Norwalk Draft Recreation and Parks Master Plan Presentation

FOUR STEP PROCESS

1

2

3

4

Data Collection Needs and Priorities Long-Range Vision Implementation Planning

• Demographics

• Base Map

• Park Evaluations

• Program Evaluations

• Level of Service Analysis

• Public Engagement

 Community Workshops

 Focus Groups

 Stakeholder Interviews

 Online Survey

• Statistical Survey

• Long-Range Projects

• Subsystem guiding principles

• Cost Estimate

• Implementation Strategies:

 Phasing

 Alternative Funding

 Partnerships

 Priority Projects

• Strategic Plan

PROJECT TIMELINE

We Are Here

GUIDING DOCUMENTS

• Norwalk Tomorrow (Citywide Plan POCD 2019-2029);

• City of Norwalk Recreation and Parks Master Plan (1993);

• Norwalk Pedestrian Plan;

• Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan (2012);

• WestCOG Hazards Mitigation Plan (2016-2020)

• Various Park Master Plans (Ryan Park, Veteran’s Park, Cranbury Park, Oyster Shell Park, Freese Park);

• TOD Redevelopment Plan (2016)

• Capital improvements program (historic and current);

Recreation and Parks Goals & Strategies:

Goal #1: Norwalk aims to have the best city park and recreation system in Connecticut.

• Develop a parks, open space, and recreation system plan, including a management plan, that emphasizes connectivity and promotes healthy lifestyles.

• Identify opportunities to provide more public access to water, including streams as well as the Norwalk River and coastline.

Goal #2: Norwalk’s park and recreation system serves residents throughout the city while protecting and managing natural resources.

• Seek park opportunities in underserved areas of the city to work towards providing walking access to a park for every resident (within half-mile).

DEMOGRAPHICS TRENDS

Age Group Growth Rates (2010-2021)

Youth (Under Age 19)

Population Density (2020)

Senior (Age 65+)

Population Density (2020)

Race/Ethnicity Density (2020)

PARK EVALUATIONS

Best Scoring Parks

• Ryan Park (87)

• Oyster Shell (86)

• Calf Pasture (82)

• Mathews Park (82)

• Washington Street Park (81)

Lowest Scoring Parks

• Veterans Park (61)

• Springwood (49)

• River Edge (47)

• Woodward Ave. (47)

• Andrews Field (39)

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS

1 FACILITIES:

2

ACREAGE:

• Currently at 11.67 acres of public parkland per 1,000 population (City provides 9.6 ac)

• Above national and peer community averages, but below prior standard (12.0 ac per 1,000)

• City will need 91+ acres of parkland by 2040.

ACCESS: 3

• Many facilities above national averages.

• Most needed to keep existing LOS: Multipurpose Fields (3), Tennis Courts (4), Basketball Courts (3), and Playgrounds (3).

STAFF & FUNDING: 4

• Staffing: Below peer averages between 5.5 and 10.75 FTE positions

• Expenditures: Below national average for per capita (2%).

Peer Communities: Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, Danbury

10-min walk 20-min walk 15-min bike ride

PROGRAM INVENTORY

• Currently offer 9% of typical programs/ events most agencies offer

• Good distribution of enrollment geographically; matches density

• Biggest barrier is indoor space.

Where people are coming from:

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT KEY TAKEAWAYS

Recreation Staff:

• Best Programs: swim lessons, sports, camp

• Biggest Challenges: Staffing, technology, facilities, working with schools

• Underserved Markets: Special needs, seniors, teens

Elected Officials

• Maintenance is not equitable

• Staffing resources is a primary challenge

• Maintenance of school parks is a challenge

• Access to fields and other facilities is a challenge

• Lack activities for teens and seniors

• Prioritize waterfront access

• Need indoor/year-round facility

Focus Groups

• Prioritize access to waterfront

• Improve fields and access

• Staffing is limited and impact parks

• Need more pocket/urban parks

• Biggest barriers are access and affordability for youth

• Stewardship of parks is important

• Improve bike/ped access to parks

Top 8 Barriers

to Visiting Parks or Participating in

Recreation Programs

I do not know what is offered

Top barrier nationally

Lack of Restrooms

I do not know locations of parks

Lack of sidewalks or bike lanes

#1 for Hispanic/Latino and Black households

Parks are too far Security is insufficient / loitering

Programs/Facilities not offered Parks are too crowded

#1 for households with children

Recreation Facilities with Most Community Need

Percent of households with less than 50% of current need being met

Note: Estimated percent of households in City of Norwalk

#1,

88% of households with need for Pools have no where else to go

Recreation Activities with Most Community Need

Percent of households with less than 50% of current need being met

Note: Estimated percent of households in City of Norwalk

Water-Related Activities (Fishing, Swimming, etc.)

Nature Parks & Preserves #3 needed facility Growing national trend

Pools #5 facility need & 85% households with need have nowhere to go

Top 8 Actions Residents are Willing to Support with Tax Dollars:

Maintain existing beach parks and water access

Maintain existing parks

Develop new trails & connect existing trails

Improve existing beach parks and waterfront parks

Acquire more open space and natural lands

Top two priorities focus on maintaining existing parks

Top priority for under age 34

Acquire land and develop more neighborhood parks

Maintain existing school parks

Develop new aquatic facilities

Top priority for households with children under 10 (38%)

NEEDS ASSESSMENT MATRIX

 Top 10 needs for Facilities and Programs/Activities



Summary of results

 Weighted to level of need identified through 12 techniques

VISION COMPONENTS



Five components all unique to Norwalk:

 Waterfront, Natural and Regional Parks

 Community and Neighborhood Parks

 Athletic Facilities

 School Parks

 Programs

 Each has a set of guiding principles.

VISION GOALS

1. Provide high-quality parks and facilities and address maintenance needs

2. Access to parks within a 10-min walk or 15-min bike ride

3. Identify and secure alternative funding sources

4. Provide year-round indoor recreation opportunities

5. Provide inclusive and equitable programming

6. Enhance the resiliency of waterfront facilities

7. Meet existing and future staffing needs

8. Promote collaborative partnerships with Norwalk Public Schools, nonprofits, and private entities

9. Plan and develop a comprehensive greenway and blueway trail network.

10. Development standards for urban solutions

FOR NORWALK RECREATION AND PARKS

FUNDING ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTATION

Takeaways:

• Inflation has resulted in less value to the funding increases; reducing to 24% increase since 2014.

• Department cost recovery rate approximately 19% for 2023, lower than the national average of 26%.

• Less than 30% of revenue comes of programming fees; majority (62%) come from City’s three regional parks.

• Recreation Programming has high cost recovery rate, but is limited due to lack of indoor space to expand offerings

Department Funding (2012-2023)

COST ESTIMATE IMPLEMENTATION

Takeaways:

Long-Range Vision Capital Costs: Reinvestment vs. New

• $43 million in reinvestment in existing parks and facilities.

• $99.8 million in total proposed capital projects.

• Historic capital improvement funding trends may provide approximately $46.25 million, or 79% of needed funding over next 10 years, requiring additional sources.

STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION

• Phasing projects:

• Short-Term (1-3 Years); highest needs

• Medium-Term (4-6 Years); identify partners

• Long-Term (7-10 Years); longest to implement

• Vision (10+ Years); lower priorities

• Alternative Sources: Parks foundation, additional revenues (contractors fees).

• Grant Stacking: leveraging match funding.

• Cost Recovery: Re-evaluate goals, capture more for reinvestment into parks.

• Complimentary providers and partners: nonprofits, private, faith based, business community, etc.

• Project Prioritization: weighted criteria, all 120+ projects scored:

• Intended to be reviewed and updated regularly

• Not intended to be the order of completion

Capital Project Prioritization Criteria

SHORT-TERM PRIORITY PROJECTS (1-3

HIGHEST SCORED (TOP 20)

9

STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION

Takeaways:

• 40.7% of total capital costs projects in the next ten (10) years.

• Short-term capital projects have a probable cost estimate of $19.3 million.

• Short-term projects will require an additional $341,500 in operating and maintenance (O&M) costs annually, resulting in approximately 3-4 additional FTE positions.

• If all strategies are implemented, results could provide 120%+/- of capital funding needed over next 10 years, allowing for flexibility.

Percentage of Capital Costs by Phase

SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING

67% Willingness to Pay additional property taxes to fund important improvements for Parks and Recreation

21% of Households with children

68% Willingness to Pay additional user fees or charges for favorite activity or program (per person/per event)

25% Under Age 44 Not Willing

47% Over Age 65 Not Willing

35.7% of Households with children

ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE STRATEGIC PLAN

Takeaways:

• 10 visionary goals & 40 measurables objectives

• Each objective includes a defined timeframe and role for the Department.

• Emphasizes:

• Meeting residents’ needs and priorities

• Identifying and securing resources and staffing needed

• Effective and efficient best practices

• Maintaining public investment in infrastructure

PROJECT TIMELINE

We Are Here

COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING YOUR INPUT TONIGHT

VISIT PROJECT WEBSITE YOUR INPUT