi) that make these parks safer, more usable, and accessible. As parks are improved, parking areas, access points and park amenities should be located in such a way that allows users to walk to the park or if they drive to be able to park once and access multiple activity centers.

Goodale Park Fountain

Marion Park tennis and basketball courts

Schiller Park entry

Westgate Park shelter

Table 5.3 Strategies for Community Parks Strategy

Tactic

1.3.1

Assess the amount of land needed for the next ten years, and determine Make acquiring land for Community Parks a high priority where it is most in need Prioritize new parks in the Southwest and North Study Areas

1.3.2

Perform an overall assessment of productivity of space and amenities to guide improvements

1.3.3

Expand revenue-producing amenities

Upgrade competitive elements of all parks (fields, courts, pools, etc.) to maximize unrealized revenue streams Upgrade and add more reservable shelters Provide needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems) Adopt â&#x20AC;&#x153;Park Onceâ&#x20AC;? strategy to allow for park amenities to be access from a central point Wi-Fi in all community parks

1.3.4

Update 1 community park per year

Provide and plan for a 3 hour user experience Promote year round use 15 experiences in each park Focus on health and wellness, community connectivity, special events and community pride

1.3.5

Plan for programming that allows for Community Parks and their respective Community Centers to function as one space

Special event spaces Host a minimum of 3 events per year

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

137

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.4 REGIONAL PARKS

Figure 5.13 Regional Parks

Regional Parks are classified by the National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA) as having over 200 acres and serving several communities. From a citywide perspective, the NRPA recommends 5 to 10 acres of Regional Parks per 1000 residents. Regional Parks typically include facilities related to athletics, though others are focused on natural areas. Examples of Regional Parks include Berliner Park and Big Run Park. It is recommended that Regional Parks in the City of Columbus meet minimum acreage standards, meet their community and surrounding area’s needs, and meet minimum level of service/maintenance standards. Currently the City of Columbus has 4.03 acres of Regional Parks per 1,000 residents. Five acres per 1,000 residents is a standard that should be achieved over the next 10 years. Acquiring necessary land to accomplish this necessary addition of parkland will require pursuing various techniques and partnerships. In addition to increasing acreage, the quality of existing Regional Parks should be improved. There are 13 Regional Parks in the city and generally fit into the following categories: • Sports parks • Parks associated with reservoirs and natural areas • Non-specialized (have multiple standard and unique features that appeal to a large cross sections of users) As such, improvements should be tailored to the needs of each audience that is served by each category of Regional Parks. Sports-related parks should continue to be updated to keep them in line with the revenue they bring in. For example, investments in all-weather fields like the ones at Berliner Park should continue. Enhancements and expansions should also be made to retail operations and concessions to improve the user experience and increase revenue generation potential. Parks along natural areas should focus on adding nature centers, education opportunities and expanded trail systems. Access should be improved to reservoirs and ponds to allow for greater ease of use. However, the non-specialized parks that appeal to multiple user groups also represent a model that the more specialized parks should strive to achieve. Regional Parks should offer multiple different offerings and amenities and strive to provide an all-day experience. This will enable these parks to appeal to a more diversified audience. Whetstone Park is a good example. It features a Community Center, Columbus Metropolitan Library, multiple sports fields and courts, two playgrounds, a casting pond, prairie, regional trails and the Park of Roses and shelterhouse. It offers users multiple experiences and amenities. Expanding the 138

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Map showing Regional Park locations, with a two to four mile service radius

range of experiences even at the more specialized Regional Parks would be beneficial. For example, not everyone visiting Berliner Park is a softball player in a tournament. Playgrounds, trails, and other amenities should be offered that appeal to those who either live nearby or who may accompany a sports-user to a park such as Berliner. Doing so will broaden the appeal of these parks spaces and make them more beneficial to the community. Given the size of Regional Parks, there is also an opportunity to explore the inclusion of additional amenities that are needed system wide, such as large, reservable shelters, adventure parks, etc. Upgrades should also be made to needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems, Wi-Fi) that make these parks safer, more usable, and accessible. As parks are improved, parking areas, access points and park amenities should be located in such a way that allows users to walk to the park or if they drive to be able to park once and access multiple activity centers.

Top: Berliner Sports Complex Bottom: Bill McDonald Sports Complex at Anheuser Busch Sports Park

Top: Whetstone Park Bottom: Big Run Park

Table 5.4 Strategies for Regional Parks Strategy 1.4.1

Update sports-related parks to keep them in line with the revenue they bring in

Tactic Continue investment in all-weather fields Enhance and expand retail operations/concessions Provide and plan for an all-day experience Provide nature center / outdoor education Provide trails/open space

1.4.2

Expand offerings and amenities to appeal to a more diversified audience and user groups

Explore additional amenities (big shelters, ponds for fishing, adventure park, etc) Provide needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems) Adopt â&#x20AC;&#x153;Park Onceâ&#x20AC;? strategy to allow for park amenities to be accessed from a central point Wi-Fi in all community parks Provide and plan for a 3 hour user experience

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

139

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.5 NATURAL AREAS

Figure 5.14 Natural Areas

The City of Columbus Recreation and Parks Department classifies natural areas into three general categories: Conservation/Natural Areas, Neighborhood Open Space, and Parkland Reserve. A Conservation/Natural Area is land acquired for preservation purposes that has limited public access. Neighborhood Open Spaces are parklands that are mowed and maintained, but contain basic amenities, such as benches or picnic tables. A Parkland Reserve is a property donated or acquired by the department that will likely be developed into a park in the future, as funds become available. There are currently 2.99 acres of Natural Areas per 1,000 residents. Going forward, CRPD should aim to meet a standard of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. CRPD should continue to hold and acquire open spaces and preserves for multiple reasons.

Environmental Natural Areas in CRPD system protect environmentally sensitive land along stream corridors, wetlands and other habitats. The department should continue to prioritize the preservation of property that buffer stream corridors, provide wildlife habitat, and protect the city’s tree canopy. Existing land holdings should be assessed to identify the value and preservation quality they are intended to provide and standards should be created for their ongoing management. Likewise, protocols should be established for the future acquisition of environmentally sensitive properties. CRPD should work collaboratively with other City of Columbus departments to ensure that these essential natural areas are preserved and expanded city-wide to meet the level of service goals. As the City of Columbus looks for creative solutions to solve stormwater issues, CRPD will need to be proactive to ensure that city-wide stormwater goals do not infringe on one of the department’s core missions of protecting natural areas.

Access and Education The department has an extensive program devoted to access and education at Natural Areas throughout the city. The Nature Preserve Program was established by City Council in 2004 to preserve and protect unique landscapes that have high plant and animal diversity. Hoover Nature Preserve is over 925 acres and provides a 1,500-foot boardwalk access at Hoover Reservoir. As a migratory stop-over for more than 33 species of shorebirds, this is an important natural asset for the community. Forest areas are also being protected, the 33-acre Woodward Park Nature Preserve contains a high-quality oak-hickory and birch-maple forest that contributes to the city’s tree canopy and offers residents an opportunity to experience a mature 140

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Natural Areas shown in map with a quarter to half mile radius

forest with vernal pools. At O’Shaugnessy Nature Preserve, located in the Twin Lakes area, provides residents with a diverse habitat and wildlife experience from stream corridors to upland and bottomland forests, while also preserving important resident and migratory bird habitat. Hayden Falls at Griggs Nature Preserve allow residents to access a unique ravine/gorge environment and 35-foot waterfall while preserving a unique natural area. Taken together, these and other preserves throughout the city provide a necessary educational and habitat protection function. While Natural Areas are primarily passive recreation spaces that are meant for preservation and therefore ideal for lower-footprint uses, there is still an opportunity for access to these land areas for passive and educational uses. There is a continued need and desire within the City of Columbus to have more nature programs and educational programs particularly in the Central and In-Town Study Areas. These conservation and natural areas have the potential to serve these needs if the location, and the land in question could support such uses and access.

Woodward Park Nature Trail

Hayden Falls

Table 5.5 Strategies for Natural Areas Strategy

Tactic Perform assessment of existing land inventory to identify value and preservation quality to ensure that park development follows standards

1.5.1

Continue to hold and acquire open space and preserves

Continue to prioritize preservation of property that buffer stream corridors, provide wildlife habitat, and protect to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tree canopy Work collaboratively and proactively with other city departments ensure that these essential natural areas are preserved and expanded city-wide

1.5.2

Consider potential of partial development to provide access for passive and educational uses

Prioritize areas of the city where nature programs and availability of appropriate properties and infrastructure align

1.5.3

Provide educational programs associated with natural areas

Prioritize areas of the city where there are program needs and the availability of appropriate properties and infrastructure align

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

141

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.6 SPECIAL USE PARKS

Figure 5.15 Special Use Parks

Special Use Parks provide highly specialized and unique experiences for residents and visitors. From the Topiary Garden at Deaf School Park and Bicentennial Park in Downtown Columbus, to Frank Fetch Park in German Village, these park spaces offer a wide range of activities and opportunities. Currently there are 1.35 acres per 1,000 residents in the City of Columbus, going forward CRPD should aim to meet a standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents. While not a survey question in the Community Interest and Opinion Survey, there is certainly a great degree of concentration of this park type in and around Downtown Columbus. There are portions of certain parks outside the city center (such as the Whetsone Park of Roses) that function as Special Use parks, but CRPD should look for opportunities to distribute this park typology to other parts of the city as support from neighborhood groups, “friendsof” organizations and volunteers allows. In addition to quantity and geographic distribution of Special Use parks, attention should continue to be paid to maintenance standards. The department should continue to be proactive in fostering and strengthening relationships with “friends of” organizations of these parks in addition to working with corporate sponsors and other adjacent municipalities to continue to offer unique park experiences. To continue to provide a high level of upkeep, options to increase revenue generating uses (rentals, concessions, events, etc.) in these parks should be considered.

Special Use Parks are generally concentrated in the In-Town Study Area

Topiary Garden at Deaf School Park east of Downtown mimics George Seurat’s painting, A Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of La Grande Jatte.

142

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Frank Fetch Park in German Village attracts strong neighborhood involvement

Bicentennial Park on the Scioto Mile Downtown draws large crowds in the summertime

Table 5.6 Strategies for Special Use Parks Strategy 1.6.1

Continue existing maintenance standards

1.6.2

Increase the geographic spread of Special Use Parks system-wide, as volunteer support allows

Tactic Partner with â&#x20AC;&#x153;friends ofâ&#x20AC;? organizations and corporate sponsors Develop revenue generating uses (rentals, concessions events) Convert existing parks or portions of parks to Special Use

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

143

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.7 ACQUISITION

Figure 5.16 All Parks

In order to meet increasing facility and programmatic demands, CRPD will need to be proactive in acquiring land and strategic at identifying potential partnerships with other City of Columbus departments and the private sector. Different approaches will be required for existing urban neighborhoods and growth areas of the city.

Urban Neighborhoods In existing built-out parts of the City, there are certainly challenges in both acquiring land and aggregating enough properties to develop a park. While the department may need to become more flexible in terms of developing smaller neighborhood parks, there are at least two approaches that should be investigated. • Working with the Land Bank, community groups and other City departments to identify vacant properties that could be aggregated to create park space. While these will likely be smaller Neighborhood Parks, it could be an effective way to acquire space in built-out parts of the city. • Work with other City of Columbus initiatives such as Blueprint Columbus to jointly develop new ground in parts of the City that have been identified as having a stormwater infrastructure need. As part of the “green” approach to solving this localized problems, a park space could be integrated into the design of these facilities. These are also likely to be smaller scale parks, but this strategy could be beneficial for built-out areas of the city. Both approaches could help develop parks across the city’s urban neighborhoods, fulfilling the need for additional parkland and helping to spark reinvestment that revitalizes these core neighborhoods. There are likely many more opportunities beyond the two mentioned above. CRPD should work together with other city departments to identify parkland acquisition and development opportunities that may exist within other planned neighborhood investment, plans and initiatives.

Growth Areas In the growth areas of the City of Columbus, the department should continue to work with the Department of Development and the Planning Division to identify future growth and demand areas in order to stay ahead of the growth curve and avoid overpaying for property. The department should continue to use tools such as TIFs, developer contributions and park infrastructure associated with new roadway projects to fund new parks and multi-use trails in growth areas of the city. To better enable the development of park space, a more regional approach to spending parkland dedication funds 144

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Existing parkland in the City of Columbus.

should be explored. While these funds will still need to be tied to a certain geography, broadening this definition so it can generate more significant funds will allow for more parks to be built. In addition to examining changes to the geography of parkland dedication funds, CRPD and other related city departments should also consider the formula itself to see if additional changes should be made in terms of current calculation criteria and the value of land being dedicated.

Overall Outside of various acquisition strategies, the department should also develop objective criteria for evaluating parcels being considered for acquisition. For example, priority should be given to land that would link parks, community centers, local cultural facilities, and schools. The department should also continue to acquire land along streams and ravines, corridors that support trails and blueways. Protection and expansion of natural habitat and urban tree canopy should also be a priority. Maintenance costs should also be considered at the time of acquisition so that the department can understand and plan for the financial obligations that come with the additional parkland.

Schirm Farms Parkland

Albany Crossing Park

Table 5.7 Strategies for Acquisition Strategy

Tactic Establish objective criteria for evaluating parcels being considered for acquisition

1.7.1

Be proactive in acquiring land

Acquire land that would link parks, community centers, local cultural facilities, and schools Continue to acquire land along streams, ravines, trails and blueway corridors, and prioritize protection and expansion of natural habitat and urban tree canopy Identify maintenance costs at time of acquisition

1.7.2

Use various techniques for acquiring land

1.7.3

Consider a regional approach to spending parkland dedication funds to better enable future parks development

Work with Development Department and Planning Division to target Land Bank and other vacant properties Work with other city departments and initiatives such as Project Blueprint to develop parkland Convene city committee to evaluate changes to the current formula

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

145

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.8 FORESTRY The Mayor’s Green Team is currently formulating an Urban Tree Canopy goal for the City of Columbus. This goal will be informed by an urban tree canopy assessment that will identify current land use, tree canopy trends and patterns, and potential planting areas for canopy expansion. The result will be a set of strategies and policy recommendations to protect existing tree cover and quantify needed tree planting efforts.

CRPD is responsible for planting, pruning and removing trees on park property and along street right-of-way citywide. Maintaining these trees through 382 parks and along 2,000 miles of streets, is an important function for not only city parks but also the aesthetics of the city itself. Each year the department plants at least 2,000 trees. However, despite these efforts, the City of Columbus is facing a significant loss of Urban Tree Canopy. While insect and disease introduction, development, lack of protection and attrition are contributing factors to this loss, the largest impact currently is the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation. The estimated loss due to EAB is close to 200,000 trees city-wide. According to the most recent city-wide LIDAR data, the Urban Tree Canopy for the City of Columbus is 22%. Within CRPD property, the tree canopy is 38.5%. This increased tree cover underscores the importance of parks to the overall Urban Tree Canopy of the city, with 12.2% of the total Columbus tree canopy within Columbus parks. Urban Tree Canopy is more than just a statistic, it plays an important role in the environmental, economic and physical health of the City. • Air Quality: Trees buffer air pollutants and generate oxygen. • Stormwater: Trees help to manage stormwater runoff and filter pollutants. • Habitat: A single oak tree, a species commonly found in Columbus, can support up to 500 species, including insects, birds, squirrels, slugs, woodchucks, and more.

Just as CRPD plays a leadership role in the maintenance of existing trees in parks and along streets, the department will play a key role in strengthening the City’s Urban Tree Canopy and potentially in addressing other environmental issues. Based on the city’s goals, CRPD should set higher goals for city parkland since there will be areas of the city that will fall below the goal due to space and land use restrictions. To do so, management practices will need to shift from being reactive to proactive. Currently the department responds to resident complaints and disease issues such as EAB. Being proactive in terms of both management and planting will require additional internal and external resources to perform the work needed. Needs include a park specific pruning crew and a forestry tech division that maintains tree inventory and coordinates proactive work. Additional tree nursery capacity will also be needed to meet the city-wide tree canopy goal. CRPD needs to develop a strategic plan to optimize staff effort and define a realistic capacity unit of measurement at current levels for a specific number of trees to be planted per year. Tree nursery capacity, partnership opportunities, logistics capabilities, and infrastructure improvements will need to be addressed.

• Property Values: The USDA Forest Service has found that mature trees add an average of 10% to a property’s value.

Table 5.8 Strategies for Forestry Strategy 1.8.1

Take a leadership role in setting a tree canopy goal for the City of Columbus

1.8.2

Management should shift from being reactive to proactive

Tactic Collaborate with the Mayor’s Green Team and other City departments Set higher canopy goals for city parkland to offset expected shortfall in certain areas of the city Conduct a comprehensive tree survey/inventory

1.8.3

146

Establish a canopy replacement program to combat Emerald Ash Borer and achieve tree canopy goal

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Develop a preventative management plan Expand staff to include a park specific pruning crew and a forestry tech division that maintains tree inventory and coordinates proactive work Develop a strategic plan to optimize staff effort and define a realistic capacity unit of measurement at current levels for a specific number of trees to be planted per year Expand tree nursery capacity and logistics capabilities, and make infrastructure improvements

Figure 5.17 Citywide Tree Canopy 22% City of Columbus Canopy Cover 38.5% Tree Canopy Cover for Columbus Parks

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

NORTH

3 Miles

12.2% Percent of the total Columbus Tree Canopy within City of Columbus Parks Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Table 5.9 Urban Tree Canopies and Canopy Goals for Benchmark Cities City

Population

2013 Canopy

Tree Canopy Goal

Goal Target Date

Hydrology

Charlotte

731,424

46%

50%

2050

City of Columbus Park

Baltimore

601,723

35%

40%

2035

Milwaukee

594,833

21.5%

40%

Pittsburgh

306,211

41.7%

60%

2032

Portland

583,776

29.9%

33%

Washington, DC

601,723

35%

40%

2035

Tree Canopy (LIDAR) Major Roads

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

147

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.9 MAINTENANCE Introduction Maintenance is critical to the overall success of the park system and is a clear priority for residents. Maintaining parks to their full designated standard of care supports higher property values in the community, reduces crime and vandalism, and promotes a higher level of civic pride. As part of the Community Opinion and Interest Survey, one-third of respondents agreed that that maintenance and improvements to existing parks should be a budgetary focus. As part of this Master Plan, a general maintenance assessment was not performed via a on-site review of every park in the system. Reviews came from staff input into issues they deal with on an on-going basis and general observations while evaluating recreation facilities in the fall of 2013. In addition the planning team received comments on maintenance from focus group meetings and stakeholder interviews.

considered for parks that receive increased levels of use or serve a broader area. This may require the designation of additional maintenance modes for certain parks at certain times. In addition to modifying these modes, the department must ensure that all requirements specified by each maintenance mode are implemented. For example, if mowing and trash removal frequencies are upheld but equipment/facility repairs are not, the maintenance mode is not fulfilled.

Table 5.10 Description of Existing Maintenance Modes Mode

Name

High Maintenance

Normal Maintenance

Applies to parks with moderate to high levels of development, programmed athletic fields and/or programmed facilities, and parks of a regional nature serving moderate to high levels of users both local and regional. Typical mowing frequency 14 days, litter and trash removal twice weekly, equipment/facility repairs as needed.

Moderate Maintenance

Applies to parks with moderate levels of development that are not associated with a programmed facility and are generally of service only to the immediate community. Typical mowing frequency 21 days, litter and trash removal weekly.

Low Maintenance

Applies to low visitation, low development, remote parks, street islands and median strips. Low frequency mowing schedule, four (4) occasions seasonally. Litter control at time of mowing or on complaint basis.

Minimum Maintenance

Applies to undeveloped parkland, natural areas, conservation areas, areas closed to public. No mowing, periodic buffer mowing may occur along roadways/ROW or adjacent developed properties, litter control on complaint basis.

Maintained by Others

Scope and frequency of maintenance vary. Generally applies to street islands, median strips and other properties under contracted maintenance.

Maintenance Standards Currently, staff do not operate from established maintenance standards on a consistent basis. Furthermore, the standards themselves need to be improved to increase the level of care system-wide. One example are the current mowing standards and cleaning standards. Mowing standards are set at a 14 day mow cycle which is a low standard for most urban park cities for maintaining neighborhood and community parks. Ideally most urban park systems strive for a seven day mow cycle for neighborhood and community parks. The exception to this is the downtown parks which are maintained at a higher level which helps to support a strong image and safe environment for the city and for businesses and visitors who work in or visit the city. For sports fields the standard for mowing is done on a seven day mow cycle which is an acceptable standard for practice and recreational fields. Mowing for competitive fields should be done every three days. To ease the maintenance burden, especially in smaller neighborhood parks, the department has started to create â&#x20AC;&#x153;no-mow zonesâ&#x20AC;? or natural areas within parks to reduce the amount of mowing that needs to take place. This strategy should continue to be applied to increase efficiency system-wide and provide additional areas of natural habitat in certain parks. Another area for improvement are the frequency standards in place for restroom cleaning, trash removal and parking lot or hard surface cleaning. Currently it is done every three days. This is a low standard for urban parks which usually provide this service on a daily basis. Though the department has created maintenance modes for each park in the city, higher standards of care, particularly in terms of equipment and facility repairs, should be 148

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Description Applies to downtown and specialty parks with high levels of development, high profile areas, visitor destination locations or high programmed areas with a regional attraction. Typical mowing frequency weekly, turf management program, typically irrigated, landscaping and floral plantings, daily litter and trash removal.

Figure 5.18 Existing Maintenance Zone Boundaries

NORTHWEST ZONE NORTHEAST ZONE

WHETSTONE ZONE LINDEN ZONE

GOODALE ZONE

NELSON ZONE

BIG RUN ZONE

DOWNTOWN ZONE

CREEKS/BERLINER ZONE

BIG WALNUT ZONE

FAIRWOOD ZONE

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology City Of Columbus Park Major Roads

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

149

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES

Table 5.11 List of Parks and Facilities by Maintenance Zone Big Run Alkire Lake Park Alkire Woods Park Alton-Darby Park Big Run Park Clover Groff Park Franks Park FreedomPark Galloway Ridge Park Georgian Heights Park Glenwood Park Green Countrie Park Hauntz Park Hilliard Green Park Hilltonia Park Holton Park

Big Walnut

Lindbergh Park Redick Park Rhodes Park Scioto Woods Park Spindler Park Stephen Drive Park Stoneridge Park Trabue Woods Park Westchester Park Westgate Park Westmoor Park Willow Creek Park Winward Farms Park Wrexford Green Park Wrexham Park

Fairwood

Abby Trails Park Argus Park Barnett Park Big Walnut Park Chatterton Park Crawford Farms Independence Park Jefferson Woods Park Kirkwood Park Kraner Park Lehman Estates Park Livmoor Pool Maybury Park

Goodale

Blackburn Park Deshler Park Driving Park English Park Fairwood Park Hanford Village Park Karns Park Kings Row Park Kobacker Park Lincoln Park Linwood Park Livingston Park Millbrook Park Roosevelt Park Smith Rd. Park Wagner Park

Clinton Como Park Clintonville Park Cody Park Dodge Park Glen Echo Park Goodale Park Harrison House Harrison Park Harrison West Park Indianola Park Italian Village Park Maynard and Summit Park McKinley Park Side by Side Park Thompson Park Tuttle Park Weinland Park Wheeler Memorial Park

Antrim Park Brookside Woods Park Carriage Place Park Dexter Falls Park Flint Rd. Park Haydens Crossing Park Hickory Woods Park Lazelle Park Olde Sawmill Park

150

Pinque Park Riverside Green Park Sancus Park Sawmill Meadows Park Summitview Park Sycamore Hills Park Winnstone Park Woodbridge Green Park Worthington Hills Park

Nafzger Park Napoleon Park Noe-Bixby Park Pinecrest Park Portman Park Reynolds Crossing Park Shady Lane Park Shellbourne Park Turnberry Retreat Walnut View Park Willis Park Winchester Lakes Park Winchester Meadows

Linden

Nelson

American Addition Park Amvet Village Park Audubon Park Brentnell Park Cooke Park Huy Park Joan Park Kenlawn Park Linden Park Maloney Park Mock Park Pontiac Park Pumphrey Park Windsor (Douglas) Park

Northwest

Downtown

Academy Park Avalon Park Beatty Park Cassady Park Hamilton Park Hayden Park Jefferson Park Krumm Park Mayme Moore Park Milo-Grogan Park Near Eastside Park Nelson Park New Beginnings Park Ohio Ave. Park Saunders Park Shepard Park Wolfe Park

Three Creeks Alumcrest Park Berliner Park Berwick Park Clairfield Easthaven Park Elk Run Park Frank Fetch Park Hamilton Heights Park Heer Park Helsel Park Hott Road Park Indian Mound Park Madison Mills Park

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Marion Franklin Park McCoy Park Moeller Park Schiller Park SE Lions Park Sills Park Southgate Park Southwood Park Stockbridge Park Sulivant Gardens Park The Creeks Park Williams Creek Park

Alexander Park Battelle Park Bicentennial Park Bicentennial Park Promenade Genoa Park Keller Park McFerson Commons Northbank Park Richter Park Veterans Memorial Park Westbank Park

Northeast Beechcroft Park Brandywine Park Casto Park Cherrybottom Park City Gate Park Cooper Park Devonshire Park Forest Park East Granville Park Innis Park Mifflin Park New Albany Crossing Northeast Park Northern Woods Park Northgate Park Northtowne Park Parkridge Park Sommerset Park Strawberry Farms Park Walden Park Waltham Woods Park Woodward Park

Whetstone Anheuser-Busch Park Brevort Park Chaseland Park Kenney Park Northcrest Park Northmoor Park Overbrook Ravine Park Sharon School Whetstone Park

Grow Zone along the Olentangy Bike Trail

Maintenance at Prestwick Commons in the North Study Area

CPTED Standards Improving these standards encourages more use and increases overall park safety. To further increase park safety, Community Policing Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Standards should be adopted by the department. CPTED helps to prevent crime by integrating standards into the design of parks, facilities, and buildings that address natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement, and maintenance. This involves maximizing visibility, improving lighting, defining entries, providing clear connctions and, erecting maps and park/facility rules, and wayfinding and directional signage. Maintenance techniques include trimming trees and bushes to keep sight lines open, and providing prompt removal of trash and graffiti. These design standards along with greater maintenance standards will dramatically improve the park system’s ability to contribute to the success of the city and its neighborhoods.

Develop a Maintenance Management Plan The Maintenance Division feels that they do not have the level of staffing or equipment necessary to have a higher level of standard for increasing the care of neighborhood and community parks. This would require a maintenance

management plan that would outline how many hours it takes to maintain a park based on a set frequency schedule using the right type of worker, with the right skill set, for the right pay to achieve the right outcome. This would require matching people and crews to equipment needed in each of the department’s 10 Maintenance Zones. The city has the option to contract out maintenance services which would be more cost effective for half of the year or 32 mow cycles but feels that contracting is not something to consider. The Department does have some volunteer support from the community to help maintain some areas of the system from adopt a park type partnerships and “friends of” organizations, but it is fairly limited. The Maintenance Division does not have a maintenance software system to maintain lifecycle assets nor do they have an asset management plan in place. This would help the department to determine the number of park assets they have in place, the condition of those assets and how to maintain those assets on a consistent basis to achieve maximum useful life. By providing the staff with this type of work order system, it would allow the department to tell their story better to key decision makers on what it takes to maintain an urban park system for the future.

Table 5.12 Strategies for Maintenance Strategy

1.9.1

Adopt maintenance standards that optimize resources by providing higher levels of care in high-visibility and high-use areas.

Tactic Enhance level of care for high-use neighborhood and community parks based on frequencies of mowing, cleaning restrooms, cleaning parking areas, maintaining sports fields, and maintaining playgrounds. Implement CPTED standards for park design and maintenance in consideration of safety-related issues Develop a maintenance management plan

1.9.2

Revise maintenance standards assigned to each zone to Institute maintenance software system to track assets increase level of care. Revise maintenance standards assigned to each zone to increase level of care. Consider using contract maintenance services

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

151

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.10 MULTI-USE TRAILS Multi-Use Trails were the top-rated need identified by the Community Opinion and Interest Survey, with 77% of respondents expressing a need. Walking and biking trail improvements should focus on the Southwest Study Area first, the North Study Area second, and the Central Study Area third in order to fulfill unmet needs. CRPD is already addressing this issue with a significant increase in Multi-Use Trails planned or under construction. Today there are 92.45 trail miles, with plans to build 83 more miles. The department has worked closely with Metro Parks, MORPC and other municipalities to expand the city and regional trail system. While much of the trail network is focused along the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s river and stream corridors and along the routes established for the Ohio-toErie trail, there are numerous efforts underway to improve neighborhood access to existing trails, link nearby parks to existing trails and improving east-west connectivity. CRPD should continue to improve access to existing trails from surrounding neighborhoods, business districts, parks and natural areas.

Existing Trail Network Investment

The public outreach effort identified safety and education as concerns in using the existing trail system. Additional efforts should be explored to increase on-trail safety. There are some trail rules and etiquette signs posted along the trail network, but additional signage or pavement markings could be installed to better communicate trail rules with all levels of users. Educational sessions or other activities could be created in partnership with bicycle advocacy groups to encourage safer use of the trails within the cycling community.

Improve East-West Connectivity Similar to the roadway network in the City of Columbus, there is a need for greater east-west connectivity for the Multi-Use Trail network. The I-670 trail is the only significant east-west connection that is part of the overall system, both existing and in the future. The other east-west connections (both existing and planned) are currently on-street facilities. CRPD should work with other city departments to continue to provide on-street bike facilities that lead to park facilities and create additional trail connections between the northsouth legs of the trail network.

CRPD should continue to prioritize and facilitate connections between neighborhoods and the trail network to increase access. Projects such as the Goodale Connector and the Bethel Road Connector provide needed linkages to existing and growing neighborhoods. Extensions of the existing trail network through projects such as filling in the missing trail linkages along the Alum Creek Trail and adding the Camp Chase trail on the Southwest side provide more complete and usable trail systems to support neighborhood revitalization and regional access. There are also numerous parks that are close to Multi-Use Trails but that are not directly connected. Similar to the work planned for Krumm Park to connect to the Alum Creek Trail, these new connections would serve to both energize these existing parks and the trail network itself with more users.

Working with other city departments, Franklin County, MORPC, Metro Parks and surrounding jurisdictions, CRPD should continue to develop strategic relationships and advocate and plan for off-street facilities to make east-west connections and to connect to other adjacent municipalities. These connections could take the form of expanded sidewalks on one side of a roadway that accommodate multiple users. With planning studies ongoing and planned for the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s multi-use trails and multimodal transportation network, now is the time to make these connections a citywide and regional priority.

In terms of existing trail maintenance there are currently two levels of care which need to be more consistent between what the city provides in trail maintenance and what Columbus Metro Parks provides in trail maintenance in city owned parks.

Over the past few years, there have been dramatic improvements in supportive bicycle infrastructure such as bike-share, bike shelters and parking, bike maintenance facilities, etc. CRPD should continue to work with other city departments to continue to expand COGO bike share and identify other potential bike rental vendors. The department should also work with city departments to provide for bike parking and maintenance facilities in high traffic locations within parks and along the trail system. As ridership increases, this could include a bike hub location with lockers, showers and a bike shop at a downtown or other high traffic location along the trail system.

Safety and Education In areas where high use is starting to overcrowd the trail network (the northern portions of the Olentangy Trail for example), trail widening should be pursued to allow for safer use by all trail users. While some public comment has expressed an interest in separate bicycle and walking trails, this would require further analysis due to the larger amount of land required and the cost of additional infrastructure. 152

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Expand Bicycle Infrastructure And Facilities And Accessibility

Key to improving access is making the system more legible. Wayfinding is improving across the system, especially along the Olentangy Trail, but more could be done to develop a

Figure 5.19 Proposed Greenway System - Citywide SCIOTO TRAIL

OLENTANGY TRAIL BIG WALNUT TRAIL ALUM CREEK TRAIL

HERITAGE TRAIL

HAYDEN RUN TRAIL

ROCKY FORK TRAIL I-670 TRAIL

HELLBRANCH TRAIL

CAMP CHASE TRAIL BIG RUN TRAIL BLACKLICK CREEK TRAIL DARBY CREEK TRAIL LITTLE WALNUT CREEK TRAIL SCIOTO TRAIL

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads Existing City of Columbus Trail Existing Regional Trail Funded/Under Construction Trail Proposed Future Trail Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

153

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES system-wide graphics package that makes the trail more legible. Better and more plentiful on-trail signage should include mile markings, education and safety information, as well as an indication of where users could access neighborhood commercial areas, services and attractions. Wayfinding to the trails themselves, especially trail heads, should be located off major corridors alongside the trail network. In addition to expanding trail miles and connections, supportive facilities should be added along the trail. Restrooms, water fountains and shelters should be made accessible to the trail, whether within park locations or at trailheads. Other amenities that could be added along the trail network include pump courses or skills courses that provide another bicycle experience beyond trail riding to the system. Existing regional and Columbus trail network.

Table 5.13 Strategies for Multi-Use Trails Strategy

Tactic Work with other city departments to continue to provide on-street bike facilities that lead to park facilities Prioritize connecting neighborhoods next to existing trail systems

1.10.1

Improve access to existing trails from surrounding neighborhoods, business districts and parks

Prioritize connecting parks closest to existing trail systems Prioritize access in the Southwest, North and Central Study Areas Develop and install more consistent trail and wayfinding signage (both on and off-trail) Consider trail widening and other methods for enhancing safety and the user experience along trail corridors for all trail users

1.10.2

Improve Multi-Use Trail Safety and Education

Install more educational signage Install pavement markings Partner with bicycle advocacy groups educate riders on safe trail usage Work with other city departments to continue to provide on-street bike facilities that lead to park facilities

1.10.3

Continue to improve east-west connectivity city-wide

Partner with other City departments, Franklin County, MORPC, Metro Parks, and adjacent jurisdictions to explore off-street facilities Prioritize connections in the Southwest, North and Central Study Areas With City support, continue to partner with COGO bike share and identify other potential bike rental vendors

1.10.4

Continue to expand bicycle infrastructure, facilities and accessibility

With City support, provide bike parking, bike maintenance facilities, and shelters at high traffic locations With City support, explore a bike hub (lockers, showers, bike shop) at a downtown or other high traffic location along trail system Explore opportunities to add pump courses or skills courses adjacent to the trail system

154

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 5.20 Potential Greenway Expansions and Connections - Citywide SCIOTO TRAIL

OLENTANGY TRAIL BIG WALNUT TRAIL

TRAIL CONNECTION TO WORTHINGTON AND DUBLIN

ALUM CREEK TRAIL CONNECTION TO OLENTANGY TRAIL

HERITAGE TRAIL HAYDEN RUN TRAIL

LINDEN AND MOCK PARK CONNECTION TO ALUM CREEK TRAIL ROCKY FORK TRAIL

DRIVING PARK CONNECTION TO ALUM CREEK TRAIL

I-670 TRAIL KRUMM PARK CONNECTION TO ALUM CREEK TRAIL

HELLBRANCH TRAIL

CAMP CHASE TRAIL

BARNETT PARK CONNECTION TO ALUM CREEK TRAIL

BIG RUN TRAIL TRAIL CONNECTION TO GROVE CITY

BLACKLICK CREEK TRAIL

LITTLE WALNUT CREEK TRAIL SCIOTO TRAIL DARBY CREEK TRAIL

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

155

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.12 BLUEWAYS and legitimate access for kayaks and canoes along the Alum Creek and Scioto River corridors. Just as launching access has been provided at places such as Northmoor Park along the Olentangy River where there is a parking lot and other facilities close to the river, the department should look for similar locations along these two waterways. Where Multi-Use Trails and park facilities are adjacent to the Scioto River and Alum Creek, access points should be created. To maximize access, work should be done to identify other locations where infrastructure could be added. In addition to providing river access, these improvements should also serve other river users such as fishermen and wildlife viewers who also need proper access to these waterways.

The City of Columbus is well on its way to creating a worldclass system of Multi-Use Trails. A similar opportunity exists along the city’s rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. There is existing infrastructure in place along much of the city’s waterways, reservoirs and lakes, but more could be done to legitimize access, improve ease of use and promote blueways city-wide.

Access Access should be provided for all different types of watercraft, depending on location. Along the lakes and reservoirs, large boat access is needed with ramps, larger parking lots and other facilities. Along the river and stream corridors, some ramps locations are necessary in areas where water levels and currents allow for larger boats, but access should be focused on smaller craft like canoes and kayaks.

Information and Education

With the recent removal of low-head dams along the Olentangy River at the Ohio State University Campus and downtown along the Scioto River, there are now 6.5 miles of unimpeded river. Already an outfitter has begun river trips along the Olentangy and as these two rivers become more usable for paddlers, this type of recreation should be expected to increase. This stretch of river has been designated as a water trail by ODNR, and CRPD has already started to improve infrastructure at put-in locations and install signage both on- and off-river. These efforts should continue along river and stream corridors city-wide, teaming up with neighboring jurisdictions and regional organizations to improve access. Where possible, CRPD should add access points that take advantage of existing infrastructure. The areas identified on the diagram at right demonstrate where there is a lack of safe

Part of increasing awareness about the city’s blueways system will be providing good and timely information and education. Developing a signage system that helps users find river access both on and off river is important, but so is signage that promotes the safety of all users along the blueways themselves. There is also an opportunity for educational signage about local area wildlife and habitat at key locations. This information should also be shared via a web site that provides maps and access information, current river conditions, and safety and education information. To take advantage of our natural assets and to meet a growing need in the community for outdoor education and nature programming, the department should also prioritize the development of programs that focus on river health, sustainability and the river ecosystem.

Table 5.14 Strategies for Blueways Strategy

Tactic Conduct assessment of existing boat ramps and explore new locations Continue to add access points for kayaks and canoes along river and stream corridors

1.11.1

Provide access for different types of watercraft, depending on locations

Prioritize access points in areas where there is existing infrastructure or adjacent park facilities Improve access to the lower Scioto River and Alum Creek Pro-actively communicate with boating organizations to ensure efficient and effective permitting and access Improve on river and off river signage and maps

1.11.2

Legitimize access, improve ease of use and promote blueways

Provide information on conditions, access and maps online Facilitate safe portages around low-head dams Promote safety through educational programming and signage

1.11.3

Develop educational programming related to river health, sustainability and the river ecosystem

1.11.4

Provide access for fishing and other wildlife viewing

156

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 5.21 Existing Blueway System - Citywide

O’SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR BOAT RAMPS

OLENTANGY RIVER WATER TRAIL

HOOVER RESERVOIR BOAT DOCKS/MOORING AND BOAT RAMPS ALUM CREEK BIG WALNUT CREEK

Opportunity Area

a re

nit

rtu

Opport

GRIGGS RESERVOIR MARINA, BOATHOUSE AND BOAT RAMPS

unity A

rea

SCIOTO RIVER

0’

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

Columbus Recreation & Parks Boat Ramps/Marinas

Hydrology

Opportunity Areas

Major Roads Columbus River Access Regional River Access Potential River Access (Identified by MORPC Staff)

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

157

PARK AND FACILITY STRATEGIES 1.13 AQUATICS CRPD operates 7 outdoor pools, 3 spraygrounds, and 1 indoor pool, all of which are primarily located within the pre1950 (pre annexation) boundaries of the City of Columbus. While many pools were closed in the last several years due to budget constraints, efforts have been made in recent years to bring pools back online, renovate pools and right size the system. This has included closing Blackburn Pool due to lack of attendance and budgetary constraints and replacing it with a sprayground. Two new spraygrounds were also added at Indian Mound Community Center and Barnett Community Center. The department has also recently renovated many pools. These include Dodge Pool (2012) and Maryland Pool (2014), in addition to Lincoln Pool that has just started renovation and Fairwood Pool which is in preliminary design with a recommended site in Driving Park. The City should continue these efforts to improve and maintain existing aquatic facilities. Looking at the long-range plan for aquatics that was conducted in 2006, there are several additional recommendations that should be explored in terms of system expansion. The 2006 study identified needs to expand the system in the southeast and northeast parts of the city with the construction of family aquatic centers. Spray grounds were recommended for areas where there were gaps in service in the northeast and northwest parts of the city. The 2006 study analyzed existing pool facilities both within and outside the city, both public and private. A resident survey was not conducted as part of that study. This Master Plan conducted a survey which identified areas of need that overlap with or add to the recommendations in the 2006 Aquatic Master Plan. City-wide, Columbus residents have a large amount of unmet need, with only 26% of household respondents reporting that their needs are met by the current number and distribution of pools. There are also areas of the city that showed greater need than others. The Central, North and In-town Study Areas have the greatest need for aquatic facilities and should

Top: Marion-Franklin Pool; Below: Dodge Pool

be considered for improvements as well. Because budgetary constraints exist and the creation of new facilities will add to ongoing maintenance and operation expenses, the department should pursue partnerships within the community and private sector to begin to implement these aquatic improvements and close service gaps.

Table 5.15 Strategies for Aquatics Strategy

Tactic Continue to follow plan to renovate existing pools

1.12.1

Continue to improve and maintain existing aquatic facilities

Monitor effectiveness of renovations Consider additional pool upgrades or expansions at pools with high use

1.12.2

Implement the long range plan to expand the system

Evaluate previous Master Plan that said to expand the system in the southeast and northeast with the construction of family aquatic centers against the survey results that indicated a priority for the Central, North and In-Town Study Areas Pursue public-private partnerships to create new facilities in underserved areas of the city

1.12.3

158

Install spraygrounds in areas where there are gaps in service in the northeast and northwest parts of the city

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Figure 5.22 Prioritization For Aquatic Facilities (Outdoor Pools & Spraygrounds) 42% of Columbus residents have a need for Outdoor Swimming Pools and Spraygrounds

NORTH STUDY AREA

40.9% with needs met 25% or less

IN-TOWN STUDY AREA

35.9% with needs met 25% or less

CENTRAL STUDY AREA

43.5% with needs met 25% or less

MARYLAND POOL UNDER RENOVATION – OPENS SUMMER OF 2014

DODGE POOL OPENED 2012

SOUTHWEST STUDY AREA

32.1% with needs met 25% or less

FAIRWOOD POOL NEXT UNDER RENOVATION (RECOMMENDED SITE FOR POOL: DRIVING PARK)

LINCOLN POOL RENOVATION BEGINS FALL 2014

5 0’

FINDINGS

SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA

20.4% with needs met 25% or less

3 Miles

NORTH

Outdoor Swimming Pool/Sprayground improvements should focus on the CENTRAL area followed by the NORTH area in order to fulfill unmet needs, although needs exist in every part of the city.

Legend City of Columbus Boundary

First Priority

Hydrology

Second Priority

Major Roads

Third Priority

Sprayground

Fourth Priority

Pool or Aquatic Facility

Fifth Priority

Pool - Recently Renovated, Under Renovation, and Pending Renovation Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

159

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS INTRODUCTION The planning team visited 20 community centers in December 2013. At each center, consultants conducted interviews with staff, toured the facility, assessed interior and exterior conditions, observed operations, and conducted intercept surveys with users. For the purposes of analysis and reporting results of these assessments, centers were divided into three categories: small (less than 19,000 sq. ft.), medium (19,000-30,000 sq. ft.), and large/multi-generational (greater than 30,000 sq. ft.). For each center, manager/staff observations, consultant observations, key recommendations, and a facility assessment / customer service assessment score has been reported. Intercept survey results are reported for each of the three categories of community center, as well as overall results. A comprehensive facility assessment and customer service scorecard is also included in this report (see Table 5.17 on page 162). Overall, the greatest strength of the community centers are the highly-dedicated and talented staff. The most prevalent shortcomings involve facility hygiene and maintenance, inefficient operating hours, the lack of effectiveness in coordinating and scheduling programs and services, and organizational impediments to marketing and communication. A strategic and standards-based approach is needed to address the facility management issues affecting the system. This approach must avoid looking at each center in isolation, but should consider the overall portfolio of facilities including areas of potential growth or areas that are underserved in order to create a plan that updates facilities to balance the level of service provided to the city. The department, through the Master Plan, also needs to plan for the total lifecycle cost of facility operation at a system level and communicate its corresponding action plan to center staff and stakeholders. In conjunction with this planning, center should take steps to have closer coordination and cooperation to fill programmatic gaps, share staff, and complement each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hours of operations. Achieving this level of coordination will require empowering center managers to make adjustments to their operations, but also holding them accountable for providing an enhanced level of service.

METHODOLOGY The consultant team completed a guided walk-through of each center, thoroughly examining the condition of the facility, activity levels, and the interaction between users, the center, and its staff. In an effort to acquire valuable information for recommendation purposes, center managers and key staff were interviewed to understand each centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective from the front lines. In addition to staff interviews, 200 intercept surveys were answered by users present at the various facilities in order to capture the 160

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Community Centers provide a place for residents to gather and take part in social events.

opinions of active users of the community centers. In order to effectively analyze the compilation of data, the community centers were categorized as small, medium, and large/multi-generational. Center classifications were based on square footage figures, and divided the facilities evenly into three groups to improve organization of the report, identify commonalities, and allow for some generalized analysis. The following ranges were used: Table 5.16 Community Centers Ranges Center Size

Square Footage

Small

Less than 19,000 SF

Medium

19,000 to 30,000 SF

Large/Multi-Generational

Over 30,000 SF

Each individual community center assessment reveals the key findings of consultant visits, and expresses the opinions of staff, users, and the consulting team for each site. The components of each critique are as follows: â&#x20AC;˘ Manager/Staff Observations - This section is derived from interviews with center managers and key staff, as well as interaction during facility tours. It shares the

Figure 5.23 Community Centers Visited by Planning Team LAZELLE WOODS COMM. CENTER WOODWARD PARK COMM. CENTER CARRIAGE PLACE COMM. CENTER

GILLIE COMM. CENTER FEDDERSEN COMM. CENTER

LINDEN COMM. CENTER HOWARD COMM. CENTER

WHETSTONE COMM. CENTER TUTTLE COMM. CENTER

DOUGLAS COMM. CENTER

MARTIN JANIS COMM. CENTER

BRENTNELL COMM. CENTER KRUMM COMM. CENTER

THOMPSON COMM. CENTER

MILO GROGAN CC

DODGE COMM. CENTER

Recently completed renovation

HOLTON COMM. CENTER

BARNETT COMM. CENTER

WESTGATE COMM. CENTER Currently under renovation

FAR EAST COMM. CENTER

GLENWOOD COMM. CENTER Starting renovation soon

SULLIVANT GARDENS COMM. CENTER

BEATTY COMM. CENTER

SCHILLER COMM. CENTER

BARACK COMM. CENTER INDIAN MOUND COMM. CENTER

BLACKBURN COMM. CENTER DRIVING PARK COMM. CENTER MARION FRANKLIN COMM. CENTER

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

3 Miles

NORTH

Legend City of Columbus Boundary Hydrology Major Roads Community Centers Visited by Planning Team Community Centers Community Center Service Radius

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

161

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS strengths, values, opportunities, and concerns from a center-level perspective. • Planning Team Observations - This provides a look through the planning team’s lens at the overall experience during each center visit. It highlights the key themes of the center based on interaction with users and staff, as well as general observations of the facility and its environment. • Key Recommendations - This expands on the consultant observations and develops specific actions for improving each center moving forward. These recommendations are a result of the consulting team’s interpretation of the variety of input from each visit.

FACILITY ASSESSMENT / CUSTOMER SERVICE EVALUATIONS This portion scores each center on a variety of criteria based on consultant evaluations of the facility. The following scorecard illustrates the assessment scores for each facility highlighted in the report, and provides side by side comparison of all 20 community centers visited by the consultant team:

Outdoor Condition

Staff/ Volunteers

Programs/ Rentals

Overall

Table 5.17 Community Center Scorecard Indoor Condition

• Facility Assessment/Customer Service ScorecardThis portion scores each center on a variety of criteria based on consultant evaluations of the facility. Assigning a score of A, B, C, or D allows for parallel comparison of each of the 20 sites visited. It is important to note that scores were determined based upon the unique context and circumstances of one visit by the consulting team. They are not necessarily an assessment of the performance of the center staff.

The maximum number of users was found using a buffer, or “ring.” After dividing the square footage of each center by 1.5, the ring was expanded or contracted in order to contain within it a population that was equivalent to the calculated maximum number of users.

Milo Grogan

N/A

Dodge

Whetstone

Lazelle Woods

• Frequency of Visits

Far East

• Walk vs. Drive

Linden

N/A

• Average Drive Time

Martin Janis

• Best Part of Experience

Woodward

Barnett

Gillie

Feddersen

Indian Mound

Driving Park

Carriage Place

Howard

Marion Franklin

Schiller

Tuttle

Barack

N/A

Glenwood

Intercept surveys were utilized to capture a unique perspective by quickly polling participants during their use of each center. Survey responses give valuable insight into the needs, preferences, and tendencies of various users of the center. Respondents provided data on the following:

• Marketing Method Although this method of surveying is very helpful in engaging active users of the centers and retrieving useful feedback, it is not scientific in nature. The data obtained was subject to timing, in that some centers had an abundance of responses, while others had no users present during the visit.

COMMUNITY CENTER ANALYSIS The methodology for developing the service area maps: Calculate Service Population: Each community center has a usable total square footage. It is assumed that the level of service provided to each user would be at best practice levels of 1.5 square feet per person. Dividing the total square footage of each center by 1.5 provided the theoretical ideal number of users that make up the service area for that center. 162

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Center

Facility Assessment/Customer Service Scorecard Assigning a score of A, B, C, or D allows for parallel comparison of each of the 20 sites visited. It is important to note that scores were determined based upon the unique context and circumstances of one visit by the consulting team. They are not necessarily an assessment of the performance of the center staff. See Tables 5.17 and 5.18 for a description of scores and the assessment parameters.

Table 5.19 Facility Assessment/Customer Service Parameters Facility Conditions - Indoors Floors clean and free of debris Windows clean and free of handprints Bathrooms clean and well-stocked Water fountains clean and free of debris

Table 5.18 Facility Assessment/Customer Service Scorecard Score

A (Excellent)

B (Above Average)

C (Average)

General Description Facilities/amenities are in excellent condition and feature little or no maintenance problems noted. Facilities do not feature any major design issues that contribute to diminished use or maintenance. Turf, lawns, and landscapes are healthy and maintained to a high level. Staff and volunteers exhibit the highest levels of customer service and operational knowledge. Programs are of the highest quality and exceed performance objectives. Facilities/amenities are in good condition and feature only minor maintenance problems. Generally, most maintenance issues with these facilities appear to be the result of age and/or heavy use. Facilities may only feature minor design issues that contribute to diminished use or maintenance (i.e. drainage, structural, utilities, etc.). Turf and landscaping is in generally good condition. Staff and volunteers perform at a high level. Programs show quality and meet performance objectives. Facilities/amenities are in fair condition and indicate ongoing maintenance problems. Generally, most maintenance issues with these facilities appear to be the result of age and heavy use. Some maintenance issues may be compounding over time due to being deferred because of budget and/or resource limitations. Facilities may only feature minor design issues that contribute to diminished use or maintenance (i.e. drainage, structural, utilities, etc.). Turf and landscapes are acceptable but could use improvement. Staff and volunteers are capable but may have areas for improvement in terms of customer service and knowledge. Programs are of adequate quality and meet most performance objectives.

D (Below Average)

Flyer Racks neat and full Front Counters clean and neat Lobby areas clean and clutter free Interior Walls and ceilings clean, free of cobwebs Lights working in all rooms Equipment stowed properly Walk areas clear of equipment Storage areas organized, easy to walk through Tables & chairs clean and properly stored when not in use Kitchen â&#x20AC;&#x201C; fridge, stove, counters, etc Equipment working in good order Facility Conditions - Outdoors Covered Walkway around perimeter clean and cobweb free Lights (exterior) working Walkways and sidewalks clean and debris free Trash cans & ashtrays empty and clean on outside Planter areas clean and attractive Patio area clean and attractive Staff and Volunteers Dressed appropriately and name tags on Customers (internal & external) treated with dignity & respect

Facilities/amenities are in poor condition and clearly show ongoing maintenance problems that ultimately may result in suspended use for repair/replacement. Maintenance issues with these facilities are the result of age and heavy use, and generally are compounding over time due to being deferred because of budget and/or resource limitations. Facilities may feature major design issues that contribute to diminished use or maintenance (i.e. drainage, structural, utilities, etc.).

Are friendly, helpful, knowledgeable

Turf and landscaping is bare or in need of complete replacement. Most programs do not align with user needs or meet performance objectives.

Safety and supervision is apparent

Address you when you came into the center Programs and Rentals People appear to be happy and engaged Needs and interests are being met

Activities appropriate for population

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

163

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS 2.1 OVERALL STRATEGIES CRPD system includes a wide variety of community centers that vary in terms of size, age, condition, upkeep, location, population served, hours of operation, programs offered, and integration with the community. With very few exceptions, the staff that manage and operate these centers are passionate, talented individuals that care deeply about their work and impact on the residents of Columbus. The center employees are perhaps the greatest asset provided to the community by the system of community centers and are at the core of the success of the department. They do an admirable job given the financial and organizational resource limitations facing the City of Columbus. However, these limitations on resources manifest themselves dramatically in terms of the upkeep and maintenance of most centers. Facility management is the most significant issue facing community centers. Nearly all centers visited by the consulting team had notable deficiencies, even those centers that had undergone recent improvements. Major issues such as leaking roofs, uneven floors, stained walls, failing masonry, and other structural problems were common among many of the centers. Beyond those major issues, however, were shortcomings in day-to-day facility hygiene and upkeep that affected virtually every center visited. Problems regarding sub-standard cleanliness, equipment storage, and/or general organization were observed by the consulting team. In some instances, center staff were already working as hard as they could to keep up with these issues. In other circumstances, problems could be more easily corrected. Regardless, this overall issue points to a need for a more strategic and coordinated approach by the department to establish standards for facility management and maintenance, as well as a strategic and coordinated approach to supporting the implementation and enforcement of those standards. A more strategic and operationally-grounded approach to managing the system of centers is needed, as well. According to staff interviews, center managers are significantly limited in their ability to set operating hours, schedule staff, coordinate with other centers, and communicate with their users or surrounding community. Many of these operational functions appear to be centralized in the department, resulting in an inability for centers to respond to their unique environments and circumstances. As a result, opportunities are missed and inefficiencies are unable to be avoided. Conversely, center managers are left responsible for functions that would otherwise be performed at the department-level in other agencies. Perhaps the best example of this is in regards to marketing and communication materials: best practices are for department-level marketing staff to provide center staff with tools, templates, and guidance for creating and distributing promotional and informational materials. Center managers 164

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

CRPD renovates approximately one Community Community Center per year.

should have considerable input towards (or full control of) messages and target audiences. Within CRPD, it appears the reverse is often true â&#x20AC;&#x201C; center managers have little say into programmatic messages, but must themselves produce materials. This result not only in inconsistent styles and branding, but content that is lacking or inaccurate. Center-level autonomy and coordination is also important to the management of community centers from an overall system-wide perspective. Ideally, the entire system of community centers could be managed such that there were no gaps in service area coverage and no redundancy in programs or amenities offered within those service areas. In reality, however, gaps and redundancy do exist. The department should consider adopting a â&#x20AC;&#x153;regionalâ&#x20AC;? approach to center coordination wherein center managers carefully monitor the programs and services offered by other community centers (or partner organizations) and are empowered to adjust their own offerings to fill gaps or eliminate duplication. This also involves granting permission for center managers to share staff as necessary to provide adequate coverage or implement a specific program. A regional approach would also allow center managers

Entrance to Thompson Community Center

to more carefully track the changing demographics of their neighborhood or region and cooperate with their counterparts to adjust programming to follow trends. In the previous plans larger regional centers were outlined to be developed but because of the recession was eliminated. With the city in a recovery mode it would be good to reconsider that option again but consider bringing outside partners to help develop and manage these centers for the future. Overall strategies and tactics related to the issues referenced in the section above, plus the other issues addressed throughout the assessment that follows are summarized in the table below.

Top: Westgate Community Center Renovation Bottom: Indian Mound Community Center

Table 5.20 Overall Strategies Strategy

Tactic Continue to update 1 community center per year

2.1.1

Strategically prioritize center improvements

2.1.2

Develop and implement facility hygiene, safety, and cleanliness operational standards

Develop a cost benefit program for improvements made to community centers for the future Enhance supply chain and inventory control processes Improve security features to deter crime Require consistency in staff clothing and appearance Create additional opportunities for earned income, particularly at larger centers

2.1.3

Develop pricing guidelines and standards

Develop mini business plans for centers generating significant revenues to identify income/expense targets, track actuals, and outline marketing strategies

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

165

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS 2.2 SMALL COMMUNITY CENTERS

Figure 5.24 Small Centers Visited by Planning Team

This chart introduces the seven small centers visited by the planning team: Table 5.21 Small Community Centers Visited by Planning Team Center

Zip

Built

SqFt

Indian Mound

43207

1975

10,170

Tuttle

43201

1975

11,257

Driving Park

43206

1980

11,853

Glenwood

43223

1916

15,063

Woodward

43229

1976

15,403

Milo Grogan

43201

1973

16,267

Far East

43227

1971

17,200

The planning team visited seven out of the eleven small community centers under 19,000 square feet. The majority of these centers were built in the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, with the exception of Glenwood (1916) and Driving Park (1980). In general, the small centers only attract users from surrounding neighborhoods and they play an integral part in the lives of residents within each service area. These centers provide a safe haven for its users and a heightened sense of community by bringing together various walks of life from the local neighborhoods they service. Common themes of the small centers visited are that they are outdated, overcrowded, and undersized. Most of these centers are showing their age, and the high levels of usage have left facilities and amenities that are in subpar condition. The size of the small centers is severely limiting their potential, and leaving a large portion of the local population underserved. Programming space is at a premium, forcing community centers to focus primarily on serving the youth population and ignoring the unmet demand and growing trends for adult programs and activities. Many of the small centers serve communities that have a history of crime, so there is a vital need for enhanced security features that will ensure the safety of users in the future. Based on evaluation scores and intercept survey results, the small centers visited by the consulting team have substantial room for improvement. As a whole, the small centers received low scores for indoor and outdoor condition of the facility. On the other hand, most centers scored significantly higher on staff/volunteers and programs/rentals. Milo Grogan was perceived as the darling of the small group, while the Glenwood Community Centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s low marks gives reassurance to its eventual reconstruction. The intercept surveys pointed to some unique characteristics of the users of the small centers. Of the three size classifications, users at the small centers are participating most frequently, with 68% of survey responses indicating they use the facility on a daily basis. Users also walk to their facility of choice much more than the medium and large/multi-generational center users, as there is an even 50% split of those who walk and 166

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The Planning Team visited seven small centers, including Indian Mound, Tuttle, and Milo Grogan.

drive to the small centers. Of those who drive, over half (54%) have a drivetime of less than five minutes. Nearly half (49%) of those surveyed cite programs as the best part of the user experience at the small centers. There is a clear lack of marketing efforts by the department, with the majority of small center users being introduced to offerings through word of mouth (28%) and other methods (62%, primarily users stumbling upon the center because they live in the area). Perhaps the most significant takeaway from a marketing standpoint is the fact that not one user mentioned the departmental website, e-mail blasts, or social media as a way they learned about the center.

Top: Milo Grogran Community Center Exercise Room, prior to dedication Bottom: Milo Grogran Community Center Exterior

Top: Tennis Courts at Driving Park adjacent to Community Center Bottom: Driving Park Community Center Exterior

Table 5.22 Strategies for Small Community Centers Strategy 2.2.1

Enhance safety and security at centers with ongoing crime issues

2.2.2

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

2.2.3

Improve consistency and quality of center offerings

Tactic Enhance security features to minimize crime Continually track neighborhood demographics and trends Allow autonomy to adjust hours and staffing at center level Develop regional approach for better coordination and communication between centers Review/improve supply chain and inventory control procedures

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

167

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS 2.3 MEDIUM COMMUNITY CENTERS

Figure 5.25 Medium Centers Visited by Planning Team

The following lists the five medium centers visited: Table 5.23 Medium Community Centers Visited by Planning Team Center

Zip

Built

SqFt

Gillie

43229

2001

19,900

Carriage Place

43235

1990

20,167

Howard

43219

1990

20,157

Linden

43211

1951

23,343

Lazelle Woods

43081

2005

27,453

The assessment of the medium centers included visits by the planning team to five of the eight centers with square footages between 19,000 and 30,000. Of the centers visited, the medium grouping consists of some of the newest additions to the system, with the Linden Community Center standing alone as the only facility built before 1990. Although these centers are much larger and newer than those from the small category, they still face many of the same challenges. The medium centers, with the exception of the Gillie Senior Center, are heavily centered on serving the youth population. Limitations on program space and hours of operation are hindering these centersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; abilities to serve a broader range of users to include the severely underserved adult and senior populations. Although the senior center provides an outlet for satisfying the older demographic, it highlights an underlying issue in programming that stems from the diversification of the neighborhoods served by the system. Many races and ethnicities are rapidly growing in Columbus, and the community centers need to develop programs and activities tying in the cultural shift that has emerged. The state of the medium-sized centers are an improvement from the deficiencies in the small centers, but the lack of timely updates and routine maintenance has left many of these facilities in dire need of enhancements to infrastructure and amenities. Many of the medium centers need more flexibility and center-level autonomy to adjust hours and staffing levels to optimize their potential. Safety is a primary concern at most centers within the city, and the department needs to implement a comprehensive plan to enhance security features and provide a safer environment for users at all centers. Center evaluation scores and intercept survey results reveal many potential improvements and a distinct set of user characteristics unique to the medium centers. Overall evaluation scores for these centers are consistent with their classification in size, as the five centers evaluated have a middling effect. The Lazelle Woods Community Center was the highest rated medium center, while Carriage Place and Howard round out the bottom of the category. The evaluation scores for the medium centers rings true to the system-wide trend that the centersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strengths lie in its customer service and offerings versus overall condition of 168

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The Planning Team visited five medium centers, including Carriage Place, Lazelle Woods, and Linden

facilities and amenities. Users of the medium centers tend to visit on a weekly basis (68%), which varies from both the small and large centers that most often recognize users on a daily basis. The medium centers also have the largest percentage of users that drive (94%) to the center when compared to the other categories. Of those who drive, the vast majority (92%) travel less than 20 minutes, with a heavy concentration of drivers in the 6-10 minute (31%) and 11-20 minute (34%) ranges. Medium center users most prefer the programming (48%), in lieu of staff (32%) and amenities (20%). Intercept results taken from medium centers further expose the lack of marketing efforts by the department, with 75% of users learning of program offerings through word of mouth and other methods, which consist primarily of chance encounters. Although the medium centers produced the largest percentages of awareness from program guides (12%) and the departmental website (13%), there were no survey responses indicating e-mail blasts or social media are being used as tools to promote the system.

Main lobby of Lazelle Woods Community Center

Classroom space at Linden Community Center

Table 5.24 Strategies for Medium Community Centers Strategy

Tactic Introduce additional programming to attract the variety of age segments and cultures within each service area

2.3.1

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

Improve marketing efforts to effectively promote centers Coordinate and communicate between centers to eliminate redundancy of programs and better satisfy needs of users

2.3.2

Implement strategic facility management plans

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

169

COMMUNITY CENTER ASSESSMENTS 2.4 LARGE COMMUNITY CENTERS

Figure 5.26 Large Centers Visited by Planning Team

The planning team visited these eight large/multigenerational centers: Table 5.25 Large Community Centers Visited by Planning Team Center

Zip

Built

SqFt

Barack

43207

1964

31,742

Dodge

43215

2005

31,772

Barnett

43227

1965

32,093

Feddersen

43224

1965

35,297

Marion-Franklin

43207

1972

35,555

Whetstone

43214

1956

39,940

Schiller

43206

1917

40,424

Martin Janis

43211

1978

42,323

The planning team frequented the large/multi-generational centers more than the smaller categories, visiting all but three centers over 30,000 square feet. There is an extensive range in the age of facilities that comprise the large/multi-gen grouping, with centers built anywhere from 1917 to 2005. The larger centers share many of the same condition and maintenance issues that are present in the smaller facilities, but the large/multi-gen centers have significantly higher potential because of their distinct size advantage. The main factor limiting the larger facilities is the lack of autonomy at the center level to adjust operating hours, staffing levels, and the programming mix. Many of these centers are not taking full advantage of the excess recreational spaces available, and adjustments to the program curriculum that engage a broader audience at each center would utilize these spaces and improve overall efficiency. A well-planned, comprehensive approach to programming would allow the larger centers to generate higher revenues, and help offset the limited earning potential of the smaller centers. The majority of these centers are in need of extensive updates, as well as a set of maintenance standards to keep them in good working order and to make them more aesthetically pleasing for users. In a few cases, there are critical deficiencies, such as leaking roofs and hazardous floors, which must be addressed immediately to ensure a safe environment for guests and improve the longevity of the facilities within the system. Planning team evaluations and intercept survey data for the large/multi-generational centers reveal a lack of consistency in overall quality and identify unique characteristics of users of the larger facilities. These facilities adhere to the systemwide trend that the community centers of CRPD rely heavily on their staff and programming to attract users due to the deficiencies in overall condition. This grouping boasts two of the top three centers overall based on evaluation scores, but there were also a few larger centers that ranked very low on the list in the eyes of the planning team, which highlights 170

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The planning team visited eight large Community Centers

the inconsistency in overall quality of facilities within the category. Based on intercept survey results, users of the large/multi-generational centers are very active, with 65% of those polled visiting these facilities on a daily basis and another 29% participating weekly. Guests of the larger centers usually drive (85%), and participants travel longer distances, as 50% of those interviewed averaging more than a 10-minute commute, with more than 20% traveling over 20 minutes to use the facilities. Participants at the larger community centers most enjoy the staff (48%) during their visits, followed by programs (33%) and amenities (19%). Marketing efforts for the larger centers are consistent with the overall trend that the department is not effectively promoting its community centers. Over half (56%) of the users surveyed cited â&#x20AC;&#x153;otherâ&#x20AC;? as the method of introduction to center offerings, and another 30% learning about center offerings through word of mouth. There were no responses indicating a social media presence, and minimal marketing through the program guide (6%), website (5%), and e-mail blasts (3%).

Lobby at Dodge Community Center

Reading room at Marion-Franklin Multi-Generational Center

Table 5.26 Strategies for Large Community Centers Strategy

2.4.1

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

2.4.2

Build on revenue-generating capabilities of larger centers to leverage cost recovery for all centers

2.4.3

Introduce maintenance standards and prioritize improvements

Tactic Capitalize on available spaces to expand programming and bring in more adults and seniors Enable center managers to recruit volunteers and adjust staffing levels Provide a balance of programs for all ages, interests, and cultures

Enhance supply chain and inventory control processes Improve security features to deter crime Require consistency in staff clothing and appearance

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

171

RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION As part of the planning process, the planning team performed a Program Assessment of the programs and services offered by the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department. The assessment offers an analysis of program and service offerings and helps identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities regarding programming. The assessment also assists in identifying core programs, program gaps within the community, key system-wide issues, and areas of improvement and in determining future programs and services for residents. The planning team based these program findings and comments from a review of information provided by the department including program descriptions, website content, and discussions with staff. This report addresses the program offerings from a systems perspective for the entire portfolio of programs.

LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS A lifecycle analysis involves reviewing every program identified by CRPD staff to determine the stage of growth or decline for each as a way of informing strategic decisions about the overall program portfolio managed by the agency. This analysis is not based on strict quantitative data, but rather is based on staff membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; knowledge of their program areas. Table 5.27 shows the percentage distribution of the various lifecycle categories of the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s programs. These percentages were obtained by comparing the number of programs in each individual stage with the total number of programs listed by staff. Table 5.27 Program Lifecycle Analysis - Current Distribution and Recommendations Lifecycle Stage

Description

Actual Program Distribution

Introduction

New program; modest participation

Take-Off

Rapid participation growth

17%

Growth

Moderate, but consistent population growth

40%

Mature

Slow participation growth

23%

Saturation

Minimal to no participation growth; extreme competition

Declining participation

Decline

Recommended Distribution

65% Total

50-60% Total

23%

40%

12% Total

0-10% Total

Overall, the lifecycle analysis results indicate a slightly unbalanced distribution of all programs across the lifecycle. A combined total of 65% of programs fall into the 172

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

CRPD offers numerous therapeutic recreation programs

Introduction, Take-Off, and Growth stages. The planning team recommends that this total be between 50-60%. While it is important to provide new programs to align with trends and help meet the evolving needs of the community, it is also important to have a stable core segment of programs that are in the Mature stage. Currently, CRPD has about 23% of their programs in this category. The planning team recommends this be about 40% so as to provide stability to the overall program portfolio, but without dominating the portfolio with programs that are advancing to the later stages of the lifecycle. Programs in the Mature stage should be tracked for signs they are entering the Saturation or Decline stages. According to staff, there is an on-going process to evaluate program participation and trends to ensure that program offerings continue to meet the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. According to staff 12% of programs are saturated or declining. The planning team recommends keeping as few programs as possible in these two stages, usually no more than 10% overall, but it is understood that programs eventually evolve into Saturation and Decline. As programs enter into the Decline stage, they must be closely reviewed and evaluated for repositioning or elimination. When this occurs, the department should modify these programs to

begin a new lifecycle with the Introductory stage or to add new programs based upon community needs and trends. Staff should complete a lifecycle review on an annual basis and ensure that the percentage distribution closely aligns with desired performance. Furthermore, CRPD could include an annual performance measure for each program area to track the percentage of new programs offered as an incentive for additional innovation and alignment with community trends.

COST RECOVERY Finding ways to sustain cost recovery and improve service pricing strategies are priorities for CRPD. According to information provided to the consulting team, cost recovery performance is currently tracked for some programs areas, but not all. Cost recovery standards exist for several programs, but methodologies for calculating cost recovery do not appear to be consistent. Cost recovery is tracked at the department level, but in addition to this, the consulting team recommends using core programs areas as an additional basis for categorization. Cost recovery targets should be identified for each program area, at least, and for specific programs or events as necessary. The previously identified core programs areas would serve as an effective breakdown for tracking cost recovery metrics, which would theoretically group programs with similar cost recovery and subsidy goals. Targets should reflect the degree to which the program area provides a public versus private good. Programs providing public benefits should be subsidized more by the department; programs providing private benefits should seek to recover costs and/or generate revenue for other services. To assist with the planning and implementation of cost recovery policies, the planning team has developed the following definitions presented in Table 5.28 to help classify specific programs within program areas. Table 5.28 Cost Recovery and Subsidy Program Categories Essential Description

Part of the organizational mission

Important Important to the community

Value-Added Enhanced community offerings

Serves a majority of the community

Serves large portions of the community

“We must offer this program”

“We should offer this program”

“It is nice to offer this program”

Desired Cost Recovery

None to Moderate

Moderate

High to Complete

Desired Subsidy

High to Complete

Moderate

Little to None

Serves niche groups

Programs in the Essential category are critical to achieving the departmental mission and providing community-wide benefits, and therefore generally receive priority for tax-dollar subsidization. Programs falling into the Important or ValueAdded classifications generally represent programs that receive lower priority for subsidization. Important programs contribute to the organizational mission but are not essential to it; therefore, cost recovery for these programs should be high (i.e., at least 80% overall). Value-added programs are not critical to the mission and should be prevented from drawing upon limited public funding, so overall cost recovery for these programs should be near to or in excess of 100%. To develop specific cost recovery targets, full cost accounting analyses should be conducted on each program that accurately calculates direct (i.e., program-specific) and indirect (i.e., comprehensive, including administrative overhead) costs. Cost recovery goals are established once these numbers are in place, and staff should be trained on this process. Furthermore, the planning team recommends that minibusiness plans (2-3 pages) be created for each core program service area on a yearly basis. These plans should evaluate the program area based on meeting the outcomes desired for participants, cost recovery, percentage of the market and business controls, cost of service, pricing strategy for the next year, and marketing strategies that are to be implemented. If developed regularly and consistently, they can be effective tools for budget construction and justification processes outside of the marketing and communication planning process.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT Given the organizational goals of the department, trends in the park and recreation profession, and the level of performance reflected by CRPD staff in the area of programming, the consulting team recommends the following methods and best practices in order to maintain a culture of quality management in program delivery. These overall approaches reflect some of the observations presented previously and also include additional considerations based upon best practices and the organizational goals of the department. Some practices are already undertaken by CRPD in conjunction with other organizational processes and are re-emphasized here due to their criticality. Others represent new practices to be implemented. • Annual Review Process: Staff present their yearly goals for program areas to senior leadership and/or an advisory board. This would include policy reviews, financial and registration performance, customer issues, and plans for the future. This process helps Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

173

RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT to ensure good communication and cooperation for supporting departments, such as parks, administration and technology as well • Documented Program Development Process: This is required in order to reduce service variation and assist in training new staff. A common approach is to use a process map that provides guidance to staff for consistently developing new programs. It can help to diminish the learning curve for new staff and reinforce program development as a core competency. This is created in a flow chart format showing the steps in the process for program development including writing class descriptions, process steps, hiring staff, using contractual employees, and the list of standards.

overall safety of the program, instructional quality, convenience and ease of registration, cost of the program, and skill development. • Ongoing Environmental Scan of Best Practices: Staff identify key competitors or similar providers, both locally and nationally, of core program areas. Every year staff should develop a matrix of information to compare services in areas that have the greatest importance to customers. Benchmarking other nationally renowned agencies also can provide a process to continuously improve programming.

• Instructor/Contractor Tool Kit: Kits need to be created by the staff that outline information about the department, including mission, vision, values, goals, organizational structure, roster of users, program guides, program standards, evaluation forms, registration forms, important phone numbers, name tags, thank you cards, and program learning objectives. • On-going Connections with Part-time and Seasonal Staff: There should be on-going processes and events to connect part-time and seasonal programming staff, as well as some contractors, with full-time personnel through meetings, email, newsletters, staff recognition, and random visits by management. This also assists with determining and managing job satisfaction of these employees. • Ongoing Identification of Customer Requirements: Staff identify customer requirements for core program areas on an ongoing basis. This is important to emphasize with staff that directly interface with customers. Requirements relate to those service attributes that are most important to a customer, and requirements should be developed with customer input. Each core program area should include a listing of approximately five key customer requirements. For example, in a sports skills program, key requirements could include:

Interior multipurpose athletic room at Whetstone Community Center.

Documented Program Development Process Flow Chart

Establish Program Goals

Design Program Scenarios and Components

Develop Program Operating/Business Plan

Conduct/Operate Program

Conduct Regular Evaluation Based on Established Criteria

Continue Program Modify Program Terminate Program

174

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Table 5.29 Strategies for Recreation Programs Strategy 3.1.1

3.1.3

3.1.7

Tactic

Develop standards to improve consistency in program design, delivery, and evaluation Establish regional approach to service delivery to eliminate gaps and overlaps, and allow sharing of resources between various centers

Maximize the use of existing recreational facilities to enhance programming.

Track demographic trends and adjust programming or operations to best serve each service area Avoid duplication in programming Use a more strategic and coordinated approach to programming non-peak hours Enable larger centers to serve as true “community centers.” Expand select smaller centers to include underserved areas Expand outdoor programming to compensate for lack of indoor space, improve visibility of centers, and deter crime Consider theming centers and their programs to include a strong approach to arts, fitness, sports, dance, music, seniors, child care, people with disabilities, gymnastics, and teens Track the results of community surveys by location to determine programming needs of residents

3.1.9

Use data in strategic decision-making.

Track program participation, outcomes, and efficiency on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis Develop a true cost of service program that tracks both the direct and indirect costs to provide services

3.1.12

Adjust the programming mix to increase programs and services for underserved segments of the population.

Develop more programs for young adults. Centers are more geared to youth under 16 and/or seniors.

Table 5.30 Strategies for Communications Strategy 4.1.1

Ensure operating hours and center information on CRPD website is up-to-date and accurate

4.1.2

Use survey data to inform operational decisions, (e.g., allow for operating hours to include weekends November through April)

4.1.3

Improve CRPD brand by distributing templates for marketing, promotional, and informational material

4.1.4

Update the brand for community centers. Use upbeat colors, pictures of people having fun in the centers, and customer messages that don’t start with the word “no.”

4.1.5

Develop a social media strategy to better communicate with the public and monitor its effectiveness

4.1.6

Allow autonomy in communicating with participants to inform them on program changes, facility closings, or other pertinent information

4.1.7

Document the level of productivity each center operates and develop a stronger marketing effort in communities where there is excess capacity

4.1.8

Post the daily schedule of activities in the building on TV monitors near the front desk or with electronic signage at larger centers in the system

Tactic

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

175

PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT 4.2 PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT CRPD has a strong partnership network that shows strong signs of further growth. Current partners include schools, private businesses, civic groups, and nonprofit organizations. A community and organizational goal for CRPD is to further expand and formalize partnerships for the agency. The initial step in developing multiple partnerships in the community that expand upon existing relationships is to have an overall partnership philosophy that is supported by a policy framework for managing these relationships. Many times partnerships are inequitable to the public agency and do not produce reasonable shared benefits between parties. The recommended policies will promote fairness and equity within the existing and future partnerships while helping staff to manage against potential internal and external conflicts. Certain partnership principles must be adopted by the Department for existing and future partnerships to work effectively. These partnership principles are as follows: • All partnerships require a working agreement with measurable outcomes and will be evaluated on a regular basis. This should include reports to the agency on the performance and outcomes of the partnership. • All partnerships should track costs associated with the partnership investment to demonstrate the shared level of equity. • All partnerships should maintain a culture that focuses on collaborative planning on a regular basis, regular communications, and annual reporting on performance and outcomes. Partnerships can be pursued and developed with other public entities such as neighboring cities, schools, colleges, state or federal agencies; nonprofit organizations; as well as with private, for-profit organizations. There are recommended standard policies and practices that will apply to any partnership, and those that are unique to relationships with private, for-profit entities.

Policy Recommendations for All Partnerships All partnerships developed and maintained by CRPD should adhere to common policy requirements. These include: • Each partner will meet with or report to Department staff on a regular basis to plan and share activity-based costs and equity invested. • Partners will establish measurable outcomes and work through key issues to focus on for the coming year to meet the desired outcomes. • Each partner will focus on meeting a balance of equity agreed to and track investment costs accordingly.

176

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

• Measurable outcomes will be reviewed quarterly and shared with each partner, with adjustments made as needed. • A working partnership agreement will be developed and monitored together on a quarterly or as-needed basis. • Each partner will assign a liaison to serve each partnership agency for communication and planning purposes. • If conflicts arise between partners, the Director, along with the other partner’s highest ranking officer assigned to the agreement, will meet to resolve the issue(s) in a timely manner. Any exchange of money or traded resources will be made based on the terms of the partnership agreement. • Each partner will meet with the other partner’s respective board or managing representatives annually, to share updates and outcomes of the partnership agreement.

Policy Recommendations for Public/Private Partnerships The recommended policies and practices for public/private partnerships that may include businesses, private groups, private associations, or individuals who desire to make a profit from use of CRPD facilities or programs are detailed below. These can also apply to partnerships where a private party wishes to develop a facility on park property, to provide a service on publicly-owned property, or who has a contract with the agency to provide a task or service on the agency’s behalf at public facilities. These unique partnership principles are as follows: • Upon entering into an agreement with a private business, group, association or individual, CRPD staff and political leadership must recognize that they must allow the private entity to meet their financial objectives within reasonable parameters that protect the mission, goals and integrity of the Department. • As an outcome of the partnership, CRPD must receive a designated fee that may include a percentage of gross revenue dollars less sales tax on a regular basis, as outlined in the contract agreement. • The working agreement of the partnership must establish a set of measurable outcomes to be achieved, as well as the tracking method of how those outcomes will be monitored by the agency. The outcomes will include standards of quality, financial reports, customer satisfaction, payments to the agency, and overall coordination with the Department for the services rendered.

development. The following five areas of focus are recommended:

• Depending on the level of investment made by the private contractor, the partnership agreement can be limited to months, a year or multiple years.

1. Operational Partners: Other entities and organizations that can support the efforts of CRPD to maintain facilities and assets, promote amenities and park usage, support site needs, provide programs and events, and/or maintain the integrity of natural/ cultural resources through in-kind labor, equipment, or materials.

• If applicable, the private contractor will provide a working management plan annually they will follow to ensure the outcomes desired by CRPD. The management plan can and will be negotiated, if necessary. Monitoring of the management plan will be the responsibility of both partners. The agency must allow the contractor to operate freely in their best interest, as long as the outcomes are achieved and the terms of the partnership agreement are adhered to. • The private contractor cannot lobby agency advisory or governing boards for renewal of a contract. Any such action will be cause for termination. All negotiations must be with the Director or their designee. • The agency has the right to advertise for private contracted partnership services, or negotiate on an individual basis with a bid process based on the professional level of the service to be provided. • If conflicts arise between both partners, the highestranking officers from both sides will try to resolve the issue before going to each partner’s legal counsels. If none can be achieved, the partnership shall be dissolved.

Partnership Opportunities These recommendations are an overview of existing partnership opportunities available to CRPD, as well as a suggested approach to organizing partnership pursuits. This is not an exhaustive list of all potential partnerships that can be developed, but can be used as a tool of reference for the agency to develop its own priorities in partnership

2. Vendor Partners: Service providers and/or contractors that can gain brand association and notoriety as a preferred vendor or supporter of CRPD in exchange for reduced rates, services, or some other agreed upon benefit. 3. Service Partners: Nonprofit organizations and/or friends groups that support the efforts of the agency to provide programs and events, and/or serve specific constituents in the community collaboratively. 4. Co-branding Partners: Private, for-profit organizations that can gain brand association and notoriety as a supporter of CRPD in exchange for sponsorship or cobranded programs, events, marketing and promotional campaigns, and/or advertising opportunities. 5. Resource Development Partner: A private, nonprofit organization with the primary purpose to leverage private sector resources, grants, other public funding opportunities, and resources from individuals and groups within the community to support the goals and objectives of the agency on mutually agreed strategic initiatives.

Table 5.31 Partnership Management Strategy

4.2.1

Formalize existing partnerships to demonstrate success and promote growth

Tactic Execute a working agreement with measurable outcomes for all partnerships. Evaluate performance on measurable outcomes for each partnership annually Develop process to track costs and income associated with partnerships Review and annually update measurable outcomes in conjunction with each partner

4.2.2

Develop overall partnership philosophy and standard partnership protocols for the department.

Identify a liaison with each partnership for communication and planning purposes Meet with the liaison from each partnership on at least an annual basis to mutually assess progress towards measurable outcomes

Section 5: Needs Assessment and Strategies

177

SECTION 6 1 HEADING

BICENTENNIAL PARK FOUNTAIN The Bicentennial Park Fountain attracts summertime crowds day and night. 178

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

IMPLEMENTATION AND ACTION PLAN SECTION 1 HEADING

The Implementation and Action Plan creates a framework for the prioritizing and planning for improvements. Tactics for implementing strategies are introduced, leaders and partners are identified and order of magnitude operational and capital costs are quantified. This section concludes with recommended organizational changes to both streamline the department and aid in the implementation efforts.

179

IMPLEMENTATION AND ACTION PLAN INTRODUCTION The Implementation and Action Plan serves as a guide for the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department as it begins to consider the improvements and investments recommended by the Master Plan. This section catalogs all of the strategies and tactics introduced in the Needs Assessment and Strategies section of this report in an Action Plan Matrix. This matrix also provides additional detail in terms of who will lead and support implementation. These are listed as “lead” and “support” roles in the Action Plan Matrix.

2014 Master Plan Strategies

The 2014 Master Plan identifies numerous areas for improvement and investment: Parks and Facilities

Update 5 Neighborhood Parks per year

Order of magnitude Operational and Capital costs are also highlighted where appropriate to give the department an idea of the budgetary implications of each strategy. By framing the existing and future needs of Columbus residents, this Master Plan makes the case for additional capital improvement dollars and operational dollars from the City’s budget. However, there are also opportunities for attaining additional funding. Diversifying funding sources and identifying sources of more stable funding will be necessary to absorb the increased operating and capital expenses that are associated with the improvements and investments required to meet the needs outlined in this Master Plan. Today, only the Golf Division is a stand-alone entity that is designed to be self-sustaining. Exploring other opportunities within the department to set up an enterprise fund could potentially allow for both the expansion of services and an increase in revenue. Potential opportunities could include sports complexes, concession agreements, facility rental and certain programs and activities. Endowments are another potential source of funding that should be examined, especially the creation of a maintenance endowment that could both stabilize funding and increase the level of maintenance provided in parks system-wide. Key to these discussions will be public/private partnerships that will aid in both funding and in the construction of needed facilities for the park system.

Update 1 Community Park per year

Departmental organization is also a critical piece of the Implementation and Action Plan. This section concludes with a recommended process for achieving a more streamlined and functional organization and suggests a new organizational structure. This effort will not only result in a more efficient department, but it will also create an organizational framework that is better able to implement the Master Plan. It will also provide opportunities for succession within the department and position the department to attract new talent. While this organization transition will undoubtedly take time to occur, it will result in a Recreation and Parks Department that is ready to build the system of 21st Century Parks that the City of Columbus needs to meet the growing and diverse needs of its citizens.

Establish a regional approach to program delivery

180

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Update and invest in revenue producing sports fields Improve maintenance standards city-wide Take a leadership role in establishing and meeting city-wide tree canopy coverage goals Continue to expand multi-use trail network and make connections to neighborhoods and parks Community Centers and Programming

Investigate public/private partnerships to meet facility and program needs Continue to update 1 community center per year Improve maintenance and security

Improve communication, outreach and social media presence Create partnership management protocols Organizational

Develop a more sustainable financial management model Explore organizational restructuring to achieve greater efficiency and functionality

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

181

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.1 Action Plan Matrix for Parks and Facilities Strategy

Tactic

1.1 System-wide Strategies Develop strategic partnerships 1.1.1

Acquire enough land to meet recommended standards for all classifications of parkland

1.1.2

Continue to work with neighborhood groups to improve and maintain parks

1.1.3

Remove access and circulation barriers to city parks

1.1.4

Develop a checklist for minimum park and facility standards

Taking under account Master Plan recommendations, engage department staff in development of standards

1.2 Strategies for Neighborhood Parks Locate neighborhood parks within one-half mile of all neighborhoods Assess the amount of land needed for the next ten years, and determine where it is most in need 1.2.1

Make acquiring land for neighborhood parks a high priority

1.2.2

Improve overall maintenance standards, safety and design

1.2.3

Update 5 neighborhood parks per year

Plan for a length of user experience of less than one hour Update design standards to provide at least 5 experiences Consider use of UIRF and other funding sources to update parks

1.3 Strategies for Community Parks 1.3.1

Make acquiring land for Community Parks a high priority

Assess the amount of land needed for the next ten years, and determine where it is most in need Prioritize new parks in the Southwest and North Study Areas

1.3.2

182

Perform an overall assessment of productivity of space and amenities to guide improvements

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

Annual Operational Cost

Total Capital Cost

1.1.1

CRPD

Other City Departments

$4,000 - $8,000 per acre

$50,000 - $300,000 per acre (acquisition only)

“Friends of” organizations 1.1.2

CRPD

Neighborhood groups Civic Associations

$10,000 - $30,000

Area Commissions

$100,000 - $200,000 per mile (acquisition only)

Other City Departments 1.1.3

CRPD

MORPC Franklin County

$10,000 - $15,000 per trail mile

Metro Parks 1.1.4

CRPD

1.2.1

CRPD

1.2.2

CRPD

1.2.3

CRPD

Other City Departments Public/Private Partnerships

Other City Departments

1.3.5

1.3.1

$1,000,000 per mile to design and construct trail in the city that is paved

Public/Private Partnerships

Cost to increase maintenance standards from a level three to a level two is $2,500 – $3,000 a maintained acre

Included in 1.1

$10,000 - $25,000

$200,000 - $500,000 per park

Cost to increase maintenance standards from a level three to a level two is $2,500 – $3,000 a maintained acre

Included in 1.1

CRPD

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

183

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.1 Action Plan Matrix for Parks and Facilities Strategy

1.3.3

Expand revenue-producing amenities

Tactic Upgrade competitive elements of all parks (fields, courts, pools, etc.) to maximize unrealized revenue streams Upgrade and add more reservable shelters Provide needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems) Adopt “Park Once” strategy to allow for park amenities to be access from a central point Wi-Fi in all community parks

1.3.4

Update 1 community park per year

Provide and plan for a 3 hour user experience Promote year round use 15 experiences in each park Focus on health and wellness, community connectivity, special events and community pride

1.3.5

Plan for programming that allows for Community Parks and their respective Community Centers to function as one space

Special event spaces Host a minimum of 3 events per year

1.4 Strategies for Regional Parks 1.4.1

Update sports-related parks to keep them in line with the revenue they bring in

Continue investment in all-weather fields Enhance and expand retail operations/concessions Provide and plan for an all-day experience Provide nature center / outdoor education Provide trails/open space

1.4.2

Expand offerings and amenities to appeal to a more diversified audience and user groups

Explore additional amenities (big shelters, ponds for fishing, adventure park, etc) Provide needed infrastructure (such as lighting, restrooms, trail systems) Adopt “Park Once” strategy to allow for park amenities to be accessed from a central point Wi-Fi in all community parks Provide and plan for a 3 hour user experience

1.5 Strategies for Natural Areas (Conservation/Natural Areas, Neighborhood Open Space, and Parkland Reserve) Perform assessment of existing land inventory to identify value and preservation quality to ensure that park development follows standards 1.5.1

Continue to hold and acquire open space and preserves

Continue to prioritize preservation of property that buffer stream corridors, provide wildlife habitat, and protect to the city’s tree canopy Work collaboratively and proactively with other city departments ensure that these essential natural areas are preserved and expanded city-wide

1.5.2

Consider potential of partial development to provide access for passive and educational uses

Prioritize areas of the city where nature programs and availability of appropriate properties and infrastructure align

1.5.3

Provide educational programs associated with natural areas

Prioritize areas of the city where there are program needs and the availability of appropriate properties and infrastructure align

1.6 Strategies for Special Use Parks 1.6.1

Continue existing maintenance standards

1.6.2

Increase the geographic spread of Special Use Parks system-wide, as volunteer support allows

184

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Partner with “friends of” organizations and corporate sponsors Develop revenue generating uses (rentals, concessions events) Convert existing parks or portions of parks to Special Use

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

Annual Operational Cost

Total Capital Cost

Public/Private Partnerships

Increase maintenance of sports fields and courts by $2,000 an acre above current maintenance level 2

Included in 1.3.3

1.3.2

CRPD

1.3.3

CRPD

1.3.4

CRPD

Public/Private Partnerships

$50,000 - $100,000

1.4.1

CRPD

Public Private Partnerships

$1,000 dollar a synthetic field to maintain a year

$500,000 - $1,500,000 per park

1.4.2

CRPD

$25,000 - $75,000

$500,000 - 3,000,000 per park

1.5.1

CRPD

1.5.2

CRPD

1.5.3

CRPD

1.6.1

CRPD

1.6.2

CRPD

$300,000 - $2,000,000 per park

Other City Departments

$300 an acre on average

Public/Private Partnerships

$25,000 - $75,000

“Friends of” Organizations Public/Private Partnerships

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

185

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.1 Action Plan Matrix for Parks and Facilities Strategy

Tactic

1.7 Strategies for Acquisition Establish objective criteria for evaluating parcels being considered for acquisition

1.7.1

Be proactive in acquiring land

1.7.2

Use various techniques for acquiring land

1.7.3

Consider a regional approach to spending parkland dedication funds to better enable future parks development

1.8 Strategies for Forestry Take a leadership role in setting a tree canopy goal for the City of Columbus

1.8.1

Collaborate with the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Team and other City departments Set higher canopy goals for city parkland to offset expected shortfall in certain areas of the city Conduct a comprehensive tree survey/inventory

Management should shift from being reactive to proactive

1.8.2

Establish a canopy replacement program to combat Emerald Ash Borer and achieve tree canopy goal

1.8.3

1.9 Strategies for Maintenance Adopt maintenance standards that optimize resources by providing higher levels of care in high-visibility and high-use areas.

1.9.1

Enhance level of care for high-use neighborhood and community parks based on frequencies of mowing, cleaning restrooms, cleaning parking areas, maintaining sports fields, and maintaining playgrounds. Implement CPTED standards for park design and maintenance in consideration of safety-related issues Develop a maintenance management plan

1.9.2

Consider using contract maintenance services 1.10 Strategies for Multi-Use Trails Work with other city departments to continue to provide on-street bike facilities that lead to park facilities Prioritize connecting neighborhoods next to existing trail systems 1.10.1

Improve access to existing trails from surrounding neighborhoods, business districts and parks

186

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

1.7.1

CRPD

1.7.2

CRPD

Other City Departments

1.7.3

CRPD

Other City Departments

1.8.1

CRPD

Other City Departments

1.8.2

CRPD

1.8.3

CRPD

1.9.1

CRPD

1.9.2

CRPD

Annual Operational Cost

Public/Private Partnerships

Included in 1.1

Other City Departments

Public/Private Partnerships

Total Capital Cost

$2,500 - $3,000 per maintained acre cost

$20,000-35,000

Other City Departments 1.10.1

CRPD

MORPC Franklin County

Included in 1.1

Metro Parks

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

187

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.1 Action Plan Matrix for Parks and Facilities Strategy

Tactic Consider trail widening and other methods for enhancing safety and the user experience along trail corridors for all trail users

1.10.2

Improve Multi-Use Trail Safety and Education

1.10.3

Continue to improve east-west connectivity city-wide

1.10.4

Continue to expand bicycle infrastructure, facilities and accessibility

1.11 Strategies for Blueways Conduct assessment of existing boat ramps and explore new locations Continue to add access points for kayaks and canoes along river and stream corridors 1.11.1

Provide access for different types of watercraft, depending on locations

1.11.2

Legitimize access, improve ease of use and promote blueways

Provide information on conditions, access and maps online Facilitate safe portages around low-head dams Promote safety through educational programming and signage

1.11.3

Develop educational programming related to river health, sustainability and the river ecosystem

1.11.4

Provide access for fishing and other wildlife viewing

1.12 Strategies for Aquatics Continue to follow plan to renovate existing pools 1.12.1

Continue to improve and maintain existing aquatic facilities

Monitor effectiveness of renovations Consider additional pool upgrades or expansions at pools with high use

1.12.2

Implement the long range plan to expand the system

1.12.3

188

Install spraygrounds in areas where there are gaps in service in the northeast and northwest parts of the city

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

1.10.2

CRPD

Bicycle Advocacy Groups

Annual Operational Cost

Total Capital Cost

Other City Departments 1.10.3

CRPD

Franklin County MORPC

$10,000-$25,000

Metro Parks

Other City Departments 1.10.4

CRPD

COGO

$10,000-$25,000

$50,000-$200,000

Public/Private Partnerships

MORPC ODNR 1.11.1

CRPD

River Advocacy Groups

$200,000-$500,000

Public/Private Partnerships Outfitters

MORPC ODNR 1.11.2

CRPD

River Advocacy Groups

$10,000-$25,000

$50,000-75,000

Public/Private Partnerships Outfitters 1.11.3

CRPD

1.11.4

CRPD

1.12.1

CRPD

1.12.2

CRPD

1.12.3

CRPD

$25,000-50,000 $50,000-200,000

Other City Departments Public/Private Partnerships

$100,000-200,000 per center

$4,500,000 – 5,000,000 per center

$50,000-100,000 per sprayground

$300,000 – 600,000 per sprayground

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

189

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.2 Action Plan Matrix for Recreation Facilities Strategy

Tactic

2.1 Overall Strategies Continue to update 1 community center per year 2.1.1

Strategically prioritize center improvements

2.1.2

Develop and implement facility hygiene, safety, and cleanliness operational standards

2.1.3

Develop pricing guidelines and standards

Develop mini business plans for centers generating significant revenues to identify income/expense targets, track actuals, and outline marketing strategies

2.2 Strategies for Small Community Centers 2.2.1

Enhance safety and security at centers with ongoing crime issues

2.2.2

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

Allow autonomy to adjust hours and staffing at center level

2.2.3

Improve consistency and quality of center offerings

Develop regional approach for better coordination and communication between centers

Enhance security features to minimize crime Continually track neighborhood demographics and trends

Review/improve supply chain and inventory control procedures 2.3 Strategies for Medium Community Centers Introduce additional programming to attract the variety of age segments and cultures within each service area 2.3.1

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

Improve marketing efforts to effectively promote centers Coordinate and communicate between centers to eliminate redundancy of programs and better satisfy needs of users

2.3.2

Implement strategic facility management plans

2.4 Strategies for Large Community Centers

2.4.1

Empower center managers to optimize potential and improve service delivery

Capitalize on available spaces to expand programming and bring in more adults and seniors Enable center managers to recruit volunteers and adjust staffing levels Provide a balance of programs for all ages, interests, and cultures

2.4.2

Build on revenue-generating capabilities of larger centers to leverage cost recovery for all centers

2.4.3

Introduce maintenance standards and prioritize improvements

Enhance supply chain and inventory control processes Improve security features to deter crime Require consistency in staff clothing and appearance

190

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

2.1.1

CRPD

Public/Private Partnerships

2.1.2

CRPD

2.1.3

CRPD

2.2.1

CRPD

2.2.2

CRPD

2.2.3

CRPD

2.3.1

CRPD

2.3.2

CRPD

2.4.1

CRPD

2.4.2

CRPD

2.4.3

CRPD

Annual Operational Cost

Total Capital Cost

$750,000-5,000,000 per center

$10,000-25,000

$25,000-50,000 $10,000-20,000

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

191

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.3 Action Plan Matrix for Recreation Programs Strategy

Tactic

3.1 Strategies for Recreation Programs 3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

Maximize the use of existing recreational facilities to enhance programming.

3.1.4

Use data in strategic decision-making.

Track program participation, outcomes, and efficiency on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis Develop a true cost of service program that tracks both the direct and indirect costs to provide services

3.1.5

Adjust the programming mix to increase programs and services for underserved segments of the population.

Develop more programs for young adults. Centers are more geared to youth under 16 and/or seniors.

Table 6.4 Action Plan Matrix for Organizational Management Strategy 4.1 Strategies for Communications 4.1.1

Ensure operating hours and center information on CRPD website is up-to-date and accurate

4.1.2

Use survey data to inform operational decisions, (e.g., allow for operating hours to include weekends November through April)

4.1.3

Improve CRPD brand by distributing templates for marketing, promotional, and informational material

4.1.4

Update the brand for community centers. Use upbeat colors, pictures of people having fun in the centers, and customer messages that don’t start with the word “no.”

4.1.5

Develop a social media strategy to better communicate with the public and monitor its effectiveness

4.1.6

Allow autonomy in communicating with participants to inform them on program changes, facility closings, or other pertinent information

4.1.7

Document the level of productivity each center operates and develop a stronger marketing effort in communities where there is excess capacity

4.1.8

Post the daily schedule of activities in the building on TV monitors near the front desk or with electronic signage at larger centers in the system

192

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Tactic

Strategy

Lead Role

Supporting Role

Annual Operational Cost

3.1.1

CRPD

3.1.2

CRPD

$50,000-75,000

3.1.3

CRPD

$10,000-25,000

3.1.4

CRPD

3.1.5

CRPD

Strategy

Lead Role

4.1.1

CRPD

4.1.2

CRPD

4.1.3

CRPD

$100,000-200,000

4.1.4

CRPD

$10,000-20,000 per site

4.1.5

CRPD

4.1.6

CRPD

4.1.7

CRPD

4.1.8

CRPD

Total Capital Cost

$50,000-100,000

Supporting Role

Annual Operational Cost

Total Capital Cost

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

193

ACTION PLAN MATRIX Table 6.5 Action Plan Matrix for Partnerships Strategy

Tactic

4.2 Partnership Management

4.2.1

Formalize existing partnerships to demonstrate success and promote growth

Execute a working agreement with measureable outcomes for all partnerships. Evaluate performance on measureable outcomes for each partnership annually Develop process to track costs and income associated with partnerships Review and annually update measureable outcomes in conjunction with each partner

4.2.2

Develop overall partnership philosophy and standard partnership protocols for the department.

194

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Lead Role

Supporting Role

Annual Operational Cost

CRPD

Public/Private Partnerships

$13,000 - $28,000

CRPD

Public/Private Partnerships

$11,000 - $16,000

Total Capital Cost

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

195

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The long-term success of the Columbus Recreation and Park Department is critically dependent upon the wise use of limited financial resources. Because the Department can never be all things to all people, its employees and leadership must be prepared to continually make trade-off decisions with how to prioritize and reprioritize demands for various investments in maintenance, operations, capital, programming, and other needs.

added (i.e., private benefit) recreation programs and services that recover their costs as well supplement funding for other core services. As well, these cities can provide the following lessons from their experiences: •

Partnerships have working agreements with measurable outcomes that are equitable operationally and financially (i.e., the department does not significantly subsidize the partnership)

In 2013, the Department’s $34.1 million budget was funded primarily (85.2%) by tax dollars. The remaining funding (14.8%) was generated through non-tax earned revenues such as program fees, memberships, and facility rentals. Balancing and diversifying this portfolio of funding sources will be key for CRPD in building a sustainable and robust financial model. In general, successful agencies in large cities similar to Columbus adjust their operations and funding structures to generate at least 20% of their income from non-tax sources, or at least $15.00 of earned revenue per capita. Based upon Columbus’ 2013 estimated population of 802,411, the Department generated $6.29 of earned revenue per capita in 2013.

•

Facilities are designed to produce revenue when they are built or renovated

•

The department has a business development office to help bring in new earned income through foundations, conservancies, friends groups, sponsorships, leases, partnerships, etc.

•

The department uses a true cost of service model for revenue producing programs/facilities to determine if cost recovery rates are fair for the value received, and therefore services are priced based upon market rates and value received

•

Programs/facilities are outsourced when the department does not provide them efficiently based on total costs of services, particularly when the private sector or a partner can provide it 20% more efficiently with the same productivity.

•

The department challenges productivity and efficiency in their organization using measurable outcomes.

Increasing earned revenue and decreasing dependence upon government support requires a dedicated and strategic investment in revenue-generating facilities and services. The Department should view these as lines of business and develop business plans to optimize CRPD’s investment in these areas. Business plans will help identify the full cost of providing the facility or service, including both direct and indirect costs, as well as establishing productivity, marketing, and evaluation goals. The Department can use national median cost recovery rates for programs, shown in Table 6.6, as a guide. The Department invested 56.3% of their 2013 budget in programs, 29.8% in park maintenance and warehousing, and 14.0% in administration. In order to drive earned revenue generation, CRPD should continue to invest in recreation programs and services that recover their costs and supplement funding for other services that are critical to provide but do not generate revenue, such as park maintenance. Creating new ways to fund park maintenance will be particularly important to the Department given the needs for additional parkland and amenities identified in the Master Plan. Unlike with revenues, however, there are no strong generalizable best practices that use percentagebased targets for different types of expenditures because each community has a different mix of park, facility, program, and administrative needs. Comparable cities’ parks departments that have improved their financial stability, or are moving in the right direction, include Charlotte (Mecklenburg County), Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. Generally, these cities have made it a policy priority to invest in certain value196

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

Key Takeaways • The commission should adopt policies to support a strategy of investing in programs and services that recover their costs and supplement funding for core services, giving permission to the staff to generate new revenue where appropriate. • Increased priority should be given to the development or improvement of revenue-generating facilities in the capital improvement program. • Every revenue-generating program or facility should have a business plan to identify the full cost of providing the service/facility, establish productivity goals, create marketing strategies, and list performance evaluation criteria. • The recommended practice for Columbus based upon comparable communities is to generate at least 20% of their overall income from non-tax sources, or at least $15 of earned revenue per capita. (Columbus is currently at 14.8% and $6.29, respectively.)

Figure 6.1 Revenues by Source

Table 6.6 National Median Cost Recovery Rates

Earned Revenues $5,048,649

15%

85% Government Support $29,078,257

Total Revenues $34,126,907

Figure 6.2 Expenses by Type Administration $4,766,862 Warehouse/ Maintenance $10,156,259

14% 30%

56%

Total Expenses $34,126,907

Programs $19,203,785

Program

Cost Recovery

Adult Programs (Overall)

100%

Swimming lessons

100%

Tennis classes

100%

Arts and crafts classes

100%

Trips

100%

Program

Cost Recovery

Youth Sports (Overall)

76-99%

Youth softball

76-99%

Youth baseball

76-99%

Youth volleyball

76-99%

Youth football

76-99%

Youth lacrosse

76-99%

Youth basketball

76-99%

Youth soccer

76-99%

Youth Camps (Overall)

76-99%

Youth day camps

76-99%

Evening camps

76-99%

Performing arts camps

76-99%

Sports camps

100%

Arts and crafts camps

76-99%

Programs for People with Disabilities (Overall)

76-99%

Preschool programs

76-99%

Tennis classes

76-99%

Arts and crafts classes

76-99%

Performing arts classes

76-99%

Fitness classes

76-99%

Basketball leagues

76-99%

Dance classes

76-99%

Dance classes

100%

Aerobics/fitness classes

100%

Martial arts lessons

100%

Water aerobics classes

76-99%

Adult Sports (Overall)

76-99%

Adult men’s softball

76-99%

Adult women’s softball

76-99%

Coed softball

76-99%

Adult soccer

76-99%

Men’s basketball

100%

Women’s basketball

76-99%

Coed basketball

100%

3 on 3 basketball

100%

Adult lacrosse

100%

Adult volleyball

100%

Adult baseball

76-99%

Youth Programs (Overall)

76-99%

Preschool programs

76-99%

Golf classes

76-99%

Youth tennis classes

100%

Swimming lessons

51-75%

Arts and crafts classes

76-99%

After school programs

76-99%

Performing arts classes

100%

Martial arts classes

76-99%

Fitness classes

76-99%

Baseball/softball leagues

76-99%

Golf classes

100%

Social clubs

51-75%

Swimming lessons

76-99%

Notes:

After school programs

76-99%

• Based upon Leisure Vision 2012 National Benchmarking Survey

Martial arts classes

76-99%

• Cannot calculate averages, because cost recovery rates were not collected from participating agencies – only cost recovery ranges. The median range can be deduced, however. • For this report and analysis, cost recovery = direct costs recovered through program fees.

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

197

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING Strategies and tactics alone will not be enough to guide the needed improvements and investments for the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department. To successfully accomplish the recommendations in this Master Plan, the organizational design of the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department needs to be reviewed and updated to support greater operational efficiency and functionality. Based on comments from staff and stakeholders there is lack of awareness of what each division does for and in the system which creates problems in who does what, how and why. An organizational structure is needed that promotes the ability of Department divisions to cooperate and communicate more to maximize effectiveness. It will be critical to shift away from a reactive culture and towards a proactive one that rewards initiative and innovation in achieving higher standards within the limitations of available resources. Stakeholders and staff also recognized the need to develop and train future leaders throughout the organization and empower this next generation to engage in more strategic planning and partnership building to serve a wider population in a more effective way over the long term. To achieve these goals and successfully implement the Master Plan, the Department must actively pursue a more functional alignment between staffing structures and organizational objectives. If the department chooses to become more functionally aligned the planning team suggests the following process be followed through a workshop format that: •

Introduces what good organizational design looks like and the benefits of doing so. This can be accomplished through a workshop with a training session on “Creating and Achieving Financial Sustainability and Functionality through Organizational Design.”

•

Provides the staff with the core service criteria that has been developed working with City and County Managers across the United States. Make a presentation on what constitutes a core service and how it applies to financial and functionality sustainability. Breaking down core services into various classifications helps staff to manage each type of service from a specific financial and functional perspective.

•

Breaks the staff into teams to review all services provided in the department and apply the criteria to those services based on the three levels of core classifications.

•

Allows staff to report out to each other on what their team developed for each type of service provided within the department and then ask them to develop the process further down into all other areas of the department.

•

Gets staff to write individual statements for each division

198

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

within the department that outlined for whom is the service they provide for, what purpose, what benefit, what cost, and to achieve what outcome? •

Develops the functional organizational chart based on aligning the organization to achieve the greatest level of efficiency that draws on each core service, how it is classified, is it a lead function or a support function and where the service falls in the organization to achieve the greatest success and efficiency.

From this work the department staff can populate the Functional Organizational Chart with full-time, part-time and seasonal staffing levels. This populating of staffing effort should be aligning with the organizational operational financing philosophy for each functional division through effective financial principles. Functions should be outlined as core essential, important, and value added, as well as a lead or support element attached to each function. This will allow the staff in each function to understand the jobs they are to fulfill and that they focus on the organization first, division second and the person third. The department will need to populate the Functional Organizational chart with people based on set standards and outcomes each division is to support and achieve for the future. This process may take a couple of years to complete based on people retiring and backfilling their jobs with the right people in the right positions to achieve the right outcomes. It is very important to update job descriptions of existing department heads in each of the core functional groups. The department must find outcome based managers who understand lead and support functions and can manage their respective divisions to a set of outcomes to move the department forward to achieve the overall goals desired. The planning team recommends that the department set up each functional group at one time and then populate that division entirely before starting on the next division which is why it will take some time to complete. The following are the planning team’s comments on each recommended Functional Division within Columbus Recreation and Parks and should be viewed as an opportunity. Each new Functional Division is outlined below and a proposed organizational chart on the following pages demonstrates how this new structure allows all divisions to work together.

Administration Division Administration’s functional division’s goal is to provide support functions to the Department as it applies to HR/ Payroll, Information Technology, Warehouse Management, Accounting Services, Contracts, and Legal Services. Their job is to make systems work and create the least bureaucracy as possible. The majority of the functions in this

division are Core Essential Services or Important Services. The key component of this Functional Division is to develop processes that involve developing flow charts for each system it manages to draw out bureaucracy and simplify the processes to move services as quickly as possible to the people who work in the other functional divisions. This division needs to teach staff how to be efficient, help create business plans and to focus on measureable outcomes that demonstrate efficiency and financial sustainability. Cost of service development should be one of the primary elements this division and the staff should focus on in helping staff understand cost of service at the unit cost level. The lead functions within this functional division is usually responsible for includes Training and Strategic Development, Intra-Government Affairs, Accounts Payable, Procurement, Contracts, Budget Development, Business Planning, and Performance Management. All of the functions that fall under this division usually involves like kind of thinking and processing and is the reason these functions fall under this Functional Division called Administration Services.

Planning and Development Division All functions in this division are usually considered lead functions in driving core essential and important services forward. The functions that should fall under this functional division include: Planning and Research, Capital Programs, Design and Construction Management, Project Management, Strategic Planning, Park Property Management and Planning, Permitting Management, Construction Services, GIS and Community Image.

Marketing and Communication This Functional Division is usually an entirely lead function Division. For the Department to be successful these divisional functions must provide marketing and communication services that are cost effective, inspirational and targeted so that major attractions and core programs can be as successful as possible. The majority of the functions that are served by this Functional Division are important and Value Added and require very entrepreneurial thinking on all levels. The functions served under this division could include Agency/System Marketing and Branding, Public Information, Graphics, Customer Research, Customer Surveying, Intra-Communications, Social Networking, Publications, Advocacy Development, Visitor Services, Sales Office for Golf, Hospitality and Recreation Services, Reservations and Permitting and Online Registration.

Park Operations and Management This Functional Division is usually responsible for all maintenance of Parks and Natural Areas, Tree and Landscape Management, Aesthetics and Asset Management and Facility Management. This functional division can maximize the resources and talents of staff in one Functional Division. The majority of the functions are core essential functions with the exception of Tree and Landscape Management. As well as most of the functions are support functions with the exception of Natural Areas and Facility Management which are lead functions.

Business Operations and Attractions This Division would be a new division for the Department as it combines all attractions the Department operates and its primary focus is that all these functions need to operate in a businesslike manner. This requires the staff to think and operate like a private business using business principles and thinking into the daily operations of staffing, pricing of services, use of earned income opportunities to maximize their operational revenue funds to offset tax dollars. The value of having these operations in one division is that staff can become inter-changeable and the philosophy will be similar in each functional attraction. Business Plans will need to be created for each attraction, with set operating proforma’s, cost recovery goals, pricing strategies and targeted measurable outcomes. The Administrative and Support Division would need to work with this Functional Division to help them create business plans and performance measures. All functions are lead functions in the Division which requires an aggressive approach to achieve the financial sustainability desired.

Development, Fundraising and Advocacy This Functional Division seeks outside funding for the Department in the way of a park foundation, fundraising, grants, partnership development, volunteer coordination and sponsorship development. All functions are lead functions and are a combination of core essential, important and value added services. This division needs to operate in an aggressive self-supportive manner. The majority of this functional division is policy driven with clear financial principles to guide it development and management.

Recreation and Program Services This functional division should operate as one. One has to understand that programs drive energy into a Department and into facilities. It creates a life time customer and it will provide ongoing new customers if developed correctly. The majority of this Functional Division involves Lead Functions that are “important services” that will require a combination of tax and user fees to support its services. Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

199

ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING Figure 6.3 Proposed Organizational Chart

RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ADMINISTRATION

PLANNING & DESIGN

MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION

HR/PAYROLL

PLANNING AND RESEARCH

AGENCY/SYSTEM MARKETING

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CAPITAL PLANNING

AGENCY/SYSTEM BRANDING

WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

PUBLIC INFORMATION

ACCOUNTING SERVICES/BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

GRAPHICS

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT/ PROCUREMENT

STRATEGIC PLANNING

CUSTOMER RESEARCH

LEGAL SERVICES

GIS

PUBLICATIONS

INTRAGOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

TRAINING

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

200

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

PARK OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND ATTRACTIONS

DEVELOPMENT, FUNDRAISING AND ADVOCACY

RECREATION AND PROGRAM SERVICES

PARK MAINTENANCE

BUSINESS PLANNING

FOUNDATION RELATIONS

PROGRAMMING

TREE MANAGEMENT

STAFFING

FUNDRAISING

SPECIAL EVENTS

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

PRICING

GRANTS

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

ASSET MANAGEMENT

REVENUE GENERATION

PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

FACILITY OPERATIONS

FACILITY MANAGEMENT

VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT

SPONSORSHIPS

Section 6: Implementation and Action Plan

201

POTENTIAL 10 YEAR OUTCOMES POTENTIAL 10 YEAR OUTCOMES The 2014 Master Plan sets the stage for an improved Recreation and Parks Department that better serves residents, strengthens neighborhoods and creates economic value. Parks play a vital role in the social, physical, environmental and economic success of the City of Columbus. Implementing the strategies laid out in this Master Plan will require diligent work by CRPD leadership to plan for improvements and investment, to restructure departmental organization and to create a more sustainable financial model. Successful implementation will also require collaborating with other City departments and developing stronger relationships with public and private partners to deliver better programs, services and facilities to the community. Striving to meet the strategies and recommendations discussed in this Master Plan could yield impressive results, as outlined at right. In addition to serving current and future residents, new and updated parks city-wide will help solidify neighborhoods and lead to continued investment. The department can also play a leadership role in improving the environmental sustainability of Columbus by continuing to protect natural areas and expanding efforts to increase the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tree canopy. Continued expansion of the MultiUse Trail system throughout the city will increase access and connections between neighborhoods and parks and facilities. Updating and strategically adding Community Centers will create new opportunities for residents and enable access to programs and services that promote socially connected and active neighborhoods. Through better maintenance, stronger partnerships and improved marketing and communications, programs and services will be more effective and popular. Finally, a more balanced financial approach and an organizational restructuring will create a more effective and efficient department. CRPD should use the potential outcomes at right, the strategies and tactics in this section, and the Level of Service analysis (Page 90) as the benchmark for the next 10-plus years of implementation. These results should be tracked over time and goals should be adjusted and refined as accomplishments are made. This Master Plan is the framework for the success of both the department and the City of Columbus. Successfully implemented, the City of Columbus will not only have world-class parks and facilities city-wide, but also a happier, healthier and more sustainable community.

Potential 10 Year Outcomes The following are potential 10 year outcomes for the Master Plan:

Parks and Facilities New parks and facilities to address level of service issues and growth areas of the City 50 Updated Neighborhood Parks 10 Updated Community Parks Increased diversity in revenue through partnerships, earned income and other funding sources Increased maintenance standards, leading to safer, more user-friendly, and popular parks and facilities Increased tree canopy city-wide, led by CRPD efforts to plant more trees and create an integrated approach to management and maintenance 83 more miles of Multi-Use Trails city-wide and connector trails to neighborhoods, parks and facilities

Community Centers and Programming Partnerships with public and private entities to deliver better programs, services and facilities to Columbus residents New facilities to address level of service issues and growth areas of the City 10 Updated Community Centers Secure, well-maintained Community Centers that improve the user experience and popularity of facilities More effective and efficient program delivery that is responsive to the needs and desires of the community A more informed community that is aware of programs and services and has higher rates of participation

Financial and Organizational A more business-oriented approach to earned revenue, creating a more balanced and sustainable financial model for the department An organizational restructuring that creates a more efficient and effective department that both retains and attracts talent

202

2014 Columbus Recreation and Parks Master Plan

The 2014 Master Plan sets the stage for an improved Recreation and Parks Department that better serves residents, strengthens neighborhoods and creates economic value.