Loading...
8THE C ITY OF PLEASAN T LI V ING To: FROM: Via: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM The Honorable Mayor & Members ofthe City Commission Steven Alexander, City Manager Quentin Pough, Director of Parks and Recreation 0 May 16, 2017 Agenda Item NO.: __ O_ A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt the City of South Miami Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix. The City entered into a contract with Miller Legg in February 2014 to prepare a citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan (the "Plan") for the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Plan's purpose is to advance the mission and vision of the Parks and Recreation Department to further the establishment of a high quality parks system by establishing a community-defined set of priorities that maximizes the effectiveness of the Department and its resources. In order to maintain the relevance and competency of the Plan, expenditures and installations of items from plants to facilities should be included in the Plan either by continuity of purpose or theme of the individual park or specifically as amended to the Plan by resolution of the City Commission. Therefore, any significant addition to a park should be authorized in advance by resolution of the City Commission. The Plan includes a community profile, physical inventory and site assessment of the existing parks, facilities and recreation programs, recommendations for current and future improvements, land acquisition and capital project development. The development of the Plan has been a collaborative effort between City officials, staft Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members, residents, and the Miller Legg team. This Plan was reviewed and revised based on input from the public workshops which were held on June 25, 2015, June 27, 2015, September 17, 2016, September 27, 2016, as well as per the final public presentation workshop on March 9, 2017. The attached Plan provides a focused and complimentary direction for the development and delivery of the City's parks and recreation system over the next eight (8) to ten (10) years and provides a predictable plan for THE C ITY OF PLEASANT LIVING AnACHMENTS : CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM expenditures and programs such that adequate budgeting can be established and anticipated . Resolution Parks and Recreation Master Plan Parks and Recreation Master Plan -Appendix 1 2 3 4 5 RESOLUTION NO.: _____ _ A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt the City of South Miami Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix. 6 WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with Miller Legg in February 2014 to prepare a 7 citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan (the "Plan") for the Department of Parks and 8 Recreation; and 9 10 WHEREAS, the Plan's purpose is to develop a citywide comprehensive vision for South 11 Miami's parks and recreation system; including, a physical inventory and site assessment of the 12 existing parks and facilities, recommendations for current and future improvements, land 13 acquisition and capital project development; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the development of the Plan has been a collaborative effort between City 16 officials, staff, residents, and the Miller Legg team; and 17 18 WHEREAS, this Plan was reviewed and revised per public workshops on June 25, 2015, June 19 27, 2015, September 17, 2016, September 27, 2016, as well as per the final public presentation 20 workshop on March 9, 2017; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the attached final document now has those recommendations and changes 23 within the Plan; and 24 25 WHEREAS, The Mayor and City Commissioners desires to have the City Manager adopt the 26 South Miami Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix. 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY 29 OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT: 30 31 Section 1: The City Manager is hereby authorized to adopt the South Miami Parks and 32 Recreation Master Plan and Appendix prepared by Miller Legg. 33 34 Section 2: If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held 35 invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the 36 validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. 37 38 Section 3: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______ , 2017. ATIEST: APPROVED: CITY CLERK MAYOR 48 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM COMMISSION VOTE: 49 LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND EXECUTION Mayor Stoddard 50 THEREOF Vice Mayor Welsh 51 Commissioner Edmond 52 Commissioner Liebman 53 CITY ATIORNEY Commissioner Harris 54 PREPARED BY: MILLE ~EGG "0 IlI ... r 1l1 ... f" " I I CI1 I ~ Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 1 7 Introd uction Chapter 2 10 Community Profile Chapter 3 20 Existing Parks, Facilities , and Programs Chapter 4 28 Public Involvement Chapter 5 34 Demond Analysis Chapter 6 48 Planning Recommendations Chapter 7 58 Planning Impleme ntation Acknowledgements The development of the City of Sou th M iami Park s and Recreation Master Plan has been a col laborative effort between City officials, staff, and residents, and the Miller Legg team . The project team would like to offer their deepest gratitude to those residen ts who participated in the public workshops and online public survey which informed this Plan. Your contributions have been an integral part of the p lanning process. Project Team CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI MILLER LEGG Mayor Philip K. Stoddard Pres ident Mike Kro ll Vice Mayor Robert We lsh Planner Vanessa Ruiz Commiss ioner Gabriel Edmond Commissioner Josh Liebman Commissioner Walter Harris City Manager Stev e n Alexander Deputy City Manag e r Shari Kamali Director of Parks & Re c reation Quentin Pough r ____ .. &: •• _ ,.. •• __ .. _ •• I:X~t;U1IVt: ~UIIII ICiry The City of South Miami desires to exemplify exce ll ence in parks and recreat ion, and become a model municipality recogni zed fo r its excellent parks and recreation faciliti es and programs. To meet th e curr ent and fu ture parks and recreation needs o f th e City , as wel l as national and regional standards , it is recommended that th e City of South Miami implement changes th at address the maj or areas described below: Urgent Maintenance Based on in put fr o m th e publi c, input from th e City, and an analysis of existing site condi t ions , maintenance needs have been prioritized t o fir st reso lve issues re lating to safety and liability. Th ese maintenance needs include replacement o f det er iorating park compo nent s and addition of new components th at improve sa fe ty . Such it ems in c lud e the deteriorated ra ilroad tie fencing around Dante Fascell Park that is creosote-Iaiden, and in need of serio us repair; fencing a long th e ca nal at Brewer Park which is mi ss in g p ickets in areas near the p la yground; and th e addit ion of fencing and li ghtin g at Van Sm ith Park to prevent unwanted night-time activit y , and p reserve privacy for adjacen t residents. These , and other main t enance it ems, have been outli ned in this Plan a s part of th e immediate c ost s necessary to implement Phase One of th e Plan. Urgent Operational Changes A c om p ari son o f e xisting operati o ns t o n a ti o nal and re gional standards, as illustrated in Cha p ter 5, demon strat e d th e o p erational areas the City should most urgently address. The most urgent operational changes for the City include enhancing th eir full-time to part-t ime emp loyee rat io by in c reasing part-tim e staf fin g . Thi s additional staffing wi ll a ll ow the City to implement the urgent maintenance needs to be addressed in Phase One, as we ll as provide fo r regular maintenance , in spections , a nd improved se rv ic in g of the facilities as the facilities are en hanced and the p arks system expanded throughout the p lanni ng peri od . Land Changes The City 's Comprehensive Plan currently requires 4 acres of park land per l ,OOO residents. At present, the City meets the Comprehensive Plan's park land requ ir ement w ith a l -acre su rp lus. To comply with th is level-of-serv ice requ ir ement in th e future , the Ci ty wi ll need to add 20.5 more acres over th e next t en years to t heir exist in g 48 acres in t hei r parks and recreation system . 15,511 2 17,084 2 68,3 Ta bl e 1.1 Req uired Park Lan d Ac res by Ph ase (4 ac res per 1,000 person s) No tes 1. Uni ted States Census Burea u (2 01 0). 2010 Cens us. Re trieved from htt p!/factfinder.censusgov / 2. Bu reau of Economic and Bu siness Resea rch. (2 01 5). Po pu la tion Projec- tion by Age for 2000-2040 . University of Florida . Re trieve d from htt p!/ flho usingda ta.sh imberg .ufl.edu /a/popula tion?ac tion = res ults&nid = 4372 The increase in park land will enable the City to provide additio nal facil iti es based on current and anticipated demands of certain uses as identified from population p roj ec tio ns, public input and national st andards illust ra t ed in t his documen1. Th e solutions d iscussed in this p lan in clude some op ti o ns that are based on use agreements, which can greatl y redu ce the costs of attaining park land . Other so lutions to atta ining t he requ ired park la nd a re based on a need fo r improved geograp hi cal d ist ribution of parks w it hin t he City. St ra t egic areas h ave been identified that currently do not provide res idents with a park wi t hin a wa lkable d istance . A ttaining parks in t he st rateg ic locatio ns iden tifi ed in t his p lan wi ll provide many resident s w it h a park th at is a five -m in u t e wa lk from their horne. Annual Increase of Operating Funds To ensure the Ci t y is able to rea lize th e recommenda ti ons of thi s Pla n , t he City should utili ze the Plan as a guide fo r providing an annua l increase of operating funds that incorporates the anticipa t e d costs for eac h phase of t h is Pl an int o t he a n n u a l budget . Since phases of t h is plan range from immediate needs to a five-year planning period, formulation of th e annual increase in funds shou ld be done w ith cons ideration o f those rec omm e ndations that may take more than a ye ar t o implement. Th e anticipated costs including land, improvements, st a ffin g, and operations, are outlined in C ha pter 7, Planning Implementations. Implementa tion in th ese areas is the first o f many steps outlined in thi s Master Plan needed to ultimately raise th e standard of South Miami 's parks system to be on p ar w ith other nearby communi ti es, a nd to serve as a role mod e l for municipal parks systems. Benefits of Parks & Recreation and the Need for a Vision Public parks, recreation p rog rams, and open spaces are crucia l e lements to t he City o f South Miami's vision . They define the bui lt environment and support an im proved q u a lit y of life for City res idents, making Sout h Miami a great place t o li ve, work and play. Sout h Miami has always had a str ong comm it ment t o recreation. C ity leaders have come to rea li ze that open space and recreational opportuniti es have had a major inftu ence on how residents and v isito rs perceive th e ir community. The p rovisio n of parks, recreational facili ti es, and open spaces is based on th e desi re by most people to have opportuniti es for the enjoyment of th e outdoor environment in an urban sett in g. The phys ica l and psychological benefits of outdoor activ iti es are wel l-accepted va lue s. Access t o parks leads to increased physica l exe rcise, wh ich he lps improve overal l hea lth, including reducing th e ri sk o f obesit y, heart disease, and d iabet es. Parks a lso provide opportuniti es to connect with na t ure, socialize, and partic ipa t e in le isure acti vit ie s, w hi ch reduces th e risk of stress-re lated disorders . Parks have also been shown to increase propert y va lu es of adjacent property for both res idential and commercia l uses . Park availability can attract new residents and work force, and park attendance can lead to increased numbers of pa trons to nearby bus in esses. Social benefits includ e an enhanced sense of commu nity and p lace. Parks p rovide places for residents to come together at community events and programs. Park access has also been tie d to c rime reduction and Chapter 1: Introduction reduced juvenile delinquency, providing safe places for youth to interact w ith one a no t her. Open space and recreational lands are recogn ized for more th an th eir ind iv idual bene fit s. There are broad publi c values in the improvement of air quali ty and reduction of noise, protection of habitat for animal and plant species, and v isua l re lief from th e comp lexity of the urban environm e nt. Thi s Parks and Recreation Master Plan was created t o e n sure that these values are met and continu e to be provided to a ll ci ti ze ns of South Miami . Figure 1.2 Parks provide oppor tu ni ties to connec t wi th na tur e. Purpose of the Master Plan The Plan has been prepared in response to th e desire o f th e City's inspired leaders hi p and the res id en t s o f South Miami to have an outstanding program o f recreation and park faci liti es for themselves and future generations as th e City continues to mature over the next ten years . Visioning Process This plan's vis ionin g process consisted of an inventory and analysis of the City 's existing parks, facilities , and programs; analysis of existing and projected City demographics; a compari son to nationa l sta ndards of parks, fa c ilities , and serv ices; and cons id e ration of th e needs and desires of the C it y and its residents. The in ve ntory and analysis of th e parks syste m involved field vis it s by Miller Legg and MCHarry Architects to determine th e conditions of the fa ci lities' existing condition , and to observe events and behaviors of each site. Pub lic involvement from on li ne opinion surveys and public workshops, w h ich are detailed in this Plan, were uti lized during development of the rec o mmendations. Figure 1.5 Residents provide their inpu t at a public workshop Figure 1.4 Field visit at Jean Willis Park Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Community Profile Parks are essentia l to a person's well-being. However, what people need in a park, what they envision as a park, and what they want to do at a park varies greatly by individual, and even b y comrnunity. To understand what parks characte ri st ics would best sui t the residents of South Miami, a st udy of th eir demographics and signifi cant city characteristics were examined to build a p rofile of the City. This p rofi le allowed us to generali ze needs and pote ntial desires for th e popula tion. Chapter 2: Community Profile ft _______ L: __ U t: III ug rei p 1111i~ An examination of ex isting and forecasted demographic conditions for the City was undertaken in development of t h e Plan. The fo ll owing section detail s the demograph ic characteristics by age, race and ethnicity, economics, hous ing, and ed u cat ion. Th is comprehensive demographical analysis was used to evaluate City needs for park land acreage, fac ili ties, and services. Parks data was gathered from field v isits, in formation rece ived from the C it y of South Miami, and t he Miami-Dade County Property Appra ise r. This chapter of th e Master Plan provides in fo rmati on o n t he demographic profile of South Miami that is pertinent to recreational facility programming . 1. United States Census Bureau . (20 10 ). 20 10 Census . Ret rieved from htt p://factfindercensus .gov/ 2. Bureau of Economic and Business Research . (20 15). Projec ted Tota l Popula tion, Sou th Miami, 20 10-2040 . University of Florida . Re trieved from htt p:// flhousingdatashimberg .ufledu /a/profiles?ac tion=resul ts&nid = 4372 (See Appendix B for me thodology) Chapter 2: Commun ity Profile n Indian and Alaskan Native nn'./Prnl level Table 2.1 Demographic Data Notes : 2,696 3,641 3,236 1,985 31 459 5 $33.468 23 .1% 4,512,990 31.2% 4,696 ,770 27.8% 5,196 ,698 17 .9% 4,394,852 17.0% 2,999,862 0.3% 71.458 3.9% 454 ,821 0.0% 12,286 1.7% 681.144 2.0% $26.499 7.7% 13.1% 24 .0% 83 ,267 ,556 27.0% 25.0% 82 ,829,589 26.8% 27.6% 85,562,485 27.7% 23.4% 57,085,908 18.5% 75 .0% 223,553,265 72.4% 16.0% 38,929,319 12.6% 0.4% 2,932,248 0.9% 2.4% 14,674,252 4.8% 0.1% 540,013 0.2% 3.6% 19 ,107 ,368 6.2% 63.7% 19 .9% $28,555 12.2% 11 .5% 16.5% 15.6% 1. Un ited States Censu s Bureau . (20 10) 2010 Census. Retrieved from http //factfindeLcensus .gov/ 2. Uni ted States Census Bureau . (20 14). 20 10-2014 American Communi ty Survey Re trieved from http //fac tfindeLcensus.gov/ Age Age characteristics of a communi t y can help define what uses are most likely to be in higher demand and to succeed if implemented .. According to the U.S. 20 10 Census, the median age within the City of South Miami is 36.7, which is below the State of Florida's median age of 40.7, and sl ightly be low the nationa l median age o f 37.2 (see Table 2.1). The age b reakdown from the 20 10 Census population found 2,696 aged 19 years and younger (23.1 % of tota l popula tion), 3,6 4 1 aged 20-39 years (31.2% of total population), 3,236 aged 40-59 years (27 .8% of total population), and 2,08 4 aged 60 and older (17.9 % of total population) (see Table 2.2). The Chapter 2: Community Profile City Population Projections by Age Age Group 2010 Population 1 2020 Population2 I 2025 Population2 Percent Change Vo-ge 0-19 2,696 !Age 20-39 3,641 Vo-ge 40-59 3,236 Vo-ge 60-75+ 2,084 ~otal' ~1,6S7 Table 2.2 Ci ty Popula tion Projec tions by Age ~Iot es 3,447 5,407 3,603 3,054 lS,SU 3,,948 46.4% '5,;'f7iSB 58 .8% ,3,;89 B 20 .2% 3,,464 66.2% 111,184 46.6~ 1. United States Census Bur eau . (2 010 ) 20 10 Cen sus. Re tr ieve d from htt p//factfinder.census .gov/ 2. Bureau of Econo mic and Bus iness Research. (2015) Popula tion PrOject ion by Age for 2000-2040 . University of Florida. Retrie ved from http //flho using- data .shimberg . uf l.ed u/a/popu la tion?ac tio n = result s&n id = 4372 BEBR pop ulation projections show a st eady in c rease in the perce nta ge o f thos e yo unger than 40 , the least increase in the percentage of the popu lation between ages 40 to 59, and th e most in c rease in th e percentage of the pop ulation aged 60 and o ld e r. Based on th ese p rojections, young adults and those over sixty years o ld are th e fast es t-g rowi ng populati ons, wh il e c hildren and tho se in th eir fortie s and fifties are the slowest-g ro w in g populations. Pro p o sed uses should take into account and appeal t o o ld er popu lations and young adults t o best serve th e Ci t y's popula tion. Race Figure 2.3 Demograph ic percen tage by race Chapter 2: Community Profile Race and Ethnicity Race and ethni c it y of a population ca n indi cat e whe th er some activities may be more popu lar or not based on cu ltu ral differences. For instan ce, in areas w ith a hi gh percent age of hispanic res id ents, soccer is a frequent past-t im e for fa m ili es, and soccer league p rog ram s are well-attended. Th e population of So uth Miami is compri sed of 75.1 % white, 17.0% Black o r African Am e rican , 3.9% As ian , 3.7% that identif y as "some other race " or "two ra ces or more," and 0 .3% American Indian and Alaskan Native. 43.1% id entify themse lves as Hi spanic Et hnicity Figure 2.4 Demographic percen tage by ethnici ty or La t ino w ith 59.9 % of that group identifying as Cuban . The percent of persons, age 5 years a n d older, w here languag e other than Engl ish was spoken at home is 48.4 %. From Figures 2 .3 a nd 2.4 , it is evident that th e Ci t y h as a large hi spa ni c p o pu la t ion. Th e C it y is pre d omina n t ly whi t e, w ith t he next largest racia l g roup being b lack. Economy INCOME AND POVERTY In com e ca n have a majo r im pac t o n famili es and in divid u a ls, and on w h at so rt s of recreatio n they are more li ke ly t o pa rt ic ipat e in. Th ose w ith little fin a nc ial means may n eed rec reationa l progra m s suc h as after sc hool care, certa in fitness classes, pub li c fitn ess cen t ers and f ac iliti es, and oth er a m eniti es t o reduce th ei r costs on fitness . Those w ho have higher levels o f income may opt for p ri va t e fit ness g ro u ps, classes, o r ce nte rs. An unders tand in g of t he in come o f a community m a y also he lp in u nderstandin g w hat programs woul d succeed. Fo r insta nce, activ iti es w hi c h o ft e n pa ir wi t h p riva t e lesso n s, o r th a t requir e hi g h er fees th an o th er Income and Poverty South FI 'd United Characteristics Miami on a States Median household income Pe r capita income Pe rsons in poverty Pe rsons in c iv il ian labor force, age 16+ Fe males in civili an labor force, age 16+ $54,476 $46,956 $53,046 $3 1,873 $26,236 $28,155 14.2% 16.5% 14.8% 68.3% 59.7% 63.8% 64.6% 55.6% 59.0% Table 2.3 City income and pover ty comparison to Fl orida and the U.S activities , may not succeed in cities with a low-income population. Accord ing to th e "2009-2013 American Com munity Survey" by th e U. S. Census Bu rea u , the Median household income in South Miami was est imated at $5 4,4 76, w hich is h ig h er t han t he state's Median househo ld income of $46,956 , and the U.S. Median house ho ld in come o f $53,0 46. The same survey es ti mated th e Ci ty 's per capita income at $3 1,873, which is a lso hi g h e r t ha n the sta t e's per capita income of $26,236, a n d t h e U.S. per capit a income o f $28,155 . The survey a lso es t ima t ed the persons in poverty w it hin t h e Ci ty at 14.2%, wh ic h is lowe r t han t he sta t e's povert y rate of 16.5 %, a n d the U.S . poverty rate of 14.8%. The "2009-20 13 Ame ri can Commun it y Survey" fou nd tha t t he percent o f the popu lation aged 16 years and o lder in the c ivilian labor force was 68.3% including p articipat ion by 64 .6% o f females aged 16 years and older . These rate s a re higher in comparison t o the sta t e's, w h ic h has 59.7% of t he popu latio n aged 16 years ond o lder in the civi lian labor force , includ ing 55.6% fema le partic ipa ti on . The City's rates are a lso higher than t he n ational rates, which includes 63.8% of the popu la t ion aged 16 years o nd o lder in the c iv ilian labor fo rce, in clud ing 59 .0% fema le partic ipat ion. The City has a st rong income profile, however, it shou ld be noted that the eas t ern portions of t he C ity contain neighborhoods w ith low-income residents, whi le o t her areas have higher-than-average income levels. The se factors should be c onsidered in the recommendat ions. BUS INESS Th e numbe r of businesses, and their financial stability, are an indicator of th e overall economic well- being of a City. Chapter 2: Co mmunity Profile According to the "2007 Economic Census Survey of Business Owners" by the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 2,325 businesses in South Miami, and of those businesses, 1,018 (44%) were rninority-owned. City records indicate that currently there are approximately 3,300 businesses within the City. The "2007 Economic Census" also indicated total retail sales in South Miami to be $187,50 1,000 with a retai l sa les per capita rate of $17,133 per person, which is higher than the state retail sa les per cap ita rate o f $14,353, and the U.S. retail sales per capita rate of $12,990. The City has an overall strong business community, w ith many of those businesses being minority-owned. This indicates that the business community of the C ity is diverse, intel ligent, and robust. Housing Housing characteristics are telling of whether a population has more families or sing le-occupancy, renters or homeowners, and permanent or tem porar y res idents. The "2009-20 13 American Community Survey" found that there were 4,055 households with an Figur e 2.5 Neighborhoods in the Ci ty are primarily single family homes, bu t have a lower ra te of owner-occupied housing than th e state and nation . Chapter 2: Community Profi Ie average of 2 .90 persons per house hold in South Miami. The persons per hou sehold ratio is higher in South Miami than in Florida, which has 2.6 1 persons per household , and the U.S ., which has 2.63 persons per household. The survey a lso indicated that 86.6% of people lived in the same home for at least a year, which is higher than the rate for both Florida (83.7 %), and the U.S . (84.9 %). According to City data, there are approxima t ely 3,730 hou se holds currently within the City. Although the number of households vary between City reco rds and t he American Community Survey, the City records are more accurate. The American Community Survey data is based off estimated households from the 20 10 Decennial Census rather than an actual count of households . The survey a lso found that owner-occupied housing units accounted for a total of 59.9% of th e market. The City's rate is less than the rate for Florida, 67.1 %, and that for the U.S., 64.9%. The lower than average rate of owner-occupied housing sugges ts that South Miami has a h igher amount of rental units. This finding may be due to the proximity to the Uni ve rsit y of Miami, which increases the amount of coll ege-aged population in the area, most of whom are renters. Based on findings from the American Community Survey, t he median home value in 20 13 was $344,400. The Florida Department of Revenue Sa les Data Files , derived from Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser information, found that the median sales price for single family homes and condominiums w ithin the City fell from a high of $580,000 in 2007 to a low of $325,000 in 2009, and has rebounded to $450,000 as of 20 14. Education According to the "2009-20 13 American Community Survey" by the U. S. Census Bureau, the percent of persons age 25 and older w ith at least a high school diploma was estimated t o be 88.7%. South M ia m i has a comparable ra t e of persons with a high school degree or h igher than Florida's percentage rate (86.1%) a n d th e natio n 's ra t e (86.0%). The survey a lso found that the percent of th e popu lation in th e City with a Bache lor's degree, or higher, was 44% with 18 .9% hold ing a graduate or p ro fess io na l degree. The City has a higher ra t e of higher education degree attainment than both Flo rida and the U.S. O f the state's popu lation, 26.4% have a bachelor's degree or higher, and 9.5% have a graduate or professional degree. In the U.S ., 28.8% have a bache lor's deg ree o r hig h er, and 10.8% have a graduate degree or professional degree. Parks and Recreation Planning Implications A growt h in t he overall numbers of residents by 47% in the ten-year planning period wi ll require development of a corresponding increase in recreational resources available t o residents above an established base line of recommended facilities . The data in this study shows that the current population is already under-served by facilities, meaning that the City must not only enhance their existing recreation resources , but build upon them in order to meet current and future recreation needs for its residents. For this reason , the recommendations in this plan were largely driven by which facilities are already successful , which ones need improvement, and what parks and recreation elements are desired, but not readily available . The C ity's estimated 2025 population of 17,08 4 persons can leverage bett er, more subs t a ntia l facilities than the current population of 1 1,657 persons. C ri tical thresholds will be met wh ich can fu rthe r jus ti fy the need for add itiona l fac il iti es, services, and improvements. For instance, tennis facil it ies are h ig hl y desired by residents of t he City, so a lthough the ex isting fac il it ies exceed t he recommended quantity of courts per its popu lation, the uni que desires of th e res ide nts jus tify t h e addit io n of tennis courts based on their demand and desire to make t enn is a prominen t fea t ure in t he parks sys t em. Chapter 2: Community Profi Ie ft:& •• ftL ____ & __ :_&: __ ~Ily "IIClrClt;l~rl:;lll;:i Metropolitan Region South M iami was incorporated in 1927 following South Fl orida's fi rst major popu lation boom from 1920- 1925 . The Ci t y is one of M iami-Dade County's oldest munic ipalities. It is loca t ed approximately 3 miles south of the Ci ty of M iami and borders the Univers ity o f M iami 's ma in campus, and the ci ti es o f Coral Gables and Pinec res t . U.S. Hig hway 1 (South Dixie Highway) bisects t he City, and conta ins the largest concentration of re t a il , com m ercia l, an d office uses w ith in th e City, carrying approxima t ely 100,000 ve hicles on a daily basis. Size and Density The C it y of South M iami is compri sed of a series of fragmented areas totali ng 2.27 square miles within M iami-Dade County. The multi-e t hn ic resident population, according to the 20 10 Census, tota ls 11 ,657, yielding an average density of 5,135 persons per square m il e, wh ich is higher than the densities for bot h the Ci ty of Coral Gables (3 ,62 1 persons / sq. mi.) and t he Village of Pinecrest (2,44 9 perso ns / sq. mi .). Significant City Elements 1. COMMERCIAL AREAS : The major commercial area in the City is located along U.S. 1. The area serves as th e "town center," and is a vibran t shopping, dining and entertainment loca le se rving the City as well as the Uni versity of Miami students, faculty , staff, and v isi tors. Chap ter 2: Community Profile 2 . UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI The City of South Miami is infiuenced sign ificantly by its close proximit y to the University of Miami. The University is a priva t e institution enrolling over 16,000 students, and employing over 2,500 full-time faculty members. Loca t ed less than a quarter m il e to the east of the C ity, the University of Miami impacts the economic, demogrpahic, cu ltura l, a nd educationa l characteristics of the C ity. Cons ideration of these infiue nces has bee n g iven in preparati on of t hi s plan . 3. SCHOOLS WITH OPEN SPACE RESOURCES: Listed in Tab le 2.4, are schools w ith open space resources t hat have been deemed to have a potential for utilization by the City based on m inimal phys ical rest ri ctions such as possib le access points, adjacency to parks; and other contextual factors. 4 . WATER -BASED RECREATION: The City of Sou th Miami cu rr e ntly has 13 publi c parks, and one facility. Three of these parks have a water feature tha t is currently not util ized for recreation, but o ffers recreat ion alternatives to South Miami. These water resources present an opportunity for water-based recreationa l activities such as canoeing and kayaking, paddleboarding, and fishing. Ta ble 2.4 Schoo ls wi th Po ten tial Park Space within the Ci ty of Sou th Miami Chapter 2: Communi ty Profile Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities, and Programs Existing Parks and Facilities South Miami contains 14 recreation facilities throughout the C ity, totaling approximately 48 acres of park land. The sites include 13 parks, and a 6,187 SF County-owned senior center with p rograms operated by the City . Table 3.1 ind icates th e acreage of exis ti ng parks and fac il ities . Site Analyses are also available in Append ix C. Existing Park Land Acreage Parks .lPio:dkie~~P,a rlks Dog Park Dison Park . Jean Willis Park otal pocket park acres ':Slilil d fl !Ra ltks Van Smith Park Brewer Park All America Park Total small park acres iNe:lg til'bamIil CllGd /P,arks Murray Park2 Marshall Williamson Park Girl Scout Little House Reserve 3 Fuchs Park Dante Fascell Park otal neighborhood park acres ~OCilfilillilillDlrn'i ~¥;Panks Palmer Park ::iouth Miami Park Tolal community park acres 1Ii Cll~al IP10lnk Lalild ~o~es olal currenl park land acres Table 3.1 Ex is ting Par k Land Acreage No te s Acres 0 .13 0.59 0.63 1.35 1.14 1.29 l.4C 3.83 4.08 3.22 4.06 5.00 7.73 24.09 8 .5/ 10.00 18.57 47.84 1. Acreages are derived from calculations by the Miami-Dade County Proper ty Appraiser an d City of Sou th Miami 2. Incl ud es Murray Park Aquatic Center and Gibson -Bethel Community Center 3. This proper ty is subjec t to a lease agreemen t with Gir l Scouts of America effec tive un til 2053. POCKET PARKS The parks and facilities include a wide variety o f sizes, including pocke t parks (less than an acre) that are tucked into small properties in residential and com- mercial areas alike, such as Dison Park, which is situated between homes, and the Dog Park , which is in a small lot next to an animal care center. The se parks can typi- c ally accomodate on ly uses that do not occupy much room, such as a small p layground, small struc t ures, and limited furnishings. Several sites currently maintained by the City's Publ ic Works Department have been identified for po- tent ial designation as Pocket Parks . These sites are as follows: 1. SW 63rd Ave . & SW 50th st. -open area be- tween sing le fami ly homes 2. SW 57th Ct. be tween 78th St . and 80th St. -east side of Right of Way open area with exist ing park bench and landscaping 3. Twin Lakes Dr. & SW 57th St. -c ul -de-sac open area 4. SW 62nd Ct. & 42nd Terr. -triangular open area within Right of Way 5. SW 60th Ave. between SW 84th St. and 85th St. -open area between single famil y homes (not maintained by Publi c Works) SMALL PARKS Parks that are 1-2 acres are slightly larger parks that can serve a larger area of the City , and ca n ac- comodate more programmed uses than pocket parks. These parks are categorize d as small parks. One such park is Brewer Park which is 1.29 acres, and co ntains two tennis c ourts , a half basketball cou rt , two racquet- Chapter 3: Existing Parks, Faci I ities, and Programs ball courts, a playground, and a gazebo. Some of the similarly-sized parks in the City, however, vary wide ly in character. For instance, A ll America Park is a passive park cherished for its natural features. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks (3-8 acres) in the City are multifaceted, and reflective of thei r neighborhoods. A l- though some of th ese parks contain active uses, such as in Murray Park and Dante Fascell Park, both p redom- inantly surrounded by residences, some of these parks provide a more relaxed sett in g for their context. Fu chs Park, fo r in sta nce, is a somewha t pass ive park w hi ch includes a large pond with an open area for stroll in g. Th is park is located adjacen t to US-l , so the contrast in levels of activ it y from a busy t ransportation corri dor to a pass ive park, makes Fuchs Park a welcome varia ti on from t he usual o f th is neighborhood. COMMUN ITY PARKS Commun ity parks, which are greater t ha n 8 acres in size, are the largest parks in the Ci ty. These parks have th e ability to acoomodate larger uses, and multi ple fields and courts, ideal for tournaments and league sport s. Only two parks o f t his size exist in the City: Pa lmer Park and South Miami Park. Palmer Park is heavily-used for league sports by the City's residents. South Miami Park is a lso heavily-used for league sports, however, due to its location in an enclave of the City surro unded by mostly County jur isd iction, most of its us- ers are non-residents . Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs Existing Parks and Facilities Figure 3.2 Existing Parks and Fac ili ties 0) SOUTH MIAMI PARK ® BREWER PARK o GIRL SCOUT LlTILE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK ® ALL AMERICA PARK ® JEAN WILLIS PARK @ VAN SMITH PARK @ DOG PARK @ FUCHS PARK @ DISONPARK @ DANTE FASCELL PARK LEGEND : c.~-_J CllY LIMITS D EXISTING PARKS 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' February 2017 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs South Miami Parks and Recreation Facilities at-a-glance Park / Facility Address Acres fAil America Park 6820 SW 64th Avenue 1.40 South Miami, FL 33143 Brewer Park 6300 SW 56th Street 1.29 Sou th Miami, FL 33143 Dante Fascell 8600 SW 57th Avenue 7.73 South Miami, FL 33143 Dison Park 8021 SW 58th Avenue 0.59 South Miami, FL 33143 Dog Park 6380 SW 78th Street 0 .13 South Miami, FL 33143 Fuchs Park 6445 SW 81 st Street 5.00 South Miami, FL 33143 ~irl Scout Little 6609 SW 60th Street 4.06 House Reserve * South Miami, FL 33143 ~ean Wil lis Park 7220 SW 61 st Court 0 .63 South Miami, FL 33143 lMarshall William-6125 SW 68th Street 3.22 on Park South Miami, FL 33143 Murray Park 5800 SW 66th Street 4.08 South Miami, FL 33143 Gibson-Bethel Community Center Murray Park Aquatic Center Palmer Park 6100 SW 67th Avenue 8 .57 South Miami, FL 33143 South Miami 4300 SW 58th Avenue 10 .00 Park South Miami, FL 33143 pouth Miami 6701 SW 62nd Avenue N/A penior Center South Miami, FL 33143 rvan Smith Park 7800 SW 59th Av enue 1.14 South Miami, FL 33143 Tab le 3.2 Sou th Miami Parks and Recrea tion Facilities at-a-glance * This proper ty is leased to the Girl Scouts of America • Picnic area • Outdoor basketball (1/2 ICourt) • Handball courts (2) • Gazebo • Outdoor basketball (1/2 !court) • Playground & tot lot • Ha lil dball courts (2) • Pavil ions (2) • Gazebo • Picnic area • Dog play structures • Chickee hut & benches • Pavilion • Picnic areas • Playground • Restrooms • Historic building • Nature-based recreation • Gazebo • Picnic areas • Gazebo • Playground & tot lot • Tennis courts (2) • Athletic playing field • Picnic area • Playground • Art classes • Indoor basketball • Indoor volleyball • Fitness and cardio room • Splash pad • Swimming pool • Athletic playing fields • Batting cages (2) • Concession stand • Athletic playing fields • Portable restroom facilities .6,187 SF of amenities .97 units • Walking trails • Picnic area Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities, and Programs Amenities • Picnic area • Water fountain • Tot lot • Parking • Tennis courts (2) • Observation deck • Picnic areas • Walking/Jogging • Sand volleyball Trail court • Restrooms • Tennis clay courts • Water Fountain (6) • Parking • Water fountain • Sand volleyball • Pond court • Water fountain • Parking • Picn ic area • Restroom • Water fountain • Restrooms • Water fountain • Youth t-ball field • Children's Clinic • Basketball courts (2) • Exercise clas ses • Parking • Computer lab • Restrooms • Internet • Classroom • Multipurpose room • Restrooms • Parking • Water fountain • Tot lot • Picnic areas • Baseball fields (5) • Restroom • Parking • Picnic area • Senior programs • Computer lab • Dining room • Fitness room Proposed Multi -use Trai Is In addition to it s exist ing parks and ind oor recreation facilities, the C ity has g reat opportunities with three multi-use tra ils that are cu rr entl y in development as green corri dors tra vers in g th e reg ion, and running through o r adja ce nt to th e City. As p lans for these trails progress, th e City could p la ya key rol e in their d eve lopment. Th e three tr ails are discussed in this sect ion. THE UNDERLINE Cu rr ently known as th e M-Path, the Und er lin e is an existin g 10-mi le linear park-l ike space and mu lti - use trail w hi c h has been approved for a major red es ign as an iconic urban multi-u se trail. Th e Underlin e runs underneath th e Metrorai l lin e from Downtown Miami ju st north of th e Brickell Station to the Dadeland Sout h Sta tion . Within t he City, th e Underl ine si t e e n compasses over 11 acres that run para ll e l to US-l / Sou th Dixie Highway. This p roject is set t o be an icon ic green corrid or con nec ting many sig nifi cant areas o f the region. To assist in th e realization o f this p ro ject, the City of South Miami has con t ribu t e d $25,000 to date t owards development of the Und e rlin e . Use rs from other areas wou ld be brought into the City v ia t h e Und erlin e, so thi s trail is not on ly an opportunity for res id ent s of the City to engage in trail recreatio n, it is a lso a w a y to bring v isitors into th e City w ith a d iff erent perspective. LUDLAM TRAIL The Ludlam Trai l (3 acres adjacent to the City) is a proposed 6-mi le multi-use trail within a former FEC railroad corri dor located adjacent to the C ity. If incorporated into the Ci t y's parks system, the trail cou ld add 3 acres of park land, and improve access to p arks (more parks within a 5-m inute walking distance) along th e wes t side of th e City. Based on its loca ti on, the Ludlam Trail will provide a multi-use trai l to serve re sidents and connect different areas of met ropolitan Miami than t he Un derli ne w ill. SNAPPER CREEK TRAIL Snapper Creek Trail is a proposed 10-mi le multi-u se trail in wes t-centra l Miami-D ade County that genera lly follows the route of th e Snapper Creek Canal. The tra il would provide a t rave l route between th e Florida Int ernati o nal Uni ve rsity Modesto Maidique c ampus on Ta m iami Trail and Old Cutler Trail. Segment B of th e Snapper C reek Trail w ill run along res id ential st reets wi thin South Miami wi th a sma ll p ortion o f th e trail runn ing in th e area im media t e ly south of Dante Fascell Park ! 2. Wit hin th e City, th e sit e o f th e p roposed Snapper Creek Tra il along Dante Fasc e ll Park t otals 1.28 acres of p ark land . With waterfront v iews to offer, the future Snapper C reek Tr ai l sit e along Dante Fasc e ll Park is c urrentl y used informally by re sidents as a wa lk ing ro ute. As the trail develops, Dante Fascell may be identifi ed as a major destin ation along th e tra il. No tes 1. Miami-Dade Me tropolitan Plann ing Organizat ion (Oc tober , 2008). Snapper Creek Trail Segment A Planning Stud y Miami-Dade County Retrieved from h ttp//miamidadempo .org/I ibrary/stud ies/snapper-creek- trail-segment -a -p lanning-study-final-2008-10.pd f! 2. Miami-Dade Metropoli tan Plan nin g Organizat ion (June, 2016). Snapper Creek Tra il Segmen t "8" Mas ter Plan . Miami-Dade County Re tri eved from htt p//miamidadempo.org/I i brary/stud i es/snapper -creek -tra i I-seg men t -b- master-plan-final-repor t -2 016-06 .pdf! Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs Existing Parks and Facilities with Proposed Trails Figure 3.3 Exis ting Parks and Facili ties wi th Proposed Trails Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities, and Programs 0) SOUTH MIAMI PARK ® BREWER PARK ® GIRL SCOUT LlTILE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK ® ALL AMERICA PARK ® JEAN WILLIS PARK ® VAN SMITH PARK @ DOG PARK @ FUCHS PARK @ DISONPARK @ DANTE FASCELL PARK @ LUDLAM TRAIL @ UNDERLINE TRAIL / M PATH ® SNAPPER CREEK TRAIL LEGEND : C~-_J CITY LIMITS ~ EXISTING PARKS _ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS 2,000 ' February 2017 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Existing Recreational Programs Recreation p rogram s p ro v id e excell ent ben- efits to res id ents. Part icipation in sports prog rams o r rec- reational classes can hel p im prove overall p hysical and mental health by o ff e ring a fun method o f engaging in phys ical activ it y, whi le p rovidin g an enviro nment that t eac hes spo rtsman ship , co llaboration, and healthy competi ti on. Th e diversit y o f programs offe red can also help in attracting a v ariety o f use rs of different ag es . Existing recrea tional programs w ithin th e City includ e a v ariety of City-operated and priv ate ly -op- erated prog rams. Privately-operated recreati onal p ro- grams h e lp offset resident demand far recreational program se rv ices w hil e limitin g the operational costs to th e City. Amongst the 17 a thl etics p rograms available w ithin t h e City, as of May 20 16, th ere we re 1.9 00 regis- trants in you th athletic p rograms and 1,180 reg istr a nts in adult athletics prog rams. The Ci t y a lso provid es 6 non- a th letic programs: afterschool care, three seaso nal camps, one-day c amps, and th e sen ior p rogram. Non- at hleti c p rog rams comprise 790 regi stra nts. South Miami Recreation Programs Rec reation Programs Registrations Privately-run IProgr.alilils azzercise 40 Boot camp 50 ~outh basketball 480 ~outh baseball 400 ~outh recreation soccer 250 ~outh travel soccer 175 ~outh flag football 150 ~dult softball 100 !Adult soccer 150 Gity-n!JIiI Progr.aAils ~outh tackle football 200 ~heerleading 65 ~fterschool tennis 75 ~outh tennis camps 50 !Adult tennis camps 75 ~ennis tournaments 750 !Afterschool Program 100 lWinter Camp 100 ISpring Camp 100 ~ummerCamp 125 lOne Day Camp 300 lSenior Program 65 ~wimming Lessons 55 Water Aerobics 15 Combirned rotal Total -youth athletic programs 1,900 Total -adult athletic programs 1,180 Total -non -athletic programs 790 Total programs offered 23 Total program users 4,995 Tab le 3.3 Sou th Mia mi Recre at ion Prog ram Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs , Chapter 4: Public Involvement City -provided np ··& '''0'' AI "n-t ~\ Ul\£ 1't-£UliJl Miller Legg conducted interviews with the City's Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and Parks and Recrea t ion Advisory Board to determine what t he City fe lt are its most significant goals and objectives. The fo ll owing is a summary of reoccurring comments from t hose in t erviews. THE CITY'S PARKS NEED IMPROVEMENT Most C ity rep resentatives fe lt that the parks needed improved main t enance and renovations, are und e ruti lized by res idents, and not consisten tl y maintained. More spec ifical ly, large park features are mainta ined best (e .g . major sports fi e ld, major sports courts, pool), wh il e smaller features receive less attenti on from ma int enance personne l (e.g. Dison Park , Dan t e Fasce ll Pro Shop ). MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE Interviewees felt that the City's maintenance of its parks and recreation facil it ies is inadequate due to lack of p roper fund ing, and turnover of we ll -t rained st a ff. Interviewees felt that the C ity's wages are not competit ive enough to re t a in st aff that has been properly trained in ma intenance standards, or attract more experienced personnel. RES IDENTS LACK AWARENESS OF CITY PARKS AND PROGRAMS Interviewees agreed that residents don't know about the City's parks, faci li ties, and programs offered. A few interviewees recommended advertising the se fac ilities and services through mailings, brochures , and c alendars featuring a schedule of events. By the time thes e interviews occu rred, staff had begun communication e fforts with residents to increase awareness of parks and recreation facilitie s and serv ices. INADEQ UA TE BUDGE T FOR PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS City representat ives felt that t he parks and recreation b u dget is only adeq uate for continuing with the curren t maint enance and enhancement st a n dards of t he faci lit ies/programs, w hi ch th ey fee l are in need of improvement. In o rder for the City's parks system to im p rove it s existin g fea tur es, and g row in th e f ut ure, Parks and Recreation wou ld need additiona l fund ing . PARKS AND RECREATION SHOULD CONNECT WITH SCHOOLS Th e Ci t y currently h o lds a use agree m e nt w ith M iami-Dade Schools for the use of Pa lmer Park. The City would li ke to establ ish use agreemen ts wi th schools throughout the City that have open space resources that cou ld be offered to the publi c during the schools' off-hours. WATERWAYS ARE AN OPPORTUN ITY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Interviewees ag reed that t he waterways w it hin the City are an asset that should be utilized for parks and recreation uses , such as canoeing, kayaking, fishing, and simi lar activities. Some suggested that boat launches, p iers , and other faci lities could be provided at the waterfront parks to enable these activities within the City. Enhan c ing the connectivity of these waterways could help improve the overall water recreation experience as wel l. Chapter 4: Public Involvement SOUTH MIAMI PARK NEEDS MAJOR IMPROVEMENT South Miami Park was described by City rep resentatives as a significantiy neglected park in need of a major renovation, or decommissioning. Some felt that the park is neglected, because the park's location on th e northern fringes of th e City isolate its resources from the majority of City residents, servicing very few properties that are w ithin the City limits . Despite the park being operated by the City, most of th e park's users are non-residents . The financial feasibility of the City's continu ed operation of this park is questionable in its current condition and cont ext . PARKS ARE IMPORTANT TO THOSE CONS IDER ING BECOM ING A RES IDENT OF SOUTH M IAMI Most City representatives feel that parks are a signi fi cant infiu ence on potentia l residents' decision to move to South Miami, and especially so for young families who have chi ldren a t -home that wo u ld benefit greatly from a strong parks and recreat ion system within their city . THE CITY NEEDS MORE BASKETBALL COURTS Currently there is a strong demand for more basketball courts throughout the City. City representatives expressed int erest in introdu cing more basketball courts at parks, and specifically at Marshall William son Park where the tennis courts are under- utilized, and have therefore been identified as an opportunity to renovate them as basketball courts to meet demand. PR IVATIZE ORGANIZED SPORTS PROGRAMS Some City repre sentatives encouraged privatizing the Ci ty-run recreational leagues, so as to fr ee up those parks and rec reation staffing resources Chapter 4: Public Involvement for other uses , reduce liability , cut costs to the City, and lim it staffing needs. NON-RESIDENT PART ICIPATION IN SOCCER PROGRAMS A few interviewees felt the soccer programs should be evaluated for their v iabilit y. Most of the soccer in the City takes place at South Miami Park, which is sur round ed almost enti rely by p ro pert ies outside the City li mits. The users serviced by the program, therefore, are usually non-residents. The City desires to utilize these resources in a way that wou ld better serve the residents. SUPPORT FOR THE UNDERLINE PROJECT The majority of interviewees support the Underline project, and feel the Underline should be considered in the City's Park s and Recreation Master Plan. The project will expand a major green corridor and public open space running through the heart of the City . ON-GOING SUPPORT FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ITS LEADERSH IP City represe ntatives fe lt that the new Parks and Recreation leadership is a great asset to the City. They appreciate their leadership and vision for Parks and Recreation in the City, and feel they are leading the department in a good direction. Online Public Survey & Public Workshop 1 and 2 In determin in g the Goa ls and Objectives of South Miami res idents for it s Par ks and Recreation Maste r Plan, Mi lle r Legg condu cted an on lin e publi c survey and two public works h ops in coll aboration w ith th e City. The survey was publi c ized on th e City websi t e, and w ith fiy e rs at various loca l gatherin g p laces . Initiall y, the survey a ttra cted 146 respondents over t he course of 2.5 month s between May and Jul y of 20 15 . In order to in c rease responses, the City reopened the survey after Publ ic Workshop 2 for an additi ona l 1.5 months Survey Responses PARKS THAT THE MOST RESPONDENTS VISITED 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% IN THE LAST YEAR 69% Dante Fascell Park Fuchs Park Figure 4.2 Online Public survey resul ts Palmer Park 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% PARKS LEAST VISITED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE LAST YEAR 6% 7% 0% Jean Willis Park Marshall Williamson Park Figure 4.4 Online Public survey results 15% Dison Park between Sep.tember and November 20 16. Th e survey had a t otal of 2 14 responden t s, which compri sed only 1.8% of th e res idents. Th e survey is cons idered st atistically in significant. No n e th e less, th e responses have st il l been considered in th is study. Th e two p ublic workshops gath e red approximately a hundred partic ipan ts. Th e following is a summary o f recu rring comments from th e survey and p u b li c wo rks ho ps . PROGRAMS THAT THE MOST RESPONDENTS 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% PARJICIPATED IN LAST YEAR 38% Youth Soccer Youth Tennis Fig ure 4.3 Online Publ ic survey results Swimming Lessons 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% TYPES OF EVENTS RESPONDENTS DESIRE AT CITY PARKS 84% Farmers' Music Festivals Outdoor Holiday Markets Concerts Movie Celebrations Figure 4.5 Online Public sur vey res ult s Screenings Chapter 4: Public Involvement FACILITIES/ACTIVIT IES CURRENTLY PART ICIPAED IN MOST BY RESPONDENTS 100 % 80 % 67 % Figure 4.6 Online Public survey res ults FACILIT IES /ACT IV ITIES MOST DES IRED BY RESPONDENTS 100 % 80 %- Figure 4.7 Online Public survey resul ts Th e majority of su rv ey re spondents were ages 30 to 45 (45 %), w ith the second largest age group being ages 46 to 55 (23 %). Respondents report ed that th e ir house hold include d mostly adu lt s between th e ages of 30 to 45 (51 %), and chi ldren age 13 or younge r (48%). The next largest age g roup of resp ond ents' house ho ld members were ages 46 to 55 (29%). These results indi cate that the majority o f respondents are middle- aged individua ls, and many likely have young fami li es. According to the survey responses, most parks have typicall y never been visited by respondents, except for Dante Fascell , which is typically visited severa l times a week by respondents who visit the park . Chapter 4: Public Involvement No t surprisingly th en, according to the survey resu lt s, m os t res pondents are n o t aware of the condition of th e City's parks, except for Dante Fosce ll and Fu chs Park, which were both mostly rat ed os being in "g ood " condi tion. Overwhelmingly, an average of 10% of respondents reported participating in any of the City's programs. Subsequently, most respondents reported that they are not sure of the quality of the City's programs. Faci lities/items that survey respondents and workshop attendees felt need "major improvements " bathrooms safety /secu rit y concessions lighting amount of shade t rees exercise equipment • Fac il ities/items that su rvey respondents and wo rkshop attendees felt need "moderate improvements ": picnic areas she lters/pavi li ons clean liness parking playgrounds furn iture sidewa lk s and paths general maintenance natural areas landscape areas • Faci lities/items that survey respondents and workshop attendees fe lt are "fine as-is " sports fields tennis courts basketball courts other buildings signage Public Workshop 1 -Visual Preference Public Workshop 1 was held in June of 20 15. Preference for types of parks and activities at parks can vary widely from person-to-person, and even from region-to-region. In addition to receiving verbal and si t e-specifi c in put from workshop partic ipants, we also conducted a visual preference activity at Public Workshop 1 to better define the preferences of th e City's residents. We provided severa l images refiective of characterist ic types of parks and activities ran g ing from images of passive parks with p icnicking to sports comp lexes to farmers markets and festivals. Based on v isual preference, workshop participants preferred images characteristic of picnic areas w ith pavilions; paved, multi-use paths; and farmers' markets. This p refere n ce is well -a lign ed with survey responses in dicati ng a preference for leisurely walking , p icnic areas and she lt ers, and park events. A second publi c workshop was held in mid- 20 16 to present a draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to resident s, and provide an opportunity for add iti ona l publ ic input. Chapter 4: Public Involvement Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Park Land Area Ratio To ensure that the C ity of South Miami is provid ing adequate park land acreage, the City has set requirements in the Comprehensive Plan to provide a minimum of 4 acres of park land per 1,000 res idents. On average, municipa lit ies in Miam i-Dade County require an open space level-ol-service rat io of 3 acres per 1,000 persons . The park land area ratio set by the C ity provides more park land acreage per person than most other c ities in the County. Current ly, the City has approximately 11 ,657 residents, which requires 47 acres of park land to meet the Comprehensive Plan rat io. Existing vs. Required Park Land Area Currently there are 48 acres of exist ing parks and recreation facilities within the City; therefore t he City currently has a surplus of 1 acre needed to meet the 47-acre park land area requ ir ement. As this Master Plan aims to guide the City's Department of Parks and Recreation t hrough the next five (5) and ten (10) year periods, popula t ion p rojecti ons hase Three (2020-2025) have b een analyzed to determine p ark land level-of- servi c e n e eds looking into the future for 2020 and 2025. Tab le 5.1, "Required Park Land Acres by Phose (4 acres per 1,000 persons)," illu strat e s th e a c reage requirem e nts and surplus or deficit for each phase of this Master Plan based on the current park land le vel-of-serv ice ratio. To comply with the ra tio of 4 acres per 1,000 persons, the City wou ld need to acquire 20 .5 acres by 2025, which may be difficult given that the City is virtua ll y bu ilt -out, and there is a lack of available lands . Nonetheless, there are several options available to the City that can increase the park land acreage over the next ten years, as well as diversify the types of recreation available . 15,511 2 62.0 17,084 2 68 .3 Ta ble 5.1 Required Par k Land Acre s by Phas e (4 acres per 1,000 pe rs ons) Not es : 1. Uni ted Stat es Census Bu reau (2 010 ). 2010 Cens us. Re trieve d from htt p://fa ctf in der. cens us gov/ 2. Bu rea u of Economic an d Business Research . (2 01 5) Pop ula tion Pr ojec tion by Age for 20 00 -2 04 0. University of Florida. Re trieve d fro m htt p://flh ousin gd ata.shimberg.ufl .edu/a/ popula tion?ac tion = resul ts&n id= 4372 Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Potential Park Land Sites There are various resources of potent ial park space within the City which have been identified in Table 5.2, "Polential Park Acreage." The resources li sted amount to approximate ly 46 acres of potential park land. Although all the listed resources have the potential to be included, so me of these resources are more feasib le to attain than others. The fo llowing section eva luates the feasibili t y of the sites for use as City park land. BLUEWAYS Blueways are water tra il s that o ff er water- based recreation opportunities . The C ity o f South Miami contains an extensive system of navigable cana ls amounting to approximately 25 acres of blueways. The many cana ls throughou t t he City are currently used by residents for water-based activities such as kayaking, canoeing, paddle-boarding, and fishing, however, there are currently no formal, non-motorized boat launches or points of public access to the canals. Estab lishing the canals as park land, would a llow the Potential Park Acreage Potential Park Sites Within the City Acres (:i;f\;';"':,.;:;]{(~!k'i14.l1l}!;'t"Jf'if~J,\':iilllf~v.vfM.0~t~~~~R·r,\t\~@~~g:~'7B 1i~~k:f~~~~~~'l\l7'?~ijrt~~ttIlTJ~~~~lfti\1~~~~~~~c~,.¥.1~\t~ ~~. ';!O~ ~~·~,~~;;'F"r;:t;;';~.lf,~i:~,' '; w'!i[~~1r.41'~~f,t:''''?(;;:'}.1 y.:'~~''''.'I~?{,c,f:ii17~''I;[;~~~I:''':~t'.~\~)'fJt:.~tt;lt (~ \). j;tt~\,~'1~2r:~;~~~i!t~ ,~ .• 1'.' .. \Cu,~ ........ ., )J...!...,-,-,,(,,_, \0.,...:, .. , ,ot:._ J;,l ..... 'u.-h_" .. I~. w.:~ .. ~.R.E.I Lee AdministraticmOffice 0.21 ~oUJth Miami Middle School GACi: University Christian Children's Celilter O.SC Ludlo m Elememtary 1.9C Happi-T~rmes Prescli:lool South /Miami Chni stia m .1iG<: ~outh Miami K-8 Gemter 1.2C ~otal Schools 5.2~ I' 'W' . "." ~ --'-0" '.' • ""\'!f" ~""q' 'f¥~~-!!!~ V'-~r~' "'PI Ito~n; 1 ~l.t:JtifmiM:)1(:1 tt~H ,v\'/in:i i~1!I.!; ':]~ JI!~i;l!;1 ~':%Brlllll Potential Park Sites Adjacent to City I Acres ! !Ludlam lirall Table 5.2 Po ten tial Park Acreage Figure 5.2 Canoeing and kayaking on blueways provides a unique form of recreation Chapter 5: Demand Analysis City to provide more public access points, and add new faci lit ies to enhance the canals as blueways for recreat iona l use. Th e ca n a ls are c u rre ntly with in propert ies owned by t h e County and t he South Florida Water Ma na gemen t Dist ric t , and wou ld requ ir e a use ag reement o r o th er mechanism of tr ansference a ll owing public access. Since th is option woul d require coord ina ti o n w it h a separat e agen cy, t h e feasibility o f attaini n g t h ese 25 acres f o r public rec reationa l use is uncert a in . N oneth e less, th ese 25 acres o f b lu eways o ffe r a maj or opportunity to add to and diversify the parks an d recreati o n f ac ili t ies and acti v it ies w it hin the Ci ty; thi s is an op ti on which should be explored furt her. Figu re 5.3 Mul ti-use trai ls bring vis itors from other area s while providing recrea tion oppor tunitie s to residen ts PROPOSED MULTIUSE TRA ILS The Under line The Underl ine has a lready been approved for d evelopment, so it is high ly advisable for th e City to include the 11 acres as part of it s overa ll park land acrea ge . By doing so, th e park land level-of-service ratio of 4 acres per 1,000 person s would provide 12 acres of su rplus park land. The City should encou ra ge the deve lo pme nt process of th e Underline as it continu es . Ludlam Trail Currently there is a 3-acre portion of the proposed Ludlam Trail si t e located directly adjacent to t h e City. Des ignatio n of Lud lam Tra il as C ity park land would requ ir e incorpora ti on of some portion o f the adjacen t area o f the future tra il to qua lify . The trai l seems t o be gain ing tra c ti on fo r d eve lopm ent in t h e region. The t ra il 's completion would con n ect t he C ity to other reg io ns of th e metropolit a n via a m ulti-use trail, and especia lly e n courage t he western-mos t res idents to engage in b icyc li ng, walking, jogg ing, skati n g, or o th er forms of recreati on suitable fo r t rai ls. D esp ite in creasin g support for approval, the feasib ilit y of desig n ating the trai l as park la nd is d iffi cu lt t o de t e rm ine d u e to t h e need to incorpora t e some portion o f the tra il in order for the park t o qua lify. Snapper Creek Trail Snapper Creek Trai l (1 acre w ithi n th e City ), also has potential to add park land, but has not ye t been app roved fo r designatio n . A stu d y o f "Segme nt 'A'" of t he proposed Snapper Creek Tra il was comple t ed in 2008 1 . Segment A runs from the FlU Modesto Ma id iq ue Campus on Tamiam iT ra il to near Baptist Hospi t a l. In 20 16, a study of "Segment 'B'" was co mpleted2 . Segment B runs from Segment "A" to Dant e Fascell Park. Given that t he South Fl orida Water Management District owns and mainta ins t he c anal, there is a good like lihood that the agency will be open to the corridor's development as a trail, since th ey have already approved tra ils in No tes 1. Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organiza tion (October, 2008). Snapper Creek Trail Segmen t A Planning Study . Miami-Dade County Re trieved from htt p://miam idadempo .org /I i brary /stud ies/snap per-creek- tra il-segment-a-planning -study-f inal-2008-10.pd f! 2. Miami-Dade Me tropoli tan Planning Organization (June, 2016). Snapper Creek Tra il Segmen t "B" Mas ter Plan . Miami-Dade County Retr ieved from htt p://miamidadempo .org/I ibrary/stud i es /snapper -creek -trai I-segmen t -b - mas ter-plan -final-report -2016-06 pd f! Chapter 5: Demand Analysis other locations within their Right of Woy. Of the three proposed trails near the City, Snapper Creek Trail has the longest anticipated time frame fo r development as pork land based on progress of plans, and support from the met ropol itan region at-large. Nonetheless, it is a trail that is currently used as an informal trail by City re sidents and visitors from other areas. With th e increasing support for an official designation of the Snapper Creek Trai l, th is trail 's potential development shou ld be further explored. SCHOOLS With several schools within the City containing exis ting open space and recreation resources, schools could provide over 5 acres of potential park space through joint-use of existing fields and courts. As discussed earlier, several schools within the City that contain open space resources have been identified in Table 2.4. Currently there are joint-use agreements at Palmer Park whereby students from the two adjacent schools may utilize Pa lmer Park, however, there are currently no joint-use agreements enabling the City to take advant age of resources the schools have. Since these schools are t ypica ll y on ly open for a portion of the day, and closed on weekends and the summer, the open space areas could be made available to residents as park land during th e school's off-hours. Joint-use agreements would help define maintenance and access terms between the City and school. Utilizing th e schools' open space for public park land wou ld require coordinat ion between the City and schools . Although all listed school sites have potential for use as parks and recreation resources, this study focuses on sites with the highest feasibility of inclusion in the parks and recreation system based on proximity Chapter 5: Demand Analysis to exis tin g parks, existing resources , and existing site configuration. Parks Coverage Areas & New Park Locations Ideally, everyo n e in an urban area should be within a five-minut e walking d istance from a park. Once a location is beyond a five-minute walk, people are more like ly to use a ve hicle to get t o a park. A fi ve- minute w alking dista nce is u sually about a quart er-m il e. With in a quarter-mile o f all parks is considered the park coverage area. Dete rminin g the park cove rag e area around a ll parks can h e lp with und e rstanding which residents are serv iced by a park within a c omfortable walking distance , and which are not. Based on th e City 's exist in g park d istr ibution and the ir coverag e areas, nine (9) potentia l park si t es have been identified t o help identify areas in the Ci ty that are most in need of parks. Figure 5.4, "Parks Covera ge Areas -Existing" sh ows th e current park coverage area , park d istribution , and the nine potentia l park sit es. Acqu ir ing nine parks throug h land pu rchase would be an unrealistic goal, therefore, by utilizing exist ing or soon-to-be existing resources already wi t hin th e City, the number o f potential park si t es needing to be acquired can be reduced. Particularly not eworth y re so urces are th e thr ee multi-use tr a il s wh ich are proposed to run through the City. With development of the Und erli ne Trail, the park coverage of the City can reduce the recommended number of new park acquisitions to e ight (S). Thi s scenario is shown in Figure 5 .5, "Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underlin e." With the Ludlam Trail, the increase in park coverage of the City can reduce the number of new p ark acquisitions to seven (7). This scen ario is shown in Figure 5.6 "Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline & Ludlam Trail." Lastly, by tran sform in g a porti on of the Snapper Creek Canal corridor into a trai l, the park coverage in the Ci t y may be increased, once again reducing th e number of new parks that are needed to six (6). Thi s scenario is shown in Figure 5.7 , "Park Coverage Areas with Addition of th e Un derlin e, Ludlam Tr a il, & Snapper Creek Trail." The Ci t y is encouraged to pu rsue the acquisition and/or development of th ese trails for the benefits they can o ff e r to the City as parkland. Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Park Coverage Areas -Existing Figure 5.4 Parks Coverage Area -Exi sting Chapter 5: Demand Analysis LEGEND : POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN QUARTER-MILE /5-MINUTE WALKING DISTANCE t "') \_,;1 PARK COVERAGE AREA i-----, L ___ J CITY LIMITS c=J EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS _ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND ~ 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 : • • • December 2016 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline '.= Figure 5.5 Parks Coverage Area wi th the Underl ine LEGEND: POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE WALKING DISTANCE , ......... { '! PARK COVERAGE AREA ,,--.,I C:::J CITY LIMITS c=J EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS _ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND ffi 0' 1,000 ' 2,000' • • • December 2016 Sout@ iami MILLE ~EGG Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline & Ludlam Trail IIIr Figure 5.6 Parks Coverage Area wi th the Ludlam Trail Chapter 5: Demand Analysis LEGEND : f:\ POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN V QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE WALKING DISTANCE .".,., ... , ~ J PARK COVERAGE AREA 'J_t;' C:::J CITY LIMITS c=J EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS _ PO TENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' ••• December 2016 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline, Ludlam Trail & Sna er Creek Trail 1III1i1-~ Figure 5.7 Parks Coverage Area with Snapper Creek Tra il LEGEND : f:\ POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN V QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE WALKING DISTANCE ("'''') PARK COVERAGE AREA '_:"'''' C~~] CITY LIMITS D EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS _ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND ~ . 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' --- December 2016 Sout~iami MILLER~EGG Chapter 5: Demand Analysis National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Benchmarks The City wants to ensure that adequate recreational facilities and programs are provided for res idents. To determine minimum standards for budgeting, maintaining, staffing , facilities, and programs, the Plan has used national benchmarks se t by th e National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) through a process that compares the City to jurisdictions with similar characteristics. Th e NRPA benchmark comparisons shown in this section wi ll help guide the City in determining parks and recreation needs for its residents . NRPA AGENCY BUDGET BENCHMARKS As shown in Table 5.3 , "NRPA Agency Budget Benchmark," the City of South Miami 's City and Parks and Recreation Department operating budget is higher than the national median. Add itionally, the p rop ortion of the Parks Departments' operating budget to C ity operating budget is 11 %, which is on par w ith that of the national median. of Parks Department operating et for personnel of Pmks Department operating et for operating expenses Dept. Total Non-tax Revenues Ta ble 5.3 NRP A Agency Budget Benchm ark Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Of note, however, 73% of the Department of Parks and Recreation 's operating budget is used for personne l. which is higher than the national median of 60% of th e operating budget used for personnel. The variat ion from the NRPA benchmark renects the unique staffing needs of the City, as subsequently d iscussed. Due to these unique needs, the higher percentage of operating budget used for personnel than the national median is acceptable. To establ ish whether South Miami's fu ll-ti me to part-t im e employee ratio was cons isten t with other cities in its region, a comparison of ratios was made between South Miam i and other municipalities in South Florida. The find ings demonst rated that t he average ratio of full-time to part-tim e employees in these c iti es is 1 :2.5, which is comparable to that of South Miami. Li ke South Miami. these c it ies may a lso require more fu ll -time employees than northern regions in the country due to year-round maintenance needs. NRPA STAFFING BENCHMARKS Table5.4, "NRPAStaffing Benchmarks by Phase, " illu stra te s how the City measures up against the national median for staffing based on th e c urrent population, as w ell as demonstrating the national medians for populations similar to those in Phase One (5-year period) and Phase Two (lO-year period). Currently , the City of South Miami staffs more full-tim e persoilnel (16) than the national median for sim ilar juri sdic ti ons (9), whereas it's non full-time employee staffing (38) is less than the median (48). The City 's current full-time to part-time employee ratio is 1 :2.4 , which is notably different than the national median ra ti o of 1 :5.3. By 2025, the national med ian ra tio increases to 1 full-tim e employee to 5.8 part -time employees. Despite th e disparity fr om the median, the City recognizes from their previous experience that the higher number of full-time employees t han the median has helped retain trained and experienced workers, and prevent turno ver . Unlik e northern areas of th e country whe re th e w inters require littl e maintenance due t o FUll-time Employees Table 5.4 NRPA Staffing Benchmarks by Phase NRPA FACILITY BENCHMARKS Crucia l to the success of parks is supp ly ing adequate facilities to meet demands for specifi c facilities w ithin a c ity. By providing the equipment or specific facilities needed for programmed uses lik e sports or fitness trails, parks also provide and enable acti v ities at the parks. In comparison to th e NRPA benchmark for facilitie s, the quantity of recreational facilities within th e City is adequate for most active uses such as sports field s fr eezi ng , the South Miami area re quires maintenanc e y ear-round . Further , th e City ope rat es a lorge-s c al e community cen t er whi c h re quire s additional full-time staff. Not all cities of a similar po p ulation maintain a community center of this size. A ll of these factors help justify a larger number of full-time employees relativ e to part-time employees. Additionally, the add iti on of blueways and school open space joint-use agreement s are park acreage additions that require li ttle maintenance compared to typical park maint enance costs. These add iti onal park land acres further diff erentiate the City's sta ffi ng needs from the typical needs of a city . The NRP A has confirmed that these fa ctors are acceptable reasons for staffing ratios to differ from the national median. Figure 5.8 So ut h Mi ami's tennis faci lities are popula r among residen ts Chapter 5: Demand Analysis and courts . The City, however, is below the median with passive uses such as playgrounds , picnic areas, and multi-use trails. These uses were identified as uses that are in demand by the public based on comments on online public survey result s. NRPA RECREA TION PROGRAM BENCHMARKS The benchmark comparison show n in Table 5.6, "NRPA Recreation Program Benchmarks," sh ows Ci ty programs data compared to j urisdictions w ith a simi lar population size. Currently, the City continues to expand the v ariety of recreation programs through partnerships with private vendors who run many athletic programs that supplement the City-run programs. Although the presence of the private vendors has reduced operati ons costs for p rograms to the City, the number of registrants, programs offered, and the operating budget remains below the benchmark. Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Figure 5.9 Youth benefit greatly from the physical ac tivity, social atmosphere, and challenge of ath letic programs $69 ,276 Tab le 5.6 NRPA Recreation Program Benchm arks 1. Th e information provided in th is table incl ude s privately-run athletic programs that supplemen t th e City's recreation program demands . Conclusion This chapter provides a g limpse at where the C ity measures up again st the n a ti ona l and regional recreation standards . Some of these items have unique c ir cumstances warranting a different approach than what is suggested in these numbers, such as the strong demand for tennis in the area, and the year-round ma intenance needs that benefit more from ful l-t ime rather than part-ti me staff. Nonetheless, an underst and ing of t he City's varia t io n s from th e nationa l and regional standards have gu ided the recommendations in the followi ng chapter. Chapter 5: Demand Analysis Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations This chapter p rovides recommendations for improvements to parks. The previous chapter, Demand Analysis, provides a guide for defining recreation and pork facilities to be implemented over tile next ten years. Appendix C provides an overview of the existing conditions of the facilities and a site analysis. Together with stu dies of the City's characteri stics, and publi c and City input, the following recommendations are tailored to the current and future needs of South Miami. Existing Parks and Facilities Recommendations In determining the recommendations for the City's parks and recreation fa cilit ie s and serv ices, severa l factors were considered, and are detailed in the earlier chapters of this study . CONSIDERATION OF CITY CHARACTERISTICS Chapter 2 illustrated the analysis of demographics, economics, education, and other City characteristics that influence the City's needs in parks and recreation. Projections of the popu lation for the five-and t en-year periods of this stud y were also used to determine open space acreage needs, and ensure the City 's Comprehensive Plan is adhered to. EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE ANALYSIS Ea ch of the existing fa ci litie s and programs were inventoried and analyzed, as illustrated in Chapter 3. An "Existing Site Analysis" was crea t ed for each facility (see Appendix C) to determine what, if any, upgrades to existing parks may be appropriate as part of future improvement plans . Generally, these parks have been built-out, are outdated, and require improvements to get them to an acceptable condition. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC INPUT In Chapter 4, commen ts by the City and public were eva luated to ensure th e users and th ose operating the parks and services could also contribute their thoughts for consideration in determining the best recommendations (A ppend ix F and G). In evaluating thi s input, recurring comments were given hi gher p riority . Tabl e 6.2 conso lidates th e recurring comme nts of th e City and pub lic. COMPARISON TO NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION BENCHMARKS As detailed in Chapter 5, utilizing the PRORAGIS software by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), a detailed comparison was run between the City and a national benchmark figure. The benchmark was establi shed based on the national median for jurisdictions with a similarly-sized population. Thi s process helped determine the demand for specific amenities and services based on the current inventory of facilities and program s, the existing population count, and population projections for 2020 and 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS Considering all these factors, schematic diagrams were prepared to show the potential configuration of new uses and improvements to existing features within the parks sys t e m (See Appendix D). Chapter 7, p rovides detailed steps to implementing the recommendations of this stud y, including an itemized Isit of improvements by facility for each phase. Generally, existing parks are slowly receiving replacements for outdated structures, fences , and Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations amenities. Smaller parks do not have a current or foreseea b le need for fencing such as the larger parks due to a desire to maintain their character as a small, neighborhood park, and because of tile current safer conditions at these locations. Fac il ities that are relatively new to the system, such as th e Murray Park Aquat ic Center and Dog Park, are recommend ed for only a fe w new improvements, and a ll new sites have recommended improvements per the current and future needs and des ir es of the City. Th e C it y is recommended to improve securit y at its parks by incorporating the principles of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). All park areas should have adequate v isibility to and from other areas within the parks, as well as to and from areas outs id e o f the parks. Im proved vis ibil it y ensures vigilance from neighboring residents , passersby, other park users, and securi t y personne l. Any h in drances t o vis ibility shou ld be addressed where possible . Increased securit y p rese nce and patrolli ng can also be used to promote a safe environment at parks. Implementation of CP TE D princ ip les w ill help to make parks defensible and safe spaces. In addit ion t o th e recommendations outlined in Table 6.2 and in Chapt e r 7, the City is highly encouraged to work in partnership w ith the Girl Scouts of America to offer seasona l or annual events open to the pub lic at th e Girl Scouts Litt le House prope rt y. Existing Facility Enhancements Certain parks and facilities are also being recommended for enhancements to improve the overall aesthetic, meet facility demands, and to create a unified and multi-faceted choracter throughout the Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations park and the City. Enhancements for most parks and facilities include a variety of fac il ities which are detailed in Table 6.3. 'K"~\AI,"r Park Aquat- c Center ..... ,.,'Im'''r Park Miami Park Provide passive programmed uses to pre- underutilization (e.g. tai chi. yogo) Add bathrooms Repurpose racquetball court area Renovate observation deck and fence canal Add more picnic and grilling area(s) Renovate or replace picnic shelters Provide opportunities for water recreation Renovate perimeter and tennis court ing Add more tennis courts areas • Add grilling area • Provide opportunities for water recre- ation • Renovate parking lot and lot lighitng • Renovate basketball half court • Renovate rubberized jogging trail • Renov9te or replace restrooms and pro shop • Increase tree canopy to provide more shade • Enhance view to canal Increase visibility from street perimeter in • Increase maintenance around cano- with low visibility to promote a safe pied areas used for waste disposal IPn\lIr,.mment by discouraging crime and use. Renovate or replace pavilion homeless • Renovate or replace bathrooms .... r,.,Mlrilp programmed uses along perim-• Add a pedestrian bridge over pond of the pond and northern lawn areas • Increase security presence Increase maintenance of restrooms • Renovate bathrooms and locker rooms Provide online sign-ups for reservations, • Renovate building exterior and interior classes and at facility paint Relocation site for the Sylva Martin Building Provide picnic and seating opportunities Improve street conrtectivity along perim- of park Redevelop as rectangular park .-,n,vlnIP more furniture (Le . benches, bins) .-rn,vlnIP more tree canopy in sports field np,-tn,tnr areas Provide enhanced bike facilities to pro - alternative transportation and reduce • Provide basketball court(s) • Provide more active, programmed uses to prevent underutilization • Provide perimeter fencing • Provide longer hours during the summer season • Provide a standard-sized playground ages 5-12 • Improve drainage and parking • Renovate dugout roofs • Enhance relationship with the adjacent Fairchild Elementary School • Provide new multi-purpose fields on renovated site • Provide new park access oints Provide a fence along perimeter of park • Replace didactic trail signage promote a safe environment and discour-• Increase security presence night-time use Remove debris from demolished structure Table 6.2 Exis ting Park Recommenda tions from Si te Analysis and Evalua tion of Ci ty and Public Inpu t Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations Addition/Reduction of Amenities by Phase Phase Additional/Reduced Facilities Quantity Site Basketball courts 11 J.R.E. Lee Administration Office (3) Ludlam Elementary School (2) South Miami K-8 Center(3) Phase One South Miami Middle School (3) (2017-2018) Multi-use fields 2 Ludlam Elementary School (1) South Miami K-8 Center (,1) Multi-use trails ±6 ,300 LF Underline Trail Baseball / Softball field 1 South Miami K-8 Center Racquetball court -2 Brewer Park (reduction) Tennis courts 2 Dante Fascell Park Multi-llJse trails ±1 AOO LF Ludlam Trail Non-motorized boat launch 2 Dante Fascell Park Brewer Park Playgrounds 4 All , America Park (adventure playground) Hardee Drive Park Palmer Park Phase Two South Miami Park (2018-2020) Tot lots 1 South Miami Park Pavilion/shelter 3 South Miami Park Picnic tables 33 Brewer Park (3) Dante Fascell Park (6) Disoh Park (3) Fuchs Park (9) Hardee Drive Park (3) Murray Park (3) South Miami Park (6) Multi-use fields -1 South Miami Park Pavilion/Shelter 3 Dante Fascell Park (1 ) South Miami Park (2) I" Picnic tables 12 Miller Drive Park (3) Murray Park Aquatic Center (3) East Park (3) Phase Three West Park (3) (2020-2025) Playgrounds 2 East Park West Park Tot lot 2 Miller Drive Park West Park Volleyball 1 South Miami Park Multi-use trails ±2,700 LF Snapper Creek Trail (±2,700) Tabl e 6.3 Addition/Reduc tion 01 Facil ities by Phase Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations Future Park and Faci I ities Recommendations Under the recommended park lend level- of-service ratio of 4 acres per 1,000 persons, the City must acquire an add iti onal 20.5 acres to meet the p roject ed 68.3-acre requ irement by 2025 . Th rough joint -use agreemen ts with schoo ls, incorpora t ion of b lueways, incorporation of t he p roposed trails in and adjacent to t he Ci ty, and acqu isiti on of six (6) potential park sites, secu rin g 20 acres of add iti ona l p ark land is a feasib le goa l fo r t he City. C hapter 7 demonstrates h ow to acquire th e necessary acreage t o comp ly w ith requiremen t s. Th e NR PA benchmarks suggest the additional chall enge of provid ing adequat e recreation facil ities th roug hout t h e Ci t y. Recomme n ded faciliti es have been added fo r eac h p hase to a li gn w it h t he national med ian. Figure 6.2 Adult athle tics programs help main tain good heal th and preven t illness Of not e is the expansion of the tennis courts at Dante Fascell to inc lude a new pro shop and mu lti- recrea tional fac ility. A lthough the City is above the nationa l median w it h t h e number of t ennis courts provided, the City has a str ong demand for this type of activity and facility, and has identified a potential source of revenue in hosting tennis tournaments at Dante Fascell, which will be enabled with the recommended addition of two tennis courts to comply with tournament venue requirements. These two new tennis courts will restrict usage for lessons in order to help meet demand for availability of leisurely play time on the courts. The C ity is recommended to in corporat e CPTED (Crime Pr evention Through Envir onment al Design) princip les in all its new parks and facilities. A ll new park areas shou ld have adequate v isib ility to and from other areas w it hin t he parks, as well as t o and from areas outs ide of the parks to ensure vig il a n ce from neighbori ng res idents, passersby, other park users, a nd securit y person n e l. As is recom m e nded for existin g parks and faci liti es, inc reased secu ri ty presence and pat ro lli ng is encouraged to h elp promote a safe environment a t parks throughout the day. Implemen ta t ion of CP TE D principles w ill h elp t o make all new parks defensib le and sa fe spaces. Future Parks and Faci I ities Locations and Distribution As illustrated in Chapter 5, a different challenge fo r the Ci t y exis t s in p roviding sufficient park coverage so t hat a ll residents are with in a 5-m inu t e wa lking dis t ance fr o m a City park. New park sites have been recommended in each phase to prov ide a d d it iona l park coverage. Fac ilit ies have a lso been added in each phase w ith consideration to existing d istr ibution of each type of facility . Future Programming Recommendations As has been discussed earlier, the City has a great opportunity in utilizing private vendors to service their athletic program needs. The variety of programs is also comparable to the national median based on Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations the NRPA analysis. Nonetheless, the current programs are not reaching the same levels of registrants as the national median. To increase the number of registrants enroll ing f or the City's programs, the Ci ty is recommended to improve their overal l outreach of their facilities and serv ices, which was an underlying problem that has been identified by the City and as a result of the public's input. Add it ionally, sin ce young adults are the largest age group withi n the Ci t y, compri sing one-th ird of th e popu lation, due in part to th e proximi ty to the University o f Miami, it is recommended that the City target these users for enrollment in their programs. Young adu lt s, especially those attending a coll ege or university, partic ipat e in sports and fitness activities more than other adu lt age groups. With outreach, providin g more opti ons t o this population could sway these potential users towards the City's p rograms as a means of replacing or supp lementing their current fitness activities. The Univers ity of Miami currently provides it s studen ts and faculty a variety of recreational facilities, which include ou t door and indoor amenities. Outdoor facilities include multipurpose fields , a baseball field , a soccer field, a runn ing track, tennis courts, basketball cou rts, and vo ll eyball courts. Indoor facilities includ e a fitness center, basketball courts, multipu rpo se court. 25-yard swimming pool, ra cquetball courts, and fitness classrooms . Despite having a larg e variety of facilities, the facilities can sometimes become overcrowded. Further investigation into which facilities are over-used, or not provided, could help determine which amenities cou ld serve the 18-25 year o ld population. Future programm ing should a lso include citywide and regiona l events. These types of events were strong ly desired by th e participants of the online public survey and both public workshops. Participants had a strongest desire for concert events and farmers' markets at parks. Future Faci I ity Enhancements On seve ral City roads, bicycle and pedestrian enhancements are being recommended to provide improved alternative tran sportation; reduced parking Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Sample Costs 1 Urni t M inor Road Major Roa d I ~e nn lll n it C ostJ QllIarn ~l~ Cost / M ile QllIQl1l mr~ Cos[/M ile Bul b-outs each $10,000.00 4 $40,000 .00 8 $80 ,000.00 Bike Rack each $660 .00 $660 .00 3 $1.980.00 Ra ised Crosswalk each $8 ,500 .00 0 $0 .00 $8 ,500 .00 Speed Hump each $2 ,500.00 4 $10,000 .00 4 $10,000 .00 Crosswa lk each $400.00 4 $1,600.00 4 $1,600.00 Sidewalk LF $32 .00 1320 $42,240 .00 1320 $42 ,240 .00 Signs each $300 .00 8 $2.400 .00 8 $2.400.00 Pavement marks each $400 .00 22 $8 ,800 .00 12 $4 ,800 .00 Table 6.4 Bicycle and Pedes trian Enhancemen t Samp le Cos ts Total $105,700.00 Total $151 ,520.00 1 Bushel l, M. A, Poole, B. W., Zegeer, C V, Rodriguez, D. A, (20 13, October) Costs for Pedestrian and Bicvclist Infrastructure Imarovements A Resource for Researchers Engineers Planners and the General Public. Univers ity of North Carolina Highway Safe ty Research Center, Chapel Hill. Ch apter 6: Planning Reco mmendations and ve h icu lar tra ffic congestion; and connectivity between City parks, neighborhoods, and proposed multi-use trails . These typical bicycle and pedestrian enhoncements ore shown in Table 6.4 . An example of proposed Shared Lane Markings are shown be low using both w hit e a nd green pa int for in c reased aware ness . Fi gure 6.3 Shared Lane Marking The additi o n o f wayfind ing sig nage would also p rovide a ben eficial en ha ncement a lo ng t he corridors betwee n C it y parks. A sig na ture design for wayfi nding signs can he lp provide d irect ion, o ri e nta ti o n , and fu rth e r establis h a se nse of place. Sig ns indicating dista n ces to o th e r parks could indicate both d irection and con necti v ity o f the parks. Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PLAN _0,lR6~=~1 Fig ure 6.4 Bicycle & Pedes trian Enhancemen ts Plan Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: •• PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS LEGEND: EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS C-_-_-J CITY LIMITS 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' December 2016 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Future Staffi ng Recommendations Chapter 5 discussed the C it y's ex ist ing ratio of full -tim e t o part-tim e employees (1 :2.4), and the fac t ors that must be considered in evaluating the need to differ from the sta ffing ratios of the nat ional median . Based on these factors, it is our recommendation that the City would be better served w ith a higher ratio of full-time to part-time sta ff. Nonethe less, th e City should sti ll aim to g ravitate slightly towards th e median rati o over the next ten years to reduce th e overa ll cost of st affing, and maximize the provided budget for use on operations by ach ieving a 1:4 ratio of fu ll -time to part- tim e sta ff . The national median is currently 1 f ull -tim e employee for every 5.3 part-time emp loyees (1 :5.3). By 2025, th e national median ra t io w ill be 1 full -time employee for every 5.8 part-time employees. G iven the unique circumstances of the City of South M iami, th e recommended ratio by 2025 is 1:4 . To make this change a gradual adjustment, the recommended ratio for the five-year period (Ph ase Two) is 1:3 w ith no adjustments in Phase One due to not much ti me rema inin g in this phase. Add it iona ll y, the number o f employees must also increase to accomodate the projected Parks and Recreation facility increases for 2020 and 2025. Since the City of South Miami has unique staffing needs, the recommended increase for both full-time and part-time employees sha ll vary slightly from the national median. The City should focus on retaining the current full-tim e positions, and supplementing staffing needs for each phase with part-time employees. Chapter 7 provides the implementation steps for staffing adjustments through the phases. Full -time Staff 16 Part-tim e Staff 3 8 Ratio 1 :2.4 Full -time St aff 16 Part-tim e Staff 48 Ra tio 1:3 Full -time Staff 16 Part-tim e Staff 64 Ra tio 1:4 Table 6.5 Staffing Recommendations by Phase * Phase One will have no change in staff due to the short time frame of the phase, which is intended for immedia te changes Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 7.2 Parks and Recrea tion Master Plan MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS : e PROPOSED PARK SITES _PROPOSED SCHOOL OPEN SPACE LEASES _. PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * PROPOSED BLUEWAY ACCESS • PROPOSED BLUEWAY CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT EXISTING PARKS : o SOUTH MIAMI PARK ® BREWER PARK ® GIRL SCOUT LImE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK ® ALL AMERICA PARK ® JEAN WIWS PARK @ VAN SMITH PARK @ DOGPAR K @ FUCHSPARK @ DISONPARK @ DANTE FASCEL PARK LEGEND : EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS C-_-_J CITY LIMITS 0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' February 2017 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Chapter 7: Plan Implementation South Miami's Parks and Recreation Master Plan is designed to be implemented over the next 10 years. During this time period a number of recommendations are scheduled to be implemented in phases. The purpose of this final chapter is to identify land needed , maintenance and its scheduling, facilities recommended, staffing, and budgeting of financial resources needed by each implemented phase. New park land proposed in this Plan has been located to improve park distribution throughout the City. Currently, there are severa l areas where residents would have to wa lk over a quarter of a mile to get to a park. Having a short walking distance to a park encourages wa lking instead of driv ing, and makes getting to a park on foot or bike much eas ier for families with children. The new parks will be located in the remaining areas that need parks with in a five-minute walking distance. The new park lands are small or pocket parks, which were the size of parks most desired by residents, and which will provide a variety of new amenities to areas in need of parks w ithin walking distance. New park amenities were selected based on deficiencies in amenities compared to the NRPA benchmarks described in Chapter 5: Demand Ana lys is, and to resident demand based on feedback from the online public survey and public workshops. Existing parks shall be enhanced to improve deficiencies identified through site analysis, city input, or resident feedback. Additional amenities will also be installed in certain parks to meet NRPA benchmarks and respond to resident desires. The addition of the blueways provides waterway access to the public for recreational use. The introduction of water-based activities such as canoeing and kayo king further diversifies the types of recreation available to residents. Blueway access also adds a new Chapter 7: Plan Implementation way to interact with th e outdoors. Throughout the City there are local roads proposed for pedestrian and bicycle enhancements . These roads will be retrofitted with biking and pedestrian safety features, demarkations, signage, and facilities. The location of these enhanced roads were selected to improve connectivity between the City's parks. Roads were also selected based on their level of traffic; medium to lower volume roads that ran through longer portions of the City were preferred to high volume roads, or shorter roads. Ultimately, the road enhancements will serve to connect the City's parks via safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists, promote walking and bicycling as an a lternative to driving,and reduce veh icular t raffic and parking congestion, especially at City Parks. All dollar amounts in this chapter are in 2016 doll ars, unless otherwise specified. Phase One: 2017 ·2018 LAND AREA With a population of 1 1,657 be in g served by 48 existing acres o f park land, c urren tl y the City meets the 4 acres per 1,000 persons park land level-o f-se rvice ratio. Pe r the Comprehe nsive Plan, the City is required to p rovi de 47 acres, therefore the C it y has an exis ting surp lu s of 1 acre. Th e recommendations for this p hase are intended t o address im provemen ts needed immediately at existing parks, improve the park se rv ic e area coverag e throu ghout th e City, and in c re ase the park land acreage su rp lus in anticipation of future park land requ irements of subsequ e nt phases. These actions in clude establi sh in g use agreements with City schools that have open space resources, and designation of th e Und erline Tr ail as City park land. As of 20 16, t he City has contributed $25,000 towards development o f the Underlin e project. A ctions for thi s phase are o u t lin ed in Tabl e 7.1. Th e actions in Tabl e 7 .1 , "Phase One Park Land Area," demonstrate tha t by the end of Phase One, th e City w ill exceed the park land leve l-of-se rvice requirement with a surpl us of 16 ac res. The modifications w ill also help in crease wa lkab ility to a park by add in g recreation resources that expand park coverage in the C ity . Parkland a c re s at beginning of thi s pha se Des ignate Und erlin e Trail a s City park land Use Agree ment with So uth Miami K-8 Ce nte r Use Agree me nt wi th South Miami Middle Sc hool Use Agreeme nt with J.R.E. Lee Admini st ra tion Offi ce Use Agreeme nt with Ludlam El e menta ry Sc ho o l Park land a c res added in thi s phase Park lan d a c res at end of th is ph ase Park land acres leve l-of-serv ice rati o at end o f thi s pha se Ta bl e 7.1 Pha se One Park Land Area STAFFING 47.84 11.17 1.20 0.40 0.27 1.90 14 .94 62.7 8 4.5 1 ac res / 1,000 pe rso ns No changes to staffing wi ll be required in Phase One due t o the short tim e-fra me of the p lanning phase period, so the st affing ratio will continue a t 1 ful l-tim e per 2.4 part -time staff. Chapter 7: Plan Implementation IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES South Miami K-8 Center Lease Use Acquisition Costs $10 ,000 .00 $10 ,000.00 South Miami Middle School Lease Use Acquisition Costs $10,000.00 $10,000.00 J.R.E . Lee Administration Office Lease Use Acquisition Costs $10 ,000 .00 $10,000.00 Lud lam Elementary School Lease Use Acquisition Costs $10 ,000 .00 $10 ,000.00 South Miami K-8 Center (lease) Fencing Site Improvements $7,500 .00 $7,500 .00 South Miami Middle School Fencing Site Improvements $7 ,500.00 $7,500 .00 (lease) J.R.E . Lee Administration Office Fencing & gravel parking lot Site Improvements $30 ,000 .00 $30,000 .00 (lease) Ludlam Elementary School Fencing Site Improvements $7 ,500.00 $7,500 .00 (lease) NEW Jo/~OlUl ili IES Brewer Park Tenn is facility -10' perimeter Fencing system $50,000 .00 $50,000 .00 fencing (Proposed) (Proposed) Dante Fascell Park Playground Enhancement $175 ,000.00 $175,000 .00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Parking lot renovation Engineering services $150,000 .00 $150,000.00 and construction (Proposed) (Proposed) Horse rai l fence and existing LF 2,500 $30.00 $75 ,000.00 fence removal (Proposed) (Proposed) Tennis facility fencing 10' perimeter fencing $50 ,000.00 $50,000 .00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Utility Shed Shed $5 ,000.00 $5,000 .00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Replace park benches Benches $6 ,500 .00 $6,500.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Gibson Bethel Community Fitness equipment Replacement $120,000 .00 $120,000 .00 Center (Proposed) (Proposed) Relocate fitness room & Re location $150 ,000.00 $150 ,000.00 mult ipurpose rooms (Proposed) (Proposed) Exterior facility painting Painting $50 ,000 .00 $50 ,000.00 (P roposed) (Proposed) Fitness rubber floor carpet Replace ment $16 ,000.00 $16 ,000.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Carpet tile -2nd level Replacement $25 ,000 .00 $25 ,000.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Facility window tinting Tinting $25 ,000.00 $25 ,000.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) Table 7.2 continued on next page Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Murray Park Palmer Park Van Sm ith Park Dante Fascell Park Tob ie 7.2 , continued 6' perimeter fencing Fencing system Playground Tot lot (ages 2-5 ) replacement Drainage improvements Engineering services and construction Dugout roof Replacement 6' steel p icket fence w ith Fencing system metal sheet OTHER PROPOSED ITEMS Entry Sign Tree replacement for austra- lian pines Sign Trees $15 ,000 $15 ,000 (Proposed ) (Proposed) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) $250,000 .00 $250.000 .00 (Proposed) (Proposed) 10 $1 ,500 .00 $15 ,000 .00 (Proposed) (Proposed) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 (Proposed) (Proposed) $5.000 .00 $5,000 .00 25 $400.00 $10,000 .00 J.R.E. Lee Administration Office Basketball courts Renovation 3 $15 ,000.00 $45,000 .00 Subtotal Proposed 20 17 C IP Budget Items $1.277 ,500 .00 Subtotal Other Proposed Items $152,500 .00 TOTAL: $1.430,000 .00 Contingency on Unbudgeted Items (15%) $22.875 .00 SUBTOTAL: $1.452,875.00 Capital Improvements and New Facilities Soft Costs (15%): $16,875.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,469 ,750.00 Table 7.2 Phase One (2017-20 18) Immedia te Cos ts Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Master Plan: Phase One (2017-2018) ~v.>.."",,~~~BBr~~ = Figure 7.3 Mas ter Plan Phase One (Immedia te Changes ) Chapter 7: Plan Implementation PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS : e PROPOSED PARK SITES _PROPOSED SCHOOL OPEN SPACE LEASES EXISTING PARKS: <D SOUTH MIAMI PARK ® BREWER PARK ® GIRL SCOUT UTIlE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK ® ALL AMERICA PARK ® JEAN WIWS PARK @) VAN SMITH PARK @ DOGPARK @ FUCHSPARK @ DISONPARK ® DANTE FASCEU PARK LEGEND: ------, I I I I 1 _____ -CITY LIMITS EXISTING PARKS _ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS _ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND 2,000' February 2017 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG Phas .... w--ft"'" n ftftft" I u: ~u I o-~u~u LAND AREA For this phase , the City is anticipated to have a popu lation of 15,5 11 , and will be required t o provide 62 acres of park land. By 2020, th e C ity wi ll have acquired 63 acres of park lond through the addition of open space leases with three City schools, and designation o f Underline Trail as City park land. At the beginning of Phase Two, the City will have a surp lu s of 1 acre. Despite provid in g sufficient park land to meet the leve l-of-service requ ir ement, the City is recommended to continue improving their park land coverage throughout the City as a means of improving walkability to a park for residents. The City shou ld adju st their park land area through th e following actions : Develop North Area Park (SW 42nd Terr. & SW 62nd Ct.) De ve lop Jean Willis Annex Park Acquire Hardee Driv e Area Park Annex Ludlam Trail sec tion De signate Northern Blueway as park land De signate Snapper Creek Blueway as park land Park land acres added in this phase Park land acres at end of this phase Park land acres level -of-serv ice ratio at end of this phase Table 7.3 Phase Two Park Lan d Area 0.15 0.08 0.25 2.99 15 .94 4.65 24 .06 86.84 5.60 acres / 1,000 persons Th e recommended acquisitions are intended to provide park coverage in areas where there p reviously was none. Th e North Area Park (see Fi gure 7.4) is a specific location within the Right of Way of the southwest corner of SW 42nd Terr . and SW 62nd Ct. Th e Hardee Dri ve Area Park is in a region where multiple large areas of open space were identifi ed next to adjacent uses, that a lthough cu rr ently used for informal parkin g, coul d in stead be used for communit y park land. Fig ure 7.4 Norlh Area Par k Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Addition of the Underline Trail is expected to be at no cost to the City, as th is greenway will be on County property w ithin the City. The recommended development of the Jean Wi llis Annex (see Figure 7.5) would se rve as a gateway feature for th e City along th e Underline trail. The pocket park would feature bike racks, benches, a b ike repair tower, and directional signage for City landmarks. Figure 7.5 Jean Willis Annex Chapter 7: Plan Implementation The proposed b lueways add a significant amount of acreage to the existing parks system whi le also divers ify ing the type of recreation in the City . The Northern and Snapper Creek Blueways are proposed to be accessed from exis ti ng parks, and would e nable peop le to utilize the canal system beyond th e parks' vicinity. In response to public feedback, sig nifi cant im provement s wi ll t ake place at Sou th Miami Park in this phase. Notably, new access points w ill be included to address the limited access towards the west side of th e park. Th e new access points include a pedestri an and vehicular entrance on the northwest corner o f the park, and a pedestrian access point on th e southern edge of the park. As ment ioned earlier, there are several sit es cu rr ently maintained by th e City's Public Works Depa rt - ment wh ich have been identifi ed for potenti a l des igna- t ion as Pocket Parks. The pocket parks to be designat ed in this phase are as follows: Pocket Park 1 -SW 63rd Ave. & SW 50th SI. -open area between single fami ly homes Pocket Park 2 -SW 57th C t . bet ween 78th SI. and 80 th St. -east sid e of Right of Way open area wi th existing park bench and landscaping STAFFING For this phase, it is recommended that the City adjust their full-time to part-time employee ratio to 1:3 by 2020. Based on the recommended ratio for this phase, and the need to increase staff to service the expanded parks and recreation faci lit ies, the City should enhance their staff to 16 full-time and 48 part- time employees (1:3 ratio). IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES Hardee Drive Area Park Acquisition' Acres 0 .25 $1,200,000 .00 $300,000 .00 North Area Park Site improvements $150 ,000.00 $150 ,000 .00 Hardee Drive Area Park Site improvements $200,000 .00 $200,000 .00 Jean Willis Annex Site Improvements $50,000 .00 $50 ,000 .00 South Miami Park Redevelopment Site improvements $1 ,200 ,000.00 $1,200 ,000 .00 SW 62nd Place Canal Bridge Blueway connection en-Road removal $350 ,000.00 $350 ,000.00 hancement SW 63rd Court Canal Bridge Blueway connection en-Road removal $350 ,000 .00 $350,000 .00 hancement Pocket Park 1 SW 63rd Ave. & SW 50th St . Site improvements 1 . $50 ,000 .00 $50,000 .00 Pocket Park 2 SW 57th Ct. between SW Site improvements $50,000 .00 $50 ,000 .00 80th St . & SW 78th st. NEW lo/~arul:li [ES All America Park Furniture Benches, t rash bins 2 $2 ,500.00 $5 ,000.00 Adventure playground Standard (ages 5-12) $75 ,000 .00 $75,000.00 Paved path (ADA) SF 1.750 $10.00 $17,500.00 Lig hting posts Post 7 $1.000.00 $7 ,000 .00 Brewer Park Boat launch (non-motorized) Lanes $30 ,000 .00 $30,000 .00 Parking (near boat launch) Sta ll s 5 $4,000 .00 $20,000 .00 Pie r I fence renovation LF 300 $200.00 $60 ,000.00 Racquetball court remova l SF 3,100 $8 .50 $26 ,350 .00 Picnicking I gri lli ng Picnic area with grill (3 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 tables) Paved path (ADA) SF 2,000 $10.00 $20 ,000 .00 Pl ayground Shade Structure 4-post shade structure $15 ,000.00 $15 ,000 .00 Dante Fasc e ll Park Tennis expansion C lay court 2 $100 ,000 .00 $200 ,000 .00 Tennis court lighting Lighting system per 8 $25,000 .00 $200 ,000 .00 court Restrooms I pro shop SF 3,200 $200 .00 $640 ,000.00 Boat launch (non-motorized ) Lanes $100,000 .00 $100,000 .00 wi grading Picnicking I grilling Picn ic area w ith grill (3 2 $6 ,000.00 $12 ,000 .00 tables) Paved path (ADA) SF 5,000 $10.00 $50 ,000.00 Refurbish rubberized walk-Refurbi shing $40,000 .00 $40 ,000 .00 ing/jogging tra il Table 7.4 continued on next page Chapter 7: Plan Impleme ntat ion Table 7.4, continued Dison Park Picn icking Picnic area (3 tables ) $5 ,000 .00 $5 ,000 .00 Tree canopy Tre e s 10 $400 .00 $4,000 .00 Paved path (A DA) SF 1,250 $10 .00 $12,500 .00 Lig ht ing post s Post 5 $1 ,000 .00 $5 ,000 .00 Swing se t Standard $10,000 .00 $10,000.00 Fuchs Park Boardwalk LF 700 $200 .00 $140 ,000 .00 Pedestrian Bridge Bridge $50 ,000 .00 $50 ,000 .00 Picnic pavili o n 15x25' pavilio n $30 ,000 .00 $30,000 .00 Paved path (A DA ) SF 3,500 $10 .00 $35 ,000 .00 Picnicking / g rilli ng Picnic area wit h gri ll (3 3 $6 ,000.00 $18,000 .00 tables ) Signage En try sign 2 $5 ,000 .00 $10,000 .00 Fu rn itu re a long boardwalk/ Be nc hes, trash bins 3 $2 ,500 .00 $7 ,500 .00 path Ligh t ing for peri meter, dark Post 40 $1,000 .00 $40,000.00 areas 12 High Definition Security In sta ll a t ion $25 ,000 .00 $25,000 .00 Came ras Hardee Drive A rea Park Playground Standard (ages 5-12) $95 ,000 .00 $95 ,000 .00 Picnicking Pi c nic are a (3 tables) $5 ,000 .00 $5 ,000 .00 Ba sketball court Ha lf court $10 ,000 .00 $10,000 .00 Jean Willi s Park Annex Bik e racks Rack 3 $500 .00 $1,500 .00 Bike repair tower Unit $1,500 .00 $1 ,500 .00 Benches Standard 4 $1.000.00 $4,000 .00 Water fou ntain Fountain $1.000 .00 $1,000 .00 Tra sh receptacle s 32 gall on rece ptacle $350 .00 $350 .00 Re cycling Bins 32 gall on receptacle $350 .00 $350 .00 Wayfinding Signage Sign Structure $2 ,500 .00 $2,500.00 J.R.E. Lee Ad mini stration O ffice Bask e tball court Renovatio n 3 $20 ,000 .00 $60,000 .00 Parking relocati on Sta ll s 30 $4 ,000 .00 $120,000 .00 Marshall Wi lli amson Park Outdoor fitness zon e Fitn ess e q ui pment $50 ,000 .00 $50 ,000 .00 Murray Park Picnic kin g Pi c nic are a (3 t ables ) $5 ,000 .00 $5 ,000 .00 North Area Park Furnitu re Be n c hes / tra sh bins $2 ,500 .00 $2 ,500 .00 Palm e r Par k Tree canopy Tr ees 40 $400.00 $16 ,000 .00 Bike racks Rack 5 $500 .00 $2 ,500 .00 Pl ayground Sta ndard (ages 5-1 2) $95 ,000.00 $95 ,000 .00 South Miami Park Re st rooms/maint enance SF 3,200 $200 .00 $640 ,000 .00 Build ing Picnic pavilion 25x2 5' pav ili on 3 $37 ,000.00 $111.000 .00 Pi c nicking Picnic area (3 table s) 2 $5 ,000 .00 $10 ,000.00 Furniture Be nc hes and trash bins 4 $2 ,500 .00 $10,000 .00 Table 7.4 continued on next page Chap ter 7: Plan Implementation Tab le 7.4, continued Playground Standard (ages 5-12 ) $95 ,000.00 $95 ,000.00 Tropical Hammock Natural Trees 1,200 $400.00 $480,000.00 Area (± 1.6 acres) Tropica l Hammock Natura l Shrubs 9,000 $5 .00 $45,000.00 Area (±1.6 acres) Tropica l hammock path SF 3,200 $8.00 $25 ,600.00 Pond w ith wetland species Acres 0.25 $25 ,000 .00 $6,250 .00 Paved perimeter path SF 24,000 $10 .00 $240,000.00 New Pedestri a n Access SW 59th Ave. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 New Pedestri an/Vehicular SW 60th Court $25,000 .00 $25,000 .00 Access Van Smith Park Paved path SF 4,250 $10.00 $42,500 .00 Lighting posts Post 3 $1,000 .00 $3,000.00 SW 58th Avenue Bicycle and pedestrian en-Miles 1.06 $100,000.00 $106,000.00 hancements SW 62nd Avenue Bicycle and pedestrian en-Mil es 1.92 $150,000.00 $288,000 .00 hancements SW 64th St reet / Hardee Drive Bicyc le and pedestrian en-Miles 1.3 1 $100,000 .00 $131,000.00 hancements SW 72nd Street / Sunset Drive Bicycle and pedestrian en-M il es 1.25 $150,000.00 $187,500.00 hancements A ll city-wide parks Picnic tables 6' rectangular tables 25 $500.00 $12,500.00 Trash receptacles 32 gall on recept acles 25 $350.00 $8,750.00 Recycling bins 32 gall on receptacles 25 $350.00 $8,750 .00 Benches Standard 25 $1,000 .00 $25,000 .00 Tree canopy Shade trees $25 ,000 .00 $25 ,000.00 Ene rgy efficient lighting Rep lacemen ts $300 ,000 .00 $300,000 .00 Entry Sign (a ll sites, except Dante Fasce ll (receives sign Sign 13 $5,000.00 $65,000.00 in Phase One ) TOTAL: $7,988 ,900 .00 Contingency (1 5%) $1,198 ,335 .00 SUBTOTAL: $9,187,235.00 Capital Improvements and New Facilities Soft Costs (1 5%): $1,153,335 .00 Table 7.4 Phase Two (20 18-2020) Capi tal Outlay Cos ts * Estima ted Cos t GRAND TOTAL : $10,340,570 .00 Ch apter 7: Pl an Impl ement ation Master Plan: Phase Two (2018-2020) 'l1li Figure 7.6 Master Plan Phase Two (20 17 -2020) Chapter 7: Plan Implementation PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS: PROPOSED PARK SITES • PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * PROPOSED BWEWAY ACCESS • PROPOSED BWEWAY CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT EXISTING PARKS: o SOUTH MIAMI PARK CD BREWER PARK ® GIRL SCOUT UffiE HOUSE RE SERVE @ PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL W1 WAMSON PAR K ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PAR K ® ALL AM ERICA PARK ® JEAN WILUS PAR K ® VAN SMITH PARK @ OOGPAR K @ FUCHSPARK @),DlSON PAR K ® DANTE FASCELL PAR K LEGEND: ,------, , , ... _----' CITY LIMITS EXISTING PARKS FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS ~ ..... -.. -.,. I : , . .............. 01 - 0' EXISTING SCHOOL OPEN SPACE LEASES POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND 2,000 ' February 2017 Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG ftl-........ _ 7hr---"""" """~ r'IICI:;t: I I t:t:: ~U~u-~u~a LAND AREA With a proje c t ed population of 17 ,084 , thi s phose req u ires 68 acres of park land to meet th e park land leve l-of-se rvice rati o requiremen t. By th e beginning of th is phose , it is anticipat ed that the City wil l have 87 acres of park land, creating a 19-acre surplus. Modifi ca ti ons t o park land area in thi s p h ose includ e th e fo ll owing actions : The additional parks lis ted above fo r thi s phase are int ended to provide park coverage w h e re th e re p reviously was none. Development of t he Snapper C reek Tr a il is mainly intended to diversify th e type of recreati on in th e City by adding a mu lti -use t ra il th a t is already on existin g opportunity, and is ga ining tra c ti on for development. The addition of the Central Blueway (see Fi gu re 7.7) completes access to th e majority of th e cona l acreage w ithin the Ci t y. Thi s access a lso he lps distribute wat er recrea ti on throughout diff erent areas 86 .84 of the City . ~----------~~~--------------------~ Acquire We st Area Park Acquire East Area Park Acquire Miller Drive Area Park Use Agreement with SFWMD for Development of Snapper Creek Trail Develop Central Blu eway Boat Launch Designate Central Blueway as park land Park land acres added in this phase Park land acres at e nd of this phase Park land acres level-of-serv ice ratio at end of this phase Table 7.5 Phase Three Park Lan d Are a 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.28 0.12 4 .53 6.68 93.52 5.47 acres / 1,000 persons Figure 7.7 Cent ral Blueway Bo at La unch Chapter 7: Plan Implementation If the Master Plan's recommendations are fo ll owed, by 2025 the Ci ty should have a t otal of 94 acres o f park land, providing 26 acres above tile Comprellensive Plan requirement for park land acreage. The City a lso exceeds t h e park land level-o f- service ratio o f 4 acres per 1,000 persons by providi ng 5.47 a c res per 1,000 perso ns. As mentioned earli er, t here are seve ral sit es curren t ly mainta ined by t h e City's Pu b lic Works Depart- ment w hi c h h ave been identi fied for pot e n t ia l designa- t io n as Pocket Par ks. The pocket p arks to be d es igna ted in this phase are as follows: Poc ke t Park 3 -Tw in Lakes Dr. & SW 57 th St. -cu l-de-sac open area Pocket Park 4 -SW 62nd C t . & 42nd Te rr. -triangular open area w it h in Right o f Way Pocket Park 5 -SW 60th Ave . between SW 84t h St. and 85 t h St . -open area between sing le fam il y homes (not m a intai n ed by Publi c Works ) STAFFING Fo r th is p hase, it is recommended th a t t he City adjus t t heir f ull -time to part -ti me employee ra t io t o 1:4 by 2025 . The 1:4 ratio a ll ows the Ci ty t o increase the proportion of their budget to be spen t on operations ra t her t han staffing, while also mai ntain ing a h igher ratio of full-time to part-time employees than the national median in consideration of the unique maintenance needs of South Miami compared to most of the nation, includ ing higher maintenance needs during the winter, retention of highly-sk illed workers, and prevention of employee turnover . The City should enhance the ir staff to 16 full-time and 64 part-time employees (1:4 ratio). Chapter 7: Plan Implementation IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES M ill er Dri ve A rea Park Acquis ition" Acres 0.25 $1.200.000.00 $300.000 .00 Eas t Area Park Acquis ition" Acres 0.25 $1.200.000 .00 $300.000.00 West Area Park Acquis ition" Acres 0.25 $1.200.000 .00 $300.000 .00 Mill er Drive Area Park Site improvements $200.000 .00 $200.000.00 East Area Park Site im provements $200.000.00 $200.000.00 West Area Park Site improvements $200.000.00 $200.000.00 Pocket Park 3 Tw in Lakes Dr. & SW 57th St. Site improvements $50.000.00 $50.000 .00 Pocket Park 4 SW 62nd Ct. & 42 nd Terr. Si t e improvements $5 0 .000.00 $50.000 .00 Pocke t Park 5 SW 60 t h Ave. between SW Site improvements $50.000.00 $50.000.00 84th St . & SW 85 t h St. NEW Io/~Q ru linEs Brewer Park Restrooms SF 1.500 $200 .00 $300.000.00 Dante Fascell Park Pic nic pavil ion replacement 15x25' pavilio n 3 $40.000.00 $120.000.00 I addition Eas t A rea Park Pl ayground St a ndard (ages 5-1 2) $95.000.00 $95.000.00 Picnicking I grilling Pic nic area wit h gri ll (3 $6 .000 .00 $6.000 .00 tables ) Gibson Bethel Community A/C Upgrade Upgrade $50.000 .00 $50.000 .00 Center Jean Wi ll is Park Sy lva Martin Build ing Re location and resto-$1.600.000 .00 $1.600.000.00 ra ti on Picn ic pavili on 15'xI5' 2 $15.000 .00 $30.000.00 Benches Standard 2 $1.000.00 $2.000 .00 Trash receptacles 32-gall on receptac les 2 $350 .00 $700 .00 Bike racks Rack 2 $500.00 $1.000 .00 Marshall Williamson Park Picnicking Picnic area (3 t ables ) 2 $5.000 .00 $10.000.00 M ill e r Drive A rea Park Pi cnicking I grilli ng Pic nic area w it h g rill (3 $6.000 .00 $6.000 .00 t ables) Playground Tot lot (ages 2-5 ) $32 .000 .00 $32.000 .00 Murray Park Furn iture Benches. trash bins 2 $2 .500.00 $5 .000 .00 Murray Park Aquatic Center Tree canopy Trees 5 $400.00 $2 .000.00 West Area Park Pl ayground Standard (ages 5-12) $95.000.00 $95.000 .00 Playground Tot lot (ages 2-5 ) $32 .000.00 $32 .000.00 Pic ni cking I g rill ing Picn ic area w ith grill (3 $6.000.00 $6 .000.00 tables) Snapper Creek Tra il M ul t i-use tra il M il es 0 .20 $500.000.00 $100.000.00 Table 7.6 continued on next page Chapter 7: Plan Implemen ta tion Table 7,6 , continued South M iami Chil dren's C linic South Miami Park SW 56th Street / M ill e r Dri ve Bu il d ing Renova tions - Roof & wa ll s, A/C , paint Picnic pavil ion Multipurpose fie ld Tree canopy Playground Volleyball Court Bicyc le and pedestrian en- hancements SW 67th Avenue / Ludlam Road hBiCYcie and t pedestrian en- ancemen s SW 68th Street & SW 65th Av- enue SW 80th St reet All city-wide parks Boat launch (non-motorized) Bicycle and pedestrian en- hancements Tree canopy Energy efficient lighting SF 25 'x25' pavilion Field and drainage Trees for spectator and picnic areas Tot lot (ages 2-5) Court Miles Miles Lanes Mi les Shade trees Replacements 1,500 2 3 100 0 .64 2.03 1.26 $100 .00 $150 ,000 .00 $50,000 .00 $100 ,000 .00 $300,000 .00 $900,000 .00 $400 .00 $40,000 .00 $32,000 .00 $32,000 .00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $100 ,000.00 $64 ,000.00 $150,000 .00 $304 ,500 .00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $100 ,000 .00 $126 ,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000 .00 TOTAL: $6 ,239 ,200 .00 Contingency (1 5%) $935,880 .00 SUBTOTAL: $7 ,175 ,080.00 Capital Improvements and New Facilities Soft Costs (15%): $800,880.00 Table 7.6 Phase Three (2 020-2025) Capi tal Out lay Cos ts * Estima ted Cos t Chapter 7: Plan Implementati on GRAND TOTAL: $7,975,960.00 Master Plan: Phase Three (2020-2025) Figure 7.8 Mas ter Plan . Phase Three (2 020-2 025) PHASE THREE IMPROVEMENTS: tit PROPOSED PARK SITES _ _ PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * PROPOSED BWEWAY ACCESS EXISTING PARKS: o SOUTH MIAMI PARK ® BREWER PARK ® GIRL SCOUT lITILE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK ® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK ® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER <D MURRAY PARK ® ALL AMERICA PARK ® JEAN WILLIS PARK @) VAN SMITH PARK ®OOGPARK @ FUCHSPARK @ DlSONPARK @ DANTE FASCELL PARK LEGEND : ,------. L ___ J CITY LIMITS LJ EXISTING PARKS -FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS r-----··1 EXISTING SCHOOL OPEN , , SPACE LEASES ,_ ................ --EXISTING PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * EXISTING BLUEWAY ACCESS • EXISTING BWEWAY CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT o· 1,000' 2,000 ' February 2017 Sou ~iami MILLE ~EGG Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Funding Options This Pl an approaches all new park land being attained or reclaimed to p ro v id e a conse rvati ve approach to the development of th e Im p lemen tation budgets . The Plan does not consider th e opportuniti es of lo wer cost acqu isi t ion alt e rnatives such as, land dedication and/or developer p ark contributions in th e anticipated cos t s. Th e City sh ould purs ue these alternatives a s d eve lopment is conti nuing within Sout h Miami. With $20 million of Parks and Recre ation capital improvements and land acqu isi ti on/developmen t antic ipat ed in thi s Master Plan , the City may want to util ize thi s Plan a s th e initial basi s for a Parks and Recreati o n Bond iss ue. Rec e ntly , resid e nts of other local municipalities have approved re fe re ndums on Parks Bond iss u es. Th ese municipa l Parks Bond approvals incl ude th e 20 14 Ci t y of Sunrise Parks Bond referendum ($65 m illi on ), and th e 20 14 C ity o f Hallandale Beach Parks referendum ($58 m illi on). As recreat ion becomes an ever more import ant element fo t th e City's existi ng residents and instrumental to further development, th e pot e ntial fo r a Parks Bond issue should be considered. Maintenance Implementation of th e p roposed improvements crea t es a foundation fo r t he p lan , however, the long- term success depends on focused maintenance efforts . Th ese maintenance e ff orts wi ll help ensure the long t e rm sustainabili ty, quality, and aesthetic o f the City's recreationa l facilit ies. In order to achieve th is, required maintenance operations and evaluations should be performed . In order to assist the City with carrying out these eva luations , the maintenance evaluation matrix shown in Appendix E shall be utilized in these efforts. Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Use o f the maintenance checkli st should alleviate the main tenance issues at Fuchs Park, Van Sm ith Park, and South Miam i Par k frequ e ntl y mentioned by res id ent s. Implement Community Outreach Program Both the City and its res ide nts have expressed concern over a lack of res ident awareness of th e City's parks and recreation fa c iliti es, programs, and se rvices . To address t hi s concern, th e City shou ld deve lop a n d implement a fo rmal com munity outreach program t o p romote the Ci ty's parks and recreational resources. Ou tr each can be accomplished using a variety of methods to co nne c t w ith diffe re nt popu lations in th e City. Examples include guerilla marketing , c ross- p romoti o n o f p rograms and se rv ices, p rom otion through loca l businesses, and socia l media outreach. Subsequent Phases FLE XIBILIT Y Thi s Plan provid es a roadmap for understanding th e Ci ty's recreation and open space needs over th e next ten years, and a correspond ing scen ari o for filling those needs. The ult imate implementation o f t hi s Plan will undoubtedly include alterna ti ve sol uti ons which may work as well and that better match cha n gi ng conditions over t ime. Regardless, recreational needs of the residents rema in the objective to be met and this Plan provides the information necessary to explore alternative pathways toward fulfi lling those needs. The idea here is t o use this document as a guide , rathe r than mandate. It is also possible that some of the approaches suggested here may not be achievable when tested: Leases may not be granted; land reclamation may be too difficult to permit; and new land exactly where needed, may not be available. If these specific opportun ities do not materialize, the Ci t y can move on in other directions, using goals provided in thi s Plan as a guide. PUBLIC INPUT DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS As part of the p la nning process for reassessing the subsequent phases of this Plan, the City should once again seek input from the public. To improve the quality of the feedback, the Ci t y should utilize the commun ity outreach program to notify and communicate with residents for all future phases. Communications used during the planning process should use the variety of outreach methods used in the community outreach program to ensure the feedback captures the various perspectives of the City's residents. REASSESMENT This Plan has as its founda ti on what is known about the City and its recreation needs at the present time. Sin ce conditions, needs, and fun d in g resources all change over time, this Plan will also change. The City shou ld do a formal review of the Plan , at least every five (5) years, and an interim review every two (2) years, as well as make whatever modifications or updates that are necessary at those times . However, the structure of the plan should remain intact since it is based on sound planning p rinciples and the phys ical and social conditions unique to South Miami. PLAN MODIFICATIONS As the Plan may evolve over time, care should be taken to ensure that modifications represent the interes t s of the pub lic which were engaged in its deve lopment, and that professional resources are reapplied to test the advisabil ity of amendment. Most importantly, the elected officials or their successors who commissioned the study should be engaged to reassess the "fit" proposed cha nges would have on the community being served at the time. MILLE ~EGG Chapter 7: Plan Implementation CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Parks and Recreation Master Plan Appendix This page intentionally left blank. APPENDICES Appendix A Requ irem e nt for th e Plan Appendix B Popu lation Studies Methodology by th e Bureau o f Eco n om ic and Bu sin ess Research (BEBR) Appendix C Ex istin g Facility Cond iti ons and Analyses Appendix 0 Schematic Park Improvement Plans Appendix E Maintenance Checklist s Appendix F On li ne Public Su rvey Results Appendix G Recurring Comments from Online Publi c Survey and Workshop # 1 5 7 11 71 86 92 136 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A Requirement for the Plan This Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been prepared pursuant to the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan, REC Po licy 1.1.4, adopted 20 10, and as mandated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This poli cy states, in part, "revisit and clarify park standards, in c luding the adopted Level of Se rvice Standard; identify the specific recreation and open space needs of City residents; develop a strategic p lan for comprehensive improvements to the existing and planned recreation and open space system; identify add itiona l opportunities to enhance the recreation and open space system through grants, impact fees, and other appropriate sources; identify approp ri ate staffing levels and community involvement strategies; evaluate the inventory of City-owned land, and t he feasibility of using such lands in the creation of new 'pocket parks;' evaluate the feasibi lity of establishing a land bank for parks, and; establish a schedu le for the Plan's periodic update." The bas is for this plan is a lso found in Resolution 54-14-14148 passed by the City Commission in 2014, which states that the Plan's purpose is to "develop a citywide comprehensive vision for South Miami's parks and recreation system; including, a physical inventory and site assessment of the exist in g parks and park system, [and] recommendations for current and future improvements, land acquisition and capital project development. " A ten-year timeline has been established as the planning period for this Plan. The Plan also serves as the first Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of South Miami. Appendix A This page in ten ti onally le ft blank. Appendix A APPENDIX B Population Studies Methodology by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) CONSTRUCT ING EST IMATES OF TOTAL POPU LA TION FOR COUN TI ES AND SUBCOUNTY AREAS IN FLOR IDA Stan ley K. Smith and Scott Cody Bureau o f Eco nomic and Bu sin ess Research Un ive rsit y of Florida December, 20 14 The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) makes population estimates for every county and subcounty area in Florida, w it h subcounty areas defined as incorporated ci tie s and the unincorporated balance of each county. County es timates are ca lculated as the sum of the subcounty estimates for each county and th e state est imate is ca lculated as the sum of th e county est im ates. The es ti mates refe r so lel y to permanent residen ts of Florida ; they do not include seasona l or o t her types of temporary res idents. The estimates are p rodu ced using the housing unit method, in wh ich changes in popu lation are based on changes in occupied housing units (or households). This is the most common ly used method for making local population estimates in the Uni ted States because it can utilize a wide variety of data sources, can be applied at any level of geography, and can produce estimates that are at least as accurate as those produced by any other method. The foundation of the HU method is the fact that almost everyone lives in some type of housing structure , whether a traditional single family unit, an apartment, a mobile home, a college dormitolY, or a st ate prison. Th e population of any geographic area can be calculated as the number of occupied housing units (households) times the average number of persons per household (PPH), plus the number of persons living in group quart e rs such as college dormitories, military barracks, nursing homes, and prisons : PI = (Ht x PP Ht) + GQt where Pt is the population al tim e t, HI is the number of occupied housing units at time t, PPHt is th e average number of persons per household at t ime t, and GQt is the g roup quarters population at time t. Esti mates o f the number o f people w ithout perma n ent living quarters (e.g., the homeless population) are included in estimates of t he group quarters population . This is an ide nti ty, not an estima te. If th ese three compone nts we re known exact ly, the total popu la tion wou ld also be known. The prob lem, of cou rse, is that these components are almost never known exa ctly . Rather, they must be estima t ed from vario us data so urc es, using one or more of seve ral possible techniques. In this report, we describe the data and tec hni q u es used to es ti mate these three components for cou nti es and subcounty areas in Fl orida. HOUSEHOLDS Census definitions require a person to be coun t ed as an inhabitant of hi s/her usual p lace of residence, wh ich is generally construed to mean the place where he/ she lives and sleeps most of the time. This p lace is not necessari ly the same as one's legal or voting residence. A household is the person or group of people occupying a housing unit; by definition , the number of occupied housing units is the same as the number of households. Households refer solely to permanent residents and Appendi x B a housing unit is classified as vacant even w ilen it is continuously occupied, if all the occupants are temporary residents staying only for a few days, weeks, or mon tl-Is. BEBR uses three different data sources to estimate the number o f households in Florida . The first is residential building permits, as collected and distributed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The housing inventory in 20 14 for a c ity or county that issues build in g permits can be estimated by adding permits issued since 20 10 to the units cou nted in the 20 10 census and sub tra cting units lost to destruction, demolition, or conversion to ather uses. The time lag between th e issuance of a permit and the comp letion of a unit is assumed to be three months for sin gle-famil y units and fifteen months for multifamily un its. Building pe rmit s are not issued f or mobile homes, but proxies can be derived from records of sh ipments to mobile home deale rs in Florida. C rea tin g a hous ing inventory for an entire county requires complete permit data for every perm ittin g agency within the county. Although such data are not always available, coverage is sufficient in most Florida cities and counties to p ro v id e use ful inf ormation. There are no readily available data sou rces providing comprehensive up-to-date information on occupancy rates. Accurate information can be obtained through specia l censu ses or large sample surveys, but in most instances these methods are too expensive to be feasible. A common so luti on is to use the occupancy rates reported in the most recent census. This is the procedure we follow in most places, but in some places we make adjustments to account for fa ctors refie ct ing changes in occupancy rates over time (e.g ., changes in the seasonal population). The product of the inventolY figure and the occupancy rate provides an estimate of the number of households. Appendix B There are seve ral potential p roblems with this estimate. Time lags between the issuance of permits and the completio n of units may vary from place to place and frorn year to year. The proportion of permits resul tin g in completed units is usually unknown . Data on demolitions and conversions are incomplete and da t a on mobile homes must be est im a ted indirectly. Re liabl e estimates of changes in occupancy rates are generall y unavailable. Certificate-of-occupancy data can eliminate problems relat ed to completi on rat es and time lags but not those related to occupancy rates, demoliti ons, and conversions. Although these problems limit th e usefulness of the data in some p laces, bui lding permit data often provide reasonably accurate estimates of households. Our second data source is active residential electric customers. We collect these data from each of the state's 54 e le c tri c utility companies. Households can be estimated by constructing a ratio of household s to active residential electric customers using data fr om the most recent census year (e .g., 2010) and multiplying that ratio times the number of active residential customers in some later year (e .g., 20 14). This p rocedure assumes that no changes have occurred in electric company bookkeeping practices or in th e proporti on of customers who are permanent res id ents. Although changes do occur, they are generally fairly small. In some places we adjust the household/electric customer ratio to account for li kely changes in the proportion of housing units occupied by permanent residents. Previous research on BEBR population estimates has shown that household estimates based on electric customer data are-on average-more accurate than those based on building permit data. We use a third data source for estimates at the county level: the number of homestead exemptions reported by the Florida Department of Revenue. Households can be estima t ed by constru ct in g a ratio of households to exemptions using data from the most recent census year (e .g., 20 10) and multiplying that ratio times the number of exemptions in some later year (e.g., 20 14 ). An important advantage of these data is that th ey cover only housing units occupied by permanent residents, thereby excluding the impact of seasonol and other non-permanent residents. The primary disadvantage is that the data do not include households occupied by renters or other non-homeowners. Homestead exemption dat a are not available at the subcounty level. Build ing permit, e lectric customer, and homestea d exemption data all provide useful information regarding changes in households. We use our professional judgment to decide which data source(s) to use in each specific county and subcounty area. In many instances, we use averages of estimates from two or eve n all three dat a sources. PERSONS PER HO USEHOLD The second component of the housing unit method is the average number of persons per household (PPH). Florida's PPH dropped steadily from 3.22 in 1950 to 2.46 in 1990 bu t then leveled off, remaining constant between 1990 and 2000 before rising to 2.48 in 20 10. There is a substantial amount of variation among local areas in Florida, w ith values in 2010 ranging from 2.1 to 3 .1 for counties and from less than 1.5 to more than 4.0 for subcounty areas . PPH va lues have risen over time in some cities and counties and declined in others. For each county and subcounty area, we base our PPH estimates on the local PPH value in the most recent census (e .g., 2010), the state-level change in PPH since that census (as measured by the American Community Survey), and the local change in the mix of single- family, multifamily, and mobile home units since that census. For counties, we also use a regression model in which changes in PPH are determined by changes in births, school enrollment, and Medicare enrollees . In some instances, we use indirect indicators of changes in PPH to adjust the estimates (e.g., changes in racial composit ion ). Again, we use our p rof essiona l judgment to decide which data sources and techniques to use in each county and subcoun ty area. GROUP QUART ERS POPULATION The hous e h old population is ca lculated as the product of households and PPH. To obtain an estima te of the total population, we must add an estimate of the group quarters population. In most places, we estimate the group quarters population by assuming that it accounts for the same proportion of tota l popu lation in 20 14 as it did in 20 10. For example, if the group quarters population accounted for 2% of the tota l population in 20 10, we assume that it accounted for 2% in 20 14. In places where the group quarters popula tion represents a substantial proportion of the total population, we collect data directly from the administrators of the major group quarters faci li ties. Inmates in state and federal institutions are accounted for separa tely in all loca l areas; these data are available from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Florida Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Vete ran Affairs, the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabi liti es, the Florida Department of Health, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and the Florida Department of Children and Families. The total population estimate is made by adding the estimate of the g roup quarters popu lation to the estimate of the household population. CONCLUSION The population estimates produced by BEBR are calculated by multiplying the number of households by the average number of persons per household and Append ix B adding the number of persons living in group quarters. This methodology is conceptually simple but effective. It utilizes data that are available for all local areas, its components respond rapidly to population movements, and it can be applied systematically and uniformly everywhere in the sta te. A comparison of population es timates with census results for 1980, 1990, 2000, and 20 10 showed the BEBR estimates to be quite accurate, especially when compared to other sets of estimates. We believe the HU method is the most e ff ective method for making city and county popu lation estimates in Florida and that it produces reliable estimates that provide a solid foundation for budgeting, planning, and analysis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Funding for these estimates was provided by the Florida Legislature. PUBLISH ED: December, 2014 POSTED: February, 20 15 Retrieved at https://www.bebr.uft .edu/population/ methodology/population-estimates on 11/11/20 15 Appendix B APPENDIX C Existing Facility Conditions and Analyses All America Park 6280 SW 64th Avenue South M iami, Florida , 33143 SIZE: 1.40 acres PARK TYPE: passive park AMENIT IES: • Picnic area The park is nestled in a resident ial neighborhood , bounded by houses on the northern and south ern sides, and res idential streets on the eastern and western sides. Th e park has coral rock benches, lu sh veget ation, and faux tree trunk garbage bins. The garbage bins and benches a re not City standard. Vegetati on appears to be overgrown a long peri meter. There is an area at the south end of th e park a lo ng SW 64th Court w here residents place th e ir landscaping refuse for p ick up by the C it y. This activity should be e liminated immedia t e ly , as it is incongruous a nd detrimental to the park. Th e re is limited parking, and anyone v isit in g the park wou ld need to park on th e st reet or would have to walk to the park. Th e park is not ADA-accessible . The park does not appear t o be heavil y utili zed. ALL AMERICA PARK Appendix C ALL AMERICA PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS A LL AMERICA PARK (. . f--oJ < < ~ Tabulation: Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise J VISu al Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE : :1 Acre n....r-1 0' 50' 120' Appendix C Brewer Park 6300 SW 56th Street South Miami, Florida, 33143 SIZE: 1.29 acres PARK TYPE: active park AMENITIES: • Outdoor basketball (1!2 court) • Handball Courts (2) • Gazebo • Picnic area • Tot lot • Tenn is Courts (2) • Observation deck • Water fountain The park is nestled in a residential community bounded by a main road (Miller DI-ive) to the north, a residential street to the east and a canal to the west and south _ Limited off street parking is ava il able . The park appears to be moderately used, especially the play area. There is a platform overlooking the canal. The fencing along the canal has missing pickets. The bottom beam of the fence along the canal is high above grade, and a small child can crawl beneath if not monitored by an adult . Play ground equipment consists of swings and one sl ide, and are in good cond ition . However, they are not ADA-accessible. The park also includes two tennis courts which enjoy a large portion of the park 's waterfront, and are popular features at the park. BREWER PARK Appendix C BREWER PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS BREWE R PA RK T.bulation: Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE lot Size ::t2Acres Number of Partdng : is 1:": 120' Appendix C Dante Fascell Park 8600 SW 57 th Avenue Sout h M ia m i, Fl or ida, 33 143 SIZE: 7.73 acres PARK TYPE : active p ark AMENITIES: • Outdoor basketball (1/2 court) • Handball Courts (2) • Pavilions (2) • Picnic areas • Playground and tot lot • Clay tenn is courts (6) • Sand volleyball court • Fitness trail & outdoor equipment • Restrooms • Water fountain The park is bound by a private school to the north, SW 57 th Avenue to the east, the Snapper Creek Canal to the south, and a residential road to the west . The park sits on the outskirts of the City, and th erefore has many vis itors from adjacent municipa lit ies. With Snapper Creek Canal bordering the p ark, various bi rd s c an be spotted by visitors, including eastern phoebes, gray catbirds, black-and-wh ite warblers, yellow-rumped warblers, cardinals, common ga llinul es, p rairi e warblers, blue-gray gnat catchers, and palm warblers. The park incl udes six clay tennis courts, which are heavil y used for le ssons, le isu rely p lay, and athletic programs. The adjacent parking lot is in need of repair . The park's wooden perimeter fencing is in g ross disrepair and is composed of creosote-Iaiden railroad tie s lo o sel y held together by random metal str ips. This is a sign ifi cant .liability for the City in many ways, both legal and a es theti c .. The playground is portially ADA-compliant. The ground leve l at the playground is ADA-compliant, while the playground structu res and it s access are not. Shelters are outdated and not ADA-accessible. The rubberized fitness trail is new and in great condition. Restrooms are renovated and meet ADA requirements. The proshop is small and in need of replacement. The handba ll/racquetball courts are underu se d. DANTE FASCELL PARK Appendi x C u .~ "0 C <l> Cl.. = <C DANTE FASCELL PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS DAN TE F ASCELL PARK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular CIrculation Pattern Views to preserve or enha nce Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE ::8Aaes ,..., 160' Appendix C Dison Park 802 1 SW 58 t h Avenue Sout h M ia m i, Flo rida, 33 143 SIZE: 0.59 a c res PARK TYP E: pass ive park AMENITIES : • Ga ze bo The park is bounded by houses on three sides and a resi dential str eet on the west side. A small gazebo is situated in the back of the park, and a large open green space comprises tile rem oining areo. Trees are plant ed along the borders. A C ity of South Miami standard garbage bin and p icn ic table are locat ed beside the gazebo. There is an area al the south e n d o f th e park a long SW 58th Ave n ue where res idents p lace t hei r landscaping refu se for pick up by the City. Th is activity sho ul d be e liminated immediately, as it is inco ng ruous and detri men tal to th e park . There is limi ted parking, an d a n yo ne v isiting the park would n eed to park o n the str eet o r wou ld have to walk to the p ark. Th e park is no t A D A-accessib le. Th e park does not a ppear t o be he a v ily ut ilized . DISON PARK Appendix C 23 u .~ TI c::: ClJ Cl. Cl. « D ISON PARK Appendix C 25 EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS DISO N PARK L~ Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Veh icular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE ::::1 Acres App end ix C Dog Park 6380 SW 78th St reet Sou t h M iami, Flo ri da, 33 143 SIZE: 0.13 acres PA RK TYP E: dog park AM ENITIE S: • Dog p lay st ructu res • Chiki h u t • Water founta in This park is a small, newly constructed dog park at the end of a road, and beside a canal. The park has a small shelter and other amenities for dogs. The border fence is new, and is in excellent condition. The dog park is adjacent to an animal hospi t al. The re is no dedicated parking at this park. DOG PARK Appendi x C u .~ "0 c: ClJ Cl. Cl. <C '" '" ~ l'J o o DOG PAR K Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS DOG PA RK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary • .) Pedestrian Circulation Pattem General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Norse I Visua l Buffer Activity Node I Focal Po int FENCE :<1 Acres Appendix C Fuchs Park 6445 SW 81 st Street South Miami, Florida, 33143 SIZE: 5.00 acres PARK TYP E: semi-ac tive park AME NITIES: • Pond • Pavi lion • Pic n ic areas • Sand vo ll eyba ll court • Playground • Restroom • Water founta in This neighborhood park has a c orner of the park that abuts US-1, but the majority of the perimeter is bound on the north and west by arterial roads and commercial buildings, an d along the south and east by re sidential roads and re sidences. Parking is under beautiful banyan tr ees in the swale along SW 8 1 st Avenue. A large pond is the main feature of the park, attracting a variety of birds including white ibis, common gallinules, northern parulas, palm warb lers, b lue jays, and muscovy ducks. The existing pavilion is not large enoug h for most rental needs, and its condition is extremely poor. The condtion of the pavili on poses a sign ificant liability for t h e Ci ty, both lega ll y and aesthe t ically. It is hi g h ly recommended that the City replace the pavilion in the early stages of Phase II, as it would st rengthen the park's image and generate addit ional renta l revenue for the City. There are no wel l-defined paths w ithin the park. Any path s created through the worn grass are interrupted by tree roots. Site and ame ni ties therein are not ADA-accessible . The re stroom is in poor condition and sho uld be replaced. FUCHS PARK Appendix C u .~ "0 C Q.) = = « FUCHS PAR K Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS FUCHS PA RK f--ot < < T ,. --------CP q~ •.. _ .. s·· .. _ Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer ActIvity Node I Focal Point FENCE :±SAaes 120' Appendix C Girl Scout Little House Reserve 6609 SW 60 t h st reet South Miami. Florida, 33143 SIZE: 4.06 acres PARK TYPE : passive park AM ENI TIES : • Historica l build ing • Nature-based re c reation • Restroom This site provides lodg in g rooms and tent sites . The park includes a tree hammock, picnic areas, a c hiki hut, and bonfire site. Thi s site is under the exclus ive use of the G irl Scouts pursuant to a 99-yeor lease, which began in 1954. G IR L SCOUT LImE HOU SE RESER V E Appendix C u .~ -0 c::: Q) Cl. Cl. « w > ~ '" w '" ::J o I w ~ :::; S o Sl GIRL SCOUT LITTLE HOUSE RESERVE Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS '--of < ~ Tabul_: GI RL SCOUT LITTLE HOUSE RESERVE Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to senen Noise I VISual Buffer ActIvity Node I Focal Point FENCE : ±4A1:;te 120' Appendix C Jean Willis Park 7220 SW 6 1 st Co urt Sou th M iam i. Florida, 33 143 SIZE : 0.63 acres PARK TYPE: passive park AM ENITIES: • Gazebo • Picnic areas A small passive park adjacent to City Hall , this park has ornamental trees and is a quiet area where staff from surrounding offices, ma inly South Miami Hospital, occasionally corne to have lunch. It is bounded on three sides by businesses, and on the east side by C ity Hal l. There are picnic tables on site, and a small wooden gazebo. A concrete path leads from the sidewalk to the gazebo . JEAN WILLIS PARK Appendix C u .~ "0 c:: Q) Cl. Cl. « JEAN WILLIS PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS JEAN WILLIS PARK Lepnd Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I VISual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE ::1 Acres Appendix C Marshall Williamson Park A long and narrow pass ive park with large canopy trees and small gently sloping Ilills. There is a concrete path that goes a ll around the park, and accesses two playground areas at the south of the p ar k. There are a lso t wo t ennis courts at t he nort hern end of the park . The walkway is in good condi t ion with some cracks tha t need m in or repa irs. The park is bound b y a c ul -de-sa c a t t he sou t h, th e South M iami Sen ior Cen ter and a Hait h Center to the west, a minor road and apartmen t complex to t he east, and the J .R.E. Lee Opport u nity Ce nte r o n the north . There is a smal l gazebo, restroom b uil ding, and a meet ing room at the cen ter of th e park. Th e park does not seem to be heavit y used by the su rr o un d in g communi ty . The playground eq ui pment is in goo d cond iti o n . 6 125 SW 68th Street Sou t h M iami, Florida, 33 143 SIZ E: 3.22 acres PAR K TYP E: semi-active park AM ENITI ES: • Gazebo • Playg round area wi to t lo t • Tennis courts (2) • Rest room • Mee tin g fac ilit y • Wa te r fo unta in MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK Appendix C u .~ u c Q) CL CL « MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS MARSHALL WILLIAMSO N PAR K L ....... Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE ::4 Aaes Append ix C Murray Park 5800 SW 66 th St ree t So uth M ia m i, Flo rida , 33 14 3 SIZE: 3.43 acres PARK TYPE : activ e park AMENITI ES: • Athletic p laying fields • Clinic • Swimming pool • Community Center • Picnic areas • Playground • Re strooms • T-ball fie ld • Basketball court s (2) • Water fountain Located directl y o utside Gibson-B e th e l Community Ce nter, thi s p ark is heavil y -utilized by th e local community. It has a large open green space direc tly outside the front of th e c omrnunity center, alld is located amidst res idential homes , apartments and businesses. It has two basketball courts, a playground , and a small youth-sized t-ball fie ld. The courts and fields are not only used by the surrounding community and in conjunction with City-coordinated activities at the Commun ity Center, but is a lso used by th e nearby Sou t h M iam i Somerset Charter School. The fields, courts and playground are all in good cond ition, however, the multipurpose field and t-ball field perimeter fences are too low. Users have been witnessed sitting on and jumping over the fences, causing unnecessary damage and potential liability issues for the City. Addit iona ll y, t he fence height is too low for a t h letic activ ity, a ll owing bol ls to eas ily travel over the fence and onto oncoming traffic in the parking lot. MURRA Y PA RK App endi x C u .~ ""0 c:: Q) Cl. Cl. « MURRAY PARK Appendix C Gibson -Bethel Community Center (within Murray Park) 5800 SW 66 th St ree t South Miami, Florida , 33 143 SIZE: 22,000 square feet FACILITY TYPE: Community Center AM ENITIES: • Indoor full-court baske t bal l or vo ll eyball • Art room • Classroom • Computer lab with int ernet • Fitness and cardio room • Multipurpose room • Park ing • Restrooms This 22,000 SF community center w ithin Murray Park prov ides a variety of indoor recreation activ ities , such as indoor basketball and volleyball, and a fitness room. The community center also provides several programs for you t h, including afterschooi programs and athletics programs. Appendix C GIBSON -BETHEL COMMUNITY CENTER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK) GIBSON-BETHEL COMMUNITY CENT ER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK) Appendix C Murray Park Aquatic Center (withi n Murray Park) 670 1 SW 58th Place South Miami, Florida, 33 143 SIZE: 0.65 acres fACILITY TY PE: Aquatics cen ter AMENIT IE S: • Splash pad (u p t o 22 person s) • 3,4 46 SF Swimming poo l • Rest room / locker room • Drinking fountain • Office Located on the south end of Murray Park, the aquatic center is the newest addition to the City 's parks facilities. The center includes a pool, sp lash pool, and rest rooms . The center has a mural along the back ext e ri o r wall of th e adjacent bu ildin g , and benches a long th e edge of th e pool deck. Appendix C MURRAY PARK AQUATIC CENTER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK) MURRAY PARK AQUATIC CENTER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK) Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS MURRAY PARK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulatlon Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer ActIvity Node J Focal Point ..,.... FENCE Tabulatton: :±4Aaes " n.....rI [J 80' 160' Append ix C Palmer Park 6 100 SW 67th Avenue South Miami, Florida , 33 143 SIZE : 8.57 acres PARK TYPE: active park AMENITIES: • Light ed, youth athletic p laying fields • Batting cage • Concession stand • Picnic areas • Tot lot • Baseball fields (5) • R e stroo m • Water fountain • Lighted parking Palmer Park is a large active park located on a major arterial road, SW 67th Avenue. It has residential homes along the sou th and the east sides, a middle school and elementary school to the north and west. It is heavily-used by the community, and also by local athletic teams. The park provides bleachers, batting cages, youth-sized baseball/softba ll fields, multipurpose fields, restrooms, a concessions stand, picnic tables, and a small tot lot . There is a dedicated parking lot for thi s park which has ser ious drainage issues in need of immediate repair . The tot lot equipment is in poor condition, and is not ADA-access ible. The fencing at the park is in poor condition, and is in need of repair or replacement. The fields are in good condition, and are able to be used at night since there are field li ghts, however, the City should consider replacing the field lights due to inefficiencies of the Igihting system. The curr ent field lighting system must be manua ll y-operated, is outdated, and is expensive to operate due to the need to replace light bulbs and fixtures every 12 to 16 months at an estimated $35,000-$45,000 in repa ir s. PALMER PARK Appendi x C u .~ u c: Q) CL CL « PALMER PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS PALMER PARK (. . fio--t < < 7 Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE 200' Appendi x C South Miami Park 6300 SW 56th St reet South M iami, Florida, 33 143 SIZE: 10.00 acres PARK TYPE : active park AMENITIES : • Athletic p laying fields • Picnic area • Limited lighted parking The park is surrounded mostly by areas outside the City limits of South Miami. The adjacent uses are comprised of residential homes on three sides, with th e east end of the sit e abutting an elementary SCIIOOI. Used mostly by youth and adult sports leagues, South Miami Park is heavily-utilized but has limited amenities on site. There are no permanent restroom facilities , nor any accessible pat hs to o r around the park. An abandoned pool and playground from the former si te of the YMCA sits on vacant land at the east end of the site. Due t o the park's isolation from the ma jority of the areas w ith in the City limits, many non-residents rather than residents util ize the park. SOUTH MIAMI PARK Appendi x C u ."S "0 c Q.) C>- C>-« SOUTH MIAMI PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS SOUTH MIAMI PAR K Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer Activity Node I Focal Point FENCE ::!:10Aaes App end ix C South Miami Senior Center 63 00 SW 56t h Str ee t So uth Mia m i, Florida , 33 14 3 SIZE: 6,187 squ are feet of common area & 97 Uni t s AM EN IT IES • Di ning Room • Fitn ess Room • Liv in g ro o m PR OG RAMS: • Ho me Lunc h Del ive ry • Eng li sh for Spea kers of Oth er La nguages (E SOL) • Spani sh C lass • Art C la sses • Exe rc ise C lasses • Compu ter Classes • Sewing and Kn itti ng • Holiday Celebra t ions • Fie ld Tr ips The South Miami Sen ior Center offers a variety of programs and activities to those sixty (60) years or older. The center cu rr ently assists 10 1 residents within 97 units. Prograilis include arts and crafts classes, language classes, computer c lasses, and fi tn ess classes . Se rv ices inc lude counse li ng, support gro u ps, in fo rm ation a n d refe rr al, home lunch de livery, and field tr ips to malls, movie thea t e rs, g ro cery sto res, and other locati ons. SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER Appendix C u .~ -0 c::: <1> Q. Cl. « SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS SOUTH M IAMI SE NIOR C ENTER f--ot < < ~, '. ....... Tabulation: L ....... Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattem Views to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer ActIvity Node I Focal Po int FENCE :±2 Acr~s Appe nd ix C Van Smith Park 6300 SW 56 t h St ree t Sout h M iami, Fl o ri da, 33 143 SIZE: 1.1 4 acres PARK TYPE: passive park AMENITIES: • Walking trails • Picnic area Van Smith Park is surrounded entir e ly by residential homes in a single family home neighborhood. The park contains a native tree hammock, a nature trail through the wooded area, and a large open grass are in the center with p icnic tables. There is limited parking, and anyone vis itin g the park would need to park on the street or would have t o walk to the park. The park is not ADA-accessible. The park also does not appear to be heavily-utilized. VAN SMITH PARK Appendix C u .~ "0 C '" Cl. Cl. « VAN SMITH PARK Appendix C EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS VAN SMITH PARK (0 0 foo--t < < 1: ......... Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattem VIews to preserve or enhance Views to screen Noise I Visual Buffer ActIvity Node I Focal Point FENCE :±1 Acres Appe ndi x C APPENDIX D SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN ~ncI Parcel Boundary t---t ~~~: Vehicular Circulation < Preserved Ylews • • • • Proposed Accessible Path T __ : : :1:1 Acre A LL AMERICA PARK Appendi x 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN BREWE R PARK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Pr8S8fVed views Proposed Accessible Path Fence Replacement T.buI_: App endi x 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN DANTE fASCE LL PARK LetI- Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern PreseNed Views Proposed Accessible Path Fence Replacement Appendix 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN Tabulation! D ISON PARK Lqend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern PrSSefYed views Proposed Accessible Path Fence Replacement Appendix 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN FUCHS PA RK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern ,Preserved views Proposed Accessible Path Fence Replacement n....rI o· 60' 120' Appendi x 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN JEA N WILLIS PA RK Lea- Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Veh icular Circulation Pattern Prnerved views Proposed AcceuIble Path Fence Replacement 181 15x1S' Picnic Pa .... ilion !:lAcfH ~ 0' 60' 120' Appendix 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PAR K Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation P_m Preserved views • • Proposed Accessible Path _ Fence Replacement Appendi x 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN MURR AY PARK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Preserved views Proposed Accessible Path ~ Fence Replacement Tabulation: ::t4 A.aes Ap pend ix D SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN PALMER PARK Legend Parcel Boundary General Vehicular Circuation Pattern Preserved views • • Proposed Accessible Path _ Fence Replacement ::t8AaH :::t85 Appen dix 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOUTH MIAMI PARK Legend Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattem Preserved views Proposed Accesslbte Path Fence Replacement [8] 25)(25' Picnic Pavilion Tabulation: ::tl0Acres Append ix 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOUTH M IAMI PA RK South MI.ml Park Mister PI.n developed bV Me Harry & Assocfates In 2009. :±10Aaes App endix 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN South Miami Hammock Park Master Plan developed by LandscapeDE . :±10 Aa~ CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI South Miami Park Alternative B PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN SOUTH MIAMI PARK Appe ndi x 0 SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN VAN SMITH PARK a...nd Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Orculatlon Pattern Preserved views Proposed Accessible Path _ ._ Fence Replacement Tabulation: lot SIze ::t1 Acres Appendi x 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN LUDLAM ELEME NTARY SCHOOL L_nd Parcel Boundary Project Boundary II .) Exlating Pedestrian Circulation General Vehicular Circulation Pattern Pretervod views • • Proposed ACC88Ilble Path _ Fence Replacement ::!:2 Acres Appendi x 0 SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN SW 68TH STREET 80AT LA UNC H Parcel Boundary Project Boundary General Vehicular Circulation Pattem Preserved views Proposed A~ble Peth Fenee Replacement Appendix 0 APPENDIX E Daily Park Maintenance Checklist o Turf o Turf areas are free of litter and debris o Ensure turf is free of hazardous holes or protrusions o Trash - o Sufficient receptacles, no overflows o Receptacles have liners o Receptacles are in good repair, free of hazards o Play surface o Surface is clean, no litter or debris, free of hazards o Play equipment and surface are in good repair o Hard-surface courts o No litter, debris , or gravel o Courts are in good repair, free of hazards o Shelter o Clean, sanitary o Shelter is in good repair and free of hazards o Buildings and Utilities o Surfaces clean , sanitary, free of graffiti o Building is in good repair and free of hazards o utilities are in good repair and free of hazards o Restrooms o Toilets, urinals , & sink areas are clean and sanitary o Mirrors , walls, & partitions are clean and sanitary o Floors and drains are clean and sanitary o Trash receptacles are not overflowing o Diaper-changing table is clean and sanitary o Soap, fresheners , & paper products are stocked o Dispensers are clean and sanitary o Lights and ventilation system are operational o Restrooms are in good repair, free of hazards o Pool o Pool water is clear, clean, and sanitary o Pool is free of litter and debris o Pool water has a balanced pH level o Pool deck is clean , and free of litter and debris Pool , stairs, and ladders are in good repair, free o of hazards Appendix E Weekly Park Maintenance Checklist o Turf o Grass is mowed to appropriate height -0 0 Dugoufs·· .. -... .. o Dugouts are clean, no litter or debris o Lighting o Functions properly, no burnt out bulbs o Uniform coverage, no dark or blind spots o Trash o Bottoms of receptacles are free of litter o Receptacle exterior is clean o Lids in place o Sand courts o Free of weeds , grass, litter, and debris o Water fountains and hose bibs o Clean, free of debris o Play areas o Play equipment and surface hardware are in tact, no protrusions o Shelter o No graffiti o Staples from banners, posters, cind decorations have been removed o Grills o Used charcoal removed o Buildings and Utilities o Plumbing fixtures and drains are functioning properly o HV AC, appliances, and ventilation are working properly o Staples from banners, posters, and decorations have been removed o Restrooms o Toilets, sinks , dispensers, and dryers are operational o Trash receptacles are clean and sanitary , inside and out o Light fixtures are free of dust o Landscape o Plant material appears healthy and properly-pruned o Planting beds are free of litter, weeds, and debris o Pool o Pool pump is functioning properly, free of debris, and not unusually noisy o Pool filter is free of debris , runs properly o Ladders and rails are secure and sturdy Appendix E Monthly Park Maintenance Checklist 0' Turf o Irrigation coverage is adequate, and functions properly o Minimal or no weeds are present o Uniformity; no various species present o Grass is dense, with no sparce patches o Grade is level. no drainage issues 0' Furniture o Surface is smooth; no sharp edges, protrusions, catch points o No graffiti 0' Field accessories o Goals, tackling sleds, and pitching screens in good repair o Scoreboards function; exterior in good repair 0' Dugouts o Smooth seating surface; no sharp edges or protrusions, catch points o No graffiti o Electrical enclosures function and are secure, GFls covered, no wires exposed 0' Lighting o Base and structure are sound and secure o Electric boxes and conduits are secure 0' Trash o Paint is smooth; no chipping o No rust or graffiti 0' Play equipment o No graffiti 0' Play surface o Surface is level o Rubber surfaces are free of holes and tears, and secured to base and curbing o Mulch is loose and free of compaction 0' Fences/Netting/Screens o Free of holes o Safety caps on fences surrounding play areas o Gates and hardware are functional o Basketball rims are straight and secured to backboards with no visible defects 0' Sand courts o Sand is loose o Court end lines and sidelines are properly secured 0' Water fountains and hose bibs o Operational, no leaks Appendix E b~_ _ ________________ ~ o Electric panels , plugs, and lights have safety covers, and are operational o Water systems, and any other utilities are operational in in good repair -21 Grills ----------------------- o Operational, minimal rust and deterioration o Grill racks are operational, and secured to main body o Buildings and Utilities o Doors, windows, screens , and locks are operational o Electrical panels , plugs , and lights have covers, and are operational o Fire extinguishers are mounted in proper location, and with current inspection tag o Restrooms o No graffiti o Hand dryers are operational o Stalls are secure and sturdy o Hardware is in place, secure , and works correctly o Parking lots and walking paths o Drainage grates are free of debris , and basins are clean o Overhanging branches are pruned to acceptable height o Pavement is free of weeds and grass growing in cracks and expansion joints o Landscape o Mulch is consistent in appearance and distribution o Plants mulched to appropriate depth o No mounding evident at Crown of the plant o Irrigation o Irrigation pressure provides optimal flow of water o Nozzles are clear and spray or drip evenly o No gaps in irrigation coverage are apparent o Components have no leaks or breaks Appendix E Annual Park Maintenance Checklist 0' Furniture o Hardware and bracing is intact, in place, and flush with surface o Paint is smooth; no chipping o Handrails secure; surface is smooth o No rotten wood or rusted metal 0' Dugouts o Structure and roof is sound with no leaks 0' Signage o Sign is legible, not faded . o Emergency signs are highly visible and secure 0' Play equipment o Play equipment meets ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards o Age-appropriate signage is present 0' Fences/Netting/Screens o Properly tied to upright supports o Posts are secure and straight o Crossbars properly secured to upright supports o Hardware is in place o Tennis nets have center straps installed at regulated height. and are anchored to the court 0' Hard-surface courts o Smooth and level o Well-drained , no signs of pooling o No large cracks, holes, or trip hazards o Painted and striped per court specification s 0' Sand courts o Surface is smooth, level, and well-drained 0' Shelter o Concrete has a smooth surface and no large cracks or holes o Roof is clear of debris, intact, and has no leaking 0' Grills o Minimal grease buildup o Foundations are intact, secure , and sturdy 0' Buildings and Utilities o Paint is in good condition o No rotten lumber or rust o Concrete is smooth , with no large cracks or holes o Roof is free of debris , intact, and has no leaks or holes 0' Parking lots and walking paths o Uniform surface, level , and with no trip hazards Appendix E o No standing water o Paint markings are easily visible and bright o Handicapped stalls are marked clearly and correctly -0 --Landscape ------------------------ o Bed edges are neatly trimmed grass borders or other installed edging that is in good repair Appendix E APPENDIX F Onl ine Public Survey Results With 214 respondents, the results of this online public survey represent approxi mately 1.5% of the City's residents, which is considered statistically insignificant. 1) How many people are in your household, including yourself? ·1 18 8.4% 2 52 24 .3% 3 51 23.8% 4 62 29% 5 23 10.7% 6+ 8 3.7% 2) What are the ages of your household members? Under 13 102 4 8.3% Under 13 13to H 31 14 .7% 18 to 29 38 18% 13 to 17 30 to 45 108 51.2 % 18 to 29 46 to 55 61 2 8.9% 30 to 45 56 to 65 52 2 4.6% 46 to 55 66+ 36 17.1% 56 to 65 66+ 0 25 50 75 100 3) What is your age? Under 13 1 0.5% 13to H 0 0 % 18 to 29 5 2.4 % 30 to 45 95 44 .8% 46 to 55 48 22 .6% 56 to 65 38 17 .9 % 66+ 25 11 .8% Ap pendix F 4) What is you r gender? Fe male 117 55.2% Male 95 44 .8% 5) Are you a City of South Miami resident? Yes 194 90.7% No 2,0 9.3% 6) What parks/facilities have you or other members of your household visited i n the past year? All-Am eric a ... Dante Fasc ... Gibson-BeL. Jean Willis ... Marshall Wit.. Murray Van Smith ... o Appe ndix F 35 70 105 All-American Park 60 Brewer Park 60 Dante Fascell Park 140 Dison Park 31 Dog Park 56 Fuchs Park 88 Gibson -Bet hel Community Center 66 Jean Willis Park 13 M arshall Williamson Park 15 Murray Park 39 Murray Park Aquatics Center 26 Palmer Park 79 South Miami Park 65 Van Smith Park 60 29.4% 29.4% 68 .6% 15 .2% 27.5% 43 .1% 32.4% 6.4% 7.4% 19 .1% 12.7% 38 .7 % 31 .9% 29.4% All-American Park (7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation faellltles?] Every day 5 4.5% Several times a week 10 8.9% On ce a week 6 5.4 % Every 2-3 weeks 6 5.4 % Once a month 2 1.8% 3 t o 4 ti mes a year 12 10 .7% 1 to 2 tim es a year 13 11.6% Less than on ce a year 14 12.5% Never 44 39 .3% o 10 20 30 40 Brewer Park (7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreati on facilities?] Every day 3 2.7% Everyday :::J Severa l t imes a week 6 5.5% Once a week 8 7.3% Severa l fime .. .:::J Every 2-3 weeks 11 10 % Once a week I Once a month 7 6.4% Every 2-3 we .. 1 3 t o 4 times a y ear 10 9.1% Once a ma nti 1 I 1 to 2 times a year 16 14 .5% Less than on ce a year 7 6.4% 3 to 4 ti mes a .. J Never 42 38 .2% 1 to 2 tim es a .. I Less than on .. I Neve r I o 10 20 30 40 Dante Fasce ll Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household vis it the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Eve ry day 11 6 .6% Several times a week 31 18 .6% Every Once a week 10 6% Severa l ti me .. Every 2-3 weeks 19 11.4% Once a Once a mon th 19 11 .4% Everl 2-3 we .. 3 to 4 times a year 25 15% 1 to 2 times a ye ar 22 13.2% Once a month Less than once a year 12 7 .2% 3 to 4 times a ... Never 18 10.8% 1 to 2 times a 0 .0 7 .5 15.0 22.5 3 ... Appendix F Olso n Park [7) How often do you or other members of yo ur household v isit the City's parks and recreation facilities?) Every day 1 1% Several times a weeK 7 7 .2% Once a weeK 3 3.1% Every 2-3 weeKs 4 4.1% On ce a Once a month 4 4.1% 3 to 4 times a year 7 7.2% 1 to 2 times a year 3 3.1% 'Less than once a year 11 11.3% Never 57 58.8% o 10 20 30 40 50 Dog Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?) Every day 2 1.9% Several times a weeK 6 5.6% Once a weeK 8 7 .5% Every 2-3 weeKs 6 5.6% Once a Once a month 7 6.5% 3 to 4 times a y ear 3 2.8% 1 to 2 t imes a year 14 13 .1% Less than once a year 18 16.8% Never 43 40.2% o 10 20 30 40 F u chs Park [7) How often do you or other members of y our h ousehold visit the City's parks and recreati o n facili ties?] Every day 0 0 % Several times a w eeK 3 2 .3% Once a weeK 11 8 .6% Seve ral ti me __ . Every 2-3 weeks 11 8 .6% Once a month 7 5 .5% Eve ry 2-3 we __ . 3 to 4 times a year 19 14 .8% 1 to 2 t imes a year 26 20 .3 % Less t han once a year 18 14 .1% 3 to 4 ti mes a __ . Never 33 25 .8% 1 to 2 ti mes a __ . Less than on . __ o B 16 24 32 Ap pe ndix F Glbson-Bethel Community Center [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Every day 9 7 .4% Several times a weeK 11 9.1% Once a weeK 8 6 .6% Every 2-3 weeKs 2 1 .7% Once a month 9 7 .4% 3 to 4 times a year 16 13.2% 1 to 2 t imes a year 8 6 .6% Less than once a year 12 9.9% Never 46 38% o 10 20 30 40 Jean Willis Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?) Every day 1.2 % Several ti mes a weeK 1 .2% Every day Once a weeK 2 2 .3% Several ti me ... Every 2-3 weeKs 1.2% Once a week On ce a month 3 3.5% Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 1.2% 1 to 2 times a y ear 3 3.5% Less than on ce a y ear 13 15.1% 3 to 4 ti mes a ... Never 61 70 .9% 1 to 2 time s a ... Less than on ... 1 ___ '" Never ~----------------~ o 15 30 45 Marshall Williamson Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the C ity's parks and recreation facilities?) Every day 0 0% Several times a weeK 2 2 .3% Every day Once a weeK 2 2 .3% Every 2-3 weeKs 1.1% Once a month 1.1% 3 to 4 t imes a year 4 4 .6% 1 to 2 t imes a year 4 4 .6% Less t han on ce a year 10 11.5% 3 to 4 ti mes a ... Never 63 72 .4% 1 t02 ti me s a ... Less th an on ... o 15 30 45 60 Appendix F Murray Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Every day 3 3% Several times a week 8 8 .1% Once a week 1% Every 2-3 weeks 4 4% Once a month 4 4% 3 to 4 times a year 8 8 .1% 1 to 2 times a year 9 9 .1% Less than once a year 8 8 .1% Never 54 54 .5% o 10 20 30 40 50 Murray Park Aquatics Center [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Every day 1.1% Several times a week 6 6.5% Once a week 1.1% Every 2-3 weeks 3 3.3% Once a month 2 2 .2% 3 to 4 times a year 8 8.7% 1 to 2 times a year 7 7 .6% Once a Less than once a year 5 5 .4% Never 59 64.1% o 10 20 30 40 50 Palmer Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Every day 3 2 .5% Several times a week 7 5 .7% Once a week 6 4 .9% Every 2-3 weeks 12 9 .8% Once a month 10 8.2% 3 to 4 times a year 18 14.8% 1 to 2 times a year 17 13 .9% Less than once a year 9 7 .4% Never 40 32 .8% o 10 20 3 0 Appendix F South Miami Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Every day 4 3.4% Several times a week 21 17 .6% O nce a week 7 5.9% Every 2-3 weeks 3 2 .5% Once a month 8 6.7% Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 8 6 .7% 1 t o 2 times a year 12 10 .1% Less than once a year 7 5.9% 3 to 4 times a ... Never 49 41 .2% 1 to2timesa ... Less than on ... o 10 20 30 40 Van Smith Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and recreation facilities?) Everyday Several time ... 1 ___ --' Once a week 1--..... Every 2-3 we ... Once a month 3to4timesa ... 1----" 1 to 2 times a ... 1===::- Less than on ... 1----' Ne ver I----------------------------------~ o 10 20 30 40 50 Every day 7 5.8% Several times a week 12 9.9% Once a week 8 6.6% Every 2-3 weeks 6 5% Once a month 6 5% 3 to 4 times a year 9 7.4% 1 to 2 times a y ear 11 9 .1 % Less tha n once a year 10 8.3% Never 52 43% All-American Park [8) How w o uld you rate t he condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 3 2 .5% Veri po or Poor 6 4 .9% Fair 26 21.3% Poor Good 20 16.4% Fair Very good 15 12.3% Good I am not sure 52 42.6% Very good I am not sure 0 10 20 30 40 50 Appe ndi x F Brewer Park [8) How would you rate t he condition of the City 's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 0 .8% Very poor Poor 8 6 .8% Fair 21 17.8% Poor Good 23 19 .5% Fair Very good 14 11 .9% Good I am not sure 51 43.2% Very !loo d I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 50 Dante Fascell Park [8) How wou ld you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poo r 4 2 .4% Very poor Poor 7 4 .1% Fair 22 12.9% Poor Good 57 33.5% Fair Ve ry good 59 34.7% Go od I a m not sure 21 12.4% Very!lood I am not su re 0 10 20 30 40 50 Dison Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 0 .9% Veri poor Poor 7 6.3% Fa ir 15 13.5% Poor Good 13 11.7% Fair Very good 5 4 .5% Good I a m not sure 70 63.1% Very !lood I am not sure 0 15 30 45 60 Dog Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation fac ili ties?] Very poor 1 0.9% VerI poor Poor 3 2 .7% F air 11 9 .7% Poor Good 17 15% Fair Very good 27 23 .9% I am not sure 54 47.8% I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 50 Append ix F Fuchs Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 1:=:1 1---------. Poor , Fai r 1======::::..------., Go od I ==========~------., Very goo d ~:~::':':_:_:_: ..... :;I--------------' I am not sure 1--- o 10 I 20 30 Very poor 5 3 _6 % Poor 17 1 2 _1% Fair 29 2 0 _7 % Good 40 2 8_6% Very good 12 8 _6 % 1 am not sure 37 26A% Glbson-Bethel Community Center [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poo r 2 1 _6% Ve ry poor Poor 4 3_3% Fa ir 12 9 _8% Poor Good 29 2 3_8 % Fair Very good 20 16A% Good 1 am not su re 55 45_1% Very goo d I am not sure 0 10 20 30 40 50 Jean Willis Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor Poor Fair Go od Very good I am not sure o 15 30 45 60 Very poor 2 2 % Poor 4 Fair 8 4 % 8 _1% Good 13 13_1% Very good 3 3% 1 am not sure 69 69 _7 % Marshall Williamson Park [8) How would you rate the co ndition of the City's parks a nd recreation facilities?] Very poor 3 3% Very poo r Poor 2 2% Fai r 9 9% Poo r Good 11 11 % Fai r Very good 1 1 % Good 1 am no t sure 74 74% Very good I am not su re o 15 30 45 60 Append ix F Murray Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 1 0 .9% Very poor Poor 4 3.7% Fair 13 12% Poor Good 21 19 .4% Fair Very good 5 4 .6% Good I am not sure 64 59.3% Ve rjgood I am not sure 0 15 30 45 60 Murray Park Aquatics Center [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 1 0.9% Very poor Poor 3 2.8% Fair 0 0% Poor Good 12 11 .3% Fair Very good 25 23.6% Good I am not sure 65 61.3% Very good I am not sure 0 15 30 45 60 Palmer Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Very poor 1 0.8% Very poor ] Poor 7 5.6% Fair 18 14.4% Good 38 30.4% ] Poor Fair J Very good 13 ' 10.4% Good I I am not sure 48 38.4% Ve rj good I I am not sure 1 o 10 20 30 40 South Miami Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and rec reation facilities?] Very poor 23 18.1% Veri poor Poor 16 12 .6% Fair 18 14.2% Poor Good 10 7 .9% Fair Very good 0 0% Good I am not sure 60 47 .2% Veri good I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 50 App endix F Van Smith Park [8) How would you rate the cond ition of t he City's parks and recreat ion facilities?] Very poor 4 3.2 % Very poor Poor 9 7 .1% Fair 16 12.7 % Poor Good 24 19% Fa ir Very good 14 11.1% Good I am not sure 59 46 .8% Very good I am not sure 0 10 20 30 40 50 Sports fields [9) What do you fee l needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 36 23.4% Rne Minor improvements 13 8.4% Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 28 18 .2 % Major Improvements 33 21.4% Moderate im ... I am not sure 44 28 .6% Major Improv ... I am not o 10 20 30 40 Tennis courts [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 39 26.4% Rne Minor improvements 21 14.2% Minor impro v ... Moderate impro vements 28 18 .9% Major Improvements 18 12.2% I am not sure 42 28.4% Major Improv ... lamnot o 10 20 30 40 Basketball courts [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 36 25.5% Fine Minor improvements 17 12.1% Min or impro v ... Moderate improvements 22 15 .6% Major Improvements 22 15 .6% Moderate im ... I am not sure 44 3 1.2% Major Improv ... o 10 20 30 40 Ap pen dix F Picnic areas [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 25 15 .3% Fine as-is I Minor improvements 22 13 .5% Moderate improvements 49 3 0 .1% I Minor improv ... Major Improvements 47 28 .8% Moderate im ... I I am not sure 20 12.3% Major Improv .. I I am not sure I o 10 20 30 40 Shelters/Pavilions [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fi ne as-is 28 17 .3% Rneas-is Minor improvements 14 8 .6 % Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 51 31 .5% Major Improvements 49 3 0 .2% Moderate im ... I am not sure 20 12 .3% Major ImproL . I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 50 Cleanliness [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fi ne as-is 28 17.8% Minor improvements 33 2 1% Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 51 32 .5% Major Improvements 32 20 .4% Moderate im ... I am not sure 13 8 .3% Major Impro v ... I am not o 10 20 30 40 50 Parking (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 39 25.3% Fine as-is Minor improvements 23 14.9% Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 41 2 6 .6% Major Improvements 28 18.2 % Moderate im ... I am not sure 23 14.9% Major Impro v ... I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 Appendix F Bathrooms [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 18 1 0 .5% Fine . Minor improvements 20 11-7 % Moderate improvements 45 26 .3% Minor improv ... Major Improvement s 64 37.4% I am not sure 24 14 % Major Improv ... l am not o 15 30 45 60 Security [9) What do you fee l needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fi ne as-is 29 19.3% Fine Min or improvements 26 17 .3% Minor impra v ... Moderate improvements 29 19.3% Major Improvements 34 22 .7% Moderate im ... I am not sure 32 21 .3% Major Imprav ... o 8 16 24 32 Concessions [9) What do you fee l needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 35 24.1% Fine as-is I Minor improvements 10 6 .9% I Minor improv .. Moderate improvements 19 13 .1% Major Improvements 36 24 .8% Moderate im .. I I am not sure 45 3 1% Major Impro v .. I I am not sure J o 10 2 0 30 40 Other buil dings [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the C ity's pa rks a nd recreation facilities?) Fine as-is 32 23 .2% Fine as-is Minor improvements 12 8.7% Minor impro v ... Moderate improvements 20 14.5% Major Improvements 15 10 .9% Moderate im ... I am not sure 59 42 .8% Major Improv ... I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 50 Appe ndix F Play grounds [9 ) W hat do y ou fee l needs Improvement at the City's parks an d recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 28 17.7% Fin e Minor improvements 27 17 .1% Moderate Improveme nts 4 6 29 .1% MajO r Improvements 35 22.2% I am not sure 22 13 .9% Moderate im ...•••••••••••••••••• Major Imp rov ... I am not sure ••••••••• o 10 20 30 40 Furniture (I-e _ ben ches, tables , tras hcans) [9) What do y ou fee l needs improvement at the C ity's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 20 12 .9% Fine Minor improvements 22 14 .2% Moderate improvements 56 36.1% Major Improvements 38 24 .5% I am not sure 19 12.3% o 10 20 30 40 50 Sidewalks/Paths [9) What do you feel needs Improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fin e as-is 39 23.6% Fin e Minor improvements 25 15.2% Moderate improvements 43 26 .1% Major Imp rovements 38 23% I am not sure 20 12.1% I am not sun~.IIIIII •••• 1 o 10 20 30 40 Ge neral ma intenance [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 28 18 .5% Rne Minor improvements 27 17.9% Moderat e improvements 50 33.1 % Min or impro v ... Major Improvements 30 19.9% I am not sure 16 10 .6% Majo r Im prov ... l am not o 10 20 30 40 Appe ndix F lighting [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and r,ecreation facilities?] Fine as-is 33 2 0 .6% Fin e as-is 1 Minor improvements 26 16.3% Minor improv .. I Moderate improvemen ts 31 19.4% Major Improvements 41 25.6% Moderate im ... I I am not sure 29 18 .1% Major Improv ... I I am not sure I o 10 20 30 40 Tree coverage (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as -is 42 25 .8% Fine as-is Minor improvemen ts 25 15 .3% Minor improv ... Modera te impro vements 37 22 .7% Major Improvements 40 24 .5% Moderate im ... I am not sure 19 11.7% Major Improv ... I am not sure o 10 20 3 0 40 Signage (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 44 30 .1% Fine as-is Minor improvements 20 13 .7% Minor im pro v ... Moderate improvements 24 16.4% Major Improvements 28 19 .2% Mod erate im ... I am not sure 30 20.5% Major Impro v ... I am not sure o 10 20 3 0 40 Exercise equipment (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 31 20 .7% Fine as-is Minor improvemen ts 18 12% Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 32 21 .3% Major Improvements 42 28% Mo derate im ... I am not sure 27 18 % Maj or Impro v ... I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 Appendix F Natural Areas [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 36 22 .8% Fine as-is Minor improvements 18 11.4% Moderate improvements 43 27 .2% Minor improv ... Major Improvements 40 25 .3% Moderate im ... I am not sure 21 13 .3% Major Improv ... I am not sure o 10 20 30 40 Landscape areas [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?] Fine as-is 38 23 .3 % Fine Minor improvements 20 12 .3 % Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 44 27% Major Improvement s 38 23 .3% Moderate im ... I am not sure 23 14 .1% Major Improv ... o 10 20 30 40 10) What City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department have you, or any members of your household, participated in within the past year? Youth tennis at Dante Fascell Park 19 26% Youth soccer at South Miami Park 28 38 .4 % Youth tenni. .. I:;:::===:::::::::======~ ____ ..... Youth socc ... I=====:;-___________ -' Youth tackL .. 1-------' Youth tackle football at Murray Park and Palmer Park 9 12 .3% Youth cheerleading at Murray Pari< and Palmer Park 4 5 .5% Swimming lessons at Murray ParI< Aquatic Center 13 17 .8% water aerobics at Murray Park Aquatic Center 6 8.2 % Youth ch ee r. .. Boot camp at Community Center 9 12.3% Sw imming '--.1===:::;-___ --' Wat er aerob ... I::;;=~---. Boot camp ... 1====:::;"" Zumba at C ... 1 ____ """ Zumba at Community Center 8 11 % Senior center activities and classes 2 2.7 % Afier school programs at the Community Center 4 5 .5% One-day camps 5 6.8% Summer camp 7 9.6% Senior cent... Winter camp 4 5.5% After schooL .. Spring break camp 4 5 .5% One-day ca ... t===~., Summ er ca ... 1-___ "" Winter camp Spring brea ... o 5 10 15 20 25 Appendix F Youth tennis [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?] Every day 0 .7 % Several tim es a week 1.4 % Every day On ce a week 8 4.2% Seve ra l time .. Eve ry 2-3 weeks 0 .7 % Once a month 2 1.4 % 3 to 4 lime s a year 6 4 .2 % 1 to 2 ti m es a year 2.1 % Less than once a year 4 2.8% Never 117 82 .4% 25 50 75 100 Youth soccer [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?] Every day 0.7% Several limes a week 15 9.9 % Once a week 6 3.9% Eve ry 2-3 we eks 1 0 .7 % Once a month 0 0% Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a y ear 0 .7 % Once a mo nth 1 to 2 times a year 2 1.3% Less th an once a year 5 3.3% 3 to 4 times a ... Never 121 79.6% 1to2timeS3 ... Less th an on Never ••••••••••••••••••• 25 50 75 100 Youth tackle football [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate in any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?] Every day Several time ... Onc e 3 V18e k Every 2·3 we ... Once a month l to4 t1 mesa .. 1 to 2 ti mes 3 ... Less tha n on ... Ne ver •••••••••••••••••• 25 50 75 100 Every day 1.4% Seve ral tim es a weeK On ce a wee K Every 2-3 weeks Onc e a month 3 to 4 times a year 1 to 2 times a year 4 2.9% 0 .7% 0% 0 .7% o 0% 1 0.7% Less than on ce a yea r 4.3% Never 123 89.1% Youth cheerleadlng [11) How often do you , or other members of your household, participate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?] Every da y Several time ... Onc e a wee k Every 2-3 we ... On ce a month 3 to 4 ti me s 3 ... 1 to 2 ti me s 3 .. Less tha n on .. 30 60 90 120 Every day 0.7% Seve ral times a week 0.7% Once a week Every 2-3 weeKs Once a month 3 to 4 times a year 1 to 2 times a yea r o 0 .7 % 0% 0% 0'% 0% Less than once a yea r 3.7% Neve r 127 94.1% Appendix F Swimming lessons (11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate i n any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?) Eve ry day o 0% Several Urn es a weeK 2.2% Every day Once a weeK 2.2% Every 2-3 weeKs 0% Once a mo nth 0.7% 3 to 4 times a yea r 0% 1 to 2 times a year 4 2.9% Less th an once a ye ar 5.8% Neve r 119 86 .2% 25 50 75 100 Water aerobics (11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate in any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?) Every day 0% Several times a weeK 0.7 % Every da y Once a weeK 3.7% Several time ... Every 2-3 weeKs 0% Once a month 0% 3 to 4 times a yea r 0.7% 1 to 2 times a yea r 0.7% Less th an once a yea r 4 3% Neve r 123 91 .1% o ~ ~ H 1M Boot camp (11) How often do you, or other members of your household, p articipate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?) Every day 0 0% Several times a weeK 5 3.6% Eve ry day Once a weeK 2 1.5% Several time ... Every 2-3 weeK s 0.7% OnC8 a W8ek Once a month 1 0.7% Every 2-3 we .. 3 to 4 ti mes a year 2 1.5% 1 to 2 times a year 1 0.7% Once a month Less th an once a year 3 2.2% 3 to 4 time s a .. Never 122 89.1% 1 to 2 times a .. Less than on .. Never 25 50 75 100 Zumba (11) How often do you, or other members of your household, partiCipate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?) Every day 0 0% Several Urnes a weeK 4 2 .9% Every da y Once a week 0.7% Severa l time .. Every 2-3 weeks 1 0 .7% Once a week Once a month 0 0% Every 2-3 w8 .. 3 to 4 Urnes a year 0 0% 1 to 2 times a year 2 .2% once a month Le ss tha n once a year 4 2.9% 3 to 4 times 3 .. Never 124 90.5% 25 50 75 100 Appendix F Senior center activities and cl asses [1 1) How often do you, o r othe r members of your household, p arti ci pate i n any City programs offered by t he Parks and Recreation Department?] Every day 0% Severa l times a weeK 0.7 % Every day Once a week 0 .7 % Several time ._. Every 2-3 weeKs 0 .7% Once a week Once a month 0.7% Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a yea r 0% Once a month 1 to 2 ti mes a year 0 .7% Less tha n once a yea r 4 2 .9% 3 to 4 times 3 ... Never 127 93.4 % 1 to 2 times 3 ... Less than on ... Never ••••••••••••••••••• 30 60 90 120 After-school programs [11) How often do you, or other members of your house hold, pa rti cipate In any C ity progra ms offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?] Every day 2.2% Several times a week 0 .7% Every day Once a week 0% Several time ... Every 2-3 weeks 0% Once a wee k Once a mo nth 0% Every 2-3 W8 ... 3 to 4 times a yea r 0 .7% 1 to 2 times a yea r 0 .7% Once a month Less than once a year 4 2 .9% 3 to 4 times a ... Never 128 9 2 .6% 1 to2times3 .. Less than on .. 30 60 90 120 One-day camps [11) How often do you, or other m embers of your household, participate In a ny Ci ty p rograms offere d by the Pa rks and Recreation Department?] Every day 0% Several times a week 0 0% Every day Once a weeK 2 1.5% Several time .. Every 2-3 weeks 0 0% Once a week Once a month 0 .7% Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 4 2 .9% Once a month 1 to 2 times a year 0 0% Less than once a year 4 2 .9% Never 125 91 .9% 25 50 75 100 Summ er camp [11) How ofte n do you, or other members of your household, partici pate In any City programs offered by the Pa rks and Recreation Department ?] Every day Several time .. Once a wee k Every 2-3 we ._ Once a month 3 to 4 times 3 .. 25 50 75 100 Every day 0 .7% Seve ral times a week 0 .7% Once a week Every 2-3 weeks Once a mo nth 3 to 4 times a year 1 to 2 times a year o o 0% 0% 0 .7% 0% 2.2% Less tha n once a year 3.7 % Never 124 9 1.9% Appendix F Winter c amp (11) How often do you, or other members of your household, p articipate In any City programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Oepartment?) Every day 0% Several limes a week 0.7% Every day Once a week 0.7% Sev eral ti me ... Every 2-3 weeks 0 0% Once a week Once a month 0% Eve ry 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 0 0% 1 to 2 times a year 4 3% Onc e a month Less than once a year 4 3% 3 to 4 time s a ... Never 124 92.5% 25 50 75 100 Sp ring break camp (11) Ho w often do you, or other members of your household, partici pate In any City programa offered by the Parks and Recre ation Oepartment?) Every day Several lime ... Once a wee k Eve ry 2-3 we ... Qnc ea month 3to4times a ... 25 50 75 100 Every day o 0% Severa l Urn es a week 1.5% Once a week Every 2-3 wee ks Once a month 3 to 4 times a yea r 1 to 2 limes a year Less tha n once a yea r o 0.7% 0% 0% 0% 2.2% 5 3 .7 % Never 125 91.9% Youth tennis (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreat ion programs?) Very poo r 4 3% Very poor Poor 2 1.5% Fair , 6.8% Poor Good 13 9.8% Fa ir Very gOOd 10 7.5% Goo d I am not sure '5 71 .4% Very gOO d I am no t sure 20 40 60 80 Youth s occer (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recr eati on p r ograms?) Very poor 11 7.6% Very poo r Poor 4 2.8% Fair 4.9% Poor Good 4.2% Fair Very good 11 7.6% Goo d I am not su re 105 72 .9% Very good I am not sure 25 50 75 100 youth tackl e football (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?) Very poor 1.6% Very po or Poor 0.8% Fair 3.9% Poor Good 6 .3% Fair Very good 4 3.1% Good I am not sure 108 64.4% Very good l am notsure •••••••••••••••••• 25 50 75 100 Appendix F Youth cheerlead ing [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good I am not sure 1------- o 25 50 75 100 Very poor Poor 1 0 _8% o 0 % Fair 6 4_8 % Good 5 4 % Very good 3 2 _4 % 1 am not sure 111 8 8 _1 % Swimming lessons [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 1 0 _8% Very poor Poor 3 2 _3% Fair 8 6_2% Poor Good 8 6 _2% Fair Very good 6 4 _7 % Good 1 am not sure 103 7 9 _8% Very good I am not sure 0 25 50 75 100 Water aerobics [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] VerI poor Po or Fair Good Very good I am not sure o 25 50 75 100 Very poor Poor 1 0 _8% 3 2.4% Fair 2 1 _6% Good 5 3 _9% Very good 6 4 _7 % 1 am not sure 110 86 _6% Boot camp [12) How would you rate the quali ty of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor Poor Fair Good Ve ry go od 1 am not sure o 25 50 7 5 100 Very poor Poor Fair 2 1 4 1 _6% 0 _8% 3 _2 % Good 5 4% Very good 5 4 % 1 am not s u re 109 86 _5% Ap pe ndix F Zumba (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 0 _8% Ve ry poor Poor 0 0% Fair 3 2.4% Poor Good 7 5 _6% Fair Very good 3 2.4% Good I am no t sure 112 88_9% Very good I am not sure 0 25 50 75 100 Senior center activities and classes (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 2 1 _6% Very poor Poor 0 0% Fair 3 2 _4% Poor Good 4 3 _2% Fair Very good 5 4% Good I am not sure 111 88 _8% Very good I am not sure 0 25 50 75 100 After-schoo l programs (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 1 0 _8% Very poor Poor 3 2 _4% Fair 8 6 _3% Poor Good 4 3 _1% Fa ir Very good 3 2.4% Good I am not sure 108 85% Ve ri good I am not sure 0 25 50 75 100 O ne-day camps (12 ) How wou ld you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very p'oor 0 _8% Very poor Poor 5 3 _9% Fair 5 3 _9% Poor Good 7 5 _4% Fair Very good 3 2 _3% Goo d I am not sure 108 83 _7% Very good I am not sure o 25 50 75 100 Appendix F Summer camp [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 0 .8% Veri poor Poor 4 3.1% Fair 5 3.9% Poor Good 6 4.7% Fair very gOOd 4 3 .1% Good I am not sure 108 84.4% Ve ry good I am not sure a 25 50 75 100 Winter camp [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 0 .8% Very poor Poor 4 3 .1% Fair 5 3 .9% Poor Good 7 5.5% Fair Very good 3 2.4% Good I am not sure 107 84 .3% Very good I am not sure a 25 50 75 100 Spring break camp [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?] Very poor 0 .8% Very poor Poor 4 3 .1% Fair 5 3.9% Poo r Good 6 4 .7% Fair Very good 3 2.4% Good I am not sure 108 85% Very good I am not sure a 25 50 75 100 13) What kind of events would you, or other members of your household, attend at City parks? Music concerts 145 75.1% Concert series 105 54.4% Festivals 128 66 .3% Farmers ' markets 162 83 .9% Educational/Cultura l events 99 51 .3 % Farmers ' maL .. Holiday ce lebrations 109 56.5% Educational/ ... Community picnics 85 44% Outdoor movie screenings 117 60 .6% Holiday cele ... Other 20 10.4% Community p ... Outdoor mov ... o 40 80 120 Appendix F 14) Do you, or othe r members of y our house hol d, current ly use/participate in any of the f ollowi ng facilities/activities? r 11:1 Socce Softbal Tennis Footbal Bas ketbal Batting ca .. Racq uetb .. \blleybal Lacrosse Multi-use .. 11=::1 I ·I::J ·1:::1 I ~ .~ Ae robics .. Picnic are .. Sheltersf .. Leisure ly .. Paved , m .. On-street. Jogging p .. Bocce Disc Golf Horsesho .. Off-leash .. Shufflebo .. Skate park Roller ho .. Playgrou .. Boat ramps Canoeing .. Water ac .. Nature ex .. I ~ 1=:1 Nature trai Observat . MslMusi .. Cultu ral e .. Commun i .. Performin .. Art in pubL. Amphithe .. Concessi .. Meeting f .. .==::1 Indoor fitn .. Badmint on Pick leba l Kickba l I I =::::l o Appendix F l 30 60 90 120 Soccer 48 24.6% Softba ll 6 3.1% Te nn is 45 23 .1 % Footba ll 12 62% Basketball 32 16.4% Batting cage 6 3.1 % Racquetbalilhandball 9 4 .6% Volley ball 12 6.2% Lacrosse 6 3.1 % Multi-use fields (e .g . cric ke~ lacrosse ) 6 3.1 % Aerob ics and exercise classes 44 22.6% Picni c area s (e.g . tab les and gri ll s) 86 44.1 % ShelterslPavi lions 67 34.4% Leisurely walking 130 66.7% Paved , multi-use trails! bike paths 93 47.7% On-street bic ycle lanes 88 45.1 % Jogging path 83 42.6% Bocce 5 2.6% Disc Golf 7 3.6% Horses hoes 2 1 % Off-lea sh dog pa rks 43 22.1 % Shuffleboard 0 .5% Skate park 14 72% Roller hockey 2 1 % Pla ygrounds 67 34.4% Boat ramps 30 1 5.4% CanoeinglKa yaking 59 3 0 .3% Water acc ess for ba nk/pier-fishing 26 13.3% Nature exhib it 42 2 1 .5% Nature tra il 97 49.7% Observatory 25 12 .8% ArtslMusic eve nts 82 42 .1 % Cu ltural events 62 31 .8% Co mmu nity gardens 47 24.1 % Performing arts 49 25 .1 % Art in pu bli c spaces 58 29 .7% Amph itheaters 22 11.3% Co ncessio ns 22 11 .3% Meeting facilities 17 8 .7 % Indoor fitne ss and exercise facilities 51 262% Ba dm i nto n 2 1% Pickleba ll 0 .5% Kickba ll 15 7 .7 % Soccer [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 41 25.3% Not strongly des L . o 10 20 30 40 50 Somewhat not desired 4 2.5% Neutral 36 22.2% Somewhat desired 25 15 .4% Strongly desired 56 34.6% Softball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Strongly desi... o 10 20 30 40 Not des ired 48 35.6% Somewhat not desired 7 5.2% Neutral 48 35 .6% Somewhat desired 16 11 .9% Strongl y desi red 16 11 .9% Tennis [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 30 20% Somewhat not desired 6 4% Neutral 29 19 .3% Somewhat desired 37 24.7% Strongly des ired 48 32% Stro ng ly des L . o 10 20 30 40 Football [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 50 36.2% Not Somewhat not desired 7 5.1% Neutral 52 37.7 % Somewhat desired 6 4.3% Strongl y desired 23 16.7% Strong ly des i... tI~~~~~lI~ o 10 20 30 40 50 Appendix F Basketball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesJfacilities:] Not desired 35 24.8% Not desired •••••••••••••••• Somewhatn ... N:e~w~a·,I::::::::::::::::::ii:::::::::::::::: SomeWh:,t d ... Strongly o 10 20 30 Somewhat not desired 4 2.8% Neutral 40 28 .4% Somewhat desired 22 15.6% Strongly desired 40 28.4% Baseball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 44 33 .6% Notdesiredl _______ ~ _______ __'I Somewhat n ... I-=:l Newall------------:------........ I Somewhat d... "1 Strongly desi... ~::::::::::::::I o 10 20 30 40 Somewhat not desired 7 5.3% Neutral 49 37.4% Somewhat desired Strongly desired 12 19 9.2% 14 .5% Batting cage (115) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitleslfacilitles:] Not desired 46 34 .6% Not Somewhat not desired 5 3.8% Neutral 45 33 .8% Somewhat desired 16 12% Strongly des ired 21 15 .8% Strongly desi... o 10 20 30 40 RacquetbalUhandball (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 40 30.8% Not Somewhat not desired 9 6.9% Neutral 46 35.4% Somewhat desired 16 12 .3% Strongly desired 19 14 .6% somewhatd···~:::::~1 Stro ngly des i ...• o 10 20 30 40 Volleyball (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 40 28% Not desired •••••• Somewhat not desired 4 2.8% Somewhatn ... Neutral 40 28% Somewhat desired 37 25 .9% Strongly desired 22 15.4% Somewhat d ... Strong~1 desi... o 10 20 30 Appendix F Lacrosse [15 ) Rate your, and other mem bers of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities :] Not desi red 52 39.4% Not Somewhat not desired 10 7.6% Neutral 53 40.2% Somewhat desired 7 5.3% Strongl y desired 10 7.6% Som.what d ... Strong ly desi.. .••• o to 20 30 40 so Multi-use fields (e.g . cricket, l acrosse) [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreationa l activitieslfacilitles:] Not desired 44 33 .3% Notdes~ed •••••••••••••••• Som ewhat not desired 5 3.8% Neutral 47 35.6% Somewhatn ... Som ewh at desired 18 13.6% Strongl y desired 18 13.6% Ne utr.IE:--Somewhat d ... Stron g~1 desi... o 10 20 30 40 Aerobics or exercise classes [15) Rate your, and other members of your househol d's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not des ired 29 20.3 % Not des ired ~ 1 Somewhat not desired 3 2.1% So mewhatn ... :J Neutral 31 21 .7% Som ewhat desired 30 21% Neutral m 1 Strong ly des ired 50 35% Somewh .td .. I Stro ng ly desi... ~ 0 10 20 30 40 Picni c areas (e.g . tables, grills) (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreationa l activitieslfaci l ities:] Not desired 15 10% N ot des ~ed ••• 1 Somewhat not desired 1 0.7% Somew hat n ... Neutral 19 12.7% Some what desired 35 23.3% Strongl y desired 80 53 .3% Som.what d ... Strongly des i... o 20 40 60 She lters/Pavilions (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not des ired 12 8.6% Not Somewhat not des ired 3 2.1% Neutral 24 17.1% Som ew hat desired 29 20 .7% Strongl y desired 72 51.4% St rOngly desi. .. =::::::~ •••••••••• o 15 30 45 60 Appendix F Leisurely wa lking (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesJfacilities:] Notdesifed Somew hatn ... Neutral Somewhatd ... ~::::: ••••••••••• Strongly des;" .• o 25 50 75 100 Not desired 9 5.5% Somewhat not desired Neutral Somewhat desired Strong ly desired 4 2.4% 13 7.9% 35 21 .3% 103 62 .8% Paved, multi-use trails I bike paths (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesJfacilities:] Not desired 16 10% Not desired Somewhat not desired 3 1.9% Somewhat n ... Neutral 14 8.8% Somewhat desired 19 11 .9% Neutral Strongly desired 108 67.5% Somewhat d ... Strongly desi ...••• IIIIIIIIII ••••••••• o 25 50 75 100 On-street bicycle lanes (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activititslfacilities:] Not desired 21 13.5% Not deSired •••• Somewhat not desired 0.6% Somewhat n ... Neutra l 21 13.5% Somewhat desired 21 13.5% Strongly desired 92 59% Neutral=-_ Somewhat d ... Strong~1 desi... o 20 40 60 80 Jogging path [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreationa l activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 17 11% Not desired I Somew hat not desired 4 2.6% ] Neutral 20 13% Somewhatn ... Somew hat desired 30 19.5% Neutral 1 Strongly desired 83 53.9% Somewhat d .. , Strong~1 desi.. I 0 20 40 60 80 Bocce [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 43 34 .7% Somewhat not desired 5 4% Neutral 56 45 .2% Somew hat desired 15 12 .1% Strongly desired 5 4% o 10 20 30 40 50 Appendix F Di sc Golf [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities :] Not des ired 50 40.3% Not desired ••••• Somew hat n ... Somewh::at~d:.·~··I=::------ Strongly desL. o 10 20 30 40 Somewhat not desired 7 5.6% Neutral 46 37 .1 % Somewh at des ire d 13 10.5% Strongly desired 8 6.5% Horseshoes [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire f or these recreational activitiesifacilities:) Not desired 52 42.6% Not desired •••••••••••••••••• Somewhat n ... Som ewh at not des ired 5 4.1% Ne utral 53 43.4% Somewh at des ired 7 5.7% Strongl y desi red 5 4.1% Somew hat d ... Strong~1 desL. o 10 20 30 40 50 Off·leash dog parks [115) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfaci lities:] Not desired 41 28.9% Not desired Som ewh at not desired 5 3.5% Somewhat n ... Neut ra l 30 21.1% somewh:ta:t~d"·"; ===r::'1IIIiIIII1Ii Strongly·~~L.. Som ewhat des ired 22 15.5% Strongly des ired 44 31% o 10 20 30 40 Shuffleboard [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 55 44.4% Not Somew hat not des ired 6 4.8% Neutral 53 42.7% Somewhat desired 8 6 .5% Strongly des ired 2 1.6% Strongly desi... o 10 20 30 40 50 Skate park [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desi re d 48 36 .1 % Not desired I S omewhat not des ired 10 7.5% S omewhat n ... I Neutral 42 31.6% Somew hat desi re d 17 12.8% Neutra l I Strongl y des ired 16 12% Somewhat d ... I Strong ly desL . 1 0 10 20 30 40 Appendix F Roller hockey (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 54 44 .3% Not desired Somewhat n ..•••••• Neutral Somewhat d ... Strongly desi... o 10 20 30 40 50 Somewhat not des ired 13 Neutral 47 10.7% 38.5% Som ew hat desired 2 1.6% Strongly desired 6 4.9% Playgrounds (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 24 16.3% Somewhat not desired 3 2% Somewhat n .. Neutral 27 18.4% Somewhat desi re d 27 18.4 % Strongly desired 66 44.9% Somewhat d ..••••••••• Strongly desi.. o 15 30 45 60 Boat ramps (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities :] Not desired 41 30 .1 % Somewhat not desired 7 5.1% Neutral 44 32 .4% Som ew hat desired 20 14.7% Strong ly desired 24 17.6% Somewhatd ..• ~:::::::: Strongly desi... o 10 20 30 40 Canoeing!Kayaking [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitleslfacilities:] Not desired .III1I1 ••• 1l11 So mewhat n ... Neutr a1 E~ Somewhat d ... Strong ly desL.. o 10 20 30 40 so Not desired 28 19.6% Somewh at not desired 4 2.8% Neutral 21 14.7% Som ewhat desired 35 24 .5% Strongl y desired 55 38.5% Water access for bank/pier-fishing [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 29 22.5% Not des ired •••••••••••• Somewhat n ... Somewhat not desired 4 3_1'% Neutral 43 33 .3% NeutraIE===::--So mewhat d ... Stro ngly desi... Som ewhat desi red 22 17 .1% Strongly desired 31 24% o 10 20 30 40 Appendix F Nature exh ib it (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreationa l activ ities/facilities:] Not desired 24 16 _9% Som ewhat not desired 5 3_5% Neutral 41 28.9% Somewhat desired 33 23 _2% Strongly desired 39 27 _5% Not desired l __________ ... ~ Somewhat n ___ :::::J I----------------------------~ ~~ I Somewhatd ___ I===============,;----- Strongly desL. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 o 10 20 30 40 Nature trail (15 ) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 20 12.5% Not Somewhat not desired 1 0_6% Neutral 17 10 _6% Somewhat desired 40 25% Strongly desired 82 51_3% Stronglydest.::_I=:::::::: ••••••••• o 20 40 60 80 Observatory (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 30 22 _7% Somewhat not desired 2 1.5% Neutral 31 23 _5% Notdesiredl ••••••••••••• Somewhatn _ SomeVl~h:a.t: "E===~-Strong~J'::_ Som ew hat desired 28 21.2% Strongly desired 41 31 _1% o 10 20 30 40 ArtslMusic events (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 18 12 _2% Not Somewhat not desi red 4 2_7% Neutral 16 10_9% Somew hat desired 38 25_9% Strongly desired 71 48 _3% Strongly desL. 0 15 30 45 60 Cultural events (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desi r e for these recr eat io n al activ ities/facilities:] Not desired 18 12 _7 % Not Somewhat not desired 3 2 _1 % Neutral 18 12 _7 % Somewhat desired 39 27_5% Strongly des ired 64 45 _1% o 15 30 45 60 Appendix F Community gardens [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational actlvitleslfacilities:] Not desired 19 12.8% Somewhat not desired 5 3.4% Neutral 24 16.1% Notdes~ed ••••• Somewhatn ... Somewhat desired 39 26 .2% Strongly desired 62 41.6% NeutralEi=--Somewhat d ... Strongly desL . o 15 30 45 60 Performing arts [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 22 15.9% Notdes~ed I Somewhat not desired 5 3.6% :::J Neutral 22 15.9% Somewhat n ... Somewhat desired 36 26 .1% Neutral I Strongly desired 53 38.4% Somel'lhatd ... ] Strongly des L. I 0 10 20 30 40 50 Art In public spaces [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitlesifacilities:] Not desired 23 15.8% Somewhat not desired 4 2.7% Neutral 16 11 % Notdes~ed ••••••• Somewhat n ... Somewhat desired 42 28 .8% Strongly desired 61 41.8% Neutral ••••• Somewh at d ... ~::::::::::: ••••• Strongly des L • o 'IS 30 45 Amphitheaters [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 29 22 .8% Somewhat not desired 2 1.6% Neutral 31 24.4% Somewhat desired 32 25.2% Strongly desired 33 26% Strongly desL. o 8 16 24 32 Concessions [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 32 24.4% Not Somewhat not desired 9 6.9% Neutral 37 28 .2% Somewhat desired 25 19.1% Strongly desired 28 21.4% Strongly desi... o B 16 24 32 Appendix F Meeting facilities [is) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 39 30 .5% Not desired •••••••••••••••••• Somewhat n ... Somewhat not desired 5 3.9% Neutral 39 30.5% Neutral =:::- So mewh at d ... Strongly des i... Somewhat desired 19 14.8% Strongly desired 26 20.3% o 8 16 24 32 Indoor fitness and exercise facilities [is) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:) Not desired 24 17% Not desired •••••••• Somewhatn ... Somewhat not desired 7 5% Neutral 25 17.7% Neutral==--Somewhat d .. . Strongly des i .. . Somewhat desired 30 21 .3% Strongly desired 55 39% o 10 20 30 40 50 Badminton [is) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:] Not desired 51 40.8% Not des ired t-________ ..... _______ ... Somewh atn ... Somewhat not desired 7 5.6% Neutral 49 39.2% Somewhat desired 12 9.6% Ne utralt-________________ .... Strongly desired 6 4.8% Somewhat d ... 1 ___ _ Strongly des i ... o 10 20 30 40 50 Pickleball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 54 43.9% Somewhat not desired 4 3.3% Neutral 59 48% Somewhat desired 3 2.4% Strongl y desired 3 2.4 % o 10 20 3D 40 50 Kickball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:] Not desired 43 34 .1 % Not Somewhat not desired 6 4.8% Somewhat n ... Neutral 53 42.1% Somewhat desired 15 11 .9% Strongly desired 9 7.1 % Strongly desi... o 20 3D 40 50 Appendix F 16) Are there any City parks you are reluctant to use, and if so, what is the primary reason you are reluctant to use the park? I am not reluctant to use this park 38 44 .7 % Programming and fees 0 0% Safety 3 3.5% Conditions offacilities/grounds 6 7.1% Distance from home 6 7 .1% Parki ng 3 3.5% Better non-City facility 0 0 % Donl know park location/programs 23 27.1% Class or fac ility is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 2 2 .4 % Program times/quality 0 0 % Quality staff / customer service 0 0 % Not interested / too busy 4 4.7% I am not reluctantto use this park 32 40% Programming and fees 1.3% Safety 5 6.3% Conditions offacilitieslgrounds 4 5% Distance from home 7 8.8% Parking 3 3.8% Better non-City facility 1.3% Donl know park location/programs 22 27.5% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 1 1 .3% Program times/quality 0 0 % Quality staff I customer service 1 1.3% Not interested I too busy 3 3.8% I am not reluctantto use this park 56 62.9% Programming and fees 2 22% Safety 2 22% Conditions offacilities/grounds 6 6.7% Distance from home 10 11 2% Parking 6 6 .7% Better non-City facility 0 0 % Donl know park location/programs 3 3.4% Class orfacility is too full 0 0% Lac k of program 2 22% Program times/quality 0 0 % Quality staff / customer service 1.1% Not interested / too busy 1.1 % I am not reluctant to use this park 20 27 .8% Programming and fees 1 1.4% Safely 2 2.8% Conditions offacilities/grounds 5 6.9% Distance from home 11 15.3% Parking 0 0% Better non-City facility 1.4% Donl know park location/programs 29 40.3% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 1.4% Program times/quality 0 0% Quality staff / customer service 0 0 % Not interested / too busy 2 2.3% Appendix F I am not relu ctantto use this par k 28 38 .4% Program mi ng and fees 0 0% Safet>/ 2 2.7% Conditions offacilitieslgrounds J 4 .1% Distance from home 5 6 .B% Parking 1 1.4% Better non -City facility 2 2 .7% Don't know park location/programs 15 2 0 .5% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lac k of program 0 0% Progra m times/quality 0 0% Quality staff I customer service 1 .4% Not interested I too busy 16 2 1 .9% I am not reluctantto use this park 33 38.4% Pro g ra mm ing and fees 0 0 % Safety 14 16 .3% Cond itions offaciliti es/grounds 19 22 .1 % Distance fro m home 6 7% Parking 1 1 .2% Better non-Ci ty facilit>/ 0 0 % Don't know park location/programs 6 7% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lac k of program J 3.5 % Progra m times/quality 1 1 .2 % Quality staff I custo mer service 1 1 .2% Not interested /too busy 2 2 .3 % I am not reluctant to use this par k 28 35.4 % Programming and fees 0 0 % Safet>/ 7 8 .9% Condi ti ons offacilities/grounds 2 2.5% Distance fro m home 8 10.1 % Parking 2 2 .5% Better non-City facility 0 0 % Don't know park location/programs 23 2 9.1 % Class orfacility is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 3 3 .8% Program times/quality J 3.B% Qualit>/ staff I customer service 1 1.3% Not interested /too busy 2 2.5 % I am not re luctant to use this par k 19 25 .7% Programming and fees 0 0 % Safety 3 4 .1 % Conditions offacilities/grounds 2 2 .7 % Distance from home 9 12.2 % Par king 1 1.4 % Better non-City facility 0 0 % Don't know park location fprograms 32 43.2 % Class or facility is too full 0 0% Lac k of program J 4 .1 % Program timeslquality 0 0 % Quality staff I c ustomer service 0 0 % Not interested / too busy 5 6 .8% Appendix F I am not reluctant to use this pa rk 15 19.5% Programming and fees 0 0 % Safety 13 16.9% Cond itions offacilitiesfgro unds 2 2.6% Dista nce from home 7 9.1% Pa rking 2 2 .6% Bette r no n-City faci li ty 0 0% Don't know park locationfprograms 34 442% Class or facility is too fu ll 0 0 % Lack of program 1 .3% Program times/Qua lity 0 0 % Quality staff f custome r service 0 0 % Not interested !too busy 3 3.9% I am not re lucta nt to use this park 23 30 .3% Programm ing and fees 0 0% Safety 10 132% Conditions offaci litiesfgrounds 4 5.3% Distance from home 8 1 0 .5% Park ing 0 0 % Better non-Citj facility 0 0 % Don't know park locationfprograms 22 28 .9% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lac k of program 2 2 .6% Program times/Qua lity 1.3% Qua lity staff I customer service 1 1 .3% Not interested !too busy 5 6.6% I am not re luctant to use this park 25 32.9% Programming and fees 1 1.3% Safety 5 6.6% Conditions offacilitiesfgrou nds 1 1.3% Distance from home 8 10 .5% Parking 0 0 % Bette r no n-City facility 1 1.3% Don't know park location/p rograms 2 1 27.6% Class or fac ilitj is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 1.3% Program times/Qua lity 6 7 .9% Quality staff / customer service 0 0 % Not interested /too busy 7 92% Appendi x F I am not reluctant to use this park 36 42.4% Programming and fees 1 2% Safety 1 1 2% Conditions offacilitiesJgrou nds 7 82% Distance from home 7 82% Park ing 5 5.9% Better non-City faci lity 2 2 .4 % Don't know pa rk locatio n/programs 17 2 0 % Class or facility is too full 12% Lack of program 3 3.5 % Prog ram times/Quality 1 2% Quality staff / customer service 1 1 2% Not interested / too busy 3 3.5% I am not reluctantto use th is park 23 26.1% Programming and fees 2 2 .3% Safety 1 .1 % Conditions offac ilitiesJgrounds 18 20 .5% Distance from home 5 5 .7% Parking 0 0 % Better non-City facility 1 .1 % Don't know p.ark location/programs 27 30 .7% Class orfacility is too full 0 0 % Lack of program 6 6 .8% Prog ram timesJQuality 1 1.1 % Quality staff / customer serv ice 0 0 % Not interested /too busy 4 4 .5% I am not reluctantto use this park 33 39 .3% Programming and fees 0 0 % Safety 3 3.6% Conditions offacilities/grounds 3 3.6% Distance from home 5 6% Parking 6 7 .1 % Bette r non-City facility 0 0 % Do n't know park location/programs 25 29.8% Class or facility is too full 0 0 % Lack of prog ram 4 4.8% Program times /quality 0 0 % Quality staff / customer service 1 2% Not interested /too busy 4 4 .8% Append ix F Improve fitness [17 ) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from parks, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongly disagree 10 5 .3% Strongly d i ..... Somewhat Disagree 0 .5% Neither agree nor disagree 10 5.3% Somowhst D ... Somewhat agree 48 25.7% Neith.rag r •... Strongly agree 118 63.1% SOmR\\,h8t a .. _~:::::: •••••••••• Stro ngly ag rn . o 25 50 75 100 Crime reduction [17) Be low is a list of benefits that can be received from parks, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongly diss ... S o mewha lO ...••• N:ither a g ", ... ==--.. SOr1Wwh st B .. . Stro ngly agrae o 15 30 45 6 0 Strongly disagree 11 6% Somewhat Disagree 14 7 .7% Ne ither agree nor disagree 38 20 .9% Somewhat agree 47 25.8% Strongly agree 72 39.6% Make South Miami a more desirable place to live and/or work [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from parks , recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongly disag ree 9 4.8% Somewhat Disagree 0 .5% Neither agree nor disagree 7 3.7% Somewhat agree 31 16.4% Strongly agree 141 74.6% o 35 70 10 5 Preserve open space I improve environment (17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from parks, recreation facilities, and programs . How much do you agree that these features provide the following beneFits?] Stro ng ly disagree 8 4.3% Somewhat Disag ree 4 2.1% Ne ither agree nor disagree 4 2.1% Somewh at agree 29 15.4 % Strongly ag ree 143 76 .1% Stron gly ag rn l _______________ ~__.I 35 70 105 Increase property values in surrounding area (17 ) Be l ow is a list of benefits that can be received from parks, recreation facilities, and pro grams . How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongly disagree 9 4.7% Somewhat Disag ree 3 1.6% Ne ither agree nor disagree 8 4.2 % Somewhat ag ree 39 20 .3% Strongly ag ree 133 69 .3% So m.what a ... ~::::~ ••••••••••• Stro ngly 8 g ru . o 30 60 g O 120 Append ix F Improve mental hea lth and reduce stress [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from partts, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongl y disagree 9 4 .7% Strong ly dis •... Somewhat Disagree 6 32% Neither agree nor disagree 10 5.3% Somewhat D._. Somewhat agree 40 21 .1% Nelth erag~ ... Strongly agree 125 6 5 .B% Somewh8ta ... -:=:. •••• _ Stro ngly 8gree . a 2 5 50 75 100 Provide increased opportunities for social interaction [17) Bel ow is a list of benefits that can be received from partts, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongl y disagree 7 3.7% Somewhat Disaoree 6 32% Neither a!jree nor disagree 13 6 .9% Somewhat aoree 57 30 .3% Strongl y agree 105 55 .9% o 25 50 75 100 Preserve historical features of the community [17) Below is a list of blnef"lts that can be received from partts, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] S trongly dis8 ... Somewhat D ... Neit M r8 Q ra ···===:'IIIIIlI_ Somewhat 8 ... Stro ngly .g~9 o 20 40 60 80 Strongly disagree 13 7% Somewhat Disagree 5 2.7% Neither a!jree nor disagree 29 15.7% Somewhat agree 48 25 .9% Strongly agree 90 4B .6% Promote tourism [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from partts, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongl y disagree 14 7.6% Stron gly dis •... Somewhat Disagree 18 9 .B% Neith er agree no r disagree 65 35 .3% S omewh at D ... Somewhat agree 38 20 .7% Neith e r agre ... Strong ly agree 49 26 .6% So mewh at B .. _ Stro ngly agree o 15 30 45 60 Create a sense of place and community [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from partts, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?] Strongl y disagree 9 4 .8% Stron gly dis •... Som ewhat Disagree 3 1.6 % I\je ither agree nor disagree 10 5.3% Somewhal D ... So mewh at agre e 47 25% N-either agre ... Strongl y agree 119 63 .3% Somewhat 8 ... 1 ======= __________ "1 Strongly 8 g r •• , _________________ -' o 25 50 75 100 Appendix F Ma intenance [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:] Not improtant 0 0% Not So mewhat not important 0 0 % Neutral 4 2.1 % Somewhatn ... So mewhat importa nt 26 13.4% Very important 164 84 .5% Very 'I11U'U"<t,1Il o 40 8 0 120 Enhancements/Renovations (18) Rate importance ,of the fo ll owing parks issues:] Not improtant 4 2.1% Not i mp rotant So mewhat not important 6 3.2% Neutral 13 6.g% S omewh at n ... So mewhat important 61 32 .3% Ve ry important 105 55 .6% So mewh at i... Very impo rta n t o 25 50 75 100 Resident awareness of programs, parks,and fac ilities [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:] Not improtant 3 1.5% Not improtan t So mewhat not important 5 2.5% Neutral 19 9.6% S o mewh at n ... So mewhat impo rtant 55 27.9% Very important 115 58.4% Somewhat i... Very imp o rta.nt o 25 50 75 100 Available passive/leisure ly recreation opportun ities (18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:] Not improtant 4 2.1% Not improta,nt So melAoi1at not important 4 2.1% Neutral 15 7.7 % So.mewha t ;n ... S>omewhat important 59 30 .3% Very important 113 57.9% So mewhat i ... Ve ry jr;n p'o rts n t o 2 5 50 75 100 Appen dix F Ava ilable active recreat i on opportun ities [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:] Not i mp f ots n t Some\\iha t n ... Neu t ral Somewh s t L . Very i mp ortan t o 2 5 50 7 5 100 New parks [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:] Not i mp totan t t r Neutra I I Somewhst L I Very i mports n t I o 20 40 60 80 Not i mp rotant8 4 .1 % So mewhat not important 7 3.6% Neutral 16 So mewhat important 58 Very important 104 Not improtant 13 Somewhat not important 12 Neutral 37 So mewhat important 46 Ve ry important 83 8.3% 30 .1% 53.£1% 6.8% 6.3% 19.4% 24.1% 43.5% 19 ) Do exi sting parks have enoug h handicapped parking? Yes 46 22.2% No 12 5.8% I am not sure 149 72% 20) Do existing parks h ave en ough restrooms? Yes 43 2 0.8% No 100 48 .3% I am no t sure 64 3 0.9% Appendix F 21) Are the restrooms properly maintained? Yes 31 15.3% No 91 44.8% I am not su re 81 39.9% 22) Do parks have enough picnic tables and pavilions? Yes 58 28.7% No 96 47.5 % I a m not sure 48 23 .8% 23) Do parks have enough playgrounds? Yes 77 37.7% No 71 34 .8% I am not sure 56 27.5% 24) Are pl ayground areas safe for play? Yes 103 50.7% No 30 14 .8% I am not sure 70 34 .5% Appendix F 25) Would you recommend a City park to someone? Yes 169 84 .5% No 31 15 .5% 26) Would you be willing to pay a small fee for enhanced or additional services? Yes 130 64 .7 % No 71 35 .3% Appendix F This page intentionally left blank. Appendix F APPENDIX G Recurring Comments from Online Public Survey and Workshop General Comments 7 6 ALL AMERICA PARK More p icn ic areas Used for drug-dealing Needs p layground Not enough programmed uses Underuti li zed Unattractive Good park BREWER PARK Needs bathrooms (3) Needs a bridge to re p la ce culvert to c reate a unique, p leasant feature along water Needs bathrooms Fencing along canal is unsafe; small children can walk underneath it Benches poorly installed Ne eds more benches Needs better upkeep of landscape (i.e. fresh mulch, tree trimming above basketba ll court) Tennis courts need better maintenance Need more parking Not enough tennis courts available for leisure players with private lessons being taught on the courts . DANTE FASCELL PARK Great park (4) Shelters need improvement (3) Playground needs to be updated (3) New rubber path is great Lawn areas need improvement (mostly d irt) Do not keep renovating playground Grass surrounding railroad tie fencing a long cana l needs to be maintained better Water fountain not functioning properly Trash needs to be dealt w it h better Improve use of waterf ront Park and Tennis Program is successfu l thanks to tennis st aff DISON PARK Underutilized (3) Needs more fa ci liti es (2) Unattractive Not enough shade DOG PARK Has po ten tial Too small for large dogs Appendix G FUCHS PARK Homelessn e ss is an issue (7) Unsafe (4) Underutilized (2) Views to water are good (2) Needs beller maintenance (2) Facilities need improvement (2) Need shade stru cture over p layground Involve neighbors in a loca l clean-up/reno va- tion p roj ect Wildlife at park are a good amenit y Shade is good Needs to be featured more GIBSON-BET HEL COMMUNITY CENTER Exercise room is good (3) Great facility (2) Needs better maintenance (2) Potential tutoring cen te r Fitness ro o m no t supervi sed enough t o monit or w h o is en t e rin g / co ll ect fees MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK Improve str eet conn ecti vi t y Needs basketball court Needs more amenit ies Neg lected Un sa fe MURRAY PARK Great park (2) Inclusive Grea t for youth activiti es Not enough room for p lay Pla ygro und needs improvement Playground is far from parki ng MURRAY PARK AQUATICS CENTER Great facility (3) Needs later hours (3) Needs more shade Have a movie night at th e pool Swimm in g lesso ns are g reat PAL MER PARK Great park (3) Not enough parking (3) Very busy (2) Great for you t h activities Playground is too smal l Needs impr"ove d p ro g ramming Needs more shade Nothing prov ided for adults Appendix G SOUTH MIAMI PARK Needs more tree coverage (4) Needs more furniture (2) Improve access (2) Underutilized (2) Fields ore a good amenity Poor field co nditions No parking No bathrooms O ld YMCA is run down Add baseba ll field s to help w ith Palme r Pork congestion Di sconnected from City Needs better li ghting Needs better fa c ilitie s Could be a potentia l location for a communi ty center SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER Amenities need improveme nt VAN SM ITH PARK Unsafe (2) Remove debris from demolished home (2) Good park (2) Underutil ized Needs shad e Needs perim e t e r fence Needs lighting Ne eds bette r maintenance Im p rove paths Ne eds a p layg ro un d Animal was t e issue