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