Res No 153-17-14954RESOLUTION NO.: 153-17-14954
A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt the City of South Miami Parks and
Recreation Master Plan and Appendix.
WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with Miller Legg in February 2014 to prepare a
citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan (the IIPlan") for the Department of Parks and
Recreation; and
WHEREAS, 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
existing parks and facilities, recommendations for current and future improvements, land
acquisition and capital project development; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Plan has been a collaborative effort between City
officials, staff, residents, and the Miller Legg team; and
WHEREAS, this Plan was reviewed and revised per public workshops 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; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, City Commission had deferred the adoption of the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix (li mas ter plan") pending recommended changes; and.
WHEREAS, the attached final document now has those recommendations and changes
within the Plan; and
WHEREAS, The Mayor and City Commissioners desires to have the City Manager adopt the
South Miami Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT:
Section 1: The City Manager is hereby authorized to adopt the South Miami Parks and
Recreation Master Plan and Appendix prepared by Miller Legg.
Section 2: If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 3: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of_.....:J::....;u=l::....v'--_-I, 2017.
Pg. 2 of Res. No. 153-17-14954
APPROVE~ Mifr
COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0
Mayor Stoddard Yea
Vice Mayor Welsh Yea
Commissioner Edmond Yea
Commissioner Liebman Yea
Commissioner Harris Yea
ti;:~" ,
South'Miami
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE Ole THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OI~'l1'ICE MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
Via:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACI{GROUND:
---------
The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission
Steven Alexander, City Manager
Quentin Pough, Director of Parks and Recreation 3
July 12, 2017 Agenda Item No.: __ ..
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 Parl<s 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. This 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, staff, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members, residents, and
the Miller Legg team. This Plan was reviewed and revised per public
workshops 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.
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017, City Commission had deferred the adoption of
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Appendix (I'master plan") pending
recommended changes. City staff completed multiple revisions (non-
maintenance items) in response to the Commission's comments, as follow:
Data Source: Bureau ofEconomic and Business Research (IIBEBR")
The current BEBR population sources used in the Parks & Recreation Master
Plan are based on the "Projected Total Population, South Miami, 2010-2040"
AnACHMENTS:
CITY OF' SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFI?ICI~ MEMORANDUM
data from BEBR. For consistency, the consultant recommends using Phase 1
current population 13,932 from BEBR, which was BEBR's 2015 projection.
Their "Projected Total Population" study does projections for every five
years (i.e. 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025).
The recommended 12,912 population figure provided by, the City
Commission is from a different BEBR study called the "2016 Population
Estimates."
Both are BEBR, but they are different studies. Both the consultant and City
staff recommends using City "Projected Total Population, South Miami,
2010-2040" data because it provides projections) as well as an age
breakdown for the projections, which allows us a more detailed look at
demographics.
All America Park
The initial master plan included language regarding an Adventure
Playground at All America Parle Neighbors that surround the park prefer
natural play elements and for the play structure(s} to be located on the
south side where the old house site was located. Furthermore, plans for
paved path and lighting posts were eliminated. The revised master plan now
reflects these changes.
Brewer ParI<
language has been added regarding a canal entrance/exit ramp.
Dison Park, Fuchs Parl< & Van Smith Park
Removed park security lights at referenced parks.
South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan (itSMITP")
In an effort to keep our transportation plans consistent, the adopted SMITP
has been incorporated within the park master plan.
Additional Comments and Recommendations
Further comments and recommended changes were completed including,
but not limited to removal of Jean Willis bike annex, increase funding
towards tree canopy and removal of paved paths at passive parks.
Resolution
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Parks and Recreation Master Plan -Appendix
PREPARED BY:
MILLE ~EGG
Acknowledgements 4
Executive Summary 5
Chapter 1 7
Introduction
Chapter 2 10
Community Profile
Chapter 3 20
Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs
Chapter 4 28
Public In vo lvement
Chapter 5 34
Demand Ana lysis
Chapter 6 48
Planning Recommendations
Chapter 7 57
Planning Implement ation
" _1. __ ••• 1_ ... _____ & .....
"111\1 uWI~ugt: 111::1 ~
Th e d evelo pme nt o f th e C ity o f So uth Mi a mi Par ks a n d Recreati o n M as t e r Pla n has bee n a coll abora ti ve
e ffo rt b e twee n C it y o ffi c ia ls, st a ff, a nd res id e nts, and th e M ill e r Legg t ea m .
Th e project t e am wou ld lik e t o o ff e r t h e ir deepest g ratitu de t o th ose res id e nts w ho p a rti c ipated in th e
p ublic work sho p s a nd o nlin e pu b li c survey w hi c h infor m ed t h is Pla n . Yo ur con tr ib utio ns have b ee n a n integra l pa rt
o f the p la nning p rocess .
ProjectTeam
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI MILLER LEGG
Mayor Ph ili p K. Stoddard Pr es id e nt Mike Kr o ll
Vi ce M ayor Robe rt We lsh Pla nn e r Vanessa Rui z
Commiss io n e r Gabri e l Edm ond
Commiss io n e r Josh Li eb m a n
Commissione r Wa lt e r Harri s
C it y M a na ger St eve n A lexa nd er
Deputy C it y M a nager Shari Ka m a li
Director of Par ks & Recrea t ion Q ue nti n Po u g h
r ............ &: ...... ~ •• ___ ... . x;; IV~ ~UI I I -ry
Th e City o f So ut h Mia mi des ir es to exe mpli fy
excell e nce in parks and recre a ti o n, a nd beco m e a
m o d e l muni cipa li ty recog ni ze d fo r it s exce ll e nt parks
and recre ation fa ci liti es and pro g ra m s. To m eet th e
c urr e nt a nd future parks and recre ati o n ne eds o f th e
City, as well as na ti o na l and regio na l st a ndards, it is
recomm e n ded t ha t the Ci ty o f So uth Mia mi im p leme n t
c hanges th a t a ddress th e m a jo r a reas d esc rib ed
below:
Urgent Maintenance
Based o n in pu t fro m t he p u b li c, in p u t from
the C ity, a n d a n a na lys is o f exist ing sit e conditions ,
mainte na n ce need s have b een prioriti ze d t o fir st reso lve
issues re la t in g t o safe ty and li ability. Th ese mai nte n a nce
needs inclu d e rep laceme nt of det e ri orati ng pa rk
compo ne nts a nd additi o n o f new compo n e nts th a t
im prove sa f e t y . Such it e m s include th e d e t e ri orat e d
ra ilroad ti e f e nci ng a ro un d Dant e Fasce ll Park th a t is
c reoso t e-Ia iden, a nd in need of se ri o us re p a ir ; fencing
a lo ng th e c anal a t Brewer Park wh ic h is mi ss in g p icket s in
areas near th e p la yg round; a n d th e additi o n o f fencing
a nd li g hti ng a t Va n Smi t h Park t o preve nt u nwant ed
ni g ht-tim e act iv ity, a nd p rese rve p ri vacy fo r adj ace nt
res ide nts. Th ese , a nd o th e r m a int ena nce it e m s, h ave
bee n o utlin ed in th is Plan as part of t he im m ediate
costs necessary t o implemen t Phase One o f th e Plan .
Urgent Operational Changes
A comparison of exist ing operati o ns t o n a ti ona l
and re g iona l standards , as ill u str a t ed in C h apter 5,
d e m o nstrated th e o p e ra ti o na l areas th e C it y sh o uld
m ost urge ntly address.
Th e most u rgent opera ti o n a l c h a nges fo r th e
City includ e enhancing their fu ll -t im e to part-tim e
e mplo y ee rati o b y in c reas ing p a rt-tim e staffing. Thi s
additi o na l st a ffin g wi ll a llow t he C ity t o im p le m e nt th e
urgent m a int e na nce n eeds t o be ad dresse d in Ph ase
O n e, as well as provid e for regu lar maintena nce,
inspecti ons, a nd im p roved se rvic ing o f t he fac iliti es
as th e fac ilit ies are e nh a nced a nd th e parks syste m
expand ed throu g h o ut the p lannin g peri od.
Land Changes
The City 's Co m p re he nsive Pl a n c urre ntly
requ ir es 4 acres of pa rk la nd per 1,000 res iden t s. To
com p ly w ith thi s level-of-se rvi ce re quire m ent , th e C ity
w ill n eed t o ad d 8 acres t o com e into co m p li a nce
now, o r 20.5 mo re acres over t he next ten ye ars, t o th eir
exist in g 48 acres in th e ir parks a nd recreat ion system.
15,511 2 62.0
17,084 2 68.3
Table 1.1 Req uired Park Land Acres by Phase (4 acres per 1,000
persons)
No tes
1. Bureau of Economic and Bus iness Research . (20 15). Popula tion Projec-
tion by Age for 2000-2 040 . University of Florida . Re trieved from htt p!/
flho usi ngda ta.shi mberg .ufl .edu /a/popula tion?ac ti on = resul ts&nid = 4372
Th e in crease in park land w ill enable the City
t o provide additiona l faci li ties based on current and
anticipated demands of certain uses as identified
from population projections, public input and nationa l
standards ill ustrated in this document. The so lu t io ns
d iscussed in this p lan include some options th at are
based o n use agreements, which can greatly reduce
the cos ts of a ttain ing park land.
Other so lutions to attaini ng the required park
land are based on a need for improved geographica l
d istr ibution of parks with in the City. Strategic areas have
been identified that currently do not provide residents
with a park w ithin a wa lkable d ist a nce. Atta ining parks
in the stra te g ic locations identified in thi s p lan w ill
provide many residents w ith a park that is a fi ve-m inute
walk from their home.
Annual Increase of Operating
Funds
To ensu re th e City is able to realize the
recommendations of th is Plan, the C ity should uti li ze
the Plan as a guide for providing an annual increase o f
operating funds that in corporates the antic ipated costs
for each phase of this Plan into th e annua l budget.
Since phases o f this p lan range from immedia t e
needs to a five-year p lanning period , formu la ti on
of the annua l increase in fund s shou ld be done with
consideration o f those recommendations that may
take more than a year to implement.
Th e anticipated cos ts including land,
improvements, staffing, and operations, are outlin ed in
Chapter 7, Planning Implement ations.
Im p lementation in these areas is the first of many
steps outlined in this Master Plan needed to u ltimately
raise the sta nda rd of South Miami's parks sys t em to be
on par with other nearby communities, and t o serve as
a ro le model for municipal parks systems.
Benefits of Parks & Recreation
and the Need for a Vision
Publi c parks, recreatio n programs, and open
spaces are c ru c ial e lements to th e City o f South Miami 's
v ision . They define th e bu ilt environment and suppo rt
an im proved qua lity of life for City res idents, making
Sou th Miami a great p lace to liv e, work and p lay .
Sou th Miami has a lways had a stron g
commitment t o recreati o n. C ity lead e rs have co m e to
rea li ze that open space and re c reati onal opportunities
have had a major influence o n how res idents and
vis it ors perceive their community . Th e provision o f
parks, recreationa l faciliti es, and open spaces is base d
on th e desir e by most people to have opportuniti es for
th e e njoy m ent of th e o ut door e nv ironment in an urban
se tting.
Th e physical a nd psychologica l benefit s o f
outdoor act iv iti es are we ll -accepted va lues. Access
to parks leads to in creased phys ica l exe rcis e, w hi c h
he lp s improve overa ll hea lt h , inclu ding redu c in g th e
ri sk of obesity, heart disease, a n d diabetes. Parks a lso
prov id e opportunities t o connect w ith nature, soc iali ze,
and participate in le isu re activit ies, wh ich redu ces th e
ri sk o f stress-re lated disorders.
Parks have a lso been shown t o increase
prope rt y va lues of adjacent property fo r both re sid e nti a l
and commercia l uses. Park availabili ty ca n a ttract
new residen t s and work force , a n d park attendance
ca n lead to in c reased numbers o f patrons to nearby
businesses.
Soc ial benefits includ e an enhanced sense of
co mmunity a nd p lace. Parks provide p laces for res id ents
t o come t ogeth e r a t com mun ity events a nd programs.
Park access has a lso been ti ed to c rim e reduction and
Chapter 1: Introduction
redu ced juvenil e de li nquen cy, provid in g safe p laces
fo r yo uth t o int eract w ith o ne another.
Open space and recreati o nal lands are
recogn ize d for more than th e ir in d iv id ua l benefits.
Th ere are broad public va lues in th e improvement of
air quality and redu c t ion o f noise, protectio n o f habitat
for animal and p lant spec ies, and v isual re li ef from the
complexity of the urban e nvironment. Thi s Park s and
Re c reatio n Mas t e r Plan was c reat ed t o ensure that
th ese va lues are m e t and continu e to be provided t o
a ll c itize ns of Sou t h Miami .
Figure 1.2 Parks provide opportuni ties to connec t wi th na ture .
Purpose of the Master Plan
The Plan has been prepared in response to the
desire o f the City's in sp ir ed leadership and th e res idents
o f Sout h Miami t o have an ou tstanding prog ram o f
recreation and park faci liti es for th emselves and future
genera ti ons as the C it y con tinu es t o mature over th e
next ten years.
Visioning Process
Thi s p lan's v ision ing process consis t ed of an
in ventory and ana lysis of th e C ity's existin g parks,
fa c iliti es, a nd programs; a na lys is o f exist ing and
projected C ity demographics; a comparison to
nationa l standards o f parks, fa c iliti es , a nd se rv ices; and
consid erati o n o f th e needs and desires of the City and
its res idents .
Th e in ven t ory a nd a n a lys is o f th e parks sys t em
in vo lved fie ld v isits by Mi ll er Legg and MCHarry A rch it ect s
to determine th e conditions of th e facilities' existing
cond iti on, a nd to observe events and behaviors of eac h
sit e. Publi c involve ment from onlin e opinio n surveys and
publi c works h ops , w hi c h are detail ed in thi s Plan , were
utili zed during developm e nt o f the recom m e nda tion s.
/ z~
Figure 1.5 Residen ts provide their inpu t at a public workshop
Figure 1.3 Field visi t at All America Park
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Community Profile
Parks are essen ti a l t o a person's we ll -being.
Ho wever. what people need in a park. what th ey
envis io n as a park. and w hat th ey wan t t o do at a park
varies g reat ly by individual. and even by com munity.
To und e rstand w hat parks c haracteri sti cs wou ld
best suit th e res id e nts of South Miami . a st udy o f th e ir
demographics and signifi ca nt city c haracte ri sti cs
we re exa m ined to build a profile of th e City. Thi s profile
a ll owed us to genera li ze needs and pot e ntia l desires
for the popu lati o n .
Chapter 2: Community Profi le
ft _______ L: __
UI:I I gr-pi It; -
An examinat ion of exis ti ng and fo recast ed
demographic cond it ions for the C it y was undert aken
in development of the Plan. The fo ll owing section
details the demographic characteristics by age, race
and ethnicit y , economics, housing, and education. This
comprehensive demographical analysis was used to
evaluate City needs for park land acreage, faci lit ies,
and services.
Parks data was gathered from fie ld vis its,
information rece ived from the City of South Miami,
and the Miami-Dade Count y Property Appra iser . This
chapter of t he Master Plan provides information on the
demographic profile of Sou t h M iam i that is pertin ent to
recreationa l facil ity programming .
1. Bureau 01 Economic and Business Research . (20 15). Projec led Tolal Popula tion, Sou lh Miami, 20 10-2040 . Univer sity of Florida . Relrieved from hlt p//
Ilhousingdatashimberg.ull.edu /a/profiles?ac lion = resulls&nid =43 72 (See Appendix B for me lhodology )
Chapter 2: Community Profile
3,152 1 22.6%1 4,512 ,9902 24 .0%2 83 ,267 ,556 2 27 .0%2
4,567 1 32 .8%1 4,696 ,7702 25 .0%2 82 ,829,589 2 26 .8%2
3,591 1 25 .8%1 5,196 ,6982 27 .6%2 85 ,562,4852 27.7%2
4,394,852 2 23.4%2 57 ,085 ,908 2 18 .5%2
14,747,196 76 .2% 231,849 ,713 73 .8%
2,1043 17 .5% 3,114,841 16.1% 39 ,564,785 12.6%
n Indian and Alaskan Native 03 0 .0% 59,121 0 .3% 2,565,520 0 .8%
309 3 2.6% 490,833 2.5% 15,710,659 5 .0%
03 0 .0% 12,128 0 .1% 535,761 0 .2%
1843 1.5% 484 ,2 74 2.5% 14,754,895 4.7%
229 3 1.9% 453 ,399 2.3% 9,125,751 2.9%
5,5783
3 ,845 3 56.6% 197,159,492 62 .8%
non-Hispanic 2,613 3 20.1% 63 ,877,496 20 .3%
n Household Income $54 ,101 $47 ,212 $53,482
$33,468 $26,499 $28,555
milies below poverty level 7.7% 12 .2% 11 .5%
level 13 .1% 16 .5% 15.6%
Table 2.1 Demographic Data
Notes:
1. Bur eau of Ec onomic and Bu siness Research. (20 15). Pop ulation Projec tion by Age for 2000-2040. University of Florida . Re trieved from http Jlflho using-
da ta.shimberg.ufledu l alpop ulat ion?ac tio n = results&nid = 43 72
2. United States Census Bu rea u. (2 014).2070-2014 American Community Survey Re trieved from http Jl fac ti indeLcensus .gov/
3. Du e to the need for multiple so urc es of data, th e popula tion fig ures lis ted under Race and Ethnicity for the Ci ty may no t equal to the to tal pop ul ation .
Age
Age c haracteri sti cs o f a commu nity can he lp
define w h a t uses are most like ly to be in h ig h er demand
and to succeed i~ implemen t ed .
Accord ing to the U.S. Cens us' 2009-20 13
Ame rican Communit y Survey, the median age with in
t he Ci ty o f Sou th Mi a mi is 37.7, w hi c h is be low t he St a t e
of Florida's m ed ian age of 41.2, and slig ht ly above the
nationa l media n age o f 37.4 (see Tab le 2.1). The age
breakdown from t he BEBR 20 15 popu lation projection
found 3,152 aged 19 years and younge r (22.6% o f t otal
popu la ti o n), 4,567 aged 20-39 years (32.8% of t o t a l
Chapter 2: Community Profile
City Population Projections by Age
Age Group 2015 Population 2020 Population 2025 Population Percent Change
~ge 0-19 3,l 52
~ge 20-39 4,567
fA.ge 40-59 3,5 91
fA.ge 60-7 5+ 2/522
otol ~3,932
Tab le 2.2 Ci ty Popula tion Projec tions by Age
No tes :
3,447 3,948 25.3%
5,407 5,781 26 .6%
3,603 3,891 8.4%
3,054 3,464 32 .1 %
15,511 17,084 22.6%
1. Burea u of Econom ic and Business Research. (2 01 5). Popula ti on Projec ti on by Age for 2000-20 40 . Un iversity of Florida . Re trieved from http J/flh ou sin g-
da ta.shimberg .ufledu/a/popula tio n?ac tio n = res ults&ni d = 4372
population), 3,59 1 aged 40-59 years (25.8% of t ota l
popu la ti on ), and 2,622 aged 60 and o lder (1 8.8% of
t o t a l popu lation ) (see Table 2.2 ). The BEBR popu la ti on
projections show a steady increase in the percentage
of those younger than 40; the least increase in th e
percent of the popula ti on between ages 40 to 59, and
the most in crease in th e percent o f the population
aged 60 a nd o lder.
Based on th ese proj ections , young adult s
and those over sixty years o ld are the fastest-growing
popu lations , wh il e chi ldren and those in their forties and
fifties are the slowest-g rowing populations.
Proposed uses sh ou ld take into account and
appea l to o lder population s a nd yo un g ad u lt s t o best
se rve the Ci t y's population .
Race
Figure 2.3 Demographic percen tage by race
Ch apt er 2: Community Profil e
Race and Ethnicity
Race and e t hnicit y of a popu lation can
in dica t e whether some activities may be more popu lar
or not based on cu ltura l differences. For in sta nce , in
areas w ith a hi gh percentage of hispanic residents,
soccer is a frequent past-time for fami lies, and soccer
leag ue programs are we ll -a ttended.
Th e popu la ti on of South M iam i is comprised
of 76.5% white, 17.5 % Bla c k or Afri c an American, 2.6 %
A sian,and 3.4% that identify as "some other race" or
"two races or more." 46 .3% identify themselves as
Hi span ic or Latino with 59.9% of that g roup ident ifyin g
as Cuban . The percent o f persons, age 5 years and
o lder, w he re lang uage o th e r than Eng lish was spoken
at home is 48.4%.
Ethnicity
Figure 2.4 Demographic percen tage by ethnici ty
From Fi gures 2.3 and 2.4, it is evident that
the City has a large hi spanic popu la ti on . Th e Ci t y is
predom inantly w hi te, w ith th e next la rgest ra c ia l group
being b lack.
Economy
INCOME AND POVERTY
In come can have a major impact on families
and indiv iduals, and on w hat sor ts of recreation th ey
are more like ly to participate in . Th ose w ith little fin ancia l
means may need recreationa l programs su ch as a ft er
sc hool care, cert ain fitn ess classes, public fitness centers
and facilities, and o th er ameniti e s to reduce their costs
on fitness . Th ose who ha ve h igher levels o f income may
opt for private fitn ess g roup s, classes, o r ce nte rs.
An und ers tandin g o f th e in co m e o f a
c ommunity may a lso help in understanding what
programs wou ld succeed. For in stance, acti vi ti es whi c h
often pair w ith private lessons , or that require higher
fees than o t her acti vit ie s, may no t succeed in c iti e s
wi t h a low-in come population.
Income and Poverty Sou t h FI 'd Un ited
C haracteristics Miami on a St ates
Med ia n househ o ld incom e
Pe r capi t a income
Pe rsons in poveliy
Pe rsons in civil ia n la bor
force, age 16+
Females in civil ian 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 poverty comparison to Flori da and the US
According to th e "2009-20 13 Am e rican
Communit y Su rvey" by the U. S. Census Bureau ,
th e Median household inc o m e in Sou th Miami was
es t imated at $54,4 76, w hi c h is high e r than th e state's
Median ho use h o ld in come o f $46,956, and th e U.S.
Median ho use hold income o f $53,046. The sa me su rvey
est im a t ed th e City's per capit a in come at $31,873,
w hi c h is also higher than th e state's per capita income
o f $26,236, and the U.S . per capita in come o f $28,155 .
Th e survey a lso es timated the perso ns in poverty w ithin
the C it y at 14.2%, which is lower th a n the sta te 's poverty
ra t e o f 16 .5%, a nd th e U.S. poverty ra t e o f 14 .8%.
Th e "2009 -20 13 American Commun it y Survey"
fo und th at the percent of the population aged 1 6
years a nd o lder in the civili an labor force was 68.3%
including participation by 64.6 % of fema les aged 16
years a nd o lde r. Th ese rate s are h ig he r in com parison
to th e state 's, which has 59.7% o f th e populatio n aged
16 years ond o lder in the civili an labor fo rce , including
55.6 % female participat ion. Th e City's ra t es are a lso
h igher than the national rates , wh ich includes 63 .8% of
th e popula ti on aged 16 years ond o ld er in the civili an
labor force, incl u ding 59 .0% female partic ipation .
Th e City has a strong in come profi le, however,
it sh ould be noted that th e eas t ern porti ons of th e City
c ontain neighborhoods w ith low-income resident s,
whil e o ther areas hav e higher-than-average in c ome
levels. These factors should b e co nside red in the
re c ommendations.
BUSINESS
The number of busin e sse s, and t h eir fin anc ia l
stability, are an indi c ator of th e ove ra ll economic well -
b e ing of a City .
A ccording t o th e "200 7 Ec onomic Census
Surv e y of Busines s Ow ners" b y t h e U.S. Census Bur e au ,
Chapter 2: Community Profile
th ere were 2,325 bus in esses in Sout h Miam i, and of
those bus inesses, 1,018 (44%) were minority-owned. City
records in dicate that curr ently th ere are approximately
3,300 bus in esses w ithin the City. Th e "2007 Economic
Census" a lso indi cated tota l retail sa les in Sou th Miami
to be $187,501,000 with a retai l sa les per capita rate of
$17,133 per person, whic h is higher than t h e state retail
sa les per capita rate of $14,353, and th e U.S. re t ai l sa les
per capita rate of $12,990.
The C it y has an overall strong business
commun ity, with many of those businesses being
m inority-owned . This indicates that the business
community of the City is diverse, intell igent, and
robust.
Housing
Housing characteri sti cs are telling of whether
a population has more fami li es or sing le-occupancy,
renters or homeowners, and permanent or t emporary
residents.
The "2009-2013 American Communit y Survey"
found that there were 4,055 households with an
average of 2.90 persons per h o use ho ld in So uth Miami .
The persons per household ratio is higher in South Miami
Figure 2.5 Neighborhoods in the Ci ty are primarily single lamily homes,
but have a lower ra te 01 owner-occ upied housing than the state and nation
Chapter 2: Community Profile
th an in Florida , w hi c h has 2.6 1 persons per h ouse ho ld ,
and th e U.S., which has 2 .63 persons per househo ld.
The survey a lso indicated that 86.6% o f people li ved in
th e same home for a t least a year, wh ich is hi gher th an
th e rate for both Florid a (83.7%), and th e U.S. (84.9%).
According to City dat a, there are approximate ly 3,730
households currently w it hin th e C it y.
A lth ough the number of households vary
between City records and th e American Community
Survey, th e City records are more accura t e. Th e
American Comm unity Survey data is based off
est im ated households from the 20 10 Decennial Census
rather than an actual count of households.
Th e survey a lso found that owner-occupied
housing units accoun t ed for a total of 59.9% of the
marke t. The City's rate is less th an the rate for Florida,
67.1 %, and that fo r th e U.S" 64.9%. Th e lower than
average rate of owner-occupied housing sug gests that
South M iami has a higher amount of rental units. This
finding may be due to the proximit y to the University
of Miami, w hi ch increases th e amount of coll ege-aged
popu lation in the area, most of whom are renters .
Based on findings from th e American
Communit y Su rvey, th e median home va lue in 20 13
was $344,400. The Florida Depart ment of Revenue
Sa les Data Fi les, derived from M iami-Dade County
Property Appraiser information , found that the median
sa les price for sin g le fami ly homes and condominiums
within the City fe ll from a high of $580,000 in 2007 to a
low of $325,000 in 2009, and has rebounded to $450,000
as o f 20 14.
Education
Accordi ng t o t he "2009-20 13 A m e rican
Commun ity Surv ey" by th e U. S. Ce nsus Bur eau , th e
p e rcent o f perso ns age 25 a nd o lder w ith at least a
hi gh schoo l d ip loma was esti m ated to be 88.7%. Sout h
Mi a mi h as a com para ble ra t e o f perso ns wi th a hig h
sc hool degree o r hig he r than Florid a's p e rce ntage ra te
(8 6.1 %) and t he na t ion's ra t e (86.0%).
Th e survey a lso f o un d th a t th e p e rcent o f
th e popul a ti o n in th e Ci t y w ith a Ba c he lo r's degree,
or hig her, was 44% w ith 18.9% hold ing a g radua t e
o r p rofessional degree. The City has a hig h er ra t e
o f hi g her ed ucat ion degree a tta inm e nt th a n both
Fl o ri da and th e U.S . O f th e st ate 's p opu la tion, 26.4%
have a bach elor 's degree or hi g her, and 9 .5% have
a g raduate o r p rofess io n a l degree. In th e U.S., 28.8%
have a bac he lo r's degree or hi g he r, a nd 10 .8% have a
g raduat e degree o r p ro fess io n a l degree.
Parks and Recreation Planning
Impl ications
A growth in th e overa ll num bers a f res idents
by 23% in the ten-yea r plan nin g peri od w ill requi re
development of a correspond ing increase in
rec reationa l resou rces ava ilable to reside nts above an
establi shed base line o f recommended faci li t ies. The
data in th is study shows that the current popu lation is
a lready under-served by fac iliti es, meaning tha t the
Ci t y m ust not o nly en h a nce th e ir ex isti ng recreation
resources, but build upon th em in order to meet
curren t and future recreati on needs for it s res idents.
Fo r this reason, t he recom m e n dati o ns in t his p lan were
la rge ly driven by wh ic h f acil it ies are a lready successfu l,
which ones need improvement, and what parks
and recreat io n e leme nts are desired, b ut nat readil y
avail able.
Th e Ci ty's es t im a t ed 2025 popu la t io n o f 17,084
perso ns ca n leverage bette r, m ore su bs t a nti a l fac iliti es
t han th e curre nt popu la ti o n o f 13,932 perso n s. C riti cal
t hres ho lds w ill be met w hi c h can furt h er ju sti fy th e need
for a dd it ional fa c ilit ies, se rvices, a nd improve m e nts. Fo r
in st ance, t en nis fac ilities are hi gh ly des ired by res id ent s
o f th e Ci ty, so a lth o u g h the existi ng faciliti es exceed the
recommended q u a ntity o f courts per its popula ti o n ,
th e uniq ue d es ir es o f th e res ident s justify th e add ition
o f tenn is courts based on t hei r de m and and des ir e t o
make ten nis a p ro m inent fea ture in the parks system.
Chapter 2: Community Profile
ft:& •• ftL ............. _&_ ... :_&: __
" If
Metropolitan Region
II Ct,rat; It:rl~lll;~
Sou th Miami was in corp orat ed in 1927 fo ll owin g
Sou th Florid a's fir st major population boom fro m 1920-
1925. The Cit y is one of Miami-Dade County's o ldest
municipalities. It is loca t ed approximately 3 mi les
sou th of the C ity of Miami and borders th e Uni versi t y of
Miami 's main ca mpus, a nd th e c it ies of Cora l Gables
and Pinecrest. U.S . Hi g hway 1 (So uth Dixie Hig hway)
bisec t s the City, and contain s t he larges t concentra ti on
of re t ai l, comme rcia l, and office uses with in the City,
carryin g approxim ately 100 ,000 vehicles on a daily
bas is.
Size and Density
Th e C ity o f South Miami is comprised o f a
ser ies of fragmented areas totaling 2 .27 square miles
with in M iami-D ade County . The multi-ethnic res ident
population, as p rojected by BEBR for 20 15, totals 13 ,932,
y ie lding an avera ge density of 6,137 persons per sq uare
mile, which is higher than th e densities for both th e City
of Cora l Gables (3,965 persons / sq. mi .) and th e Vi ll age
of Pine c res t (2,588 perso ns / sq. mi.).
Significant City Elements
1, COMMERCIAL AREAS:
The major commercia l area in th e Ci t y is
loca t ed a long U.S. 1. The area serves as th e "town
center," and is a vibrant shopping, din in g and
enterta inment locale serv ing the City as well as
th e Uni ve rsity of Miami studen t s, facu lt y, staff, and
v isitors.
Chapter 2: Community Profil e
2. UN IVERS IT Y OF M IAM I
Th e City of South Miami is influenced significantly
by it s close proximity to th e Uni versity of Miami. Th e
University is a private institution enro llin g over 16 ,000
stud en t s, and employin g over 2,500 full -tim e faculty
m e mbers. Located less than a q ua rt er mil e to the
eas t o f the C ity , th e Uni ve rsity o f Miami impac t s the
econom ic, demogrpahic, cu ltural, and ed u cati o n a l
characteristics of th e C it y. Cons id e ra ti on of t hese
influences has been given in preparation of th is
p lan.
3. SCHOOLS WITH OPEN SPACE RESOURCES:
Li st ed in Tabl e 2.4, are schools w ith open space
resources that have been deemed to have a
potentia l for uti liza ti on by the City based on minimal
physica l restr ictions such as possib le access poin ts,
adjacency to parks; and other contextua l factors.
4 , WATER-BASED RECREATION:
The City o f South Miami c urrent ly has 13 public
parks, and one facility. Thr ee of these parks have
a water feature tha t is currently not utili zed for
recreation, but offers recreation a lternatives to
Sou th Miam i. These water re so urces p resent an
opportunity for water-based re creationa l ac ti v it ies
suc h as canoein g and kayaking, padd le boarding,
and fishing .
6521 SW 62nd Ave.
South Miami, FL, 33143
6750 SW 60th St.
Miami, fL, 33143
6750 Sunset Dr.
South Miami, FL, 33143
6639 SW 74th St.
Miami, FL, 33143
6767
Miami,
6800 SW 60th St.
Miami, FL, 33143
Middle / High
Middle School
Pre-Kindergarten
Elementary
Elementary / Middle
Elementary / Middle
from
Tabl e 2.4 Schools wi th Potential Park Space wi th in the City of South Miami
3 Basketball Courts
2 Basketball Courts
1 Multi -use field
3 Basketball Courts
1 Baseball/Softball Field
1 Multi -use field
0.40
1.00
1.20
Chapter 2: Community Profi Ie
Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs
Existing Parks and Facilities
South Miami conta ins 14 recreation fac il ities
throughou t the City, t o t a li ng approximat e ly 48 acres
of park land. The si t es include 13 parks, and a 6,187 SF
County-owned senior center with programs operated
by the City . Table 3.1 ind icates the acreage of existing
parks and fac ilities. Site Ana lyses are a lso ava il able in
Appendix C.
Existing Park Land Acreage
Parks
Pocket Pat ks
Dog Park
Dison Park
Jean Willis Park
otal pocket park acres
Small Parks
Van Smith Park
Brewer Park
All America Park
otal small park acres
Neighborhood Pa rks
Murray Park2
Marshall Williamson Park
Girl Scout Little House Reserve3
Fuchs Park
Dante Fascell Park
!rotal neighborhood park acres
Community Parks
Palmer Park
~outh Miami Park
otal community park acres
Total Park Land Acres
~otal current park land acres
Ta bl e 3.1 Exist ing Park Land Acreage
No tes :
Acres
0 .13
0 .59
0.63
1.35
1.14
1.29
1.40
3,83
4.08
3 .22
4.06
5 ,OC
7.73
24.09
8 .5/
10 .0C
18.51
47.84
1. Acreages are derived from calcula tions by the Miami-Dade Coun ty
Prope rty Appraiser and Ci ty of Sou th Miami
2. Includes Murray Park Aqua tic Cen ter and Gibson-Bethel Communi ty
Cen ter
3. This proper ty is subjec t to a lease agreement with Girl Scou ts of
America effec tive until 2053 .
POCKET PARKS
The parks and faci lit ies include a wide variety
of sizes, including pocket parks (l ess than an acre)
that are tucked in to sma ll properties in res identia l and
commercial areas alike, such as Di so n Park, which is
situated between homes, and the Dog Park, which
is in a sma ll lo t next t o an anima l care center. These
parks can typica ll y accomodat e only uses that do not
occupy much room , such as a small playground, sma ll
struc t ures, and limited furn ish ings.
Severa l sites currently maintained by the City's
Pub lic Works Department have been identified for
pot ential des ignation as Pocket Parks. These sites are
as fo ll ows:
1. SW 63rd Ave. & SW 50th SI. -open area
between sing le fam il y homes
2. SW 57th Ct. between 78th St. and 80th St. -east
side of Right of Way open area with existing
park bench and landscaping
3. Twin Lakes Dr. & SW 57th St. -cu l-de-sa c open
area
4. SW 62nd Ct. & 42nd Terr . -triangu lar open area
within Right of Way
5. SW 60th Ave. between SW 84th SI. and 85th St.
-open area between sing le fami ly homes (not
maintained by Pub lic Works)
SMALL PARKS
Parks that are 1-2 acres are slight ly larger
parks that can serve a larger area of the City, and can
accomodate more programmed uses than pocket
parks. These parks are categorized as sma ll parks.
One such park is Brewer Park w hi ch is 1 .29 acres, and
contains two tennis courts , a half basketba ll court, t wo
Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities, and Programs
ra cq uetball courts, a playground, and a gazebo. Some
of th e simi larly-sized parks in the City, however, vary
wide ly in character. For instan ce, All America Park is a
pass ive park cherished for its natura l features .
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Neighborhood parks (3-8 acres) in the C it y are
multifaceted , and re flective of their neighborhoods.
A lthough some of these parks contain active uses ,
such a s in Murray Park and Dante Fasce ll Park, both
predominan tl y surrounded by res idences, some of
these parks provide a more re laxed setting for th e ir
context. Fuchs Park , for in sta nce, is a somewhat passi ve
park which includes a large pond w ith an open area
for strolling . This park is located adjacent to US-l, so th e
contrast in levels of activity from a busy transportation
corridor to a passive park, makes Fuchs Park a welcome
variation from the usua l of thi s neighborhood.
COMMUNITY PARKS
Community parks, w hich are greater than
8 acres in size , are the largest parks in the City . The se
parks have the ability to acoomodate larger uses , and
multiple fie lds and courts, ideal for tournaments and
league spo rts. Only two parks of th is size exist in th e
City: Pa lmer Park and South Mi a mi Park. Pa lmer Park
is heavily-used for league sport s by t he City's residents.
South Miami Park is a lso h eavily-used for league spor ts,
however, due to it s location in an enclave of the City
surrou nded by most ly County jurisdiction, most o f its
u se rs are non-resi dents.
Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs
Existing Parks and Facilities
Figure 3.2 Exis ting Parks and Facilities
(2) SOUTH MIAMI PARK
® BREWER PARK o GIRL SCOUT LlTILE HOUSE RESERVE o PALMER PARK o MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PAR K
® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK
® ALL AMERICA PARK
® JEAN WILLIS PAR K
@ VAN SMITH PARK
@ DOG PARK
@ FUCHS PARK
@ DISON PARK
@ DANTE FASCELL PARK
LEGEND :
C-_-:J CITY LIMITS
D EXISTING PARKS
o· 1.000 ' 2.000 ' •••
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
Ch apt er 3: Existin g Park s, Fac iliti es , and Pro grams
South Miami Parks and Recreation Facilities at-a-glance
Park / Facility Address Acres
All America Park 6820 SW 64th Avenue 1.40
South Miami. FL 33143
Brewer Park 6300 SW 56th Street 1.29
South 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
Pirl Scout Little 6609 SW 60th Street 4.06
House Reserve* South Miami, FL 33143
~ean Willis Park 7220 SW 61 st Court 0 .63
South Miami, FL 33143
~arshall William-6125 SW 68th Street 3.22
r>on Park South Miami. FL 33143
~urray 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
:>outh Miami 4300 SW 58th Avenue 10.00
Park South Miami. FL 33143
South Miami 6701 SW 62nd Avenue N/A
Senior Center South Miami, FL 33143
Van Smith Park 7800 SW 59th Avenu e 1.14
South Miami. FL 33143
Table 3.2 So uth Miami Parks and Rec rea tion Facili ties at-a-glance
* This proper ty is leased to the Gi rl Sco uts 01 America
• Picnic area
• Outdoor basketball (1 /2
court)
• Handball courts (2)
• Gazebo
• Outdoor basketball (1 /2
court)
• Playground & tot lot
• Handball courts (2)
• Pavilions (2)
• Gazebo
• Picnic area
• Dog play structures
• Chickee hut & benches
• Pavilion
• Picnic areas
• Playground
• Restrooms
• Historic building
• Nature-based recreation
• Gazebo
• Picn ic 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 amenitie s
.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 • Restroom s
• Tennis clay courts • Water Fountain
(6) • Parking
• Water fountain
• Sand volleyball • Pond
court
• Water fountain
• Parking
• Picnic area
• Restroom
• Water fountain
• Restrooms • Water fountain
• youth t-ball field • Children'S Clinic
• Basketball courts (2)
• Exercise classes • Parking
• Computer lab • Re strooms
• Internet • Classroom
• Multipurpose room
• Restrooms • Parking
• Water foun tain
• Tot lot • Picnic areas
• Baseball fields (5) • Restroom
• Parking
• Pi c nic area
• Senior programs • Computer lab
• Dining room • Fitness room
Proposed Mu Iti -use Trai Is
In addition to it s existin g parks and indoor
recreati o n fa c iliti es, the C it y has great opportuniti es with
three mu lti -u se trai ls th at are cu rr ently in deve lopment
as green corridors tr aversin g the region , and runnin g
through o r adjacen t to th e City. As p lans for th ese
trai ls progress, t he City cou ld p lay a key role in their
d e ve lopment. Th e three tra il s are di sc ussed in thi s
section.
THE UNDERLINE
C urre ntl y known as th e M-Path, t h e Und erli ne
is an existin g 10-m ile linear park-lik e space a nd multi-
use trai l w hi c h has been approved for a major red es ign
as an ico ni c urban multi-u se trail. Th e Underlin e run s
unde rn ea th th e Metrorai l lin e from Downtown Miami
ju st north of th e Brick e ll Station t o the Dadeland South
St a tion . Within the C ity , the Und e rlin e sit e encompasses
over 11 ac res that run paralle l to US -1 / South Di xie
High way.
Thi s project is se t t o be an iconi c g ree n corridor
con ne ctin g many signifi ca nt areas of the reg ion .
To ass ist in the rea li zat ion o f th is p roject, the City of
Sou th Miami has contribu ted $25,000 to date towards
development of th e Underl ine. Use rs from o th er areas
would be brought into the C ity v ia th e Underlin e, so thi s
trail is not only an opportunit y fo r res idents o f the City to
e ngage in trail recrea tion , it is a lso a way to bring vis it ors
into th e City with a d if feren t p e rspective .
LUDLAM TRAIL
Th e Lu d lam Trai l (3 acres adja ce nt t o the
City) is a propose d 6-m il e multi -use trail withi n a former
FEC ra ilr oad corridor located adja c en t to th e Ci ty .
If incorporated into the C ity's parks system , th e trai l
cou ld add 3 acres of park la nd , a nd improve acce ss t o
parks (m ore parks w ithin a 5-minute wa lking dis t ance )
along th e wes t side of the City. Base d o n it s locati on,
th e Lu d lam Tr a il w ill prov ide a mu lti -us e trail to se rve
res ident s and conn ect d iff e re nt a reas o f metropolitan
M iami than the Underline w ill.
SNAPPER CREEK TRA IL
Snapper Creek Trail is a p roposed 10-mi le
mu lti -use trail in west-central Miami-Dade County
th at ge ne ra ll y fo ll ows the route of the Snapper C ree k
Canal. Th e tra il would provide a tra ve l ro ute betwee n
the Florida International University Modesto Maidiqu e
ca mpus on Tamiami Trai l and O ld Cutler Trail. Seg ment
B of th e Snapper Creek Tr a il wi ll run along res identia l
street s w ithin South Miami w ith a sma ll portion of th e
trail runn ing in the area immediate ly so uth of Dante
Fascell Park l 2.
With in t he City, the si te of th e proposed
Snappe r Creek Trail a long Dante Fas cell Park t ota ls 1.28
acres of park land. With waterfro nt v iews to o ff er, the
future Snapper Creek Trail site a long Dante Fasce ll Park
is cu rr e ntly used informa ll y by res id ent s as a wa lkin g
route. As th e tr ail develops, Dante Fa sce ll may be
ide ntifi ed as a major destination a long the trai l.
No tes :
1. Miami-Dade Melropoli tan Planning Organiza tion (Oc tober, 2008)
Snapper Creek Trail Segment A Planning Study Miami -Dade County
Re trieved Irom htt p//miamidadempo .org/library /s tu dies/snapper-creek-
trail -segmen t-a-planning-s tudy-linal-2008-10pdl/
2. Miami-Dade Me tropoli tan Planning Organization (June, 20 16) Snapper
Creek Trail Segmen t "8" Mas ter Plan . Miami-Dade County Re trieved lrom
htt p//miamidadempo .org /l ibrary/studies /snapper -creek -trai I-se gmen t -b-
mas ter-plan-linal-repor t -2016-06 .pd l/
Chapter 3: Existing Parks, Facilities , and Programs
Existing Parks and Facilities with Proposed Trails
Figure 3.3 Ex isting Parks and Facil ities with Proposed Trails
Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities, and Programs
(2) 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 :
r-----l CITY LIMITS
D EXISTING PARKS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
0' 1,000' 2,000'
June 2017
South~iami MILLE ~EGG
Existing Recreational
Programs
Recreation programs provide excell ent ben-
efits to res idents. Participation in sports programs or rec-
reational classes can help improve overa ll physical and
menta l health by offering a fun method of engag in g in
phys ical activity, wh il e provid ing an enviro nment th a t
teaches sportsmansh ip, coll aboration, and healthy
competition. Th e d iversi ty of programs offered can a lso
help in attractin g a varie t y of users o f different ages.
Existing recreational programs w ithin the City
include a variety of City-opera t ed and privately-op-
e rated programs. Pri vately-operated recreationa l pro-
grams help offset resident demand for recreationa l
p rogra m serv ices wh il e limiting the operati o nal cos ts t o
th e Ci ty .
Amongst the 17 a th letics programs avail able
w ith in the City, as of May 2016, there were 1.900 regis-
trants in youth athletic programs and 1,180 registrants in
adu lt athletics programs. The City a lso provides 7 non-
a t hletic programs: afterschool care , three seasona l
camps, one-day camps, the wonder workshops , and
the sen io r p rogram. Non-athletic programs comprise
940 registrants .
South Miami Recreation Programs
Recreation Programs Registrations
Privately-run Programs
~azzercise 40
Boot camp 50
~outh basketball 480
~outh baseball 400
rtouth soccer 250
~outh travel soccer 175
~0uth flag football 150
fA,dult softball 100
fA,dult soccer 150
City-run Programs
~outh tackle football 200
~heerleading 65
~Iassical ballet 25
fA,fter school tennis 150
~outh tennis camp 245
!Adult tennis clinic 75
~ennis tournements 750
IAfter school program 100
jWinter camp 100
~pring camp 100
~ummer camp 125
pne day camp 300
~rack and field (PAL) 40
~enior program 65
~wim lessons 135
jWater aerobics 15
Iwonder workshops 150
Combined Total
Irotal Program Participants 4,995
Tab le 3.3 Sout h Miami Rec rea tion Prog ra m
Chapter 3: Existing Parks , Facilities , and Programs
Chapter 4: Public Involvement
"
"1:&1·,· n"ru"·v··.·U"'P" 1 ...... & ,,,n ... 4 2 ft ... ~\ -r uU lip l \'U I -I a I
Mil le r Leg g condu c t e d inte rv iews w ith th e
City's M ayor, V ice May or, Com m iss io ne rs, an d Park s
and Rec rea ti o n A dvisory Board t o d e t e rm ine w ha t t he
C ity f e lt are it s m os t signifi c ant goa ls a nd objecti ves .
The fo ll o wi n g is a summary o f reocc urrin g comme nts
from thos e in t erv iews.
THE CITY'S PARKS NEED IMPROVEMENT
M os t Ci ty repre se ntat ives fe lt th a t th e parks
n eed e d impro v e d mainte na nc e and re n ovat io ns,
are u nd e ru t ili ze d by res id e nts, and no t co nsist e ntly
m a intained. More sp ecifi ca ll y, large park feat ures
are mainta in e d b es t (e.g . maj o r sp o rt s fi e ld , major
sp o rt s courts, p ool), w hil e sm a ll e r fea tures receive less
a ttentio n fr o m m a in te n a nce perso n nel (e.g . Di so n Par k,
Dante Fascell Pr o Sho p ).
MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE
Interviewees f e lt t h at th e Ci t y's m a inte n ance
o f it s p arks a nd recreati o n fac ili ti es is inadequ a t e due
t o lack of pro p e r fun ding, a nd turn over o f well -tr a in ed
st a ff . Interviewees fe lt th a t th e Ci ty's wages a re not
competiti ve e no ug h t o re t a in st a ff t hat h as bee n
p roperly tra in ed in mainte n a n ce st a ndards, or attract
m o re experi e n ced p e rso nn e l.
RESIDENTS LACK AWARENESS OF CITY PARKS
AND PROGRAMS
In te rv iewees agreed th a t res ident s don 't know
abou t th e Ci t y 's parks, facili t ies, a nd p rogra m s o ffe re d .
A few in t erviewees recom mended adverti sing these
fac il it ies a n d se rvi ces throug h m a il in gs, broc hures , a nd
c a le ndars fea t uring a sc hedu le o f events.
By t he t im e th ese in terviews occ urred , st aff
had begu n comm uni cati o n e ff ort s w ith res ide nts to
in c rease aware n ess o f parks a nd recreat ion faciliti es
a nd ser v ices.
INADEQUATE BUDGET FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION NEEDS
City re prese ntatives f e lt t hat t he p arks a nd
recre atio n budge t is o n ly a d eq uate for continuin g w ith
t he c urre nt main te n ance a nd e nhancement st a nd ards
o f th e fa c il it ie s/p rogra m s, w h ic h t he y fee l are in n eed
o f improve m e nt . In o rder for t he City's p arks sys t em t o
improve it s e xist ing fe atures, and grow in t he future ,
Parks and Recre atio n would need a d d it iona l fu nd in g .
PARKS AND RECREATION SHOULD CONNECT
WITH SCHOOLS
Th e Ci ty c urr e ntly ho ld s a u se agree m e nt w ith
M ia m i-D ade Sc h ools for t he use o f Pa lm e r Park . Th e
C it y w ould li ke t o es t a b li sh use agreem e nts w ith sc h ools
t hro u g ho ut th e Ci t y t hat have ope n space resou rces
that could be o ffe red t o th e p ubli c d urin g th e sc h ools'
o ff-h o urs.
WATERWAYS ARE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION
Inte rvi ewees a g reed th a t th e w ate rwa ys w ith in
th e Ci ty are a n asse t t ha t shou ld be ut ili zed for parks
and recrea ti o n uses , su c h as ca noein g, kaya kin g,
fi sh in g , a nd sim il ar acti vi ti es . So m e sugges t ed t h at
boat la un c hes, p ie rs, a nd o the r facilit ies coul d be
p rovid ed a t th e wat e rfr o nt p arks t o e na b le th ese
activ iti es w it hi n th e C it y. Enhancin g th e connectivi t y o f
t hese wat erwa ys co u ld he lp im p rove t h e overa ll wa t e r
recreation expe ri ence as we ll.
Chapter 4: Public Involvement
SOUTH M IAM I PARK NEEDS MAJOR
IMPROVEMENT
Sou th Miami Park was descri bed by Ci ty
re prese nta t ives as a sig nifi c antly neglected park in n eed
o f a major renova ti on, or decommission in g. Some felt
that th e park is neglected, because the park's locati on
on th e n orth e rn frin ges o f the City iso late its resources
fr o m the majority of City res id ent s, serv ic in g very few
properties that are w ith in th e City li m it s. Desp ite th e
park being operated by the C it y, most o f th e park's
users are non-residents. Th e finan c ia l feas ibi lit y o f the
Ci t y's continu ed operation of th is park is questionable
in it s curr ent conditi on and cont ext.
PARKS ARE IMPORTANT TO THOSE
CONS IDER ING BECOMING A RES IDENT OF
SOUTH M IAMI
Most City representatives feel that parks are
a sign ifi cant infiu ence on pote ntia l reside n ts' decision
to move to South M iami, and especia ll y so for young
fami li es who have c hildren a t-h ome th at wou ld be ne fit
g reatly from a strong parks and recreation sys t em with in
th e ir c ity.
THE C ITY NEEDS MORE BASKETBALL COURTS
Curr ent ly there is a strong demand for
more basket ba ll courts throughout the City. City
represen t a t ives expressed int e res t in introducin g more
basketba ll courts at parks , and specifica ll y at Marsha ll
Will iamson Park where th e tennis court s are under-
utili zed, and have th erefore been identi fied as an
opportunity to renovate t hem as basketba ll court s to
meet demand .
PR IVAT IZE ORGAN IZED SPORTS PROGRAMS
Some City repre sentatives encouraged
priva ti zin g the C it y-run recrea ti ona l leagues, so as to
free up those parks and re creation staffing resou rces
Chapt er 4: Public Involvement
for other uses, reduce liability, cu t costs to the C it y, and
li mit st a ffing needs,
NON-RES IDENT PARTICIPATION IN SOCCER
PROGRAMS
A few in terviewees fe lt the soccer programs
sho u ld be eva lu a t ed for th e ir v iability. Most of th e soccer
in th e C it y takes p lace a t Sou th Miami Park , wh ich is
surrounded a lm os t e ntire ly by properties o u ts id e th e
Ci t y limits, Th e users serv iced by the p rogram, the refore,
are usually non-residents. The Cit y desires to utiliz e
these resources in a way that wou ld better serve th e
residents.
SUPPORT FOR THE UNDERLINE PROJECT
Th e m a j o rit y of interv iewees support th e
Underline project, and fee l the Underline shou ld be
considered in the C ity's Parks and Rec reati on Master
Pla n . Th e project w ill expand a major green corrid o r
and public open space runn in g through th e heart of
the Ci t y .
ON-GO ING SUPPORT FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ITS
LEADERSHIP
Ci t y representatives felt that th e new Parks and
Recreation leadersh ip is a great asset to th e Ci t y. They
appreciat e their leadership and vis ion for Parks a nd
Recreation in the Ci t y , and feel they are leading the
departm ent in a good direction.
ft_I: __ ft .. LI:_ ,. •• _. ____ a ft •• LI:_
U I I t: r II · ~ur t:y ex r Ullt;
Workshop 1 and 2
In determinin g the Goals and Objecti ves of between September and November 2016. The survey
Sou th Miami res idents for its Parks a nd Rec reation had a tota l of 2 14 respondents, w h ic h comprised o n ly
Master Plan, Mi ll e r Legg conduc t ed an on li n e public 1.8% o f th e res id ents. The survey is cons idered statist ica ll y
su rvey and two publi c work shops in coll aboration w it h insignificant. Nonetheless, the responses have sti ll been
the City. The survey was public ized on the C ity webs ite, considered in thi s study.
and w ith flyers at various local gath ering p laces. Init ia ll y, The two public works hops gathered
the survey a ttracted 146 respondents over the course approximately a hundred partic ipants. Th e foll owin g is
of 2.5 months between May and Ju ly of 20 15 . In order a summary of recurring comments from the survey and
t o increase responses, th e City reopened the survey publi c workshops .
a fter Pu b lic 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 On line Public survey res ults
Palmer Park
100 %
PARKS LEAST VISITED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE
LAST YEAR
80 %
60%
40 %
20 % 6% 7%
0%
Jean Willis Park Marshall
Williamson Park
Figure 4.4 Onl ine Public survey resu lts
15 %
Dison Park
PROGRAMS THAT THE MOST RESPONDENTS
PARTICIPATED IN LAST YEAR
100%
80%
60%
40%
20 %
0%
38%
Youth Soccer Youth Tennis Swimming
Lessons Figure 4.3 Onl ine Public survey resu lts
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 survey results Screenings
Ch apte r 4: Publi c Involv ement
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES CURRENTLY PARTICIPATED IN MOST BY RESPONDENTS
10 0%
80 % 67%
Figur e 4.6 Online Public survey result s
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES MOST DESIRED BY RESPONDENTS
100%
80%
Figure 4.7 Onl in e Public survey result s
Th e m a jority o f survey respondents were ages
30 to 45 (4 5%), w ith the second largest age group being
ages 46 t o 55 (23%). Respondents reported th at their
household included mostly adult s between the ages of
30 to 45 (5 1 %), and c hi ldren age 13 o r yo unger (48%).
The next largest age group of respondents' household
members were ages 46 to 55 (29%). Th ese results
ind icate tha t the majorit y of respondents are midd le-
aged individua ls, and many li kely have young fami li es.
Accord in g to th e survey responses , m ost pa rk s
have typica ll y never been vis it ed by respondents ,
except fo r Dant e Fascel l, wh ich is typ icall y visi t ed severa l
time s a week by respondents who vis it the park.
Chapter 4: Pub li c Involvement
~ ~ ~ & ~ 0 00 0"" ~"" ~q, ~<:S
~~ ~ l~ ~,~<:f. ~.;:; ~ ~,~ ".:s
Not surprisin g ly then , accord in g to the survey
resu lts , most respondents are not aware of the cond iti on
of th e City's parks, except for Dante Fascell and Fuchs
Park, wh ich we re both mostly rated as being in "good"
con d it io n .
Overwhelmin g ly, an average of 10% of
respondents reported participating in any of th e C ity's
programs. Subsequen tl y, most respondents reported
that they are not sure of the qua lity of the City's
p rograms.
• Faci lities/items that survey respondents and workshop
attendees fell need "major improvements "
bathroom s
sa fety /sec uri t y
c o ncessio ns
li g hting
a mo unt of sha d e tr ees
exerc ise e quipme nt
• Faci lities/items that sur vey respondents and workshop
attendees fe lt need "moderate improvements ":
pi c ni c a reas
she lt e rs/pavili o ns
clea nlin ess
parking
p laygro unds
furn iture
sid ewa lks a nd paths
gene ra l mainte na nce
natur a l areas
la ndscape areas
• Faci litie s/items thaI survey respondents and wo rks hop
attendees fell are "fine as-is ":
sports fi e lds
tennis cou rts
basketba ll courts
other build ings
signage
Public Workshop 1 -Visual
Preference
Pu b li c W o rks hop 1 was h e ld in Jun e o f 20 15.
Pre fe re nce for t ypes o f parks a n d acti v iti es a t p arks
ca n vary w idely fro m perso n-t o-perso n, and eve n
from regio n-to-reg ion. In additi o n to receiv in g verba l
a nd site -specifi c input fr o m works h op parti c ipa nt s, we
a lso cond u cted a v isua l p re fe rence act iv ity a t Pu b li c
Wo rks hop 1 to bette r d e fi ne th e p re fe re nces o f th e
C it y's res id e nts. W e p rovided seve ra l im ages re fl ective
o f c haracterist ic types of p arks a n d activ iti es ra n g in g
fr o m images o f pass ive parks w ith picnickin g to sports
com p lexes t o farmers m arkets and fes t iva ls.
Based on v isua l p refere nce, works h op
parti c ipants p re f e rred images c h aracteri sti c o f p ic ni c
areas wi t h pavil ions; paved , m u lti -use paths; and
farm e rs' m arke t s. Thi s p refere nce is well -alig ned wi t h
survey respo nses in d icatin g a p re f e re nce f o r leis ure ly
walki ng, p ic nic areas a nd sh e lters, a nd p ark events.
A secon d public works h op was he ld in m id-
20 16 to p rese nt a d ra ft of th e Parks a nd Rec reati o n
Most er Pl an to res iden ts, a nd p rovide o n opportunity
for additi ona l publi c input.
Chapte r 4: Public Involvement
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Park Land Area Ratio
To ensu re th a t the C it y of So uth M iami is
provid ing adeq uate park la n d acreage, th e C it y has
se t requ ir eme nts in th e Compre hens ive Plan to provide
a min imum o f 4 acres o f park land per 1,000 residents.
On average, municipa li ties in Miami-Dade County
require an open space level-of-service ratio of 3 acres
per 1,000 persons. The park land area ratio set by the
C it y provides more park land acreage per person th an
most o th er cities in th e Cou nty. Currentl y, th e City has
approxim a te ly 13,932 residents, wh ich requires 56 acres
o f park lan d to meet the Comprehensive Plan ratio.
Existing vs. Required Park
Land Area
C urrently th e re are 48 ac res of ex isting parks
and recreation faci li ties within the City; therefore the
City currently has a deficit of 8-acres needed to meet
the 56-acre park land area requirement.
As this Mast er Plan a im s to guide th e Ci ty's
Departm ent of Park s and Recreation through the next
fi ve (5) and ten (1 0 ) yea r periods, popul a ti on projections
have been ana lyzed to determine park land level-of-
service needs looking into the future for 2020 and 2025 .
Tab le 5.1, "Required Park Land Acres by Phase (4 acres
per 1 ,000 persons)," illu stra tes t he acreage req uirements
and surplu s o r deficit for eac h phase o f thi s Master Plan
based on th e cu rr ent park land level-of-service ratio.
To comply with the ratio of 4 acres per 1,000
persons, the C it y wou ld need to acquir e 20.5 acres
by 2025, whic h may be d iffi cu lt g iven that th e C it y is
v irtu a ll y bu ilt-out, a nd th ere is a lack o f ava ilabl e lands.
Noneth e less, th ere are severa l opti o ns available t o the
C it y that can in crease the park land acreage over the
next ten years , as well as d iversify the types of recreation
available.
15,511
17,084 68 .3
Table 5.1 Required Park Lan d Acres by Phase (4 acres per 1,000 persons)
No tes
1. Bu reau of Econom ic and Bus iness Research. (20 15). Popula ti on Projec tion by Age for
2000-2040. University of Fforida . Re trieved from htt p//llhousingda ta.shimberg .ufl.edu /a/
popu la tion?action = resul ts&nid = 4372
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Potential Park Land Sites
Th e re are various reso urces o f potentia l park
space w ithin th e C it y w hi c h have bee n ide ntifi ed in
Table 5.2 , "Potenti a l Park A c reage." Th e resou rc es
listed amoun t t o approxima t e ly 4 6 acres of pot e nti a l
park la n d. A lth oug h a ll t he li st ed reso urces h ave th e
pot e nti a l t o b e inclu ded, so m e o f th ese reso urces
are more feasib le t o a tta in th a n o th e rs. The foll owing
sectio n evalu a t e s t he feasi bi lity of t he sites for use as
C ity park la n d.
BLUEWAYS
Blu eways are water t ra il s th a t o ff e r wat e r-
b a sed recreati o n opportu niti es. Th e Ci ty o f Sou th M iami
cont ains an extens ive sys t em of navigable cana ls
a m ou nti ng to approxim a t e ly 25 a c re s of b lueways.
The m a ny ca na ls thro ug ho ut th e Ci t y a re c urrent ly
used by resident s for wat er-based activitie s such as
kayaking , c anoe ing , padd le-boarding, and fi shing ,
however, t here are c urren t ly no formal, non-m o t o riz e d
boat laun c h es or poi nts o f p u b li c access to th e ca na ls.
Estab lishin g the c ana ls a s park la nd , w ou ld a ll ow t he
Potential Park Acreage
Potential Park Sites Within the City Acres
~," .. ' .. \', '. ';"" .,:0'" .. " .• " .. '. ..' v '. ', .• '.,' • ''''''''i "J; • "'«' "', . , . d,,<,,.,,,,7. ". li]IIUj~~A~·!{iJf:'i·(' ;',m ' •• /" ..... ", ..... \jj ~~_~"" .. ):l 1!.' ~\'_',;. ~~;:"!:;-; ... :,~.\"!..}\,".". ' _~ Il ;, ,.' ;;_fifi~\.}J'!u.-,,-!.. '~, :1')\
North ern Blueway 15.94
Cel'1t ral Blueway 4.53
Snapper Creek Blueway 4 .65
Total Blueways 25.12
I. \:~::\~/~~ :;i;.;~~ ~~~~~{:J:1~~;~~~_~~fij~j~J~t~.tft~~fi.~: !~,~ :~~ ~;[~:~~~2~~~~1
Underline Trail 11.17
~napper Creek Tra il 1.28
otal Trail s 12 .45
Tab le 5.2 Pot ent ial Park Acr eage
Figure 5.2 Canoeing an d kay aking on bl ue ways provi des a un iqu e fo rm of rec rea tion
Chapter 5: Demand Ana lysis
City to provide more public access points, and add
new faci lit ies to e nh ance th e canals as blu eways for
recreational use.
The canals are c urrently within prope rti es
owned by the County a nd the South Florida. Water
Management Di strict, and would require a use
agreement or other mechanism of tran sfere nce
allowing public access . Since this option wou ld require
coordin a tion with a separate agency, th e feasibility
of attaining these 25 acres for publi c recreational use
is un certain. Nonetheless, these 25 acres of blueways
offer a major opportunity to add to and diversify th e
parks and recreation fa c ilitie s and activities w ithin th e
City; thi s is an option w hi c h sh ou ld be exp lored furthe r.
Figure 5.3 Mult i-us e trails bring visi tors from othe r are as while providing
recrea tion op portu ni ties to res iden ts
PROPOSED MULTIUSE TRAILS
The Underline
Th e Und e rline has a lready been approved
for development, so it is highly advisable for the City
t o include th e 11 a c res as part of it s overall park lan d
a c reage . By doing so , the park land level-of-servic e
ratio of 4 a c res per 1,000 persons wou ld e limin a t e the
c urr e n t defic it, and prov id e 3 a c res of surp lu s park land.
Th e C it y shou ld e ncourage the developm e nt p rocess
of t h e Underline as it co ntinu es .
Ludlam Trail
Currently there is a 3-acre portion of th e
proposed Lud lam Trail site located directly adjacent
t o the City . De signatio n o f Ludlam Trai l as City park
land wou ld require in corporation of so me portio n o f
th e adjacent area of th e future trail to qua lify . Th e trail
see m s to be gaining traction for development in th e
region. The trail's co mpletion wou ld connect the City
to other regions of the m e trop o litan via a multi-use trail,
and especially encourage th e wes tern-most residents to
e ngage in bicycling , wafking , jogging, ska ting , or o th e r
form s o f recreation suitable f o r trail s. De spite increasi ng
support for approval, th e feas ibility o f designating th e
trail as park land is difficult to determ ine due to th e
need to incorporate some portion of th e trail in order
fo r th e park to qualify .
Snapper Creek Trail
Snapper C re ek Trai l (1 acre w ithin the City), a lso
has potential to add park land , but has no t yet been
approved for designation. A study of "Segment 'A'" o f
th e proposed Snapper Creek Trai l was completed in
2008 1• Segment A runs fr o m th e FlU Modes to Maidiqu e
Ca mpu s on Tamiami Trail to near Baptist Hospita l. In 20 16,
a study of "Segmen t ' B '" was completed2 Segment B
runs from Segment "A" to Dante Fascell Park . G iven
that the Sout h Florida Water Management Di stri c t owns
and maintains th e cana l, th ere is a good lik e lih ood that
th e age ncy w ill be ope n t o the corrid o r 's development
~I o t es
1. Miami-Dade Me tropoli tan Planning Organiza tion (Octobe r, 200B).
Snapper Creek Trail Segmen t A Planning Study Miami-Dade County
Retrieved from htt p://miamidadempo .org /library/studies/snapper-creek-
trail-se gmen t-a-planning-study-final-200B-10.pdf!
2. Miami-Dade Me tropoli tan Plann ing Organiza tion (June, 2016). Snapper
Creek Trail Segmen t "B" Mas ter Plan . Miami-Dade County Re trieved from
htt p!/miamidadempo .org/library/stud ies /snapper -creek -trai I-seg men t -b-
mas ter-plan -final-repor t -20 16-06 . pdf!
Chapter 5: Demand Analysi s
as a trail, since th ey have already approved trai ls in
other lo cations within their Right of Way. Of the three
proposed trails near the City, Snapper Creek Tra il has
the longest antic ipated t ime frame for development
as park land based on progress of p lans, and support
from the metropolitan region at-large. Nonethe less,
it is a trai l that is cu rrentl y used as an informal trail by
City residents and v isitors from other areas . With th e
increasing support for an officia l designation of the
Snapper Creek Tra il, thi s trai l's potential development
should be further explored.
SCHOOLS
With severa l schools wi thin the City containing
exis ting open space and recreation resources , schools
could provide over 5 acres of potentia l park space
through joint-use of existing fields and courts. As
discussed earlier, severa l schoo ls with in the C ity that
contain open space resources have been identified in
Tabl e 2.4.
Currently there are joint-use agreements at
Palmer Park. Students from the two adjacent sc hools
may utilize Pa lmer Park, however, there are currently
no joint-use agreements enabling the City to take
advantage of resourc es the sc hools have. Since these
schools are typica ll y on ly open for a portion of the day,
and closed on weekends and the su mmer, the open
space areas cou ld be made available to residents as
park land during the sc hool's off-hours.
Joint-use agreements would help define
mainte nance and access t e rm s between the C ity and
sc hool. Uti lizing the sc hools' open space for publi c park
land wou ld require coordination between the City and
schools. A lthough all listed school sit es have potential
for use as parks and recreation resou rces, this study
focuses on sites with the highest feasibi lity of inclusion
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
in the parks and recreation system based on proximity
to exist ing parks, ex isting resources, and existing site
configuration.
Parks Coverage Areas & New
Park Locations
Idea ll y, everyone in an urban area shou ld
be w ith in a five-m inute wa lking distance fr om a park.
Once a location is beyond a five-minu t e wa lk, people
are more li ke ly to use a vehicle to get to a park. A five-
minute walking distance is usua ll y abou t a quarter-mile.
Within a quarter-mile of a ll parks is considered the park
coverage area. Determining th e park coverage area
around a ll parks can help w ith understanding which
res ident s are serviced by a park w it hin a comfortable
wa lking distance, and which are not.
Based on th e City's existing park distribution
and their coverage areas, nine (9 ) potential park
site s have been identified t o help identify areas in th e
C ity that are most in need of parks. Figure 5.4, "Parks
Coverage Areas -Existing" shows the current park
coverage area, park distribution, and the nine potential
park sites. Acquiring nine parks through land purchase
would be an unrea listic goal. therefore, by utilizing
exist in g or soon-to-be existin g resources a lready wi thin
the City , the number of potentia l park sites needing to
be acquired ca n be redu ced.
Particu larly noteworthy reso urces are th e three
multi-use trai ls which are proposed to run through the
City. With development of the Underline Trail. the park
coverage of the City can reduce the recommended
number of new park acquisitions to eight (8). This
scenario is shown in Figure 5.5, "Park Coverage Areas
wi th Addition of the Und er li ne ."
With the Ludlam Trail. the increase in park
coverage of the City can reduce the number of new
park acquisiti ons to seven (7). This scenario is shown in
Figure 5.6 "Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the
Underline & Ludlam Trai l."
Las tl y, by tran sforming a portion of th e Snapper
C reek Cana l corridor into a trai l, the park coverage in
the C ity may be increased, once aga in 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
w ith Addition of the Und erline, Ludlam Trail. & Snapper
Creek Tra il."
The Ci t y is encouraged to pursue the acquisition
and/or development of these tra il s for the benefits th ey
can offer to the City as parkland.
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Park Coverage Areas -
1.f\
Figure 5.4 Parks Covera ge Area -Ex is ti ng
Ch apt er 5: Demand An aly sis
Existing
LEGEND :
POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN
QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE
WALKING DISTANCE ,-"', t ) PARK COVERAGE AREA ' ..... ;
j-----, L ___ j CITY LIMITS
CJ EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
2,000 '
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLER~EGG
Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline
-
Figure 5.5 Parks Coverage Area wi th the Underline
LEGEND :
1:\ POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN V QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE
WALKING DISTANCE
,;!''''''"\
{ ) PARK COVERAGE AREA '-.';'
, ..... -.
i. .... J CITY LIMITS
c=I EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
~
0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' ---
June 201 7
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
Ch apt er 5: Demand An aly sis
Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the
Underline & Ludlam Trail
III=~
Figure 5.6 Parks Coverage Area wi th the Ludlam Trail
Chapte r 5: Demand Analy sis
LEGEND:
f:"\ POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN V QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE
WALKING DISTANCE
,~1--'''',
t .. ,_) PARK COVERAGE AREA
C~~] CI1Y LIMITS
CJ EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
~
0' 1,000 ' 2,000' • • •
June 2017
Sout@ iami MILLE ~EGG
Park Coverage Areas with Addition of the Underline,
Ludlam Trail & Sna er Creek Trail .==
Figur e 5.7 Parks Coverage Area wi th Snapper Creek Trail
LEGEND :
f:\ POTENTIAL PARK SITE WITHIN V QUARTER-MILE / 5-MINUTE
WALKING DISTANCE
,~ ... r .... . ,
\. ) PARK COVERAGE AREA
'-.,;
C~:] CITY LIMITS
c=J EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
~
0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' • • •
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
Ch apt er 5: Dem and An aly sis
National Recreation and
Parks Association (NRPA)
Benchmarks
The Ci t y want s t o ensure that adequate
recreati onal facili t ies and programs are provided
for reside nts. To det ermine m inimum st a ndards
for budgeti ng, maint ain in g, sta ffin g, faci lities, and
programs, the Plan has used nationa l benchmarks
se t by th e National Recreation and Park Associat ion
(NRP A ) through a process that compares the C it y t o
jurisdictions wi th simi lar characteristi cs.
The NRP A benchmark comparisons shown in
th is sectio n w ill he lp guid e the City in determinin g parks
and recreation needs for it s res idents.
NRPA AGENCY BUDGET BENCHMARKS
As shown in Tab le 5 .3, "NRPA Agency Budget
Benchmark," the City of South Miami's C ity and Parks
and Recreation Department operating b ud get is higher
than th e nati onal median. Addi ti ona ll y, the proportion
of the Parks Departments' operating budget to City
operatin g budget is 11 %, which is on par w ith that of
th e nati ona l median.
expenses
Dept. Total Non-tax Revenues
Table 5.3 NRPA Agency Bud ge t Benchmark
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Of note, however, 73% of the Department of
Parks and Recreation's operating budget is used for
personnel. wh ich is higher than the national median of
60% o f the o p e ra tin g budget used for personnel.
Th e varia ti on from th e NRPA benchmark reflects
th e unique sta ffin g needs of the City, as subsequently
d isc ussed. Due to th ese uniqu e needs, th e hi g h e r
percentage of operatin g budget used for personnel
than the national med ian is acceptable.
To es tablish w he th e r Sout h M iami's fu ll -tim e
to part -time employee ratio was cons isten t w ith other
c ities in its region, a comparison of ratios was made
bet ween So uth Miami and o th er muni cipaliti es in South
Fl orid a. The findings demonstrated tha t the average
ratio of fu ll -time to part-tim e employees in these c iti es
is 1 :2.5, which is comparable to tha t of South Miami.
Like So uth M iami. th ese ci ti es may a lso req uire more full -
time employees than northern regions in th e country
due to year-round maintenance needs.
NRPA FACILITY BENCHMARKS
Crucial to the success of parks is supplying
adequate facilities to meet demands for specific
facilities within a city . By providing the equipment or
specific facilities needed for programmed uses like
sports or fitness trails, parks also provide and enable
activities at the parks.
In comparison to the NRPA benchmark for
facilities, the quantity of recreational facilities within the
City is adequate for most active uses such as sports fields
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 results.
fields (i.e. football. soccer)
o
Table 5.5 NRPA Facili ty Benchmarks by Phase
Figure 5.8 So ut h Miami's tennis facili ties are popular among residents
2 2
6
12,000 28,000 28,000
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
NRPA RECREATION PROGRAM BENCHMARKS
The b e nch mark compariso n shown in Table 5.6,
"NRPA Recreati o n Prog ram Be nc hmarks," shows C ity
p rograms dat a compared t o j uri sdictio ns w it h a simi lar
popu lation size. Cu rr e ntly, th e City conti n ues to expa nd
th e v arie t y o f recrea ti o n pro grams thro ugh partne rship s
w ith pri va t e ve ndors w h o run many a th le ti c p ro gra m s
th a t su p p le m e nt th e C ity-run pro grams. A lth o ug h
th e prese n ce o f th e p ri v ate ve ndo rs has re du ced
operati o ns cos ts for p ro gra m s to th e C ity, th e number
o f regi stra nts, p rog rams o ff e re d , and th e o p e ra ting
budget remai ns below th e be nc hma rk.
Figure 5.9 Youth benefit greatly from the physical activi ty, socia l
atmosphere, an d challenge of athle tic programs
NRPA Rec reation Program Benchmarks 1
Programs South M iami2 Median for Jurisdictions between
7,000 and 17,000 --lYouth Athletic Programs 1,900 5,456
!Adult Athletic Programs 1,180 2,972
'. ." '." ,:', /. ,': .:.: <.:)-.: Program/Acti y,itf~s < .. :.!.
Nu mber of programs offered 23 28
otal program users 4,995 6,000
Progrmm Activity Resources
Program Operating Budget $20 ,000 $55 ,000
Revenue from fees $69,276 $81,841
Tab le 5.6 NRPA Recrea tion Program Benchmarks
1. The informa tion provided in this tab le incl ud es priva tely-run athletic programs tha t supplemen t the City's
recrea tion program demands .
2. Number of registran ts based on 20 16 informa tion prov ided by the Ci ty
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Conclusion
Thi s c ha p ter provides a glimpse a t w he re th e
City m easu res up against th e national and regiona l
recreation standards. Some o f these items have
unique c ir cumsta nces warranting a different approac h
than w hat is sugges ted in these numbers, suc h as
the str ong demand fo r tennis in th e area, and the
year-ro und mainte nanc e need s th a t benefit more
from full-time rather than part-time st aff. Noneth e less,
an unde rstandin g o f th e City's variations fr om th e
nationa l and reg iona l standards have guided th e
recomm e ndations in th e fo ll owing chapter.
Chapter 5: Demand Analysis
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
Thi s c hapt e r provides recommendations f o r
improvements to parks. Th e previous c hapter, De mand
A na lys is, provid es a gu ide for defining recreation a nd
park faciliti es to be imple m e nte d over the next t e n
years. Appendix C p rovides a n overvie w o f the exis ting
condi ti ons of the facilitie s and a site analysis .
Together w it h st udies of th e Ci t y's
c haracte ri sti cs, and publi c and City input , the fo ll owing
recomme ndations are tai lored t o th e c urr ent and future
needs of Sou th Miami .
Existing Parks and Facilities
Recommendations
In det e rminin g the reco mme ndations for
th e C it y's parks and rec rea t io n fa c ili ties and serv ices,
seve ral factors were co nsidered , and are detailed in
th e earli e r c hapt e rs o f th is study.
CONS IDERATION OF CITY CHARACTER ISTIC S
C hapt er 2 illu st rated t he a na lys is o f
dem ographi cs, economics, educati o n , and o th e r City
characterist ics th a t influence the C ity's needs in parks
and recreati on. Projections of th e popu lation for the
fi ve-and t e n-year periods o f thi s stud y were a lso used
to determine open space acreage needs, and ensure
th e City's Compre he nsive Pla n is adhered t o.
EVALUATION OF EX IST ING COND ITION S AND
SITE ANALYS IS
Each of t he existing fac il ities and programs we re
in vent oried and ana lyzed, as ill ustrated in Chapter 3.
An "Existing Si t e Ana lys is" was crea t ed for each faci lity
(see Appendix C) t o det e rmin e w h a t, if any, upgrades
to existing parks may be appropria t e as part of future
improvement p lans. Genera ll y, th ese parks have been
bui lt-ou t, are outdated, and require im provement s to
get t he m t o an acceptable condition.
CO LLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC INPUT
In C hapter 4, com m ents by the C ity and
publi c we re eva lu a t ed to ensu re th e use rs and th ose
opera tin g th e parks and services could a lso contribute
th e ir th oughts for cons ideration in dete rminin g th e best
recomme ndations (Appendix F and G). In evaluating
thi s input, recurring comme nts were g iven high e r
priorit y. Tab le 6.2 co nso li da t es th e recurring co mme nts
o f the C it y and public.
COMPAR ISON TO NAT IONAL PARKS AND
RECREAT ION BENCHMARKS
As detail ed in C hapt e r 5, utilizing t he PRORAG IS
so ft ware by t h e National Recreation and Park s
Association (NRPA), a detailed com pariso n was run
bet ween the City a nd a nationa l benchmark fi gure.
Th e benchmark was es t abli sh ed based o n th e n atio nal
median for jurisdictions with a sim ilarly-sized population .
Thi s process helped determin e th e demand f or speci fi c
ameniti es a nd services based on th e curr ent in ventory
of fac il ities and programs, the exist in g population
cou nt, and popu la t io n projections fo r 2020 and 2025.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Cons id e rin g a ll these factors, schematic
diagrams were prepared t o show the potentia l
configu ration o f new uses and im provement s to existin g
features w ithin the parks system (See Append ix D).
C h apt er 7, p rovides detailed steps to implementin g the
recommenda t ions of this study , including an it emized
Isit o f im p rove m e nts by fa c ili ty for each p hase.
Genera ll y, exist ing parks are slowly receiving
rep lacements for o utdated stru ctures, fences, and
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
amenities. Sma ll er parks do not have a curre nt or
foreseeab le need for fencing such as the larg e r parks
due to a desire to maintain their character as a sma ll ,
ne ighborhood park, and because o f the current
safe r cond iti o ns at these loca ti ons . Facilities th a t are
re latively new to the system, such as the Murray Park
Aquatic Cent e r and Dog Park , a re recommended for
on ly a few new improvements, and a ll new sit es have
recommended improvements per the curr ent and
future needs and des ires of the C ity.
Th e City is recomme nd ed to improve securit y
at its parks by in corporating the principles of CPTED
(Crime Prevention Thr ough En v ir onmental Design). A ll
park areas should have adeq uate v isib ility to and from
o th er areas w ithin th e parks, as well as t o a nd fr om
areas outs id e of the parks. Improved visibi lity ensures
vig il ance from neighboring residents, passersby, other
park users, and sec urit y personne l. Any hindrances t o
vis ibility shou ld be addressed w he re possib le. Increased
security presence and patrolli ng can a lso be used to
promote a safe environment at parks. Implementation
of CPT ED principles w ill he lp to make parks defensible
and safe spaces.
In additi on to the recommendations ou tlin ed in
Tab le 6.2 and in Chapt e r 7, th e City is hi g hly encouraged
to work in partn ership with the Girl Scouts of America to
offer seasona l or annual events open t o the public at
th e Gi rl Sco uts Little Ho use property.
Existing Facility
Enhancements
Certain parks and facilities are a lso being
recommended for enhancements to improve the
overall aestheti c, meet facility demands, and to crea t e
a unified and multi-faceted character throughout the
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
park and the City. Enhancements for most parks and
facilities include a varie ty of facilities which are detailed
in Tab le 6.3.
Recommendations from Site Analysis and Evaluation of Public Input
Park / Facility Acres Recommendations
All-American Park 1.40 • Provide passive programmed uses to pre-• Improved visibility from street perimeter areas will
vent underutilization (e .g. tai chi, yoga) occur naturally as the young trees along the periphery
grow
Brewer Park 1.15 • Add bathrooms • Add grilling area
• Repurpose racquetball court area • Provide opportunities for water recreation
• Renovate observation deck and fence • Install canal entrance / exit ramp
along canal
Dante Fascell 7.73 • Add picnic and grilling area(s) • Renovate parking lot and lot lighitng
• Renovate or replace picnic shelters • Renovate basketball half court
• Provide opportunities for water recre-• Renovate rubberized jogging trail
jltion • Renovate or replace restrooms and pro shop
• Renovate perimeter and tennis court
fencing
• Add more tennis courts
Dison Park 0.59 • Provide passive programmed uses to pre-• Increase tree canopy to provide more shade
~ent underutilization (e .g. tai chi, yoga)
Dog Park 0.13 • Provide designated parking .if possible • Enhance view to canal
Fuchs Park 4.48 • Increase visibility from street perimeter • Increase maintenance around canopied areas used
in areas with low visibility to promote a or waste disposal
r>afe environment by discouraging crime • Renovate or replace pavilion
~nd use by homeless • Renovate or replace bathrooms
• Provide programmed uses along perim -• Add a pedestrian bridge over pond
~ter ofthe pond and northern lawn areas
Gibson-Bethel Commu-N/A • Increase maintenance of restrooms • Renovate bathrooms and locker rooms
nity Center • Provide online sign-ups for reservations, • Renovate building exterior and interior paint
ean Willis Park 0.63 • Evaluate the potential for sale of this
property as it is the most underutilized
Marshall Williamson Par~ 3.22 • Improve street connectivity along perim-• Provide basketball court(s)
~ter of park • Provide more active, programmed uses to prevent
• Redevelop as rectangular park underutilization
Murray Park 3.04 • Provide more furniture (Le. benches, • Provide perimeter fencing
ables, waste bins)
Murray Park Aquatic 0.65 • Provide more shade with structures or • Provide(longer hours during the summer season
~enter ree canopy
• Provide more furniture (Le . benches,
ables, waste bins)
Tab le 6.2 Existing Park Recommendations from Site Analysis and Evaluation of City and Public Input
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
___ ~"l"~
r. r. [J rr.Tilol J, : r:r. rrror:r. _ r.r.i1 nml" PIiITi n
Baskeluull 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)
(2016-2017) Multi-use fields 2 Ludlam Elementary School (1)
South Miami K-8 Center (1)
Multi-use trails ±6 ,300 LF Underline Trail
D. .11 / SUII uull field 1 South Miami K-8 Center
_~acquetball court -2 Brewer Park (reduction)
Tennis courts 2 Dante Fascell Park
Multi-use trails ±1 AOO LF Ludlam Trail
Non-motorized boat launch 2 Dante Fascell Park
Brewer Park
°luY\:lluunds All-American Park (natural play t""~IIIO::I liS)
Hardee Drive Park
Palmer Park
Phase Two South Miami Park
(2017-2020) Tot lots 1 South Miami Park
Pavilion/shelter 3 South Miami Park
Picnic tables 33 Brewer Park (3) .
Dante Fascell Park (6)
Dison Park (3)
Fuchs Park (9)
Hardee Drive Park (3)
Murray Park (3)
South M iami Park (6)
Multi-use fields -1 South Miami Park
Pavilion/Shelter 3 Dante Fascell Park (1 )
South Miami Park (2)
Picnic tables 12 Miller Drive Park (3)
Murray Park Aquatic Center (3)
East Park (3)
Phase Three West Park (3) (2020-2025)
PluY\:l1 uunds 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
Table 6.3 Addi tion /Reduc tion of Fac ili ties by Phase
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
Future Park and Faci I ities
Recommendations
Under th e recommended park land level-
of-service ratio of 4 acres per 1,0 00 persons, t he C ity
mu st acquire an add iti ona l 20 .5 acres t o m eet th e
projected 68.3-acre requ irement by 2025 . Throu gh
join t-u se agreements w ith sc hools, in corpora ti on of
b lu eways, in corporatio n o f th e proposed trail s in and
adjacent to the City , and acquisition of six (6) potenti a l
park sites, sec urin g 20 acres of additiona l park land is
a feasi bl e goal fo r th e C it y. Chapt e r 7 demonstrates
how to acq uire th e necessary acreage to comply w ith
req uire ments.
Th e NRPA b e nchmarks sugges t t h e additi ona l
c halleng e of providing adequate re c reation fa c iliti es
throughout the City. Recommended faci liti es have
been added for eac h phase to a li gn w ith the natio nal
median .
Figure 6.2 Adult athlet ics programs help main ta in good health and preven t
illness
Of note is th e expansion of th e t ennis court s
a t Dante Fascell t o includ e a new p ro shop and mu lti -
recreational facility. A lthough th e C ity is above the
nationa l median wi th t he numbe r of t e nni s cou rt s
provided , th e City has a strong demand for th is type
o f acti vi t y and faci li ty, and has ident ified a potentia l
sou rce of revenue in hos ti ng ten nis t ournaments
a t Dante Fasce ll, w hi c h wi ll be e nabled w ith the
recommended addi ti on of two t ennis cou rt s to comply
wi t h tournament venue requ ir eme nt s. These two new
t e nni s courts w ill res trict usage fo r lessons in o rd e r t o
help meet demand for ava il ability of le isu re ly play time
on the courts.
Th e City is recommended t o in corporat e
CPTED (Crime Pre ve nti o n Thr ough Env ir o nme ntal
Desig n) principles in a ll its new parks and fa c ilitie s. A ll
new park areas should have adequat e v isibility to and
from o th e r areas w ithin th e parks, as we ll as to and from
areas o utsid e of th e parks to e nsu re vig ilan ce from
neighboring re sid e nts, passersby, other park u se rs, a nd
security perso nn e l. As is re comme nde d for ex ist in g parks
and fac iliti es, in c reased sec urity presence and patrollin g
is e nco ura ged to he lp promote a safe e nv ironm e nt at
parks throughout the day. Implementati on of CP TE D
prin ciples w ill he lp t o make all n ew parks d e f e nsibl e
and sa fe spaces.
Future Parks and Faci I ities
Locations and Distribution
As illu str ated in C hapter 5, a d iffe re nt cha ll e n ge
for th e C ity exist s in provid in g suffi c ient park covera ge
so that a ll residen t s are w ithin a 5-minut e walkin g
d ista nce from a City park. New park sites have been
recommended in eac h phase t o p rovi d e additional
park coverage. Faciliti es have a lso been added in
eac h phase w ith considerati on t o existing distribution
of each type of facility.
Future Programming
Recommendations
As has been d iscussed earli e r, the City has a
great opportunit y in utili zing priva t e vendors t o se rv ice
th e ir athl etic program needs. Th e variety o f programs
is also comparable t o the nationa l med ian based on
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
t he NRP A a na ly sis. No n e t h e less , the c u rre nt pro gra ms
are not reac hing th e same leve ls o f reg istrants as th e
nationa l m e d ian .
To inc re as e th e number of reg istrants e nrollin g
for th e City 's progra m s, the City is reco mmende d to
improve their o v erall o utreac h o f th e ir facili ti es a nd
se rv ices, w h ic h w a s an unde rlyin g problem that has
been id e ntified by t he Ci t y a nd as a res u lt o f t he publi c 's
input .
Add iti o na ll y, since yo ung a du lt s are th e
largest ag e group w ithin t h e C it y , compri sing o n e-third
o f th e populatio n , du e in part t o th e proxim ity to th e
Uni ve rsity o f M iami, it is recomme nd ed that th e City
targ e t thes e us e rs for e nroll ment in their p rogra ms.
Young a du lt s, e sp ecia ll y t h o se a tt e nding a coll ege
o r unive rsit y, participa t e in sp o rt s and fitn ess a ctiv iti es
m o re than o t h e r ad u lt a g e g ro ups. With o utreac h,
prov id in g more o ptio ns t o th is po pu lation could sway
th ese pot e ntia l use rs tow ards the C it y 's p ro grams as
a m eans o f re pl acin g or su pple m e nting t he ir c urre nt
fitn ess acti v iti es.
Th e Un ive rsity o f M ia mi c ur re ntly provides it s
stud e nts a n d fa c ul ty a v arie ty o f recreatio n a l faciliti es,
w hic h include o utdoor a nd in door a m e niti es. O utdoor
fa c il it ies includ e mu lti purpose fi e ld s, a b ase ba ll fi e ld, a
soccer fi e ld, a runnin g tra ck, t e nnis co urts, b as ke tba ll
courts, and voll eyba ll cou rt s. Indoor fac iliti es include
a fi tness ce nte r, baske tba ll courts, m u lt ip urpose court ,
25-y ard swimming p ool, rac qu e t ba ll courts, and fi t ness
class room s. Desp it e havin g a large varie ty o f fac ilit ies,
t he fac ilities ca n so m e ti mes beco m e overcrowded .
Furt h e r in ves ti gat io n into w hi c h faciliti es are over-used,
or not provid e d , cou ld h e lp det e rmin e w hi c h a m e niti es
could serve th e 18-25 yea r o ld popu la ti on.
Future progra mming sho uld a lso in clude
c itywide a nd regio na l eve nts. Th ese ty p es o f eve nts
were strongly des ir ed by the parti c ipants of the onl in e
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
publi c surv ey a n d b o t h publi c work sho p s. Partic ip a nts
had a stro ngest des ire fo r co ncert eve nts a n d farme rs'
marke t s a t parks.
Future Facility Enhancements
On se vera l Ci t y roads, b icycl e and ped es tr ian
e nhancem e nts are b e ing recomme n ded t o provid e
improved a lt e rnative transport a t ion ; re duc ed parkin g
and ve hi c u lar t ra ffi c conges t io n ; a nd conne ctiv ity
b e tween C ity parks, ne ig hborho ods, a nd propose d
mu lt i-use tra il s. Th ese typica l bi cycle a nd p e d es tr ian
e nhancem e nts are shown in t he South Miami Inte rm odal
Transportation Plan . An example o f proposed Shared
Lan e Markin gs are shown below u sing both w h ite a nd
g ree n' paint fo r in c rease d a w are n ess.
The additi on o f w ayfind in g sig nage wou ld a lso
provide a b e ne fici a l e nh a ncem e nt a lo ng th e corrid o rs
be twee n Ci ty p arks. A sig na tu re design for wayfin d in g
signs ca n he lp provid e d ire cti o n, o ri e ntati o n, a nd
furth e r es t a b lis h a se nse o f p la ce. Signs ind icating
d ista nces to o th e r parks coul d in d icat e both directio n
a n d co nn e ctivity o f th e p ark s.
Figure 6.3 Shared Lane Marking
South Miami Intermodal
Transportation Plan (SMITP)
The City of South Miami has been attemptin g t o
re-int eg rate transportation fun c ti o ns through comple te
st reet s principles, see king t o provide a comfortable
t ransportatio n syste m for a ll modes and use rs o f a ll ages
a nd abil iti es. An integral co mponen t o f this e ffort was
t o adopt the South Miami Intermodal Transportation
Plan (SMITP), adopt e d in 20 15 . Th e SM ITP identifi es
a n in t e rconnected network of mobility and sa f ety
improve m e nts bas ed on smart growth and co mplete
st reets principles .
Th e SM ITP is a communit y-based tran sporta ti on
plan th at provides for conven ient and effi c ient use
of motorized and non-motorized transportation
and addresses iss ues suc h as vehicu lar ci rc u lation,
parkin g, pedest ria n/bicyclist moveme nts, and publi c
transpo rt a ti o n , resu ltin g in sh o rt and lo ng-t erm strategies
for implement a ti o n of th e resultant p lan .
FIGURE I: NETWORK PLAN
LEGEND
Future Facl1ltles
11 \~F:t~~~~R~:r-~q~ttj ..... Fu lUre Bik e Lanes f ..... FuturoSharrows
• • ••• Future Shared-U se Path
••••• FuturaSldawalk
• • • •• FubJra One-Way l oop CirClJlatlon
~ FubJre Crosswalk
• Green Bike Lsne 8lldfOf Bike Box
[lj) M-Palh Crossing Im prnYOm9nts
• ~~~~~~n~nway
® Neigt'borhood Tmffic Circle
0& Non-Motorized Connection
o Traffic Circle
Ir:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ PedestrianWSyfind ing SlgnSystem
L ExistIng facilities
o Bike Racks
l Schools
-Existing Bike Lanes
-Existing Paved Path
C!I Metromil Station
/'V Major Roads
../ Other Roads
• Pa/1(s
&i> WolDf
Q City of South Miami
• Other Jurisd ictions
o 0.125 0.25 0.5
Figure 6.4 20 15 Sou th Mia mi Intermodal Transportation Plan
Chapter 6: Planning Recommendations
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PLAN
Figur e 6.5 Bicycle & Pedes trian Enhancemen ts Plan
Ch apt er 6: Pl anning Reco mmen datio ns
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS :
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN /
• • BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS
LEGEND :
D EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
r.-_-_-_-_-J CITY LIMITS
~
0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' ---
Jun e 2017
Sout~iami MI LLE R">i:EGG
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 7.2 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS :
tit PROPOSED PARK SITES
_PROPOSED SCHOOL OPEN
SPACE LEASES
•• PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN /
BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * PROPOSED BLUEWAY ACCESS
• PROPOSED BLUEWAY
CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT
EXISTING PARKS : o SOUTH MIAMI PAR K
® BREWER PARK
® GIRL SCOUT LlTILE HOU SE RE SERVE o PALMER PAR K
® MAR SHALL WILILIAMSON PAR K
® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PAR K
® ALL AMERICA PARK
® JEAN WILLI S PARK
® VAN SMITH PARK
@ DOGPAR K
@ FUCH SPAR K
@)DI SONPARK
@) DANTE FA SC ELL PARK
LEGEND:
EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
C .... -.-J CITY LIMITS
0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' ---
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
South Miami's Parks and Re c reation Mas ter
Plan is des igned to be implement ed over t he
next 10 years. Dur ing th is time period a number of
recommenda ti ons are scheduled to be imp lemented
in phases. The purpose of th is fina l chapter is to identify
land needed , maintenance and its scheduling, fac il ities
recommended , staffing, and budgeting of financia l
resou rces needed by each implemented phase.
New park land proposed in this Plan has been
located to improve park d istribution t hroughout the Ci t y.
Cu rren tl y, there are severa l areas w here res ide nts wou ld
have to wa lk over a quarter of a mi le to get to a park.
Having a short walking d istance to a park encourages
wa lking instead of driving, and makes getting to a park
on foot or bike much easier for fam ili es w ith child ren.
The new parks wi ll be located in the remain ing areas
t hat need parks within a five-minute wa lking distance .
The new park lands are sma ll or pocket parks,
wh ich were the size of parks most desired by residents ,
and which wi ll provide a variety of new amenities to
areas in need of parks with in walking distance. New
park amenit ies were se lected based on deficiencies
in amenities compared to the NRPA benchmarks
described in Chapt er 5: Demand Analysis, and to
resident demand based on feedback from the online
publi c survey and public workshops.
Exi st ing parks sha ll be enhanced to improve
defic iencies identified through site ana lysis, c ity input,
or resid e nt feedback. Add it iona l amenities will a lso be
installed in certain parks to meet NRPA benchmarks
and respond to res ident desires.
Th e addition of the b lueways provides
wa t erway access to the public for recreationa l use. The
introduction of water-based activities such as canoeing
and kayo king further divers ifies the types of recreat ion
available to resident s. Blueway access also adds a new
way to interact with the outdoors.
Throughout the Ci ty there are loca l roads
proposed for pedestrian and bicycle enhancements
in the 2015 SM ITP. These roads wi ll be retrofitted with
b iking and pedest rian safety fea t ures, demarka tions,
signage, and facilities. The location of t hese enhanced
roads were selected to improve connecti v ity between
the City's parks. Roads were a lso selected based on
their level of traffic; medium to lower volume roads that
ra n t hrough longer portions of t he Cit y were preferred
to high vo lume roads , or shorter roads. Ultimately , the
road enhancements w ill serve to connect the City's
parks via safe routes for pedest rian s and cyclists,
promot e walking and bicycling as an a lternative
to d riving,and reduce vehicu lar traffic and parking
congestion, especially at City Parks.
A ll doll ar amounts in this chapter are in 20 16
doll ars , un less otherwise specified.
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
ftL..-. __
r'ICI:; ft ___ "" .... ~ "" .... ., Ullt:: ~U U-~U I I
LAND AREA RAj~lnlnlnrJ of Phase One Park Land Area
With a popula ti o n o f 13,932 bein g se rved by
48 existing acres of park land, curren tly the C it y meets
th e 4 acres per 1,00 0 persons park land level-o f-se rvice
rati o . Pe r th e Compre hens ive Pl a n, th e C it y is required
to provid e 56 acres, th e refore th e C ity h as a n exist in g
deficit of 8 acres .
Th e recommendatio ns for this phase
are intended to address improvements needed
immediately at existing parks, improve th e park se rv ice
area coverage throughout th e C it y, and in c rease t he
park land acreage surplu s in a nti cipation of future park
land requ ir ement s o f subsequent phases. These actions
include establi shing use agreemen ts wit h City schools
that have open space resources, and designation of
the Underline Trail as City park land. As o f 20 16, the Ci ty
has contri but ed $25 ,000 towards deve lopment of th e
Und e rl ine project. Ac ti ons for thi s phase are outlined in
Tab le 7.1.
Th e actio ns in Tabl e 7.1, "Ph ase O ne Park
La nd A rea," demonstra t e that by th e e n d o f Ph ase
One, th e City wi ll exceed th e park land level-of-se rv ice
requ ir ement w ith a su rplu s o f 7 acres . Th e modifications
w ill a lso he lp in c rease wa lkab ili ty to a park by add in g
re c reation resources th at expand park coverage in t he
City.
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Parkland acres at beginning of this phase
Phase One Park Land Area AcHons
De signate Underline Trail as City park land
Use Agreement with South Miami K-8 Center
Use Agreement with South Miami Middle
School
Use Agreement with J.R.E . Lee Administration
Office
Use Agre e ment with Ludlam Elementary
School
End of Phase One Park Land Area
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 7.1 Phase One Park Land Area
47.84
11.17
1.20
0.40
0 .27
1.90
14.94
62.78
4 .5 1 acres /
1,000 persons
IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES
LAND TRANSACTIONS
South Miami K-8 Center Lease Use Acquisition Costs
South Miami Middle School Lease Use Acquisition Costs
J .R.E. Lee Administration Office Lease Use Acquisition Costs
Ludlam Elementary School Lease Use Acquisition Costs
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
South Miami K-8 Center (lease) Fencing Site Improvements
South Miami Middle School Fencing Site Improvements (lease)
J.R.E . Lee Administration Office (lea se) Fencing & gravel parking lot Site Improvements
Ludlam Elementary School
(lease)
Brewer Park
Dante Fascell Park
Gibson Bethel Community
Center
Fencing Site Improvements
NEW FACILITIES
PROPOSED 2017 CIP BUDGET ITEMS
Tennis facility -10' perimeter Fencing system fencing
Playground Enhancement
Parking lot renovation Engineering services
and construction
Horse rail fence and existing LF fence removal
Tennis facility fencing 10 ' perimeter fencing
Utility Shed Shed
Replace park benches Benches
Fitne ss equipment Replacement
Re lo c ate fitness room & Relocation multipurpose rooms
Exterior facility painting Painting
Fitness rubber fioor carpet Replacement
Carpet tile -2nd level Replacement
Fa c ility window tinting Tinting
Table 7.2 continued on next page
$10 ,000 .00 $10 ,000.00
$10 ,000.00 $10 ,000 .00
$10 ,000.00 $10 ,000 .00
$10 ,000 .00 $10 ,000 .00
$7,500.00 $7,500.00
$7 ,500.00 $7 ,500 .00
$30 ,000.00 $30 ,000 .00
$7 ,500 .00 $7,500 .00
$50 ,000.00 (Pro -$50,000.00
posed) (Proposed)
$175,000 .00 (Pro-$175,000 .00
posed) (Proposed)
$150 ,000 .00 $150 ,000 .00
(Proposed) (Propo sed)
2,500 $30 .00 $75 ,000 .00
(Proposed) (Propo sed)
$50 ,000 .00 (Pro-$50,000 .00
posed) (Proposed)
$5,000.00 $5,000 .00
(Proposed) (Proposed)
$6 ,500 .00 $6 ,500 .00
(Proposed) (Proposed)
$120 ,000 .00 (Pro-$120,000 .00
posed) (Proposed)
$150 ,000 .00 $150 ,000.00
(Proposed) (Proposed)
$50,000.00 (Pro-$50 ,000 .00
posed) (Proposed)
$16 ,000 .00 (Pro-$16 ,000.00
posed) (Proposed)
$25,000 .00 (Pro-$25 ,000 .00
posed) (Propose d)
$25 ,000.00 (Pro-$25 ,000 .00
posed) (Proposed)
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Table 7.2, continued
Murray Park 6' perimeter fencing Fencing system $15 ,000 $15,000
(Proposed) (Proposed)
Palmer Park Playground Tot lot (ages 2-5) $50 ,000.00 (Pro-$50 ,000 .00
replacement posed) (Proposed)
Drainage im provements Engineering services $250,000.00 $250,000 ,00
and construction (Proposed) (Proposed)
Dugout roof Replacement 10 $1,500.00 $15,000 .00
(Proposed) (Proposed)
Van Smith Park 6' steel picket fence with Fencing system $50,000.00 (Pro-$50 ,000 .00
metal sheet posed) (Proposed)
OTHER PROPOSED ITEMS
Dante Fascell Park Entry Sign Sign $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Tree replacement for austra-Trees 25 $400 .00 $10 ,000 .00 lion pines
J.R .E. Lee Administration Office Basketball courts Renovation 3 $15 ,000 .00 $45 ,000 .00
Subtotal Proposed 2017 CIP Budget Items $1,277,500 .00
Subtotal Other Proposed Items $152 ,500.00
TOTAL: $1,430,000.00
Contingency on Un budgeted 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 (20 16-20 17) Immed iate Cos ts
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Master Plan: Phase One (2016-2017)
Figure 7.3 Mas ter Plan Phase One (Immedia te Changes)
PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS: e PROPOSED PARK SITES
_PROPOSED SCHOOL OPEN
SPACE LEASES
EXISTING PARKS:
<D 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 WILLIS PARK
@ VAN SMITH PARK
@ DOGPARK
@ FUCHSPARK
@ OISONPARK
@ DANTE FASCELL PARK
LEGEND:
------, • • • • 1 _____ -CITY LIMITS
EXISTING PARKS
_ FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
_ POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
~
0' 1,000' 2,000' • • •
June 2017
Sout@ iami MILLE ~EGG
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
.......... _ "" ... n """" WU: e. O-~ &.
LAND AREA
For thi s phase, th e C it y is anticipated to have a
popu la ti o n of 15 ,5 11 , a nd wi ll be req uir ed t o provide 62
acres o f park land, By 2020, the City wi ll have acq uired
63 acres o f park land t hro ugh th e add iti o n o f ope n
space leases w ith three C it y sc h ools, and designation
of Und e rlin e Trail as C ity park land.
At the beginning o f Ph ase Two, the Ci t y w ill
have a surplu s o f 1 acre, Desp ite prov id ing suffi c ie nt
park land t o m eet the level-of-service requ irement.
the City is recommended to co ntinu e improvin g th e ir
park la nd coverage throug ho ut th e City as a means
o f improving walk ability t o a park for residents. The C ity
sho uld adju st their park land area throu gh th e f o ll owing
a c tion s:
R,.,!'Ilnnln,1'! of Phase Two Park Land Area
Park land acres at beginning of t his phase
Phase Two ~C!lrk Land Area Actions
Develop North Area Park (SW 42 nd Te rr , & SW
62nd Ct.)
Acq ui re Hardee Drive Area Park An nex
Ludlam Tra il sec t ion
Des ignate Northern Blueway as park land
Designate Snapper Creek Blueway as park
land
End of Phase Two Park Land Area
Park land acres added in this phase
Park land acres at end of t his p hase
Park land acres level-aI-service ratio at end 01
this phase
Table 7.3 Phase Tw o Park Lan d Area
Ch apter 7: Plan Im pl ement ation
62.78
0,15
0,25
2 .99
15,94
4,65
24,06
86,84
5,60 acres /
1,000 persons
Th e recomm ended acquisitions are intended
t o provide park covera ge in areas where there
previously was none, Th e North A rea Park (see Figure
7.4) is a spec ifi c loca ti on w ithin th e Ri g ht o f Way o f th e
sou th wes t corne r of SW 42nd Terr, and SW 62nd C t , Th e
Hardee Drive Area Park is in a reg io n w here multiple
larg e areas of open space were id entifi ed next to
adjace nt u ses, that although c urr e ntly used for info rm
al parking, could in st ead be used for comm unity park
land.
Figure 7.4 Nor th Area Pa rk
The proposed blueways add a sign ifi cant
amount o f acreage to the exis tin g parks system whi le
a lso diversifying th e type of recreation in the Cit y. Th e
Northern and Snapper Creek Blueways are proposed
to be accessed from exis ting parks, and wou ld enable
people to utilize the cana l system beyond the parks'
vic init y .
In response to public feedback, significant
im provement s w ill take p lace at Sou th Miami Park in this
phase. Not ably, new access points w ill be included to
address the li mited access towards th e wes t side o f the
park . The new access poin ts include a pedestrian and
vehicular entrance on the northwest corner of the park,
and a pedestrian access point on th e sou th ern edge o f
th e park.
As mentioned earlier, there are severa l
sit es currently maintained by th e City's Pub lic Works
Department which have been identified for potentia l
designation as Pocket Parks. The pocket parks to be
designated in this phase are as fo ll ows:
Pocke t Park 1 -SW 63rd Ave. & SW 50th St. -open area
between sing le fami ly homes
Pocket Park 2 -SW 57th Ct. between 78th st. and 80 th
St . -east side of Right of Way open area with existing
park bench and landscaping.
In addition, bicyc le and pedestrian
enhancement s wi ll be madeper the SMITP. Phase Two
improvements wi ll be SW 56th St re et / Mi ll er Drive, SW
64th Str eet / Hardee Drive, SW 72nd Street / Suns et
Drive, SW 62nd A venue, and SW 57 th A venue / Red
Road . Phase Thr ee improvemen t s w ill cons ist of SW 40th
St reet / Bird Road, SW 48th Street, SW 80th Street, and
SW 67th Avenue / Ludlam Road.
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES.
LAND TRANSACTIONS
Hardee Drive Area Park Acquisition' Acres 0 .25 $1 ,200,000 .00 $300 ,000.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
North Area Park Si te improvements $150,000 .00 $150,000.00
Hardee Drive Area Park Site improvements $200,000.00 $200,000.00
South Miami Park Redevelopmen t 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
Po cket Park 1 SW 63 rd Ave . & SW 50th St . Site improvements $50,000.00 $50 ,000.00
Pocket Park 2 SW 57th Ct. between SW Site improvements $50,000.00 $50,000.00 BOth St . & SW 7Bth St.
NEW FAC ILITIES
All America Park Fumiture Benches, trash bins 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00
, pending public input Natural Play Elements Standard (ages 5-12) $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Brewer Park Boat launch (non-motorized) Lanes $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Parking (near boat launch) Stall s 5 $4,000.00 $20,000.00
Pier I fence renovation LF 300 $200.00 $60,000.00
Racquetball court removal SF 3,100 $B.50 $26,350 .00
Picnicking I grilling Picnic area with grill (3 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 tables)
Paved path (ADA) SF 2,000 $10.00 $20,000.00
Playground Shade Structure 4-post shade structure $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Dante Fascell Park Tennis expansion Clay court 2 $100 ,000.00 $200 ,000 .00
Tennis court lighting Lighting system per B $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 Picnic area with grill (3 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 tables)
Pa ved path (ADA) SF 5,000 $10.00 $50 ,000.00
Refurbish rubberized walk-Refurbishing $40 ,000.00 $40 ,000.00 ing/jogging tra il
Dison Park Picnicking Picnic area (3 tables) $5,000 .00 $5,000.00
, pending public input Tree canopy Trees 10 $400 .00 $4,000.00
Table 7.4 continued on next page
Chapt er 7: Plan Implemen tat ion
Table 7.4, continued
Sw in g se t St a n d ard $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Fuchs Park Boardwalk LF 700 $200.00 $140,000.00
• pend ing publi c in p ut Pedestrian Bri dge Bridge $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Picnic pavili on 1 5x25 ' pavil ion $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Picnicking / g rillin g Pic nic area with grill (3 3 $6,000.00 $18,000 .00 t ables )
Signage Ent ry sig n 2 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
Furniture a long boardwalk/ Be n c h es, trash b in s 3 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 path
12 Hig h De fi n it ion Securit y In st a ll a tion $25,000 .00 $25,000.00 Cam e ras
Hardee Drive Area Park Playground Standard (ages 5-12) $95,000.00 $95,000.00
Picnickin g Picnic area (3 tables ) $5,000 .00 $5,000.00
Basketball court Ha lf court $10,000 .00 $10,000.00
J.R.E. Lee Admin is tra ti on Office Basket ball court Re n ovation 3 $20,000 .00 $60,000.00
Parking relocatio n St a ll s 30 $4,000.00 $120,000 .00
Marshall W illi amson Park Outdoor fitn ess zone Fitn ess equipment $50,000 .00 $50,000.00
Murray Park Picnicking Picnic area (3 tables) $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Nort h Area Park Furnit ure Be n c h es / trash b ins $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Pa lmer Park Tree canopy Trees 40 $400.00 $16,000 .00
Bike racks Rack 5 $500.00 $2,500.00
Playground St andard (ages 5-12) $95,000.00 $95,000 .00
Sou t h M iami Park Res trooms/maintenance SF 3,200 $200 .00 $640,000.00 Bu il d in g
Pic ni c pavili on 25x25 , pavili on 3 $37,000 .00 $111 ,000.00
Picnickin g Pic nic area (3 tables) 2 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
Furnit ure Be nc h es a nd trash b ins 4 $2,500 .00 $10,000.00
Playground St andard (ages 5-12) $95,000.00 $95,000.00
Tr opica l Hammock Nat ura l Trees 1,200 $400 .00 $480,000.00 A rea (± 1.6 acres )
Tropica l Hammock Nat ural Shrubs 9,000 $5 .00 $45,000.00 A re a (± 1.6 acres )
Tr opica l hammock pat h SF 3,200 $8.00 $25,600 .00
Pond w ith wet land species Acres 0.25 $25,000 .00 $6,250.00
Paved perimeter path SF 24,000 $10.00 $240,000 .00
New Pedestrian Access SW 59 t h Ave . $10,000 .00 $10,000.00
New Pedestrian/Vehicu lar SW 60t h Court $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Access
A ll cit y-wide parks Picnic t ables 6' rec tangul ar t ables 25 $500.00 $12,500.00
Tras h receptacles 32 ga ll on receptacles 25 $350.00 $8.750.00
Table 7.4 continued on next page
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Table 7.4, continued
Recycling bins 32 ga llon re ceptac les
Benches Standard
Tree canopy Shade trees
Entry Sign (all sites , except
Dante Fa sce ll (receives sign Sign
in Phase One)
25
25
13
$350.00 $8.750.00
$1 ,000 .00 $25,000.00
$100,000.00 $100,000.00
$5,000.00 $65 ,000.00
TOTAL: $6.777.700.00
Contingency (15 %) $1.016 ,655.00
SUBTOTA L: $7.794,355.00
Capit a l Improvements and New Facilities So ft Costs (1 5%): $971,655.00
Tabl e 7.4 Phase Two (2018 -2020) Capital Oullay Costs
* Estimated Cost
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
GRAND TOTAL : $8,766,010.00
Master Plan: Phase Two (2018-2020)
Fi gur e 7.6 Ma ster Plan Phas e Two (2018 -202 0)
PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS :
PROPOSED PARK SITES
--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 WILLI S PARK
@ VAN SMITH PARK
@ DOGPARK
@ FUCHSPARK
@)DISONPAR K
@ DANTE FA SC ELL PAR K
LEGEND:
, ..... -. , ,
'-•• __ .1 CITY LIMITS
EXISTING PARKS CJ -FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
r------·,
I : ................
0' -
EXISTING SCHOOL OPEN
SPACE LEASES
POTENTIAL TRAIL PARKLAND
~
1,000' 2,000 ' --
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
ftL __ _
g---I;:
LAND AREA
With a p rojec t ed p opula ti o n o f 17,084, thi s
ph ase re qu ires 68 acres o f park land t o m ee t th e
p ark la nd level-o f-se rv ice ratio re qu ire m en t. By th e
b eginnin g o f thi s p hase, it is a nt ic ip ate d t ha t t he City w ill
h ave 87 ac res o f park la nd , c reat in g a 19-a c re surp lus.
M o d ifi c atio ns t o park la nd area in th is p hase includ e
t he f o ll o w in g actio ns:
Parkl a nd acres a t b eginnin g 0 1 thi s phase
Phase Three ~ark LanCil Area Aotlons
Acq uire Wes t Area Park
Acq uire East A rea Park
Acquire Mill e r Dri ve Area Park
Use Agreem e nt w ith SFWMD l o r Develo pme nt
0 1 Sna ppe r C reek Trail
Develo p Central Blu eway Boat Launc h
Des ig na t e Centra l Bl ueway as park la nd
End of Phase Three Park Land Area
Park land acres added in thi s p hase
Par k land acres a t end o f thi s p hase
Park land acres leve l-ol-service ra ti o at end 01
thi s p hase
Ta bl e 7.5 Phase Three Park Land Area
Ch apt er 7: Plan Impl ement at ion
86 .84
0 .25
0.25
0 .25
1.28
0 .12
4.53
6.68
93.52
5.47 acres /
1,000 perso ns
Th e add iti o na l parks li st e d a bove fo r this phase
are int e nded t o p rovid e park covera g e w h e re th e re
previo usly w a s no ne . Develo pme nt o f t he Snappe r
C reek Trai l is m a in ly inte nded t o d ive rsif y th e ty p e o f
rec rea t io n in t h e Ci t y b y a dding a mu lt i-use trail th a t is
a lre ady a n exist ing o p port un ity, a nd is ga inin g tr act io n
fo r develo pme n t .
Th e ad dit io n o f th e Centra l Blueway (see
Fi g ure 7.7 ) comple t es access t o the m a jo rit y o f th e
c an a l acre a ge w ithin th e City . This access a lso he lp s
distribut e wat e r recreati o n thro u g h o ut d iffe re nt area s
o f th e Ci t y.
Figure 7.7 Cen tral Blueway Boa l Launch
If t h e M as t e r Pla n 's recomme nd a t io ns a re
fo ll owed, by 2025 t h e Ci t y sho u ld have a tot a l of
94 acres o f park land , p rovidi ng 26 acres above
th e Compre he nsive Pla n re quire m e nt for park la nd
acreage. Th e Ci ty a lso exceed s t he park la nd level-o f-
se rvice ra t io o f 4 acres p e r 1,000 perso ns by p rovid ing
5.4 7 acres p e r 1,000 p e rso ns.
As m e ntio ned earlie r, th e re are severa l sit es
c urrent ly ma inta in ed by t h e C ity 's Pu b li c Wo rk s Depart-
m e nt w h ic h have been ide ntifi ed fo r potentia l designa-
ti o n as Poc ke t Par ks. Th e p o cke t p arks t o b e d es ig na t ed
in th is phase are as fo ll OWS :
Pocket Park 3 -Tw in La kes Dr . & SW 57 th St. -c u l-de-sac
o p e n area
Pocket Park 4 -SW 62nd C t . & 42nd Te rr . -tr ia ng ul ar
open area w ithin Ri g ht o f Wa y
Pocket Pa rk 5 -SW 60 th Ave . b e tween SW 84th St . and
85 t h St. -open area betwee n single famil y homes (not
m ai nta ined by Pub lic Works )
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FACILITIES
LAND TRANSACTIONS
Miller Dr ive Area Park Acquisition' Acres 0 .25 $1,200,000.00 $300,000.00
East Area Park Acquisition ' Acres 0.25 $1,200 ,000.00 $300,000.00
West Area Park Acquisition ' Acres 0.25 $1 ,200,000.00 $300,000 .00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Miller Drive Area Park Site improvements $200,000.00 $200 ,000.00
East Area Park Site improvements $200 ,000.00 $200,000.00
West Area Park Site improvements $200,000.00 $200,000 .00
Pocket Park 3 Twin Lake s Dr . & SW 57th St . Site improvements $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Pocket Park 4 SW 62nd Ct. & 42nd Terr. Site improve ments $50,000 .00 $50,000.00
Pocket Park 5 SW 60th Ave . between SW Site improvements $50,000.00 $50,000 .00 84th St . & SW 85th St .
NEW FACILITIES
Brewer Park Restrooms SF 1,500 $200.00 $300,000.00
Dante Fa scell Park Picnic pavilion repla cement 15x25' pavili on 3 $40,000 .00 $120 ,000.00 I addition
East Area Park Playground Standard (ages 5-12) $95,000.00 $95,000.00
Picnicking I grilling Picnic area with grill (3 $6 ,000 .00 $6 ,000.00 tables)
G ibson Bethel Community A/C Upgrade Upgrade $50 ,000 .00 $50,000.00 Center
Jean Willis Park Sylva Martin Building Relocation and resto-$1,600,000.00 $1,600,000.00 ration
Picni c pavilion 15'x I5 ' 2 $15 ,000 .00 $30 ,000 .00
Benches Standard 2 $1 ,000.00 $2,000 .00
Trash re ceptacles 32-gallon receptacles 2 $350.00 $700.00
Bike racks Rack 2 $500.00 $1,000.00
Marsha ll William son Park Picnicking Pi c nic area (3 tables) 2 $5 ,000 .00 $10 ,000 .00
Miller Drive Area Park Picnicking I gri llin g Picnic area with grill (3 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 tables)
Playground Tot lot (ages 2-5) $32 ,000.00 $32 ,000.00
Murray Park Furniture Benches, trash bins 2 $2 ,500.00 $5 ,000.00
Murray Park Aquatic Cente r Tre e canopy Tr ees 5 $400.00 $2 ,000 .00
West Area Park Playground Standard (ages 5-12) $95 ,000.00 $95 ,000.00
Pla yground Tot lot (ages 2-5) $32 ,000.00 $32 ,000 .00
Picni cking I grilling Picnic area w ith grill (3 $6 ,000.00 $6,000.00 tables )
Snapper C re ek Trail Multi-u se t rail Miles 0.20 $500,000.00 $100,000.00
South Miami Park Picnic pavilion 25'x25' pavilion 2 $50 ,000.00 $100 ,000.00
Table 7,6 continued on next page
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
Multipurpose fie ld
Tree canopy
Pl ayground
Voll eyball Court
A ll city-wide parks Tree canopy
Table 7.6 Phase Three (202 1-2025) Capi tal Ou tlay Cos ts
* Estima ted Cos t
Table 7.6, continued
Fie ld and d rainage 3 $300 ,000 .00 $900 ,000.00
Trees fo r spectator an d 100 picnic areas $400.00 $40,000.00
Tot lo t (ages 2-5) $32,000.00 $32,000 .00
Court $25 ,000.00 $2 5,000.00
Shade trees $100,000 .00 $100 ,000 .00
TOTA L: $5,339.700.00
Conti ngency (1 5%) $800,955.00
SUBTOTA L: $6,140 ,655.00
Capit al Improvements and New Faci lities Soft Cost s (15%): $665 ,955 .00
GRAND TOTAL : $6 ,806 ,610 .00
Chapter 7: Plan Impl ementation
Master Plan: Phase Three (2021-2025)
IIiIf
Figur e 7.8 Master Plan Phase Three (2021-2025 )
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
PHASE THREE IMPROVEMENTS : e PROPOSED PARK SITES
_ _ PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN /
BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS * PROPOSED BLUEWAY ACCESS
EXISTING PARKS: o SOUTH MIAMI PARK
® BREWER PARK
® GIRL SCOUT LmLE HOU SE RESERVE o PALMER PARK
® MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK
® SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER o MURRAY PARK
® ALL AMERICA PARK
® JEAN WILLIS PAR K
@ VAN SMITH PARK
@ DOGPAR K
® FUCHS PARK
@ DI SONPARK
9 DANTE FASCELL PAR K
LEGEND :
,------. L ___ J CITY LIMITS
CJ EXISTING PARKS -FUTURE TRAILS BY OTHERS
r·······"\ EXISTING SCHOOL OPEN I I . . SPACE LEASES ................ --EXISTING PEDESTRIAN /
BICYCLE ENHANCEMENTS
* EXISTING BLUEWAY ACCESS
• EXISTING BLUEWAY
CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT
~
0' 1,000 ' 2,000 ' ---
June 2017
Sout~iami MILLE ~EGG
Funding Options
Thi s Plan approaches a ll new park land being
a tt a in ed o r reclaimed to provide a conserva ti ve
approach t o th e deve lopment of th e Implementa ti o n
budgets. The Plan does n ot consider the opportunitie s
of lower cost acqu isition a lt e rnati ves su c h as, land
dedicatio n and/or developer park contri bu ti ons in
the anticipat ed cos t s. The City shou ld pursue th ese
a lternatives as development is continuin g w ithin South
Miam i.
With approximate ly $20 mi lli on of Parks and
Recreation capital im p rove m ent s and land acquisitio n/
developme nt antic ipated in thi s Master Plan, th e City
may wan t t o uti li ze this Plan as the initial basis for a Park s
and Recreation Bond iss u e. Recently, residents of o th er
loca l municipa liti es have approved referendums on
Parks Bond iss ues . Th ese municipal Park s Bo nd approvals
in clude the 20 14 Ci ty of Su nri se Parks Bond referendum
($6 5 m ill ion), and the 20 14 City of Ha ll andale Beach
Park s re ferendum ($5 8 mi lli on ). As recreation becomes
an ever more important e lement fot the City's existin g
residents and in st rum enta l to furth er development, th e
potentia l for a Park s Bond issue shou ld be considered.
Maintenance
Imple m entation of th e proposed improvements
crea tes a foundation for the p lan, however, the long-
term success depends on focused maintenance efforts.
Th ese maintenance e ff o rt s w ill he lp e nsu re the long
t erm sustainab il ity, qua li ty, and aesthetic of th e City's
recreationa l facilit ies. In order to achieve this, required
maintenance operati ons and eva lua ti ons shou ld be
performed. In o rder to ass ist the City w ith carryin g ou t
th ese eva luati ons, the maintenance evaluation matrix
shown in Append ix E sha ll be utilized in these efforts .
Use of th e mainte nance c heckli st sh o uld a ll evia t e the
ma intenance issues at Fuchs Park, Van Sm ith Park , and
South M iami Par k fr equ e ntl y mentioned by residents.
Implement Community
Outreach Prog ram
Both t he C ity and its residents have expressed
co ncern over a lack of reside nt awareness of th e City's
park s and re c reati on fa c ili t ies, programs, a nd se rv ices.
To address this concern, the City shou ld develop and
implement a formal commu nity outreach program t o
promote th e City's parks and recreatio nal reso urces.
Outreach can be accomplished using a varie t y of
methods to connect w ith d ifferent populations in
the Ci t y. Examp les include guerill a m a rk eting, c ross-
promoti o n of p rogra m s and serv ices, promoti on th rough
loca l businesses, and soc ia l media o utreach.
Subsequent Phases
FLEXIBILITY
Thi s Plan provides a road map fo r unde rsta nding
the Ci t y's recreation and open space needs over t he
next ten years, and a correspond in g scenario for fillin g
those needs. Th e u lti mate imple m ent ation o f thi s Pl an
w ill undoubt e dl y include a lt e rnati ve so luti ons w hi ch
may work as we ll and tha t better match changing
cond iti ons over time. Regard less, recreationa l needs
o f the res ident s remain th e objective to be m e t and
this Plan provid es the information necessary to explore
a lternative path ways toward fu lfi ll ing those needs. The
idea h ere is to use t h is document as a guide, rather
th an mandate.
Chapter 7: Plan Implementation
It is a lso poss ib le t ha t some o f th e approac hes
suggest ed h e re m ay not b e ac hi eva bl e w he n t ested:
Leases m ay not b e g ra nte d ; land re cl a m a ti o n may
be t oo d iffi c ul t t o permi t; a nd new la nd exa c tl y whe re
needed, m ay not be ava ilable. If t hese specific
opport un it ies do no t m ateri a lize, th e Ci ty ca n m ove on
in o th e r d ir ecti o ns, usin g goa ls p rovided in thi s Plan as a
g uid e.
PUBLIC INPUT DURING THE PLANNING
PROCESS
As part o f th e p la nnin g p rocess fo r reassess in g
th e su bseq u e n t phases o f thi s Pla n , th e Ci t y sho u ld o nce
aga in seek input fr om t he p u b li c. To improve th e q u a lity
o f th e feedb a ck, th e Ci t y sho uld uti li ze t h e comm u nit y
o utreac h p rogra m to no tify and communica t e wi t h
res id e nts for a ll f u tur e ph ases. Communicati o ns used
d uring th e p la n ning p rocess sho ul d u se th e va ri e t y o f
o utr eac h m e th o d s use d in t h e communit y o utreach
progra m t o e nsure th e feedback captu res t he various
perspectives of th e Ci t y's residen t s.
REASSESMENT
This Pl an has as its f oundat io n w h a t is kn own
about th e Ci t y a nd its recreation needs at t he present
ti me . Since conditi ons, needs, and funding resou rces
a ll c h a n ge over ti me, th is Pl an w ill a lso change . The
Ci t y sho u ld do a fo rm a l review o f th e Plan, a t leas t
every five (5) years , a n d a n in te rim review every two
(2) years, as well as make w ha t ever modifications or
updates tha t are necessary at t hose ti mes. However,
t he structure of the p lan shou ld remain intact since it is
based on sound p lanning p rinciples a nd t he phys ica l
a nd soc ia l con dit ions uni que to Sou th Mi a mi.
Ch apt er 7: Plan Implem ent ation
PLAN MODIFICATIONS
As th e Pl a n m ay evolve over tim e, c are sh o u ld
be t aken to e n sure t ha t m odifica ti o ns represe nt t h e
int e res t s o f t he p u b li c wh ich we re engaged in it s
develo pme nt, a nd th a t p rofess ional reso urces are
rea ppli ed t o t es t t he a d v isa bi lity o f a m e ndme nt. M ost
import a ntl y, th e e le cte d offi c ia ls o r th e ir successors
w ho commiss io n ed th e study sh o uld b e e ng a ged t o
reassess t he "fit " p roposed c hanges wou ld have o n the
communit y bei n g served at t he ti m e .
MILLE ~EGG
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Appendix
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Req uire m e nt f o r the Plan
Appendix B
Pop ul a tion Stu d ies Methodology by th e Bureau of Economic and
Bus in ess Research (BEBR)
Appendix C
Existing Facility Conditions and Analyses
Appendix 0
Schema ti c Park Im provement Plan s
Appendix E
Maintenance Checklis t s
Appendix F
Online Public Survey Results
Appendix G
Recurring Comments from Online Public Survey and Workshop # 1
5
7
1 1
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 Policy 1.1.4, adopted 2010,
and as mandated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
This policy st ates, in part, "revisit and clarify park
standards, including the adopted Level of Service
Standard; identify the specific recreation and open
space needs of City residents; develop a strategic plan
for comprehensive improvements to the existing and
planned recreation and open space system; identify
add itional opportunities to enhance the recreation and
open space system through grants, impact fees, and
other appropriate sources; identify appropriate staffing
levels and community involvement strategies; evaluate
the inventory of City-owned land, and the feasibility of
using such lands in the creation of new 'pocket parks;'
evaluate the feasibility of establishing a land bank for
parks, and; establish a schedule for t he Plan's periodic
update."
The basis for this plan is also found in Resolution
54-14-14 148 passed by the Ci t y Commiss ion in 20 14,
which states that the Plan's purpose is to "develop a
citywide comprehensive vision for South Miami's parks
and recreation system; including, a phys ical inventory
and site assessment of the existing parks and park
system, [and] recommendations for current and future
improvements, land acquisition and capital project
development ."
A ten-year timeline has been es t ablished as
the planning period for this Plan. The Plan a lso serves as
the first Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of
South Miami .
Appendix A 5
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
,
APPENDIX B
Population Studies
Methodology by the Bureau
of Economic and Business
Research (BEBR)
CONSTRUCTING ESTIMATES OF TOTAL
POPULATION FOR COUNTIES AND SUBCOUNTY
AREAS IN FLOR IDA
Stan ley K. Sm ith and Scott Cody
Bureau of Economi c and Busine ss Researc h
Uni ve rsity o f Florida
December, 20 14
The Bureau of Economic and Bus in ess Research
(BEBR) makes population esti mates for every coun ty
and subcoun ty area in Florida, with subcounty areas
defined as incorporated cities and th e unincorporated
balance of each county. County estimates are
calculated as the sum of the subcounty estimates for
each county and th e sta t e estimate is ca lculat ed as
the sum of th e coun t y estima t es. Th e estimates refer
solely to permanent re si dents of Florida; they do not
include seasona l or other types of temporary residents.
The estimates are produced us in g the housing unit
method, in which c hanges in population are based on
changes in occupied housing units (or households). This
is the most common ly used method for making local
population est imates in the United 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 th e HU method is the
fact that almost everyone lives in some type of housing
structure, whether a traditional single fami ly unit. an
apartment, a mobile home, a college dormitory, or a
state prison. The population of any geographic area
can be calculated as the number of occupied housing
units (households) times the average number af persons
per household (PPH), plus the number of persons living
in group quarters such as college dormitories, military
barracks, nursing homes, and prisons:
Pt = (Ht x PPHt) + GQt
where Pt is the population at time I, Ht is th e number of
occupied housing units at time I, PPHt is the average
number of persons per household at time I, and GQt
is the g roup quarters population at time t. Estimates
of the number of peqple w it hout permane n t li v ing
quarters (e .g ., the homeless population) are included
in estimates of the group quarters population.
This is an identity , not an estimate. If th ese three
components were known exactly, the total population
would also be known . The problem, of course, is
that thes e components are almost never known
exactly. Rather, they must be estimated from various
data sources, using one or more of several possible
techniques. In this report, we describe the data a n d
techniques used to estimate these three components
for coun tie s and subcounty areas in Florida.
HOUSEHOLDS
Census definitions require a person to be counted as
an inhabitant of his/her usual place of residence, which
is generally construed to mean the place whe re he/
she lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not
necessarily 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 some as the number of households.
Households refer solely to permanent residents and
Appendi x B
a housing unit is classified as vacant even when it
is continuously occupied, if all the occupants are
temporary residents staying only for a few days, weeks,
or months .
BEBR uses three different data sources to estimate the
number of households in Florida. The first is residential
building permit s, as collected and distributed by the
U.S. Department of Commerce. The housing inventory
in 2014 for a c ity or county that issues building perm its
can be estimated by adding permits is sued since 20 10
to the units counted in the 20 10 census and subtracting
units lost to destruction, demolition, or conversion to
other uses. The tim e lag between the issuance of a
permit and the comp letion of a unit is assumed to be
three months for sing le-family units and fifteen months
for multifamily units. Building permits are not issued
for mobile homes, but p roxie s can be derived from
records of shipments to mobile home dealers in Florida.
Creatin g a housing inventory for an enti re county
requires complete permit data for every permitting
agency w ithin the coun ty . Although such data are not
always available, coverage is suffic ient in most Florida
c it ies and counties to p ro vide useful information.
There are no readily available data sources provid in g
comprehensive up-to-date information on occupancy
rates. Accurate information can be obtained through
special censuses or large sample surveys, but in most
instances these methods are too expensive to be
feasible. A common solution 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 factors refiecting
changes in occupancy rates over time (e .g., changes
in the seasonal population).
The product of the inventory figure and the occupancy
rate p ro v ides an estimate of the number of households.
Appendix B
There are several potential problems with this estimate.
Time lags between the issuance of permits and the
completion of units may vary from place to place
and from year to year. The proportion of permits
resulting in completed units is usually unknown. Data
on demoliti ons and conversions are incomplete and
data on mobile homes must be estimated indirectly.
Reliable estimates of changes in occupancy rates are
generally unavailable. Certificate-of-occupancy data
can e liminate problems related to completion rates
and time lags but not those re lated to occupancy
rates, demolitions, and conversions. Although these
problems limit the usefulness of the data in some
places, building perm it data often p ro vide reasonably
accurate estimates of households.
Our second da t a source is active residential electric
customers. We coll ect these data from each of the
state's 54 e lectri c utility companies. Households can
be estimated by constructing a ratio of households to
active residential electric customers using data from the
most recent census year (e .g ., 20 10) and multiplying that
ratio tim es the number of active residential customers
in some later year (e .g., 20 14). This procedure assumes
that no changes have occurred in electric company
bookkeeping practices or in the proportion of customers
who are permanent res id ents . Although changes do
occur, they are genera ll y fairly small. In some places
we adjust the household/electric customer ratio to
account for likely changes in the proportion of housing
units occupied by permanent residents. Previous
research on BEBR population estimates has shown thaI
household estimates based on electric customer data
ore-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 Re v enue. Households
can be estimated by constructing a ratio of households
to exemptions using data from the most recent census
year (e.g., 2010) and multiplying that ratio times the
number of exemptions in some later year (e.g., 2014). An
important advantage of these data is that they cover
only housing units occupied by permanent residents,
thereby exclud in g the impact o f seasonal 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 data are not available at the subcounty
level.
Building permit, electric customer, and homestead
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 es timates from two or
even all three data sources,
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD
The second component of the housing unit method is
the average number of persons per household (PPH).
Florida 's PPH dropp ed stead il y from 3.22 in 1950 to
2.46 in 1990 but then leveled off, remaining constant
between 1990 and 2000 before rising to 2.48 in 20 10,
There is'a subs tantial amount of variat ion among local
areas in Florida , with va lu es 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 values 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 regress ion model
in which changes in PPH are determined by changes
in births, school enrollment, and Medicare enrollees. In
some in stances, we use indirect indicators of changes
in PPH to adjust the estimates (e .g ., changes in racial
composition). Again, we use our professiona l ju dgment
to decide which data sources and techniques to use in
each county and subcoun ty area,
GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION
The household population is calculated as the product
of households and PPH. To obtain an es timate of the
total popu lation , we must add an est imate of the
group quarters population. In most p laces, we estimate
the group quarters population by assuming that it
accounts for the same proportion of total population in
2014 as it did in 20 10. For example, if the group quarters
population accounted for 2% of the total population
in 2010, we assume that it accounted for 2% in 2014. In
places where the group quarters population represents
a substant ial proportion of the total popu lation, we
collect data directly from the administrators of the
major g roup quarters facilities . Inmates in sta te and
fed eral institutions are accounted for separately in
all lo ca l areas; these data are available from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Florida Department of
Corrections, the Florida Department of Veteran Af fair s,
the Fl orida Agency for Persons with Disabilities, the
Florida Department of Health, the Fl orida Department of
Juvenile Justice and the Florida Department of Children
and Families. The total population estimate is made by
adding the estimate of the group quarters population
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
Appendix 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 state. A comparison of population
es timates with census results for 1980, 199 0, 2000, and
20 10 showed the BEBR estimates to be quite accurate,
especia lly when compared 10 other se ts of estimates.
We believe the HU method is the most effective method
for making city and county population estimates in
Florida and that it produces re liable es timates that
provide a solid foundation for budgeting, planning,
and analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Funding for these estimates was provided by t h e Florida
Legislature.
PUBLISHED : December, 20 14
POSTED: February, 2015
Retrieved at https://www.bebr.ufi.edu/population/
methodology/population-estimates on 11 /11 /20 15
Appendix B
APPENDIX C
Existing Facility Conditions and Analyses
All America Park
6280 SW 64 t h Avenue
South Miami, Florida, 33 143
SIZ E: 1.40 acres
PARK TYP E: passive park
AME NITIES:
• Picn ic area
The park is nest led in a residential neig h borhood,
bounded by houses on the northern and southern sides ,
and residential streets on the eastern and western sides.
The park has coral rock benc hes, lush vegetation, and
faux tree trunk garbage bins. The garbage bins and
benches ore not City standard . Vegetation appears
to be overg rown along pe rim eter. There is an area at
the south end of the park a long SW 64th Court where
residents place t he ir landscap ing refuse for pick up by
the City. This activity sho u ld be eliminated immediately,
as it is incon g ruous and d e trim ental to the park. The re
is limited parking, and anyo n e vis iting the park wou ld
need to park on the street or would have to walk to the
park. The park is not A DA -accessible . The park does not
appear to be heavily utilize d.
ALL AMERICA PARK Appendix C
u
x
:0 c::
'" Cl.
Cl.
<C
ALL AMERICA PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
A LL AMERIC A PA RK
T.bulatlon:
Lagend
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
lot Size : :1:1 Acre
App endi x C
Brewer Park
63 00 SW 56 t h St reet
Sou th M iami, Fl orida, 33143
SIZE: 1.29 acres
PARK TYPE: active park
AMENITIES:
• Outdoor basketball (1 !2 court)
• Handball Courts (2 )
• Gazebo
• Picnic area
• Tot lot
• Tennis Courts (2)
• Observation deck
• Water fountain
The park is nestled in a residential community
bounded by a main road (Miller Drive) to the north, a
residential street to the east and a canal to the west
and south . Limited off street parking is available . The
park appears to be moderately used, especial ly the
play area. There is a platfo rm overlooking t he conal.
Th e fencing along th e can al has missing p ickets. The
bottom beam of the fence along the canal is high
above grade, and a sma ll chi ld can crowl beneath if
not monitored by on adu lt .
Play ground equipment cons ists of swings and
one slide, and are in good condition. However, they
are not ADA-accessib le.
The park a lso includes two tennis courts which
enjoy a large portion of the park's waterfron t , and are
popular features at the park .
BREWER PARK Appendi x C
u
.~
-0 c:
<l)
Cl.
Cl. «
BREWER PARK Appendix C 17
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
BREWER PAR K
( ..
foo--t < ~
Tabul.tion:
Lagend
Parcel Boundary
General Veh icular Circulation
Pattem
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual 8.uffer
Activity Node I Focal Po int
FENCE
Lot Size ::t2Acres
Nlmber of P8r1dng ::tB
12cr
Appe nd ix C
Dante Fascell Park
8600 SW 57 t h Avenue
South Miami, Flo rida , 33 143
SIZE: 7.73 acres
PARK TYPE: active park
AMENITIES :
• Outdoor basketbal l (1/2 court)
• Handball Courts (2)
• Pavilions (2)
• Picnic areas
• Pla yground and tot lot
• Clay tenn is courts (6)
• Sand vo lleyball court
• Fitness trai l & outdoor equipment
• Restrooms
• Water fountain
The p ark is bound by a private school to the
north, SW 57th A ve nue to the east, the Snapper Creek
Canal to the south, and a residential road to the west.
The park sits on the ou tskirts of th e City, and there fore
has many vi sitors from adjacent municipalities.
With Snapper Creek Canal bordering the
park, various bird s can be spotted by visito rs, in clud in g
eastern phoebes, gray catbirds , black-and-white
warblers, yellow-rumped warblers, cardinals, common
gallinules, prai ri e warblers, blue-gray gnatcatchers,
and palm warb lers .
The park includes six clay tennis courts, which
are heavily used for lessons , leisurely p lay, and ath letic
programs. The adjacent parking lot is in need of
repair. The park's wooden perimeter fencing is in gross
disrepair and is composed of creosote-Iaiden railroad
ties loosely held together by random metal strips. Th is
is a significant liability for the City in many ways, both
legal and aesthetic ..
The playground is partially ADA-compliant.
The ground level at the playground is ADA-compliant,
while the p layground structures and its access are not.
Shelters are outdated and not ADA-accessible . Th e
rubberized fitness trail is new and in great condition.
Restrooms are renovated and meet ADA requirements.
The p roshop is small and in need of replacement. The
handball/racquetball courts are underused.
DANTE FASC EL L PARK Appendix C
u
.~
"0
C
'" Cl.
Cl.
<t:
DANTE FASCELL PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
DA NT E FASCEll PARK
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
f--.-t , ~~:;~I Vehicular Circulation
< <
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
t'NtNNv Noise I Visual Buffer
• Activity Node I Focal Point
FENCE
Appendix C
Dison Park
8021 SW 58th Avenue
South Miami, Florid a , 33 143
SIZE : 0.59 acres
PARK TYP E: passive park
AMENIT IES:
• Gazebo
The park is bounded by houses on thre e
sides and a residential street Oil the west side. A small
gazebo is situated in the back of the park, and a large
open green space comprises the remain ing area.
Trees are planted along the borders. A City of South
Miami standard garbage bin and picnic ta ble are
locat ed beside the gazebo. There is an area at the
south end of th e park along SW 58th Avenue where
residents p lace their landscaping refuse for p ick up by
the City. This activity should be e limin a t ed imm ediately,
as it is in co ngruous and detrimenta l to th e park. There
is lim it ed parking, and anyone v isiting the park would
need to park on th e street o r wou ld have to walk to th e
park. Th e park is not ADA-accessible. The park does not
appear to be heavily utilized.
DISO N PARK Appendi x C
u
.~
"0
C
Q)
CL
CL «
DISON PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
DISO N PARK
L~
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise 1 Visual Buner
Activity Node I Focal Point
FENCE
:.tlAaes
Appendix C
~ -_-c ___ .~ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___
Dog Park
6380 SW 78 th Str eet
Sou t h M ia mi , Fl o ri da, 33 14 3
SIZE: 0.13 acres
PARK TYPE: dog park
AM EN ITI ES:
• Dog p loy structu res
• Chiki hut
• Water fountain
This park is a small , newly constructed dog park
at the end of a rood, and beside a canol . The p ark
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 on animal hospital, There is no
dedicated parking at t his park,
DOG PARK Appendi x C
u
.~
'0
C
'" = = «
DOG PAR K Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
DOG PA RK
Leg_
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual Butrer
Activity Node I Focal Po int
FENCE
:<1 Acres
Appendix C
Fuchs Park
6445 SW 8 1 st St reet
South Miami, Flor ida, 33 143
SIZE: 5.00 acres
PARK TYPE : semi-active park
AM ENI TIES:
• Pond
• Pavi lion
• Pic nic areas
• Sand volleyball court
• Playground
• Rest room
• Wate r fountain
Th is neighborhood park has a corner of the
park that abuts US-I , but the majority of the perimeter
is bound on the north and west by arterial roads and
commerc ial bu ildings, and a long the south and
east by residential roads and residences. Parking is
under beautiful banyan trees in the swa le along SW
8 1st Avenue. A large pond is the main feature of the
park, attracting a variety of bi rds includ ing w hite ib is,
common gallinules, northern parulas, pa lm warblers,
b lue jays, and muscovy ducks .
Th e existi ng pavili on is not large e n o ugh for
most ren t al needs, and it s condition is ext remely poor.
The condt ion o f the pavi li on poses a sign ificant liability
fo r t he City, both legall y and aesthet ica ll y. It is hi gh ly
recommended tha t the City rep lace t he pavili on in
the early stages of Phase II, as it wou ld str ength en the
park's image and gene rate additional re nta l revenue
for the C ity.
There are no wel l-defined pa t hs w ithin the
park. Any paths created through the worn g rass are
interrupted by tree roots. Site and amen ities th ere in are
not ADA-accessible . The restroom is in poor cond ition
and should be replaced.
FUCHS PARK Appendix C
u
.~
"0 c:
Q.) = = «
FUCHS PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
FUCHS PA RK
Le .......
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual Burfer
Activity Node I Focal Point
FENCE
::!5 AcrH
App end ix C
Girl Scout Little House
Reserve
6609 SW 60 th st ree t
South M iam i, Florida, 33143
SIZE : 4.06 acres
PARK TYP E: passive park
AM ENIT IES:
• Hi st o ri c a l buildin g
• Na t ure -b ased recre atio n
• Res troom
This site provides lodging rooms and tent sites.
The park includes a tree hammock, picnic areas, a
c hi ki hut, a nd bonfire sit e. Thi s sit e is un der th e exclusive
use of t he G ir l Scou t s pursuant t o a 99-ye ar lease, which
began in 1954 .
GIRL SCOUT LlTILE HOUSE RESERVE Appendix C
GIRL SCOUT LITTLE HOUSE RESERVE Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
G IRL SCOUT LI TTLE HOUSE RESERVE
Tabul.uon:
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
: %4Acre
n.....r---1
0' 50'
Ap pendi x C
Jean Wi II is Park
7220 SW 6 1 st Co urt
Sou th Miami, Florida , 33 143
SIZE: 0.63 acres
PARK TYP E: pass ive park
AMENIT IES:
• 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, mainly South
Miami Hospital, occasiona ll y come to have lunch. It is
bounded on three sides by businesses, and on the east
side by City Hall. There are p icn ic tables on site, and a
small wooden gazebo. A concrete path leads from the
sidewalk to the gazebo.
JEAN WILLIS PARK Appendi x C
u
.~ = c:
Q)
Cl.
Cl. «
JEAN WILLIS PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
J EA N WilliS PARK
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
:±lAaes
Appendix C
Marshall Wi II iamson Park A long and narrow pass ive p ark with larg e
canopy trees and small gently slop ing hills. There is a
concrete path that goes ·all around the park, and
accesses two playground areas a t the south of the
park. The re are a lso two tennis courts at the northern
end of the park. The walkway is in good condition with
some cracks that need minor repairs . The park is bound
by a cul-de-sac at the south, the Sou t h Miami Senior
Center and a Haith Center to the west, a m inor road
a n d apartmen t complex to the east , and t he J .R.E.
Lee Opportun ity Center on the north. There is a smal l
gaze b o, restroom bui ld ing, and a meeting room a t the
cente r of the park. The park does not seem t o be heavil y
used by t he su rrounding community. The p layground
equ ipment is in good condition.
6 125 SW 68 th Stree t
So uth M ia m i, Florida , 33 14 3
SIZE : 3.22 acres
PARK TYPE : sem i-active park
AM EN ITI ES:
• Gazebo
• Pl aygrou nd area wi to t lot
• Tenn is cou rt s (2)
• Res troom
• Meeting facility
• Wa te r fou ntai n
MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK Appendix C
u
.~
"0
C
<l) a.. a.. «
MARSHALL WILLIAMSON PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
MARSHAL L WI LLIAMSON PARK
.. -~ < < ~
L ......
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Vis,usl Buffe r
Activity Node I Focal Point
FENCE
:±4Aaes
Appe ndix C
Murray Park
5800 SW 66th Street
South Miami, Florida, 33143
SIZE: 3.43 acres
PARK TYPE: active park
AMENITIES:
• Athletic playing fields
• Clinic
• Swimming pool
• Community Center
• Picnic areas
• Playground
• Restrooms
• T -ball field
• Basketball courts (2)
• Water fountain
Located directly outs id e Gibson-Bethel
Community Center, this park is heavily-utilized by the
local community. It has a large open green space
directly outside the front of the community center, and
is located amidst residential homes, apartments and
businesses. It has two basketball courts, a playground ,
and a sma ll youth-sized t-ball field . The courts and fields
are not on ly used by the surrounding community and
in conjunction with City-coordinated activities at the
Community Center, but is also used by the nearby
South Miami Somerset Charter School.
The fie ld s, courts and playground are all in
good condition, however, the multipurpose field and
t-ball field perimeter fences are too low. User s have
been w itn essed sitting on and jum p ing over the fences,
causing unnecessary damage and potential liability
issues for the City. Additionally, th e fence he ight is too
low for athletic activity, al lowing ba ll s to easily travel
over the fence and onto oncoming traffic in the parking
lot.
MURRAY PARK Appendi x C
u
.~
"0 c::
Q.)
Cl.
Cl.
<X:
MURRAY PARK Appendix C
Gibson -Bethel Community
Center (within Murray Park)
5800 SW 66 th St ree t
So uth M iam i, Florida, 33 14 3
SIZE: 22,000 square feet
FACILITY TYPE : Community Center
AMENITIES:
• Indoor full-court basket ball or volleyball
• Art room
• Classroom
• Computer lab with internet
• Fitness and cardio room
• Multipurpose room
• Parking
• Restroom s
This 22.000 SF community center within Murray
Park provides a variety of indoor recreation activities,
such as indoor basketball and volleyball, and a fitness
room. The commun it y center also provides several
programs for youth, including afterschool programs
and athletics programs.
Appendix C GIBSON-BETHEL COMMUNITY CENTER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK)
GIBSO N-B ETH EL COMMUNITY CENTER (WITHIN MURRAY PARK) Appendix C
Murray Park Aquatic Center
(within Murray Park)
670 1 SW 58th Place
South Miam i, Florida, 33 143
SIZE: 0.65 acres
fACILITY TYPE: Aquatics center
AMENITIES :
• Splash pad (up to 22 persons)
• 3,446 SF Swimming pool
• Restroom / 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, splash pool,
and restroom s. The center has a mural along the back
exterior wall of the adjacent building, and benches
along the edge of the 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
f----t < < ~
Legend
Parce l Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattem
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual Buffer
Activity Node J Focal Point
FENCE
:±4At:rH
160'
Appendix C
Palmer Park
6 100 SW 67th Avenue
South Miami, Florida , 33 143
SIZE: 8.57 acres
PARK TYP E: active park
AMENITIES:
• Lighted, youth ath letic
playing fields
• Batting cage
• Concess ion stand
• Picn ic a reas
• Tot lot
• Basebal l fields (5)
• Res t room
• 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 south 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
ath letic teams. The park provides bleachers, batting
cages, you th-sized baseball/softball fields, multipurpose
fields, restrooms, a concessions stand, p icnic tables,
and a sma ll tot lot . There is a dedicated parking lot
for this park wh ich has serious dra in age issues in need
of immediate repair. The tot lot equipment is in poor
condition, and is not ADA-accessible. The fencing at
the park is in poor conditi on, and is in need o f repair o r
replacement .
The fi e lds are in good condition, and are able
to be used at night since there are field lights, however,
the City shou ld consider replac in g the field lights due
to inefficiencies of the Igi hting system. The cu rrent
field lighting system must be manually-operated, is
outdated, and is expensive to operate due to t he need
to replace light bulbs and fixtures every 12 to 16 months
at an estima t ed $35,000-$45,000 in repa ir s.
PALMER PARK Appendix C
PALMER PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
PALME R PA RK
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
App endi x C
South Miami Park
6300 SW 56t h St ree t
South M ia m i, Fl orida , 33 14 3
SIZE: 10.00 acres
PARK TYPE: active park
AMENITIES :
• Ath letic playing 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 the
east end of the site abutting an elementary school.
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 faci li ties,
nor any accessible paths to or around the park. An
abandoned poo l and playground from the form er site
of the YMCA sits on vacan t land at the east end of the
site. Due to the park's iso lation fr om the majority of the
areas within the City limits, many non-residents rather
than re side nts utili ze the park.
SOUTH MIAMI PARK Appendix C
u
.~
"0
C
c:>
CL
CL «
SOUTH MIAMI PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
SOUTH MIAMI PARK
(.
fio-ot < < ~. •
L-""
Parcel Boundary
General Vehicular Circulatlon
Pattern
Views to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual Buffer
Activity Node J Focal Point
FENCE
:±10 Aa~
Appendi x C
South -Miami Senior Center
6300 SW 56t h Street
So uth M iam i, Flor ida, 33 143
SIZE: 6,187 square feet of common area & 97 Units
AMENITIES:
• Dining Room
• Fitness Room
• Li ving room
PROGRAMS:
• Home Lunch Delivery
• En g li sh for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
• Span ish Class
• Art C lasses
• Exercise Classes
• Computer Classes
• Sewing and Knitting
• Holiday Celebrations
• Field Trips
The South Miami Senior Center offers a variety
of programs and activities to those sixty (60) years or
older. The center currently assists 10 1 residents within 97
units. Programs include arts and crafts classes, language
classes, computer classes, and fitness classes. Services
include counsel in g, support groups, information and
referral, home lunch delivery, and field trips to malls,
movie theaters, grocery stores, and other locations.
SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER Appendix C
u
x
:0 c
Q)
Cl.
Cl. «
SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
fio·-·-t .<
< ~, '.
SOU TH M IAMI SE NIOR CE NTER
........
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
:±2AaH
Appendix C
Van Smith Park
6300 SW 56t h Str ee t
So uth M ia mi , Fl o ri da, 33 14 3
SIZE: 1.14 acres
PARK TYPE: passive park
AMENITIES:
• Walking trails
• Picnic area
Van Smith Park is surrounded entirely b y
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 picnic tables. There is limited parking,
and anyone visiting the park would need to park on the
street or would have to 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
o
.~ u c:
Q.)
C>-
C>-«
VAN SMITH PARK Appendix C
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
VAN SMITH PARK
Lepnd
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattem
VIews to preserve or enhance
Views to screen
Noise I Visual Buffer
ActIvity Node J Focal Po int
FENCE
:±lAaes
App endi x C
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Tabul8tlon:
ALL AMER ICA PARK
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Preserved views
Fence Replacement
: :1 Aae
App endi x D
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
BREWER PARK
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular CiraJlation
Pattern
Preservedviewa
• Proposed Accessible Path
Fence Replacement
T_:
Appendix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
DA NT E FASCELL PAR K
L..-
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
~ ___ .-t-=;~I Vehicular Circulation < PreseNed views
Proposed Accessible Path
_ Fence Replacement
Appendi x 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
f---t ~=I Vehk:ular Circulation
< Preserved -MWS
• • • • Proposed Accessible Path
Tabulation:
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Legend
Parcel Boundary
f--~ ~:=I Vehicular Circulation
< Preserved views
• • • • Proposed ~ Path
rw---1
0' 60' 120'
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Fuchs Park 6445 SW 81st Street
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
FUCHS PA RK Appendix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
JEA N WiLliS PARK
L_nd
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Preserved views
Proposed Acc:essible Path
Fence Replacement
jgI 1Sx1S' Picnic Pavilion
:::I:1 Acrts
App end ix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MARSHAL L WI LLI AMSON PARK
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundery
Genera! Vehicular Circulation
Pattem
Prnerved vlr.w
• • Proposed Accessible Path
_ Fence Replacement
Appendix 0
SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MURRAY PAR K
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulatlon
Pattern
Preserved views
Proposed Accessible Path
~ Fence Replacement
Tabulation:
Appe nd ix 0
SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PALMER PARK
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
• • ) existing Pedestrian Circulation
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Preserved views
• • proposed AcC866Ib1e Path
_ Fence Reptacement
::t8Ac.rH
::t1!5
Appendix 0
SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SOU TH MIAMI PARK
~
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattem
Preserved views
Proposed _lllIa Pa1I1
Fence Replacement
~ 25)(25' Picnic Pavilion
Tabulation:
Appendix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SOUT H M IAMI PARK
South Miami Park Mister Pilin develop@d by"
Me Harry & Assodates In 2009.
App endix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SO UTH M IA MI PA RK
South M iam i Hammock Park Master PI.n
developed by LlndscapeOE .
::t:l0 Acres
Appendix D
SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Legend
Parcel Boundary
f--~ ~=I Vehicular Orculatlon < Preserved views
:::I:1Ac,e5
c.......;.......
n......r-I
0' 100' 200'
-CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Van Smith Park 7800 SW 59th Avenue
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
VAN SMITH PARK Appendix 0
SCHEMA TIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
LUDLAM ELEME NT ARY SCHOOL
L_nd
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
• • ) existing Pedestrian Circulation
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattern
Preserved views
• • Proposed Accessible Path
_ Fence Replacement
::t2Actes
Appendix 0
SCHEMATIC PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SW 68TH STREET BOAT LAU NCH
Parcel Boundary
Project Boundary
General Vehicular Circulation
Pattem
Preserved views
Proposed Accessible Path
Fence Reptaeement
App endi x 0
APPENDIX E
-Daily Park Maintenance Checklist
iii 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
iii Play surface
o Surface is clean, no litter or debris, free of hazards
o Play equipment and surface are in good repair
iii Hard-surface courts
o No litter, debris, or gravel
o Courts are in good repair, free of hazards
iii Shelter
o Clean, sanitary
o Shelter is in good repair and free of hazards
iii 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
iii Restrooms
o Toilets , urinals , & sink areas are clean and sanitary
o Mirrors, walls , & partitions are clean and san itary
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
iii Turf
o Grass is mowed to appropriate height
. -, -
iii Dugouts
o Dugouts are clean, no litter or debris
iii Lighting
o Functions properly, no burnt out bulbs
o Uniform coverage, no dark or blind spots
iii Trash
o Bottoms of receptacles are free o'f litter
o Receptacle exterior is clean
o Lids in place
iii Sand courts
o Free of weeds , grass, litter, and debris
iii Water fountains and hose bibs
o Clean, free of debris
iii Play areas
o Play equipment and surface hardware are in tact, no protrusions
iii Shelter
o No graffiti
o Staples from banners, posters, and decorations have been removed
iii Grills
o Used charcoal removed
iii 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
iii 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
iii Landscape
o Plant material appears healthy and properly-pruned
o Planting beds are free of litter, weeds, and debris
iii 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----~
o 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
o Furniture
o Surface is smooth; no sharp edges, protrusions, catch points
o No graffiti
o Field accessories
o Goals, tackling sleds, and pitching screens in good repair
o Scoreboards function; exterior in good repair
o 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
o Lighting
o Base and structure are sound and secure
o Electric boxes and conduits are secure
o Trash
o Paint is smooth; no chipping
o No rust or graffiti
o Play equipment
o No graffiti
o 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
o Fences/NeHing/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
o Sand courts
o Sand is loose
o Court end lines and sidelines are properly secured
o Water fountains and hose bibs
o Operational, no leaks
Appendix E
net~--. .. .
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
------+---------~-• --------~-------------+ ----------
0' Grills
o Operational, minimal rust and deterioration
o Grill racks are operational, and secured to main body
0' 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
0' Restrooms
o No graffiti
o Hand dryers are operational
o Stalls are secure and sturdy
o Hardware is in place, secure, and works correctly
0' 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
0' Landscape
o Mulch is consistent in appearance and distribution
o Plants mulched to appropriate depth
o No mounding evident at Crown of the plant
0' 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
o 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
o Dugouts
o Structure and roof is sound with no leaks
o Sign age
o Sign is legible, not faded
o Emergency signs are highly visible and secure
o Play equipment
o Play equipment meets ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards
o Age-appropriate signage is present
o 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
o 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 specifications
o Sand courts
o Surface is smooth, level, and well-drained
o Shelter
o Concrete has a smooth surface and no large cracks or holes
o Roof is clear of debris, intact, and has no leaking
o Grills
o Minimal grease buildup
o Foundations are intact, secure , and sturdy
o 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
o 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 L~~d5cc;;pe ----------------------
o Bed edges are neatly trimmed grass borders or other installed edging that is in good repair
Appendix E
I
APPENDIX F
Onl ine Publ ic Survey Results
With 214 respondents, the results of this online public survey represent approximately
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 48.3%
Under 13 13 to 17 31 14.7%
18 to 29 38 18%
13to17 30 to 45 108 51.2%
18 to 29 46 to 55 61 28.9%
30 to 45 56 t o 65 52 24.6%
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%
13t017 0 0%
18 t o 29 5 2.4%
30 to 45 95 44 .8%
46 ~o 55 48 22.6%
56 to 65 38 17 .9%
66+ 25 1'1.8%
Appendix F
4) What is your gender?
Fe m.ale 117 55.2%
M ale 95 44.8%
5) Are you a City of South Miami resident?
Yes 194 90 .7%
No 20 9.3%
6) What parks/facilities have you or other members of your h ousehold visited in the past year?
All-America ...
Brewer Park
D a nte Fasc ...
Dison Park
Dog Park
Fuchs Park
Gibson-BeL
Jean Willis ...
Marshall Wi!...
Murray Park ...
South Miam ...
Va n Smith ...
o
Appendix 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 -Bethel Community Center 66
Jean Willis Park 13
Marshall Williamson Park 15
Murray Park 39
Murray P.ark Aquatics Center 26
Palmer Park 79
South Miami Park 65
Van Smith Park 60
29.4%
29 .4%
68.6%
1 5.2%
27.5%
43 .1%
32.4%
6.4%
7.4%
19.1%
12.7%
38.7%
31.9%
29.4%
AII·American Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and
recreation facilities?]
Every day 5 4.5%
Several times a week 10 8.9%
Once a week 6 5.4 %
Every 2-3 weeks 6 5.4%
Once a month 2 1.8%
3 to 4 times a year 12 10.7%
1 to 2 times a year 13 11.6%
Less than once 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
recreation facilities?]
Every day 3 2.7 %
~ Everyday Several times a week 6 5.5%
Once a week 8 7 .3%
Several time .. ·0 Every 2-3 weeks 11 10%
Once a week 1 Once a month 7 6 .4%
Every 2-3 we .. I 3 to 4 times a year 10 9.1 %
J Once a month 1 to 2 times a year 16 14.5%
Less than once a year 7 6.4%
3 to 4 times a .. I Never 42 38.2%
1 to 2 times a .. I
Less than on .. ]
Neve r i
o 10 20 30 40
Dante Fasce ll Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and
rec reation facilities?]
Every day 11 6 .6 %
Ever:d:a:Y !!::::::::::~1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 Several time
Once a
Ever/2-3 we ... ~::::::::::
Once a month .
Several times a week 31 18.6%
Once aweel< 10 6 %
Every 2-3 weeks 19 11.4%
Once a month 19 11.4%
3 to 4 times a year 25 15%
1 to 2 times a year 22 13 .2 %
Less than once a year 12 7.2%
3 to 4 times a ... Never 18 10.8%
1 to 2 times a ...
Less than on ...
0 .0 7.5 15.0 22 .5 3 ...
Append ix F
Olson Park (7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and
recreation facilities?]
Every Clay 1%
Several times a week 7 7.2%
Once a week 3 3.1%
Every 2-3 weeks 4 4.1%
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 Clay 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 month 7 6 .5%
3 to 4 times a year 3 2.8%
1 to 2 times a year 14 13.1%
Less than once a year 18 16.8%
Never 43 40.2%
o 10 20 30 40
Fuchs Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's parks and
recreation facilities?]
Every day 0 0%
Several t imes a week 3 2 .3%
Once a week 11 8.6%
Every 2-3 weeks 11 8 .6%
Once a month 7 5 .5%
3 to 4 t imes a year 19 14.8%
1 to 2 times 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 time s a ...
Less than on ...
o B 16 24 32
Appendix F
Gibson-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 times 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 1.2%
Several times a weeK 1.2%
Every day
Once a weeK 2 2.3%
Severa l time ... Every 2-3 weeKs 1 1.2%
Once a wee k Once a month 3 3.5%
Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 1.2%
1 to 2 times a year 3 3.5%
Less than once a year 13 15 .1%
3 to 4 times a ... Never 61 70 .9%
1 to 2 times a ..
Less than on
Never
0 15 30 45
Marshall Williamson Park [7) How often do you or other members of your household visit the City's
parks and recreation facilities?]
Every day 0 0%
Several times a weeK 2 2 .3%
Once a weeK 2 2 .3%
Every 2-3 weeKs 1 1.1%
Once a Once a month 1.1%
3 to 4 t imes a year 4 4 .6%
1 to 2 times a year 4 4.6%
Less than once a year 10 11 .5%
Never 63 72 .4%
o 1 5 30 45 60
Ap pen dix F
Murray Park [7 ) How ofte n do y ou 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 1.1%
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%
Less than once a year 5 5.4%
Neve r 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 w eek 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%
Once a
Less than once a year 9 7.4%
Never 40 32.8%
o 10 20 30
App en dix 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%
Once a week 7 5.9%
Several time ... Every 2-3 weeks 3 2 .5%
Once a month 8 6 .7 %
3 to 4 times a year 8 6 .7 %
1 to 2 times a year 12 10 .1%
Less than once a year 7 5.9%
Never 49 41 .2%
1 to 2 times a ...
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?]
Eve ry day
Several time ... 1 ___ """
Once a week 1 __ ""
Ever'l2-3 we ...
Once a mo nth
3 to 4timesa ...
I===~ 1 to 2 times a ... 1 ___ --'
Less than on ... 1 ___ -'
Never
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 ti mes a year 11 9.1%
Less than once a year 10 8 .3%
Never 52 43%
All-American Park [8) How woul d you rate the con di tion of the City's parks and recreatio n facilities?]
Very poor 3 2 .5%
Veri poor 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
Appendix F
Brewer Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 1 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%
Veryllood
I am not sure
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dante Fascell Park [8) How wou ld you rate the condition of the C ity's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 4 2.4%
Very poor Poor 7 4 .1%
Fair 22 12 .9%
Poor
Good 57 33.5%
Fair Very good 59 34.7 %
Good I am not sure 21 12.4%
Veryllood
I am not sure
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%
Fair 15 13 .5%
Poor
Good 13 11 .7%
Fair Very good 5 4 .5%
Good I am not sure 70 63.1%
Veryllood
I am not sure
0 15 30 45 60
Dog Park (8) How wou ld you rate the condition of the Ci ty's parks and recreation facili ties?]
Very poor 1 0.9%
Very poor Poor 3 2 .7%
Fair 11 9.7%
Poor
Good 17 15%
Fa ir Very good 27 23 .9%
Good I am not sure 54 47 .8%
Verjgood
I am not sure
o 10 20 30 40 50
Appe nd ix F
Fuchs Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 5 3_6%
Veri poor =::J Poor 17 12 _1%
Fair 29 20 _7%
I Good 40 28_6%
Poor
Fair 1 Very good 12 8_6%
Good I I am not sure 37 26 _4%
Very good I
I am not sure ....J
o 10 20 30
Glbson-Bethel Community Center [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and
recreation facilities?]
Very poor 2 1_6%
Very poor Poor 4 3 _3%
Fair 12 9_8%
Poor
Good 29 23 _8%
Fair Very good 20 16 -4%
Good I am not sure 55 45 _1%
Very good
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 2 2%
Very poor Poor 4 4%
Fair 8 8_1%
Poor
Good 13 13 _1%
Fair Very good 3 3%
Good I am not sure 69 69 _7%
Very good
I am not sure
0 15 30 45 60
Marshall Wi lliamson Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation
facilities?]
Very poor 3 3%
Very poor Poor 2 2%
Fair 9 9%
Poor
Good 11 11%
Fair Very good 1 1 %
Good I am not sure 74 74%
Ver/good
I am not sure
o 15 30 45 60
App en dix F
Murray Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 0 .9%
Very poor Poor 4 3.7%
Fair 13 12%
Poor
Good 21 19.4%
Fai r Very good 5 4 .6%
Good I am not sure 64 59.3%
Very good
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 wou ld you rate the condition of the C ity's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 1 0 .8%
Very poor ] Poor 7 5.6%
Fair 18 14.4%
Poor 1 Good 38 3 0 .4%
Fair I Very good 13 10 .4%
Good I I am not sure 48 38.4%
Ve ry good I
I am not su re 1
0 10 20 30 40
South Miami Park [8) How would you rate the condition of the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 23 18 .1%
Veri poor Poor 16 12 .6%
Fair 18 14.2%
Poor
Good 10 7.9%
Fa ir Very good 0 0%
Good I am not sure 60 47.2%
Veri good
I am not sure '
o 10 20 30 40 50
Appe nd ix F
Van Smith Park [8) How would you rate the cond it ion of the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Very poor 4 3 .2%
Very poor Poor 9 7 .1%
Fair 16 12.7 %
Poor
Good 24 19%
Fair 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 feel 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%
I am not sure 44 28 .6%
Major Improv ...
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 im prov ...
Major Impro v ...
o 10 20 30 40
Minor improvements 21 14.2%
Moderate improvements 28 18 .9%
Major Improvements 18 12.2%
I am not sure 42 28 .4%
Basketball courts [9) What do you feel needs improveme nt at the City's parks a nd recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 36 25.5%
Fine as-is Minor improvements 17 12.1%
Minor impro v ... Moderate improvements 22 15.6 %
Major Improvements 22 15.6%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 44 31 .2%
Major Improv ...
I am not sure
o 10 20 30 40
App endi x F
Picnic areas (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fi ne as-is 25 15.3%
Fine as-is I Minor improvements 22 13.5%
Minor improv _. I Moderate improvements 49 30 _1%
MajOr Improvements 47 28 .8%
Moderate im .. I I am not sure 20 12.3%
Major Impro v __ I
I am not sure 1
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%
Fine Minor improvements 14 8.6%
Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 51 31 .5%
Major Improvements 49 30.2%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 20 12.3%
Major Improv ...
o 10 20 30 40 50
Cleanliness (9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 28 17 _8%
Fine Minor improvements 33 21%
Minor improv ...
Moderate improvements 51 32 .5 %
Major Improvements 32 2 0 .4%
Moderate im __ . I am not sure 13 8.3%
Major Impro v ...
o 10 20 30 40 50
Parkin g (9) What do you fee l needs Improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 39 25 .3%
Fine as-is Minor improvements 23 14.9%
Mino r impro v _ ..
Moderate improvements 41 26 .6%
Major Improvements 28 18.2%
Moderate im _ .. I am not sure 23 14.9 %
Major Improv ...
I am not su re
o 10 20 3 0 40
App en dix F
Bathrooms [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fi ne as-is 18 1 0 .5%
Fine Minor improvements 20 11.7%
Minor impro v._. Moderate improvements 45 26 .3%
Majo r Improvements 64 37.4%
Moderate im._. I am not sure 24 14%
Major Improv . __
o 15 30 45 60
Security [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 29 19.3%
Fine Mi nor improvements 26 17.3%
Minor improv ... Moderate improvements 29 19.3%
Major Improvemen ts 34 22.7%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 32 21 .3%
Major Improv ._.
o 8 16 24 32
Concessions [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fi ne as-is 35 24 .1%
Fine as-is I Mi nor improvements 10 6 .9 %
Moderate improvements 19 13 .1%
Major Improvements 36 24.8% I Minor improv._
Moderate im._ I I am not sure 45 31%
Major Impro v._ I
I am not sure I
o 10 20 30 40
Other buildings [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation faCilities?]
Fine as-is 32 23.2%
Fine Minor improvemen ts 12 8 _7%
Moderate improvemen ts 20 14 .5% Mi nor i mprov .. _
Major Improvements 15 10.9%
Moderate im . __ I am not sure 59 42.8%
Major Improv . __
o 10 20 30 40 50
Appendix F
Playgrounds [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 28 17 .7%
Fine Minor improvements 27 17.1%
Moderate improvements 46 29 .1%
Major Improvements 35 22.2%
I am not sure 22 13 .9%
o 10 20 30 40
Furniture (i.e. benches, tables, trashcans) [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 20 12.9%
Fine as-is Minor improvements 22 14 .2%
Moderate improvements 56 36.1%
Minor improv ...
Major Improvements 38 24.5%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 19 12.3%
Major Improv ...
I am not sure
o 10 20 30 40 50
Sidewalks/Paths [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation faCilities?]
o 10 20 30 40
Fine as-is 39 23.6%
Minor improvements 25 15.2%
Moderate improvements 43 26.1 %
Major Improvements 38 23%
I am not sure 20 12.1%
General maintenance [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 28 18.5%
Fine Minor improvements 27 17.9%
Mino r improv ...
Moderate improvements 50 33.1%
Major Improvements 30 19.9%
I am not sure 16 10 .6%
Major Improv ...
lam not
o 10 20 30 40
Appen dix F
Lig ht ing [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
F ine as-is 33 20 .6%
Fine as-is I Mino r improvements 26 16 .3%
I Minor improv ..
Moderate imp rovements 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 Minor improvements 25 15 .3%
Minor improv ...
Moderate improvements 37 22 .7%
Major Improvements 40 24 .5%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 19 11 .7 %
Major Improv ...
o 10 20 30 40
Signage [9) What do you feel needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation faCilities?)
Fine
Minor improv ...
Moderate im ...
Major Improv ...
o 10 20 30 40
Fine as-is 44 30 .1 %
Minor improvements 20 13 .7 %
Moderate improvements 24 16.4%
MajOr Improvements 28 19 .2%
I am not sure 30 20 .5%
Exercise eq uipment [9) What do you fee l needs improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?)
Fine as-is 31 20 .7%
Fine Minor improvements 18 12%
Minor improv ...
Moderate improvements 32 21 .3%
Major Improvements 42 28 %
Moderate im ... I am not sure 27 18%
Major Improv ...
o 10 20 30 40
Appe ndi x F
Natura l Areas [9) What do you feel needs Improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 36 22.8%
Fine Minor improvemen ts 18 11.4%
Mino r improv ... Moderate improvement s 43 27.2 %
Major Improvemen ts 40 2 5.3%
Moderate im ... I am not sure 21 13 .3%
Major Improv ...
o 10 20 3D 40
Landscape areas [9) What do you feel needs Improvement at the City's parks and recreation facilities?]
Fine as-is 38 2 3 .3%
Fi ne Minor improvement s 20 1 2 .3%
Minor improv ...
Moderate improvement s 44 27%
Major Improvements 38 2 3.3 %
Moderate im ... I am not sure 23 14.1%
Maj or Improv ...
I am not
o 10 20 3D 40
10) What City programs offered by the Parks and Rec reation Department have you, or any members of your household,
participated in with in the past year?
Youth tenni. .. I============~ ____ ....,
Youth socc ... I=====::::; ____________ ......
Youth tackL.., _____ _
Youth cheer. ..
Sw imming 1. .. 1===:::;-___ ---'
Water aerob ... I===~_..,
Boot camp ... 1====::::;_
Zumba at C .. . 1------'
Senior cent...
After schooL ..
One-day ca .. I===~.,
Summer ca ... I~ ___ '"
Winter camp
Spring brea ..
o
Appendi x F
5 10 15 20 25
Youth tennis at Dante Fascell ParI< 19 26%
Youth soccer at South Miami ParI< 28 38.4%
Youth tacl<le football at Murray ParI< and Pa lmer ParI< 9 12.3%
Youth cheer leading at Murray Pari< and Palmer ParI< 4 5 .5%
Sw imm ing lessons at Murray ParI< Aquatic Center 13 17.8%
Water aerobics at Murray Park Aquatic Center 6 8 .2%
Boot camp at Commu nity Center 9 12.3%
Zumba at Community Center 8 11 %
Senior center activities and classes 2 2 .7 %
After school programs at the Community Center 4 5.5%
One-day camps 5 6 .8%
Summer camp 7 9 .6%
Winter camp 4 5 .5%
Spring breal< camp 4 5 .5%
Yo uth tennis (11) How often do you, o r other members of your household , partici pate In any City
programs offered by the Parks and Re creation Department?]
Every day 0 .7%
Se veral times a wee k 2 1.4%
Every day Once a wee k 6 4.2%
Seve ral ti me ... Eve ry 2-3 we eks 1 0.7 %
Once a mo nlh 2 1.4%
3 to 4 limes a year 6 4.2%
1 to 2 limes a year 3 2.1%
Less Iha n once a year 4 2.8%
Never 117 82.4%
25 50 75 100
Youth s occer (11) How ofte n do you, o r other m embers of your household, participate In any City
programs offered by t he Parks and Re creat i on Department?]
Every day 0.7%
Several limes a week 15 9.9%
Once a week 6 3.9%
Every 2-3 weeks 1 0 .7%
Once a monlh 0 0%
Every 2·3 we ... 3 to 4 limes a year 1 0.7%
Once a month
1 to 2 limes a year 2 1.3%
Less than once a year 5 3.3%
3 to H mes a ... Ne ver 121 79.6%
1 10 2 times a ..
l ess tha n on ...
Neve r •••••••••••••••••••
25 50 75 100
Youth tackle football (11) How often do you, or other me mbers of yo ur household, pa rticl pa ta i n any City
progra ms offered by the Parks and Rec reation Departm ent?]
Every day 2 1 .4%
Several times a wee k 4 2 .9%
Everyday Once a wee k 1 0 .7%
Several time ... Every 2-3 weeks 0 0%
Once a week Once a mo nth 0 .7 %
Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 times a year 0 0%
Once a mo nth
1 to 2 times a year 1 0 .7%
Less than once a yea r 6 4.3%
3 to 4 tim es a ... Never 123 69.1%
1 to 2 times a ...
l ess th an on ...
Nevar ••••••••••••••••••
25 50 75 100
Youth chee rl eadl ng (11) How oftan do you, or other members of your household, participate In any City
programs offered by tha Parks and Recreat ion Dep artment?]
Every day 0 .7%
Several times a week 0 .7%
Every day Once a week 0.7%
Seve ral time ... Every 2-3 wee ks 0%
Once a week Once a mo nth 0 0%
Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 tim es a year 0 0%
Once a month
1 to 2 times a year 0 0%
Less than once a year 3.7%
3to4timesa ... Never 127 94 .1%
1 to 2 times a ...
Less than on ...
30 60 90 120
Appendix F
Swi mm ing lessons [11) How often do you, or other membe rs of your house hold, pa rtici pate in any City
programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?]
Every day 0%
Several times a week 2.2%
Ev.", day Once a week 2.2%
Every 2-3 weeks 0%
Once a month 0.7%
3 to 4 times a year 0%
1 to 2 times a year 4 2.9%
Less tha n once a year 5.8%
Never 11 9 86.2%
25 50 75 100
Water aerobics [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, partic i pate in any City
progra ms offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?]
Every day
Several time ...
o 25 50 75 100
Every day o 0%
Several times a week 0.7 %
Once a week
Every 2-3 weeks
3.7%
0%
Once a month 0%
3 to 4 times a year 0.7%
1 to 2 times a year 0.7 %
Less than once a year 4 3%
Never 123 91 .1%
Boot camp [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate In a ny City p rograms
offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?]
Every day 0 0%
Several times a week 5 3.6%
Every day Once a week 2 1.5%
Several time ... Every 2-3 weeks 0.7%
Once aW8ek Once a month 1 0.7%
Eve"'2-3 w •... 3 to 4 times a year 2 1.5%
1 to 2 times a year 0.7%
Once a month
Less than once a year 3 2.2%
3 to 4 times a .. Never 122 89.1%
1 to 2 times a
Less tha n on
Never
25 50 75 100
Zumba [11) How often do you, or other members of your househol d , participate in any City programs
offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?]
Every day 0 0%
Several Urnes a week 4 2.9%
Every day Once a week 0.7%
Several lime ... Every 2-3 weeks 0.7%
Once aweek Once a month 0 0%
Every 2-3 we .. 3 to 4 times a year 0 0%
1 to 2 times a year 3 2.2%
Once a month
Less 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 classes [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 we ek 0 .7%
Everyday Onc e a week 0 .7%
Severa l ti me ... Every 2-3 weeks 0 .7%
once a we ek Once a month 0.7%
EV81}' 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 tim es a yea r 0%
t to 2 ti mes a year 0 .7 %
QnC9 a mo nth
Les s than onc e a year 4 2 .9%
3 to 4 times a ... Never 127 93.4 %
1 to 2 times a ...
l ess than on ..
Naver •••••••••••••••••••
30 60 90 120
After-llchool programs [11) How often do you, or other members of your household, participate In any
City programs offerad by the Parks and Recreation Department?)
Everyday
Severa l time ...
Qn ce a wee k
Every 2-3 we ...
once a month
3to 4 times a
1 to 2 times a._
Less th an on ..
Neve r •••••••••••••••••••
30 60 90 120
Every day 3 2 .2%
Several times a wee k 0.7%
Onc e a we ek
Eve ry 2-3 wee ks
Once a month
3 to 4 tim es a year
1 to 2 times a yea r
Less than onc e a year 4
0 %
0%
0%
0 .7%
0 .7 %
2 .9%
Never 126 92.6%
One-day camps [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 0%
Every da y Once a week 2 1.5%
Severa l time .. Every 2-3 weeks 0 0%
once a wee k Once a month 0 .7%
Every 2-3 we ... 3 to 4 Um es a year 4 2 .9%
1 to 2 times a y ear 0 0%
Once a month
Less than on ce a yea r 4 2.9%
Neve r 125 91.9%
25 50 75 100
Summer camp [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
Se vera l time ..
Once a wee k
Every 2-3 we ...
Once a month
3 to 4 times a ..
25 50 75 100
. Every day 0.7%
Seve ral times a week 0.7%
Once a wee k
Every 2-3 wee ks
Once a month
3 to 4 ti mes a year
1 to 2 times a yea r
Les s than once a yea r
o
o
0%
0%
0 .7%
0%
2.2%
3.7%
Never 124 9 1.9%
Appendix F
Winter camp [11) How oftan do you, or other members of your household, participate In any City
programs offered by the Parka and Recreation Department?)
Every day 0 0%
Several times a week 0.7%
Every day Once a wee k 0 .7%
Several time ... Every 2-3 weeks 0 0%
Once a week Oncea month 0 0%
Every 2-3 Vl8 ... 3 to 4 times a year 0 0%
1 to 2 times a year 4 3% Once a month
Les s th an once a year 4 3%
3 to 4-tim es a ... Never 124 92.5%
25 50 75 100
Spring break camp [11) Howoftan do you, or other members of your househol d, participate In any City
program. offered by the Parks and Recreation Department?)
Every day 0 0%
Several ti mes a week 1.5%
Every day Once a wee k 0.7%
Several time ... Every 2-3 wee ks 0 0%
Once a week Once a month 0 0%
Every 2-3 wa ... 3 to 4 times a ye ar 0 0%
1 to 2 times a year 2.2% Oncaa month
Less than once a yea r 5 3 .7%
3 to 4 times a ... Never 125 91.9%
25 50 75 100
Youth tennis [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very po or 4 3%
Very poor Poor 2 1.5%
Fair 9 6 .8%
Poo r
Good 13 9.8%
Fair v ery gOOd 10 7.5%
Goo d I am not su re 95 71 .4%
Very goo d
I am not sure
20 40 60 80
Youth soccer [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?)
very poor 11 7.6%
Very poor Poo r 4 2.8%
Fair 4 .9% Poor
Good 4.2%
Fair very gOOd 11 7.6%
Good I am not sure 105 72.9%
Very good
I am not sure
25 50 75 100
Youth tackle football [12) How wou ld you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?)
very poo r 1.6%
Very poor Poo r 0.8%
Fair 3.9%
Poo r
Good 6.3%
Fair Very goo d 4 3.1%
Good I am not sure 108 84.4 %
Very goad
l am not su re ••••••••••••••••••
25 50 75 100
Ap pen dix F
Youth cheerleading (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 poo r
Poor
1
o
0.8%
0 %
Fai r 6 4.8%
GOOd 5 4%
Very good 3 2.4%
I am not sure 111 88 .1 %
Swimming lessons (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very poor 0 .8%
Very poor Poor 3 2 .3%
Fair 8 6.2%
Poor
Good 8 6 .2%
Fair Very good 6 4.7 %
Good I am not sure 103 79 .8%
Veryoood
I am not su re
0 25 50 75 100
Water aerobics [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very poor
Poor
Fa ir
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%
I am not sure 110 86 .6%
Boot camp [12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Veri poor
Poor
Fa ir
Good
Very good
I am not sure
o 25 50 75 100
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
2
1
4
5
1.6%
0 .8%
3 .2%
4%
Very good 5 4 %
I am not sure 109 86 .5%
App en dix F
Zumba (12) How wo ul d you rate the qua li ty of t he City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very poor 0.8%
Very poor Poor 0 0%
Fair 3 2 .4%
Poor
Good 7 5.6%
Fa ir Very go od 3 2 .4%
Good I am not 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 poo r Poor 0 0%
Fa ir 3 2.4%
Poor
Good 4 3 .2%
Fai r Very good 5 4%
Good I am not sure 111 88.8%
Very good
I am not sure
0 25 50 75 100
After-school programs (12 ) How would you rate the q uality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very poor 0.8%
Very poo r Poor 3 2 .4%
Fa ir 8 6 .3%
Poor
Goo d 4 3.1%
Fa ir Very good 3 2.4%
Good I am not sure 108 85%
Very go od
I am not sure
0 25 50 75 100
One-day camps (12) How woul d you rate t he quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
Very poor 0.8%
Veri poor Poor 5 3.9%
Fa ir 5 3.9%
Poor Good 7 5.4%
Fair Very good 3 2 .3%
Go od I am not sure 108 83 .7%
Very good
I am not sure
o 25 50 75 100
Appe ndix F
Summer camp (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreatio n programs?]
Very poo r 0.8%
Very 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%
Very good
I am notsure
a 25 50 75 100
Winter camp (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation prog rams?]
Very poor 0 .8%
Very poo r Poor 4 3.1%
Fair 5 3.9%
Poor
Good 7 5.5%
Fair Very good 3 2 .4%
Go od I am not sure 107 84 .3%
Very good
I am not sure
0 25 50 75 100
Spring break camp (12) How would you rate the quality of the City's Parks and Recreation programs?]
V e ry poor 0 .8%
Very po or Poor 4 3.1%
Fair 5 3 .9%
Poo r
Good 6 4 .7%
Fai r Very good 3 2 .4%
Good I am not sure 108 85%
Very good
I am not sure
o 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%
Music · Festivals 128 66 .3%
Farmers' markets 162 83.9%
Educational/Cultural events 99 51 .3%
Holiday celebrations 109 56.5%
Ed ucation al / ...••••
Community picnics 85 44%
Outdoor movie screenings 117 60.6 %
Holid ay ce le ... Other 20 10 .4%
Commun ity p ...
Ou tdoor m OL .
o 40 80 120
Appendi x F
14) Do you, or other members of your household, current ly use/participate in any ·of the foll owing facilities/activities?
r
I ::::J
Socce
Softba l
Tennis
Footbal I ::::J
I Basketbal
Batting ca •.
Racquetb ..
.:1
.::J
'1=:1 Volleybal
lacrosse
Multi-use ..
Aerobics ...
.Is
Picnic are ..
Sheltersf ..
leisurely ...
Paved . m ..
On-street.
Jogging p ...
Bocce
Disc Golf
Horsesho ..
Off-teash ...
Shufflebo ..
g
.0
.I~ Skate park
Roller ho ..
Playgrou ..
Boat ramps
Canoeing ...
Water ac ..
Nature ex. ..
I
1-
Nature trai
Observat .
MsiMusi ..
Cultura l e ...
Communi ..
Performin ..
Art in pubL.
Amphithe ..
Concessi ..
Meet ing L : I::::::J
Indoor fitn ..
II
I
Badminton
Picklebal
Kickbal 11==:1
o
Appendix F
30
I
60 90 120
Soccer 4a 24.6%
Sofiba ll
Tennis
Football
Basketba ll
Batting cage
RacQuetbalilhandba ll
Vo ll eyba ll
Lacrosse
Multi-use fie lds (e .g. cr icket, lacrosse )
Aerobics and exe rc ise classes
Picnic areas (e .g . tab les and grill S)
SheltersiPav il ions
Le isurely walk ing
Paved , multi-use trailsl bi ke paths
On-street bic ycle lanes
Jogging path
Bocce
Disc Golf
Horseshoes
Off-leash dog pa rks
Shuffleboard
Skate park
Roller hoc key
Pla ygrou nds
Boat ramps
Canoeing/Kayaking
Water access for bank/pier-fishing
Nature exhib it
Nature trail
Observatory
Arts/Music events
Cu ltu ral events
Community gardens
Perform in g arts
Art in pu blic spaces
Amphitheaters
Co ncessions
Meeting facilities
Indoor fitness and exercise facilities
Badm in to n
Pic kleba ll
Kickball
6
45
12
32
6
9
12
6
6
44
86
67
130
93
88
83
5
7
2
43
14
2
67
30
59
26
42
97
25
82
62
47
49
58
22
22
17
51
2
1
15
3.1%
23.1%
62%
16.4%
3.1%
4.6%
62%
3.1%
3.1%
22 .6%
44 .1 %
34.4%
66.7%
47.7%
45.1%
42 .6%
2 .6%
3.6%
1%
22 .1 %
0.5%
72%
1%
34.4%
15.4%
30.3%
13.3%
21.5%
49 .7%
12.8%
42.1%
31.8%
24.1%
25.1%
29.7%
11 .3%
11 .3%
8.7%
262%
1%
0.5%
7.7%
Soccer [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:]
Strong ly desL.
o 10 20 30 40 50
Not desired 41 25 .3%
Somewhat not des ired 4 2.5%
Neutral 36 22.2%
Somewhat desired 25 15.4%
Strongl y desired 56 34 .6%
Softball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/faci lities:]
Not desired 48 35 .6%
Not Somewhat not desired 1 5.2%
Neutral 48 35 .6%
Somewhat desired 16 11 .9%
Strongly desired 16 11 .9%
Strong ly d es L .
o 10 20 30 40
Tennis [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 30 20%
Not Somewhat not desired 6 4%
Neutral 29 19.3%
Somewhat desired 31 24.7%
Strongly desired 48 32%
Somewhat d ...
Stro ngly d esL.
o 10 20 30 40
Football [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreat ional activities/facilities:]
Not desired 50 36.2%
Not Somewhat not desired 7 5.1 %
Neutral 52 37 .7%
Somewhat des ired 6 4.3%
Strongly desired 23 16 .7 %
Stro ngly d esL.
o 10 20 30 40 50
Appe nd ix F
Basketball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesJfacilities:]
Not des ired 35 24 .8%
StronglydesL =::::::::: ••••••••
o 10 20
Somewhat not des ired 4 2.8%
Neutral 40 28.4%
Somewhat des ired 22 15.6%
Strongly des ired 40 28.4%
Baseball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 44 33.6%
N otdes~ed l-______________ --'I
Somew hat n ... I::::J
~~ I
Somewhatd ... t====:;j-------------....
Strongly desL ~=======::::::l
o 10 20 30 40
Somewhat not desired 7 5.3%
Neutral 49 37 .4%
Somewhat desired
Strongl y desired
12
19
9.2%
14 .5%
Batting cag e [115) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 46 34 .6%
Not des ired ••••••••••••••••••
Somewhat n ...
Somewhat not desired 5 3.8%
Neutral 45 33 .8%
Somewhat desired 16 12%
Neutral
Somewhatd ...••••••
Strongly desired 21 15.8%
StronglydesL
o 10 20 30 40
Racquetballlhandball [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 40 30 .8%
Somewhat not desired 9 6.9%
Neutral 46 35.4%
Somewhat desired 16 12.3%
Strongly desired 19 14.6%
StronglydesL
o 10 20 30 40
Volleyball [115) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 40 28%
Not des ired Somewhat not desired 4 2.8%
Somewhat n ...
Somewhat d ...
Strongly desL.
o
Appendix F
10 20 30
Neutral 40 28%
Som ewhat desired 37 25 .9%
Strongl y des ired 22 15.4%
Lacrosse [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacillties:)
Not desired 52 39.4%
Not Somewh at not desired 10 7.6%
Neutral 53 40.2%
Som ewhat desired 7 5.3%
Strongly desi red 10 7.6%
Somewhat d ...
Strongly desi ...•••
o 10 20 30 40 50
Multi-use fields (e .g. cricket, lacrosse) [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these
recreational activitiesJfacll ities:]
Not desired 44 33.3%
Not desired •••••••••••••••• Somewh at not desired 5 3.8%
Neutra l 47 35.6% Somewhat n ...
Som ewh at des ired 18 13.6%
Strongly desired 18 13.6%
NeutrslEr--Somewhat d ...
Strongly desi...
o 10 20 30 40
Aerobics or exercise classes [15) Rate you r, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitiesJfacl l ities:]
Not des ired 29 20.3%
Not desired I Somewh at not desired 3 2.1%
Somewhatn ... tJ Neutral 31 21 .7%
Som ewhat des ired 30 21%
Neutral I Strongl y desired 50 35%
Somewhs t d ... J
Strongly desi .. I
0 10 20 30 40
Picnic areas (e.g . tables, grills) [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitiesJfac ilities:]
Not desired 15 10%
Not Somewhat not desired 1 0 .7%
Neutral 19 12.7%
Somewhat desired 35 23.3%
Strongly des ired 80 53.3%
Somewhatd ... ~:::::::~ ••••••••• Strongly des i ...•
o 20 40 60
Shelters/Pavilions [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activ itiesJfaci l ities:]
Not desired 12 8 .6%
Not des ired ••• Somewhat not desi re d 3 2 .1%
Neutral 24 17.1% Somewhat n ...
Som ewhat desired 29 20.7%
Strongl y desired 72 5 1.4%
somew hat d ... ~=:"
Strong ly des i. .. ;iii
o 15 30 45 60
Ap pe ndix F
Leis urely walking [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesifacll ities:]
Not desired 9 5.5%
Notdes~ed Somewhat not desired 4 2.4%
Somewh atn ... Neutral 13 7.9%
Somewhat desired 35 21.3%
Strongly desired 103 62 .8% Neutral
Somewhatd ... ~::::: •••••••••••
strongly des i....
o 25 50 75 100
Paved, multi-use trails I bike paths [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 16 10%
Not des ired Somewhat not desired 3 1.9%
Som ewhatn ... Neutral 14 8.8%
Somewhat desired 19 11.9%
Neutral Strongly desired 108 67 .5%
Somewh at d ...
Strong ly desi ...•••• IIII.II •••••••••
25 50 75 100
On-street bicycle lanes [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitieslfacllitles:]
Not desired 21 13.5%
N otd es ~ed •••• Somewhat not desired 1 0.6%
Neutral 21 13.5% Somewhatn ...
Somewhat desired 21 13.5%
Strongly desired 92 59% Neutral=-_
Somewhat d .. .
strong ly desi .. .
o 20 40 60 80
Jogging path [is) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 17 11%
Not desired I Somewhat not desired 4 2.6%
I] Neutral 20 13% Somewh atn ...
Somewhat desired 30 19.5%
Neutra l I Strongly desired 83 53 .9%
Somewhat d .. I
Strongly desi.. I
0 20 40 60 80
Bocce [is) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities :]
Not desired 43 34.7%
Notdesdre<I ••••••••••• Somewhat not desired 5 4%
Neutral 56 45 .2% Somew hatn ...
Somewhat desired 15 12.1 %
Strongly desired 5 4%
So mewh at d ...•••••
Strongly desi. ..
o 10 20 30 40 50
App endix F
Disc Golf (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:]
Not des ired 50 40.3%
Not des ired Somewh at not des ired 7 5.6%
Somewhat n ... Neutral 46 37.1%
Somewhat desired 13 10.5%
St rongl y desired 8 6.5%
Somewhat d ...
Strongly des !...
o 10 20 30 40
Horseshoes (15 ) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Somewhat u ... _._
Strongly Oe5L.I._
o 10 20 30 40 50
Not desired 52 42 .6%
Somewhat not desired 5 4.1%
Neutral 53 43.4%
Somewh at desired 7 5.7%
Strongly desired 5 4.1 %
Off-leash dog parks (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitieslfaci lities:]
Not des ired 41 28 .9%
Not des ired •••••••••••••••••
Somewhat n ...
Somewhat not desired 5 3.5%
Neutral 30 21.1%
Neutral ••••••••••••
Somewhat desi red 22 15.5%
Strongly des ired 44 31%
Somewhat d ...•••••••••
Strongly desi ...
o 10 20 30 40
Shuffleboard (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activit ies!facilities:]
Not desired 55 44.4%
Not Somew hat not desired 6 4 .8%
Neutral 53 42.7%
Somew hat desired 8 6 .5%
Strongly desired 2 1.6%
Stro ng ~1 des !...
o 10 20 30 40 50
Skate park (16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreationa l activities/facilities:]
Not desire d 48 36.1 %
Not des ir ed I Somew hat not desired 10 7.5%
Somewhat n ... J Neutral 42 31 .6%
Somew hat desired 17 12.8%
Neutra l I Strongly desi red 16 12%
Somewhat d ... I
Strongly desL I
0 10 20 30 40
App endi x F
Roller hockey (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not des ired 54 44_3%
-Not desired
Somewhat n __ .•••••
Somewh at d __ .
Strongly d es L..
o 10 20 30 40 50
Somewhat not desired 13 10 _7%
Neutral 47 38 _5%
Somewhat desired
Strongly desired
2 1_6%
6 4_9%
Playgrounds (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitiesJfacilities:]
Not desired 24 16 _3%
Not desired Somewhat not desired 3 2%
Somewhat n __ .
Neutral
So mewh at d _ ..••••••••
Strong ly desi...
o 15 30 45 60
Neutral 27 18.4%
Somew hat desired 27 18.4%
Strongly desired 66 44 _9 %
Boat ram ps (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational aetivitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 41 30 _1%
Strongly desL..
o 10 20 30 40
Somewhat not desired 7 5_ 1 %
Neutral 44 32 .4%
Somew hat desired 20 14.7%
Strongly desired 24 17 _6%
Canoelng/Kayaking (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitleslfacilities:]
Not des ired •••••••••
Somewhat n __ _
NeutralEi::::....
Somewh at d __ .
Strongly desL.
o 10 20 30 40 50
Not desired 28 19 _6%
Somewhat not desired 4 2.8%
Neutral 21 14.7%
Somewhat 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 desired ••••••••••••
Somewhat n __ _
Somewhat not desired 4 3_1 ~b
Neutral 43 33 _3%
somewhatd __ -1:::~:;--
Stro ngly desL _;
Somewhat desired 22 17 _1%
Strongl y desired 31 24%
o 10 20 30 40
Appendix F
Nature exhibit [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desi r e for these recreationa l activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 24 16.9%
Not desired 1 __________ ... 1
Somewhat n ... I::::J
Ne utra l l----------~-...,J
Somewhat d ... 1===============1;---""
Strong ly desi... !::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I
o 10 20 30 40
Somewhat not desired 5 3.5%
Neutral 41 28 .9%
Somewhat desired
Strong ly des ired
33
39
23 .2%
27 .5%
Nature trail [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desi re for these recreationa l activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 20 12.5%
Not Somewhat not desired 0.6%
Neutral 17 10 .6%
Somewhat desired 40 25%
Stro ngl y desired 82 51 .3%
StrOngly:::::~===:' ___ •
o 20 40 60 80
Observatory [16) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitleslfacilitles:]
Not desired 30 22 .7%
N otdes ~ed •••••••••••••
Somewhat n ...
Somewhat not desired 2 1.5%
Neutral 31 23 .5%
som"VI.~h~a:t :d .• • .. =:::::::::::~: •••• Strongly':esi...
Somewhat des ired 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 Some what not desired 4 2.7%
Neutral 16 10.9%
Somewha1 desi red 38 25 .9%
Strong ly desired 71 48.3%
Strongly desi.. .•••••••••
o 15 30 45 60
Cultural events (15) Rate your, and other members of y our househo ld's, desire for these recreationa l activitieslfacilities :]
Not desired 18 12.7%
o 15 30 45 60
Somewhat not desired 3 2.1%
Neutral 18 12.7%
Somew hat desired 39 27 .5%
Strong ly desired 64 45.1 %
App endi x F
Community gardens [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreati onal
activitlesJfacllities:]
Not desired 19 12.8%
Not des ired •••••
Somewhat n ...
Somewhat not des ire d 5 3.4%
Neutral 24 16.1%
Ne utral==--Somewh at d .. .
Strongly des i .. .
Somewhat des ired 39 26.2%
Strongly des ired 62 41.6%
o 15 30 45 60
Performing arts [1 5) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activities/facilities:]
Not desired 22 15.9%
Notd es~ed I Somewh at not desired 5 3.6%
Somewhatn ... I::J Neutral 22 15.9%
Som ewh at desired 36 26.1%
Neutral I Strongly desired 53 38.4%
Somewhat d ... I
Strongly desi. .. 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
activitiesHacilitles:]
Not desired 23 15.8%
N ot des~ed •••••• 1 Somewhat not desired 4 2.7%
Somew hatn ... Neutral 16 11%
Somewh at desired 42 28.8%
Strongly des ired 61 41.8%
Neutral&:=--Somewhat d .. .
strongly des i .. .
o 15 30 45
Amphitheaters [15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 29 22 .8%
Not Somewhat not desired 2 1.6%
Neutral 31 24 .4%
Somewhat desired 32 25.2%
Strongly desired 33 26%
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 Somew hat not desired 9 6 .9%
Somewhat n ... Neutral 37 28.2%
Somewhat desired 25 19.1%
Strongl y desired 28 2 1.4%
Strongly desi...
o 8 16 24 32
Appen di x F
Meeting facilities [1S) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activltieslfacilities:]
Not desired 39 30.5%
Not des ired •••••••••••••••••
Som ew hat n ...
Somewh at not desired 5 3.9%
Neutra l 39 30.5%
Neutr al =:::-
Somewhat d ...
Strongly desi...
Somewhat desired 19 14.8%
Strongl y desired 26 20.3%
o 8 16 24 32
Indoor fitness and exercise facilities [1S) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational
activitieslfacilities:)
Not desired 24 17%
Not desi red •••••••• Somewhat not desired 1 5%
Somewhatn ... Neutral 25 17.1%
Ne utral==--Somew hat d .. .
Strongly desi .. .
Som ew hat desired 30 21.3%
Strongl y desired 55 39%
o 10 20 30 40 50
Badminton [1S) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not des ired 51 40.8%
Not desired 1-_______________ ...... 1
Somewhat n ... p
Neutrall---------------.I t==:::::;-------'
Somewhat d... I
Strongly des i... ::::::J
o '10 20 30 40 50
Somewh at not desired 1 5.6%
Neutral 49 39.2%
Somewhat desired
Strongly desired
12
6
9.6%
4.8%
Pickleball (15) Rate your, and other m embers 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%
Stro ngl y desired 3 2.4%
o 10 20 30 40 50
Kickball (15) Rate your, and other members of your household's, desire for these recreational activitieslfacilities:]
Not desired 43 34 .1%
Not Some what not desired 6 4.8%
Strongly des i...
o 10 20 30 40 50
Neutral 53 42 .1%
Somewhat desired 15 11.9%
Strongl y desired 9 7.1%
Appendix F
16 ) Are there any City parks you are re l uctant to use, and if so, what is t he primary reas on you are re l uctant to use the park?
I am not re lucta nt to use this park 38 44 _7%
Programm ing and fees 0 0%
Safety 3 3 _5%
Conditions offacil ities/grounds 6 7 _1%
Distance from home 6 7 _1%
Pa rking 3 3.5%
Better non-City facility 0 0%
Don't know park locatio n/programs 23 27 _1%
Class orfaci lity is too fu ll 0 0%
Lack of program 2 2.4%
Program times/quality 0 0%
Quality staff / custome r service 0 0%
Not interested /too busy 4 4 _7%
I am not reluctantto use this park 32 40%
Programming and fees 1 1 _3%
Safety 5 6 _3%
Conditions of facilities/grounds 4 5%
Distance from home 7 8 _8%
Parking 3 3 _8%
Better non-City facility 1 1_3%
Don't 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 / customer serv ice 1_3%
Not inte rested /too busy 3 3 _8%
I am not re luctantto use this park 56 62_9%
Programming and fees 2 22%
Safety 2 22 %
Conditions offacilities/grounds 6 6 _7%
Distan ce from home 10 11 2%
Parking 6 6 _7 %
Better non-City facility 0 0%
Don't know park location/prog rams 3 3.4%
Class or facility is too full 0 0%
Lack of program 2 22%
Program times/qua lity 0 0%
Qualit>/ staff / customer service 1.1 %
Not interested / too busy 1_1 %
I am not re luctantto use this par k 20 27 _8%
Programming and fees 1 1.4 %
Safety 2 2_8%
Conditions of faci lities/grounds 5 6 _9%
Distance from home 11 15 _3%
Parking 0 0%
Better non-C ity facility 1 1.4 %
Don't know park location/prog rams 29 40 _3%
Class orfacility is too fu ll 0 0%
Lack of program 1 1.4 %
Program times/quali ty 0 0%
Qualit>/ staff / custome r serv ice 0 0%
Not interested /too busy 2 2_8%
Ap pendix F
I am not reluctant to use this par k 28 38.4 %
Program ming and fees 0 0 %
Safet>/ 2 2 .7%
Conditions offaci litieslgrounds 3 4.1%
Distance from home 5 6 .8%
Parking 1.4%
Better non-City facilill/ 2 2.7%
Don't know park location/programs 15 2 0.5%
Class or facility is too full 0 0%
Lack of progra m 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 reluctant to use this park 33 38.4%
Program ming .and fees 0 0 %
Safety 14 16 .3%
Conditions offacilities/grounds 19 22 .1 %
Distance fro m home ,6 7 %
Parking 1 1.2 %
Better non-City facility 0 0%
Don't know park locatio n/programs 6 7%
Class or facilit>/ is too full 0 0 %
Lac k of program 3 3.5%
Progra m times/quality 1 1.2%
Quality staff I customer service 1 1.2%
Not interested I too busy 2 2.3%
I am not reluctant to use this park 28 35 .4 %
Programm ing and fees 0 0%
Safety 7 8 .9 %
Conditions 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 locationlprograms 23 29.1%
Class or facility is too full 0 0 %
Lack of progra m 3 3 .8%
Program timeslquality 3 3.8 %
Quali ty staff I customer se rv ice 1 1.3 %
Not interested I too busy 2 2 .5%
I am not reluctant to use this par k 19 25 .7 %
Programming and fees 0 0 %
Safety 3 4.1 %
Conditions offacilitieslgrounds 2 2 .7%
Distance from home 9 12.2%
Parking 1 1.4%
Better non-Cit>/ facili ty 0 0 %
Don't know park location/prog ra ms 32 43.2 %
Class or facility is too full 0 0 %
Lack of progra m 3 4 .1%
Progra m timesl quality 0 0 %
Qua lity staff I customer service 0 0 %
Not interested I too busy 5 6 .8%
App endix F
I am not re luctan t to use th is park 15 19.5 %
Programming and fees 0 0 %
Safety 13 16 .9 %
Cond itions offacilities/grou nds 2 2 .6 %
Dista nce from home 7 9 .1 %
Parki ng 2 2 .6 %
Better non-Ci~/ facility 0 0%
Do n't know park location /programs 34 442%
Class or facility is too fu ll 0 0 %
Lack of progra m 1 1 .3 %
Prog ram times/qua li ty 0 0 %
Quality staff / customer service 0 0%
Not interested /too busy 3 3 .9%
I am not re luctant to use this park 23 30 .3%
Programming and fees 0 0 %
Safety 10 132%
Conditions offaci lities/grounds 4 5 .3 %
Distance from home 8 10.5 %
Parking 0 0%
Better non-City fac il ity 0 0 %
Don't know park location/programs 22 28.9 %
Class or faci lity is too full 0 0 %
Lac k ofprogra m 2 2 .6 %
Program times/quality 1.3%
Qua li ty staff / (ustomer service 1 1 .3%
Not interested / too busy 5 6 .6 %
I am not reluctant to use this park 25 32 .9%
Programming and fees 1 1 .3 %
Safety 5 6 .6 %
Conditions offacilities/grou nds 1 1.3%
Distance from home 8 10 .5%
Parking 0 0 %
Bette r non-City faci lity 1 .3 %
Don't know park lo·cation/programs 21 27 .6 %
Class or facili~/ is too full 0 0 %
Lack of program 1 1.3 %
Prog ram times/qua lity 6 7 .9 %
Quality staff 1 custo mer service 0 0 %
Not in te rested Itoo busy 7 92%
Appendix F
I am no t reluctantto use this park 36 42.4%
Prog ramm ing and fees 12%
Safety 12%
Co nditions offacilities/g rounds 7 82%
Dista nce from home 7 82%
Parking 5 5.9%
Better non-C ity facility 2 2.4%
Don't know park location/programs 17 2 0 %
Class orfacility is too full 1 12%
Lack of prog ram 3 3.5 %
Program times/qua lity 1 2%
Qua lity staff / custome r service 1 2%
Not in terested /too busy 3 3 .5%
I am not reluctant to use this park 23 26.1%
Programming and fees 2 2 .3%
Safety 1 1.1 %
Conditions offacilitieslgrounds 18 2 0 .5%
Distance from home 5 5 .7 %
Parking 0 0 %
Better non-City facility 1 1 .1%
Do n't know park location/programs 27 3 0 .7 %
Class or facility is too fu ll 0 0 %
Lack of program 6 6 .8%
Prog ram times/quality 1 .1%
Qua lity staff / custome r service 0 0 %
Not interested /too busy 4 4 .5 %
I am not reluctant to use this park 33 39.3%
Programming and fees 0 0 %
Safety 3 3 .6%
Conditions offacilities/g rounds 3 3.6%
Distance from home 5 6%
Parking 6 7 .1%
Better non-City facility 0 0%
Do n't know park location/p rograms 25 29.8%
Class or faci lity is too full 0 O ~'o
Lack of prog ram 4 4.8%
Program times/quality 0 0 %
Qua lity staff I customer service 1 2%
Not inte rested I too busy 4 4.8%
Append ix F
Improve fitness [17) Be low is a list of benefits that can be received f rom parks, recreation facilities, and programs . How much do
you agree that these features prov i de the following benefits?]
Strongly disagree 10 5.3%
Slro ng ly d i ..... Somewh at Disagree 0 .5%
Ne ither agree nor disagree 10 5.3%
Somewhat D .•. Somewhat agree 48 25.7%
Strong ly agree 118 63 .1 %
Somewh at 8 ... ~:::::: •••••••••• Stro n g ly .g~" •
o 25 50 75 100
Crime reduction [17 ) Be low Is a list of benefits t hat can be received from parks, recreat i on facilities, and programs . How much do
you agree that these features prov i de the following benef"rts?]
Slrongly d is •...
some
w
h
a
t D ... 5:=-
Ne ith ef aQre .. .
SotMwhst s .. .
Stro ng ly 8g"'"
o 15 30 45 60
Strong ly disagree 11 6%
Somewhat Disagree 14 7.7%
Neither agree nor disagree 38 2 0.9%
Somewh at 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 fol lowing benef"rts?]
SOlMwhata ... ~::~ •••••••••••••
Strongly 89 ""'.
o 35 70 105
Strongly disagree 9 4.8%
Somewhat Disagree 0.5%
Neither agree nor disagree 7 3.7%
Somewhat ag ree 31 16.4%
Strong ly agre e 141 74.6%
Preserve open s pace 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 ngly .g r .. I ________________ .....I
o 35 70 105
Strongly disagree 8 4.3%
2.1 % So mewhat Disag ree
Neither agree nor d isagree
So mewhat agree
Strong ly ag ree
4
4 2.1%
29 15.4%
143 76 .1 %
Increase property values in s urrounding area [17) Be low i s a list of benefits that can be received from parks, recreation facilities,
and programs . How much do you agree t hat these features provide the foll owing benefits?]
SOfNwhat 9 ... ~::::~ •••••••••••
Stro ngly .grn .
o 30 6 0 gO 120
Appe ndix F
Stro ng ly disagree 9
Somewhat Disag ree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly ag re e
3
8
39
133
4.7%
1.6%
42%
20.3%
69 .3%
Improve mental health and reduce stress [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from par1<;s , recreation facilities, and
programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?]
Strongl y disagree 9 4.7%
Strong ly d i ••... Somewhat Disagree 6 32%
Neither agree nor disa gree 10 5 .3% Somewha t D ... So mewhat agree 40 21 .1 %
Ntither ag ...... Strongl y agree 125 65.8%
so mewh.ta ... ~::::~ •••••••••••
Stro ngly .gree .
o 25 50 75 100
Provide increased opportunities for social interaction [17) Be l ow 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?]
Strongl y disa gree 7 3.7%
Stro ng ly dis •... Somewhat Disa gree 6 32%
Neithe r agree nor disagree 13 6.9%
Somewhat D ... So mewhat agree 57 30 .3%
Stron gly agree 105 55.9%
SOm.\\Ih.t .... -====~ __ •
strongly •g .... .
o 25 50 75 100
Preserve historical features of the community [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from par1<;s, recreation faCilities,
and programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the following benefits?]
Strong ly disa gree 13 7%
Stro ngly d iu ... Somewhat Disagree 5 2.7%
Neither agree nor disagree 29 15.7%
Somewhat 0 ... So mewh at agre e 48 25.9%
Neither.gre ... ==-
Somewhat s .. .
Strongly .g_
Stron gly agree 90 48.6%
o 20 40 60 80
Promote tourism [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from par1<;s, recreation facilities, and programs. How much do
you agree that these features provide the following benefits?]
Strong ly d is •...
somewhatD"'e====-__ Neith e r .gre ...
S o mewhat s .. _
Stro ngly .gree
o 15 30 45 60
Strongly disagree 14 7.6%
Somewhat Disagree 18 9 .8%
Neither agree nor disag ree 65 35.3%
So mewhat agree 38 20 .7 %
Strongl y agree 49 26.6%
Create a sense of place and community [17) Below is a list of benefits that can be received from par1<;s, recreation facilities, and
programs. How much do you agree that these features provide the fOllowing benefits?]
Stron g ly disag ree 9 4 .8%
Stro nglydi ..... SomeVloflat Disa g re e 3 1 .6%
Neither ag ree nor disag re e 10 5 .3% Somewh.t D ... So mewhat agree 47 25%
Neither .g~ ... Stron g ly ag re e 119 63 .3%
So mew hat 8 .. -
1
======= _________ ......
Stro ng ly .g~e l __________ ~ ____________________ ~
o 25 50 75 100
Append ix F
Maintenance [18 ) Rate importance of the following parks issues:]
Not improtant 0 0%
Not Somewhat not important 0 0 %
Neutral 4 2 .1%
Somewhat 11 .•• Somewhat important 26 13,4%
Veri important 164 845%
o· 40 80 120
Enhancements/Renovat ions [18) Rate importance of the fo ll owing parks issues:]
Not improtant 4 2.1%
Not Somewhat not important 6 32%
Neutral 13 6.fl%
Somewhat importa nt 61 32.3%
Very important 105 55.6%
Very Ime,errSlnI
o 25 50 75 100
Residentawar:eness ·of programs, parks, and fac ilities [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:]
Not improtant 3 1 .5%
Not So mewhat not important 5 2.5%
Neutral 19 9.6%
Somewhat important 55 27.9%
Very important 115 58.4%
Very imn,nrt .. ,nt
o 25 50 75 100
Avai lab le passive/leisure ly recreation opportunities [18 ) Rate importance of the following parks issues:]
Not improtant 4 2.1%
Not i m.p Somewhat not i mporta nt 4 2.1%
Neutral 15 7.7%
Somewhat important 59 30.3%
Very important 113 57.9%
o 25 50 75 100
Appendix F
Availableactiv'e recreation opportunities [18) Rate importanc,e of the following parks issues:]
Not impmtant 8 4 .1 %
Not i mp ro tant So mewhat not important 7 3.0%
Neutral 16 8.3%
Somewhat n ... Somewhat important 58 30 .1 %
Neu t ra l Very important 104 53.9%
Somewhat L .
Very i mp onal1 t
o 2 5 75 100
New parks [18) Rate importance of the following parks issues:]
Not i mprotant 13 o.B%
Not impro ta nt 1 Somewhat not i mportant 12 0 .3%
Neutral 37 1'9.4%
Somewhat n .. _ ] So mewh at im portant 46 24.1%
N!rutra I , Very impo rtant 83 43.5%
Somewhat L_ I
Ve ry i mporta n t I
o 20 40 6(} 80
19) Do existing parks have enough h andi capped parking?
Yes 46 22.2%
No 12 5.8%
I am no t sure 149 72%
20) Do existing parks have enough r estrooms?
Yes 43 20 .8%
No 100 48 .3%
I am not sure 64 30.9%
Appendix F
21) Are the restrooms properly maintained?
Yes 31 1 5 _3%
No 91 44_8%
I am 110 t sure 81 3:9'_9%
22) Do parks have enough picnic tables and pavilions?
Yes 58 28 _1%
No 96 47_5%
I am not sure 48 23 _8%
23) Do parks have enough playgrounds?
Yes 77 31 _1%
No 71 34 _8%
I am not sure 56 27 _5%
24) Are playground areas safe for play?
Yes 103 50 _7%
No 30 14 _8%
I am flot sure 70 34 _5%
Appendix F
25) Would you recommend a City park to someone?
Yes 1 69 84 .5%
No 31 15.5%
26) Would you be willing to pay a small fee for enhanced or additional servi ces?
Yes 130 64.7%
No 71 35 .3%
Appendix F
This page intentional ly left blank.
Appendix F
I
I
APPENDIX G
Recurring Comments from Online Public Survey and Workshop
General Comments
7
6
ALL AMERICA PARK
More pic ni c areas
Used for drug-dealing
Needs playground
Not enough programmed uses
Und e rutiliz ed
Un a ttractive
Good park
BREWER PARK
Needs bathrooms (3)
Needs a bridge t o replace culvert t o creat e a
unique, p leasant feature a long water
Needs bathrooms
Fencing a long canal is unsafe; small children
can walk underneath it
Benches poorl y installed
Needs more benches
Needs better upkeep of landscape (i.e . fresh
mulch, tree tr imming above basketball court)
Tennis courts need better maintenance
Need more parking
Not enough tennis cou rt s available for leisure
players with private lessons being taught on the
courts.
DANTE FASCELL PARK
Great pa rk (4)
Shelters need improvement (3)
Playground needs to be updated (3)
New rubber path is great
Lawn areas need improvement (mostly dirt)
Do not kee p re novating p layground
Grass su rroundin g ra ilroad ti e fencing along
canal needs to be ma in tained better
Water founta in not funct ioning properl y
Trash n eeds to be dealt with better
Improve use of waterfront
Park and Te nni s Program is success ful t h anks t o
tenn is staff
DISON PARK
Underutilized (3)
Needs more facilities (2)
Unattrac ti ve
Not enough shade
DOG PARK
Has potential
Too small for large dogs
App endix G
FUCHS PARK
Homelessness is an issue (7)
Unsafe (4)
Underutilized (2)
Views to water are good (2)
Needs better maintenance (2)
Faci li ties need improvement (2)
Need shade st ruc t ure over p layground
Involve ne ig h bors in a loca l clea n-u p/renova-
ti on p ro ject
Wil d lif e a t park are a good amenity
Shade is good
Needs t o be fea tu re d more
GIBSON-BETHEL COMMUNITY CENTER
Exercise room is good (3)
Great facility (2)
Needs better maintenance (2)
Potenti a l t utoring ce nter
Fitn ess ro om no t su pervise d enoug h t o mon itor
w h o is e nte rin g / coll ect fees
MARSHALL WIlliAMSON PARK
Im p rove str eet conn ectiv it y
Needs b as ke t b a ll cour t
Nee d s more amenities
Neg lect ed
Un sa fe
MURRAY PARK
Great park (2)
Inclus ive
G rea t for youth activities
No t e n o ug h ro om fo r play
Playgro un d n eeds improvement
Playg ro un d is fa r from parki n g
MURRAY PARK AQUATICS CENTER
Great facility (3)
Needs later hours (3)
Needs more sha d e
Have a movie nigh t at the pool
Swimm ing lessons are great
PALMER PARK
Great park (3)
Not enough parking (3)
Very busy (2)
Greal for youth activities
Playground is too small
Needs improved programming
Needs more shade
Nothing provided for adults
App endi x G
SOUTH MIAMI PARK
Needs more tree coverage (4)
Needs more furniture (2)
Improve access (2)
Underutilized (2)
Fie lds are a good amenity
Poor fi e ld conditions
No parki ng
No ba thr ool1)s
O ld YM CA is ru n down
Ad d baseba ll fields to help w ith Pa lmer Park
con gestion
Di sconn ected from City
Nee d s b e tter li g hti ng
Need s be tt er fac il ities
Could be a poten tia l loca ti on for a community
cente r
SOUTH MIAMI SENIOR CENTER
A m e nitie s n eed im p rovemen t
VAN SMITH PARK
Unsafe (2)
Remove debris from demolished home (2)
Good park (2)
Un deruti lized
Need s shad e
Nee d s perimet er fence
Need s li g hti ng
Need s bett e r maintenance
Impro ve p ath s
Need s a p layground
An ima l waste issue
APPENDIX H
NRPA Staffing Benchmarks
Table 5.4, "NRPA St affing Benchmarks by Phase," illustrates how the City measures up against the
national median for staffing based on the current population, as well as demonstrating the national medians for
populations simi lar to those in Phase One (5-year period) and Phase Two (10-year period). Current ly, t he City of
South Miami staffs more fu ll-time personnel (15) than the national median for simi lar jurisdictions (9). whereas it's
non f ull -time employee staffing (34 ) is less than the median (48). The City's current fu ll -time to part-time employee
ratio is 1 :2 .3, which is notably different than the national median ratio of 1 :5.3. By 2025, the national median ratio
increases to 1 full-time employee to 5.8 part-time employees.
Despite the disparity from the median, the City recognizes from their previous experience that the higher
number of full-time employees than the median has helped retain trained and experienced workers, and prevent
turnover. Un like northern areas of the country where the winters require little maintenance due to freezing , the
South Miami area requires maintenance year-round. Further, the City operates a large-scale community center
which requires additional fu ll -ti me staff. Not a ll cities of a sim ilar population maintain a community center of this size.
All of these factors help justify a larger number of full-time employees relative to part-time employees .
Additionally , the addition of blueways and school open space joint-use agreements are park acreage
additions that require little maintenance compared to typica l park maintenance costs . These additional park land
acres further differentiate the City's staffing needs from the typical needs of a city.
The NRPA has confirmed that these factors are acceptable reasons for staffing ratios to differ from the
national median.
Table 5.4 NRPA Staffing Benchmarks by Phase
Appendix H
Future Staffing Considerations
The number of employees must increase to
accomodate the projected Parks and Recreation
facility increases for 2020 and 2025 .
The City's unique factors should be considered
in evaluat ing t he need t o d iff er fro m t h e st a ffin g ra ti os o f
t h e national median discussed in the previous section.
Based on these factors, it is our recommendation that
the City would be bett er se rved w ith a h igher increase
in part-t ime staff than full-t ime staff. The City shou ld
focus on retaining the c urre nt ful l-t ime pos itions, and
su p pl e m e ntin g st a ffin g n eed s f o r eac h p h ase w ith
part-time employees to reduce the overall cost of
st a ffi ng, a nd m axim ize th e provided b udget fo r u se on
opera ti ons.
Appendix H