Loading...
BA 2004-03-01 CRDCPARK AND RECREATION BOARD / COPPELL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOTICE OF MEETING March 1, 2004 Meeting Time: 6:30 p.m. Meeting Place: Coppell Road Service Center 816 S. Coppell Road Coppell, Texas 75019 Notice is hereby given that the Coppell Park and Recreation Board / CRDC will meet at 6:30 p.m., Monday, March 1, 2004, in the Conference Room at Coppell Road Service Center. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following items: AGENDA (DRAFT) Item 1: Call the meeting to order (1 minute) Item 2: Citizen's Forum. Citizens should complete a Citizen's Appearance Form. Pursuant to the State Open Meetings Law, the Board is restricted in discussing or taking action on items not posted on the Agenda. Action on your statement can only be taken at future meetings. COPPELL RECREATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ITEMS Action Items: (Items requiring CRDC members' actions such as a motion or vote) Item 3: Consider approval of minutes from February 2, 2004 meeting. (3 minutes) PARK AND RECREATION BOARD ITEMS Information Items: (Requires no action by Park and Recreation Board) Item 4: Presentation by Raymond Turco, and discussion regarding the results of the 2003 Coppell Recreation Needs Assessment Survey (25 minutes) Item 5: Presentation by the Coppell Rotary Club, and discussion regarding the creation of a potential perennial garden in commemoration of the centennial of Rotary International. (20 minutes, Ken Hevron) Item 6: Presentation by the Coppell Economic Development Committee, and discussion regarding the potential impact of tree preservation on future development in Coppell. (25 minutes, William Rohloff) Item 7: Teen Sub-committee Report (10 minutes) - David Castillo, Sub-committee Chairman Item 8: Director's Report - Clean Coppell/Adopt-A-Location - Construction Progress Report - Special Events Report Item 9: Chair Report - Adopt-A-Location Work Day - Future Agenda Items I hereby certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the Bulletin board of Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas on Friday, February 27, 2004. Hilda Salazar, Admin. Support Supervisor PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT FOR ADA COMPLIANCE The City of Coppell acknowledges its responsibility to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Thus, in order to assist individuals with disabilities who require special services (i.e. sign interpretative services, akemative audio/visual devices, and amanuenses) for participation in or access to the City of Coppell sponsored public programs, services and/or meetings, the City requests that individuals make requests for these services forty-eight (48) hours ahead of the scheduled program, service and/or meeting. To make arrangements, contact Vivyon V. Bowman, ADA Coordinator, or other designated official at (972) 462-0022 or TDD 1-800-RELAY, TX, 1-800-735-2989). IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF COPPELL ORDINANCE NO. 95724 Carrying of a concealed handgun on these premises or at any official political meeting in the City of Coppell is illegal. Es ilegal llevar consigo un arma de fuego oculta dentro de este edificio, o en cualquier junta oficial de politica en la ciudad de Coppell. T H £ C ! T Y 0 ~' COl'FELL Date: To: From: RE: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM March 1, 2004 Park Board Brad Reid, Director Item 4: Presentation by Raymond Turco and discussion regarding the results of the 2003 Coppell Recreation Needs Assessment Survey. Ray Turco was commissioned in 2003 to perform a survey of the citizens of Coppell regarding their feelings and opinions about recreation in the city of Coppell. The survey was completed in December 2003 and the preliminary results have been tabulated. Mr. Turco is prepared to share the results with the Park Board at the March meeting. This information was shared with the City Council at their February 24, 2004 meeting. Enclosed in your packet is an Executive Summary of these results, which gives a synopsis of what is included in the presentation. As you will hear at the meeting, the results are very positive and reflect a citizenry that is pleased with the recreational offerings and facilities in Coppell. Of course, there are areas on which we can concentrate in the coming months. This item is for information only. RAYMOND Tueco & ASSOCIATES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over a 13-day period in December of 2003, Raymond Turco & Associates implemented the city's Parks and Recreation Customer Satisfaction Survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather scientifically valid input from residents relative to parks and recreational activities in Coppell. Attitudes were collected about utilization of facilities, as well as assessing safety, maintenance, and overall quality of recreational opportunities in the city. In addition, the survey allowed residents to voice their opinions about future recreational initiatives under consideration, including future capital improvement projects. Below are listed the highlights from our analysis of the project: PARKS AND RECREATION: UTILIZATION AND OPINION More than nine of ten residents sampled (93%) were either satisfied (51%) or very satisfied (42%) with the quality of recreation in their community, while 5% were dissatisfied (4%) or very dissatisfied (1%), resulting in a positive to negative ratio of 18.6 to 1. The satisfaction ratio was 32.3:1 in Area I (97%- 3%), compared to 18.8:1 in Area II (94%-5%), and 15.0:1 in Area III (90%-6%). Further attesting to the satisfaction held by residents, 85% rated parks and recreation as having improved during their tenure in the community, while 14% believed it had stayed the same and 1% rated it worse. Ninety-three percent of the sample acknowledged having visited or used a city park or park facility in the past 12 months. Additionally, three-fourths (75%) confirmed having visited the Coppell Aquatics and Recreation Center and two-thirds (68% and 64%) used a city athletic field or a multi-use trail. Participating in a city-sponsored youth athletic association was as popular as a non-city-sponsored league (38%-37%). Respondents were least likely to have visited or used the Coppell Senior Center (7%), participated in an adult athletic league (14%), or used the Wagon Wheel Park Tennis Center or the community garden (both 22%). There was a significant variance in utilization of the Aquatics and Recreation Center between people in Areas I and II (79% and 80%) and Area III (67%). Overall, Area I respondents were more likely than others to take advantage of city recreation opportunities. Membership in other health clubs (67%), no time or desire (65%), and aren't interested (55%) were the primary reasons selected by respondents as reasons residents might not use the Coppell Aquatics and Recreation Center. In addition, 49% felt cost of membership was why the facility was not utilized by all. Out of the seven pre-listed responses, survey participants were not as likely to choose the following reasons: unaware of facility (34%), programs don't fit needs (31%), and not convenient (10%). Survey participants were most satisfied with recreation services provided by the city for children ages 7-12 (73% satisfied - 4% dissatisfied, a ratio of 18.2 to 1). Ranking lower were services for young children under age 6 (70%-5%, 14.0:1), and adults ages 18-34 (59%-12%, 4.9:1), and ages 35-54 (61%-13%, 4.7:1). Recreation services for children ages 13-17 (50%-18%, 2.8:1) and adults over age 55 (37%-11%, 3.4:1) received the lowest ratios of satisfaction to dissatisfaction. No opinion responses were no lower than 22% (children, ages 7-12) and as high as 52% (adults, ages 55 and over), indicating a lack of information among a significant percentage of the population relative to recreational services. The 4th of July parade (71%), the Holiday parade (64%), and fireworks/picnic in the park (49%) were the city events in which residents most often participated. All other seven activities listed generated participation from less than one in five, including the Holiday Open House (19%), Clean Coppell/Earth Fest (18%), Family Fish (14%), and Sweethearts Ball (4%). Nineteen percent said they didn't participate in any city event. The city water bill insert (69%), The Citizens Advocate (60%), yard signs (57%), and the Recreation Program Guide and The Coppell Gazette (both 53%) were the sources residents generally turned to get information about recreational activities in Coppell. Among the 12 sources listed, respondents were less likely to utilize The Dallas Morning News (34%), Coppell Youth Sports Today and city's web site (both 33%), and sports associations (31%), and least likely to get information from town hall meetings (9%). ASSESSING CURRENT PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN COPPELL The quality of recreational facilities (96%-3%) secured the highest ratio of satisfaction to dissatisfaction, 32.0 to 1, among residents asked to assess general recreational attributes in Coppell. Respondents were also extremely satisfied with the quality of programs offered (86%-3%, 28.7:1), number of programs offered (86%-5%, 17.4:1), and number of recreational facilities (94%-5%, 15.7:1). In addition, survey participants were more positive about the number of soccer fields (72%-9%, 8.0:1) and baseball fields (66%-9%, 7.3:1) than the number of practice fields (63%-21%, 3.0:1). Satisfaction was also three times higher than dissatisfaction relative to the availability of non-athletic facilities for usage (60%-16%, 3.8:1), as well as athletic fields for usage (67%-19%, 3.5:1 ). There were few concerns over safety at city recreational facilities, as no more than four percent expressed dissatisfaction with the overall safety at city athletic fields (89%-2%, 44.5:1), city parks (93%-3%, 31.0:1), playgrounds (90%-3%, 30.0:1), or on city trails (84%-4%, 21.0:1). Intensity ratings showed residents to be most positive (very satisfied) about safety of city parks (43%), followed by city athletic fields (35%). The overall quality of the recreation center received the highest positive (satisfaction) to negative (dissatisfaction) assessment ratio (90%-2%, 45.0:1) from survey participants, followed by the Wagon Wheel Tennis Center (41%- 1%, 41.0:1). Residents were at least twenty times more positive than negative relative to the overall quality of city athletic fields (88%-3%, 29.3:1 ), senior citizen center (24%-1%, 24.0:1 ), city parks (95%-4%, 23.8:1 ), and trails in the city (86%-4%, 21.5:1). Seventy-four percent had no opinion as to the quality of the senior center, and 58%, the Wagon Wheel Tennis Center. The maintenance of the recreation center (92%-1%, 92.1:1) was the attribute to score the highest satisfaction ratio among residents in Coppell. Satisfaction was between 20 and 30 times greater than dissatisfaction regarding maintenance of playgrounds at city parks (91%-3%, 30.3:1), city athletic fields (88%-3%, 29.3:1), city parks (94%-4%, 23.5:1), and trails in the city (83%-4%, 20.8:1 ). More than two of three people sampled (68%) believed the trade-off between money paid versus services provided by the Parks and Recreation Department was a good (52%) or great (16%) value. By comparison, 29% judged the trade-off to be either a fair (23%) or poor (6%) value, equal to a positive ratio of 2.3 to 1. "I'm satisfied with the recreational facilities in Coppell" was the statement that generated the highest ratio of agreement to disagreement (93%-6%, 15.5:1) from residents. Of the five other statements, agreement was significant for the following: "1 have adequate avenues to voice my concerns about recreation in Coppell" (79%-13%, 6.1:1), "the existing park system is adequate" (83%-16%, 5.2:1), and "the city has a sufficient number of athletic fields" (72%-17%, 4.2:1). The two remaining statements had conflicting viewpoints, as a significant percentage disagreed that "the city should improve the existing parks and not develop any new ones" (56%- 40%, 1.4:1) and "1 am willing to pay additional city taxes to see the quality of parks upgraded" (42%-55%, 0.8:1). The only statement to solicit any degree of passion from respondents was being satisfied with recreational facilities in Coppell, with 29% strong agreement. In fact, the next highest intense rating was strong disagreement for being willing to pay additional taxes to upgrade parks, with 18%. ASSESSING FUTURE PARK AND RECREATIONAL NEEDS IN COPPELL Multi-use trails (17%), tennis courts/indoor/outdoor (14%), and roller skating/inline skating park and swimming pool/water park (both 7%) were the chief recreational facilities lacking by the city as outlined by survey participants. According to residents who responded to this open-ended question, the city was also lacking in a dog park (6%), parks (5%), and recreation center/larger gym, practice fields/public access, and racquetball courts (each 4%). The need for multi-use trails was universally identified throughout the city (16%-18%-19%). However, in Area II, that item ranked second, behind tennis courts/indoor/outdoor (16%-23%-5%), although demand was almost nonexistent in Area III. Interestingly, if was individuals who had not visited the Recreation and Aquatic Center who most often identified multi-use frails (33%-]4%) as the one facility the city was lacking. Trails were most popular to nonparents (26%, to 8% of parents of children under 6), long-termed city residents (] 5% of 0-4 years, fo ]6% of 5-]0 years, fo 24% of over ]0 years), and the senior portion of the survey sample (6% of under 35, fo ] 8% of 36-55, fo 2] % of over 55 year olds). Runs/marathon, walking/biking (10%) and arts and crafts/sewing and fitness/health/exercise/aerobics (both 9%) were the recreational programming suggestions most often generated by participants asked to identify possible programs in which they would participate, although not currently offered by the city. Other popular program suggestions from this open-ended query were adult sports league (over 40), aquatics/aerobics/swimming/polo, and racquetball (each 6%), and yoga (5%). Improvements to current trails in the city (75%-16%, 4.7:1) and renovation of playgrounds at existing parks (75%-18%, 4.2:1) were the two most popularly supported future capital improvement projects endorsed by Coppell residents. Rounding out the top five items were construction of additional trails in the city (75%-20%, 3.8:1), purchase of land for open space (69%-21%, 3.3:1), and construction of a nature center and nature trails (70%-27%, 2.6:1). Out of the 11 potential projects, registered voter households were least supportive of construction of a dog park (51%-44%, 1.2:1) and construction of a skate park (54%-38%, 1.4:1), although all items were supported by a majority of those sampled. Enthusiasm, in the form of strong support, was highest for construction of additional trails (27%) and construction of a nature center and nature trails (23%). Construct additional trails (14%), construct nature center/trails (12%), expand the Aquatic and Recreation Center and construct dog park (both 11%), and renovation of playgrounds (10%) were the top five facility-types identified as most important for the city to construct when respondents were only allowed to choose one out of the 11 potential projects mentioned previously. Confirming the recreational diversity of the community, all 11 items were listed as most important by at least one respondent, with the least important being improve current trails, mentioned by 5% of the sample. Benches or rest stations (81%-13%, 6.2:1), mile markers (77%-14%, 5.5:1), bike racks at trail entrances (76%-14%, 5.4:1), and informational kiosks at trail entrances (68%-13%, 5.2:1) were the trail-related improvements that drew the highest degree of support to opposition among survey participants. There was also a high amount of support for directional signage (76%-16%, 4.8:1). When compared to the other five suggestions, interest waned for fitness stations along trails (60%-29%, 2.0:1), although it did generate twice the support as opposition. More residents opposed (60%) than supported (37%) raising additional city tax dollars through the property tax, to upgrade school property for use as neighborhood parks and practice areas. As commentary against this action, strong opposition to this initiative was three times greater than strong support (29%-9%). The vast majority of residents sampled (88%) said that in the past year they had rarely or never visited the parks department web page on the city's web site. Only 1% of the sample visited the page daily, 3% weekly, and 9% on a monthly basis. The age subset most likely to have visited the web site either on a daily or weekly basis was the under 35 (12%-2%-1%). However, 71% of this subset still had visited the site rarely or never. The ability to determine what types of programs are offered and where (82%-17%, 4.8:1) and locations and hours of operation of recreational facilities (82%-18%, 4.6:1) were the top items of information that would likely encourage residents to visit the parks department web page if available. Residents would also be likely to visit the web page if announcements and information about special recreational events (78%-21%, 3.7:1), ability to register for programs (74%-23%, 3.3:1) and opportunity to contact the parks department with questions or concerns (77%-23%, 3.3:1) were made available. All five items drew similar very likely ratings (26%-23%), an indication that one statement was not any more of an enticement to get people to visit the web page than another, just similar interest in all information made available. T H £ C ! T Y 0 ~' COl'FELL Date: To: From: RE: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM March 1, 2004 Park Board Brad Reid, Director Item 5: Presentation by the Coppell Rotary Club, and discussion regarding the creation of a potential perennial garden in commemoration of the centennial of Rotary International. Members of the Coppell Rotary Club have requested to come before the Park Board to discuss a possible project at a city park. The Rotary Club is requesting authority to create a perennial garden at Andrew Brown Park East. The garden is proposed to be built and maintained by the Rotary Club. Members of the club will be present at the meeting to address the Board. What staff will be looking for from the Park Board is some direction about allowing such projects in the park system. The Parks Department has received a number of similar requests over the years, which have been denied because the feeling of staff is that if one such project is allowed, many will follow. There are numerous groups, organizations and associations in Coppell that might like the opportunity to place a plaque, memorial, tree, or other such indicator in a park for all to see. There is currently no ordinance or policy, which will prohibit this type of project in the park system. Concerns that staff has regarding this issue are the availability of water to a particular proposed location, the long term maintenance of such a garden and the precedent that is set by allowing the first project of this type. I do not anticipate that a decision will be made on this item at the March meeting. Discussion will be required by the Board to determine the desirability of such projects in the park system. T H £ C ! T Y 0 ~' COl'FELL Date: To: From: RE: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM March 1, 2004 Park Board Brad Reid, Director Item 6: Presentation by the Coppell Economic Development Committee, and discussion regarding the potential impact of tree preservation on future development in Coppell. Members of the Coppell Economic Development Committee have requested to address the Park Board/Tree Board regarding tree preservation issues and their impact on potential future development in the city. Members of the Committee will be present at the meeting to address the Board. The Tree Board created the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance over an approximate two-year period and worked it through the approval of City Council in 1999. There was much discussion at the time of the implementation of this ordinance about the impact of tree preservation on potential developments. The emphasis of the ordinance is to create more awareness by potential developers that preserving the existing forest is highly regarded in Coppell. The focus is not to disallow or discourage development, or to create a large amount of money in a city Tree Reforestation Fund. The desire of the community at the time the ordinance was created was to protect as much of this irreplaceable natural resource as possible. Although not always the case, responsible development of a particular track of land will often not remove the entire forest from the site. Yes, there may be additional costs associated with preserving trees but the quality of the development can be enhanced many times over by doing SO. However, the economy has changed over the past several years and developers are more cautious with the costs of development. They can easily move their plans to other communities if the costs of development are too high in Coppell. The Economic Development Committee will be requesting that the Park Board work with them to identify possible areas of relief. I do not anticipate that a final decision will be made on this item at the March meeting. Discussion will be required by the Board to determine what action should be taken regarding this situation. If the Tree Preservation Ordinance is to be altered in any way, time will be required to study the impacts.