a lifetime of leisure

A LIFETIME OF LEISURE

CARROLLTON PARKS MASTER PLAN

MARCH 2004

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Market Research By: National Service Research

Strategic Planning By: Leon Younger & PROS

Copyright 2004 by Carter & Burgess, Inc.

C&B Project No. 020105010



March 2004

Park Master Plan.doc 2

Table of Contents

Page I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 II. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 21

Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 21 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 Use of Master Plan .......................................................................................................... 22

III. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 24

Steps of the Park Master Plan ........................................................................................ 24 Planning Process Diagram .............................................................................................. 25 Planning Process ............................................................................................................ 25

IV. Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 28

City Owned Parks Facilities ............................................................................................ 29 City Owned Developed Park Areas ................................................................................. 42 City Owned Undeveloped Park Areas ............................................................................. 80 Joint-Use Facilities and Private Recreation Facilities...................................................... 96

V. Standards and Guidelines ............................................................................................. 106

Criteria for Standards .................................................................................................... 106 Park Classification System ............................................................................................ 107 NRPA Park Acreage Guidelines ................................................................................... 109 Carrollton Community Profile ........................................................................................ 110 Comparison of Existing Park Land Acreage to NRPA Standards ................................. 123 Comparison of Existing Facility Development to NRPA Standards ............................... 131

VI. Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................... 133

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 133 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 133 About the Parks/Recreation Facilities in Carrollton ....................................................... 133



March 2004


VII. Recommendations/Priorities for Master Plan ................................................................ 147

Priority Summary ........................................................................................................... 147 Land Acquisition Recommendations ............................................................................. 150 Recommendations for Facility Improvements ............................................................... 151 Expenditure Analysis ..................................................................................................... 153

VIII. Implementation .............................................................................................................. 156

Policies and Ordinances ............................................................................................... 156 Funding Sources ........................................................................................................... 158 Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan .................................................................................... 162

IX. Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 169

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 169 Citizen Survey (Dated May 2000) ................................................................................. 170 Action Strategy (Dated May 2000) ................................................................................ 177 Benchmark Analysis (Dated May 2000) ........................................................................ 190 Pricing Policy (Dated May 2000) ................................................................................... 210 Values (Dated May 2000) ............................................................................................. 232 Recreation Program Findings Report (Dated May 2000) .............................................. 236 Vision and Vision Action Statements (Dated May 2000) ............................................... 296 City of Carrollton Pricing Policy (Dated May 2000) ....................................................... 299



March 2004


List of Illustrations

Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................... 23 Existing City Parks .................................................................................................................... 104 Existing Schools ........................................................................................................................ 105 Existing Neighborhood Park Service Areas .............................................................................. 128 Existing Community Park Service Areas .................................................................................. 129 Existing Metropolitan Park Service Areas ................................................................................. 130 Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan ............................................................................................... 168



March 2004


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of the Plan The City of Carrollton has rapidly grown to a current population of over 113,800 in 2003.

Extensive development and population increases are placing pressure on the community for quality City parks and leisure services and to meet the changing needs of the community, while sustaining the quality of the current park system. The City selected the consultant team of Carter & Burgess, Inc., National Service Research (NSR), and Leon Younger & PROS to prepare a Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan through an interactive process involving the citizens of Carrollton and the City Parks and Recreation Department. The purpose of the Master Plan is to:

A. Provide the framework for orderly and consistent planning and development.

B. Provide detailed researched facts concerning the community and the role of parks and recreation.

C. Establish priorities and statements of direction based on researched and

documented facts and a community based needs analysis.

D. Provide direction in the area of acquisition, development and sustainability of park land to meet future needs.

E. Conform to the preparation guidelines for local Park, Recreation and Open Space

Master Plans, prepared by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for Texas Recreation and Parks Account local park grant program.

This document outlines the methods, results and recommendations of the Master Plan study and is intended to be used as a guide for future Park, Recreation and Open Space development within the City of Carrollton.



March 2004


Goals and Objectives The City has identified the following goals and objectives for the Carrollton Parks and Recreation Department:

A. Provide a parks and recreation program to meet the diverse needs of the citizens of Carrollton.

1. Provide immediate and short term improvements for parks. 2. Provide long term planning of a parks system. 3. Provide recreation facilities, opportunities, and programs for all ages of the

community.

B. Determine practical means of maintaining and upgrading existing areas and facilities to a prescribed standard and purpose.

C. Develop park land and outdoor recreational facilities, including strategic

development of existing park areas.

D. Enlist community interest by encouraging individuals and citizens groups to provide funds, property, manpower, and input for the development and operation of parks and recreational facilities.

E. Provide new and traditional parks and recreation experiences for current and

future community residents. The Master Plan is a result of a collaborative effort among the citizens of Carrollton, the City Council, the Park & Recreation Board, the Planning & Zoning Commission, Carter & Burgess, Inc., National Service Research, Leon Younger & PROS, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Urban Development Department.

Use of Master Plan This document includes specific recommendations for future land acquisition, park expansion, and park development and sustainability to serve the growing population and needs of Carrollton. Section IV of this report includes a complete inventory of existing parks, school facilities and private recreational facilities. Section V provides a review of park industry standards and comparisons to current Carrollton facilities. Section VI documents the results of the Needs Assessment as identified by the Focus Groups and citizen survey results. In Section VII, the report identifies the recommended priorities and budget estimates for actual park development.



March 2004


Section VIII provides implementation guidelines including policies and ordinances, potential funding sources, and a proposed ten-year action plan for implementing the Master Plan. This Master Plan should serve as the basis for the future development and fiscal planning for the Carrollton park system for the next five to ten years. Annual reviews of the Master Plan should be performed by the City to ensure that the implementation is on course and to address specific changes in priorities and/or needs.

Methodology

The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was prepared using a two phase process. Phase 1 involved the inventory/supply analysis, standards analysis and the needs assessment, while Phase 2 involved the recommended priorities, budget analysis, funding methods, and action plan.

A. STEPS OF THE PARK MASTER PLAN

The process in preparing the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan consisted of the following steps:

1. PHASE 1

Step 1 - Inventory

The first step involved a site tour by Carter & Burgess and City Parks and Recreation Department staff of all existing parks and recreation facilities in Carrollton. An inventory was prepared based on information provided by the Carrollton Parks Department of all existing parks owned by the City, all joint-use facilities with School Districts, and all existing recreation associations and organizations. The existing recreation programs were evaluated by obtaining citizen input from the citizens survey.

Step 2 - Standards and Guidelines

This step involved a comparison of Carrollton’s existing park facilities to standards developed by the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA). Acreage standards and facility standards, based upon population numbers, were analyzed. This allowed for an objective review of the Carrollton park system.

Step 3 - Needs Assessment

The City of Carrollton, Carter & Burgess, and National Service Research (NSR) performed the needs assessment utilizing a three step approach. The first step



March 2004


employed by the City was to identify as many of the potential community interests as possible. Subsequently, methods of involving those groups were selected. A Town Hall Meeting was conducted to allow Carrollton citizens the opportunity to express their interests regarding parks and recreation throughout the community. The second step was conducting three Focus Group sessions comprised of citizens actively involved in Carrollton through sports associations, recreation programs, etc., and citizens of Carrollton chosen at random. Details about the focus groups are given in the Appendix. Based upon input from the Town Hall Meeting and the Focus Group sessions, NSR prepared a citizen survey as the third step in the needs assessment study. The mailout survey sampled random households in the City of Carrollton. The Town Hall Meeting, Focus Group sessions, and the survey provided an overview of the needs and priorities for park facilities as identified by the residents of the City of Carrollton. A sample citizen survey is included in the Appendix.

2. PHASE 2

Step 4 - Recommendations/Priorities for Master Plan

This step involved ranking the priorities for future park facilities from highest to lowest needs. The citizen input obtained during the needs assessment phase was considered the most significant factor and was weighted more heavily in the priority ranking. Other factors considered in prioritizing the recommendations included City staff input, Task Force input, Park Board input, Youth Survey input, NRPA comparisons, and Carter & Burgess professional recommendations. This list summarizes citizens’ interests and suggestions. It does not represent a commitment to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.

After a summary of priorities was established, recommendations were established to guide and direct the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. An expenditure analysis was generated in considering facility cost and improvements.

Step 5 - Implementation

The final step establishes the framework and methods for public officials to use in implementation of the Master Plan. Policies, ordinances, and sources of funding are recommended. Also, a proposed Ten-Year action plan provides priorities and budget estimates for years 1-10 of the Plan. The proposed Ten-Year Action Plan Map graphically illustrates the priorities recommended in the Master Plan.



March 2004


B. PLANNING PROCESS DIAGRAM

This Master Plan process is a continuous one which requires annual evaluation by the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Council. Every three years the Master Plan should be updated to provide current priorities, action plans, and budget estimates for implementation. The following pages illustrate the planning process for the overall Master Plan.

C. PLANNING PROCESS

Phase 1 - Inventory/Market Analysis

1. Base Map Preparation

Preparation of a computer generated base map

2. Inventory/Supply Analysis

a. Public parks and recreation areas owned by the City b. Joint use facilities with local Independent School Districts c. Sites for preservation or conservation of natural areas d. Existing recreation programs offered by the City

Number of teams and children participating Facilities utilized by each Association

e. Existing non-City Sponsored Recreation Sports Associations and Organizations Number of teams and individuals participating in each association Facilities utilized by each association

3. Population Analysis

Population concentrating on the factors of growth, distribution, and projected changes.

4. Standard Analysis

a. Determine park standards and classifications which will apply to Carrollton

community. b. Compare existing facilities to NRPA standards to determine the amounts of

facilities and park acres needed to meet the needs of the community. c. Evaluate existing resources of the community for open space, greenbelt

linkages, parks and recreation facilities as based upon user participation.



March 2004


5. Demand Analysis and Needs Assessment

a. Obtain public input pertaining to parks, recreation, open space and trails. b. Summarize needs assessment information. c. Evaluate expressed citizen needs versus available facilities.

Phase 2 – Master Plan

6. Priority Analysis a. Complete point analysis for various types of input.

b. Complete priority ranking system.

7. Expenditure Analysis

a. Complete the expenditure analysis based upon priority items. 8. Action Plan

a. Develop a definitive program(s) for acquisition and development of park

land to meet future needs. b. Review existing ordinances and provide recommendations to implement

the Action Plan. c. Prepare a proposed ten-year action plan with timeline for implementation.

9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan - Preliminary Master Plan

a. Prepare conceptual illustrative park master plan graphics. b. Present the Preliminary Master Plan to City Staff and Park Board for

approval.

10. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan - Final Master Plan

a. Prepare final narrative and color CADD exhibits/maps from City review comments.

b. Present Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan to Carrollton City Council.



March 2004


Standards and Guidelines

The adequacy of existing parks, recreation facilities and open spaces can be evaluated by comparing the needs of the present and forecasted populations of Carrollton to specific goals and standards. This Master Plan includes the standards established by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) as included in the 1990 printing of Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. “The NRPA standards have generally been the most widely accepted and used standards of their type, especially by local government.” (Recreation, Parks and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 7) This section includes a comparison of Carrollton to national standards based upon park acreage per population and facilities per population.

Criteria for Standards

The most common standards for park planning guidelines, as recognized by park and

recreation professionals, are the published standards by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). As written in the introduction, the NRPA recognizes the importance of establishing and using park and recreation standards as:

1. A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for the citizens of urban and rural communities.

2. A guideline to determine land requirements for various kinds of park and recreation areas and facilities.

3. A basis for relating recreation needs to spatial analysis within a community wide system of parks and open space areas.

4. One of the major structuring elements that can be used to guide and assist regional development.

5. A means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land use pattern of a region or community.

The purpose of this document is to present park and recreation space standards that are

applicable for planning, acquisition, and development of parks, recreation, and open space lands, at the community level. “These standards should be viewed as a guide. They address minimum, not maximum, goals to be achieved. The standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment relating to the particular situation to which they are applied and specific local needs.” (Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 11).



March 2004


NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES

Type

Size/Acres

Service Area

Acres per 1,000 Population

Mini-Park

2500 S.F. - 1 Acre

Less Than 1/4 Mile

Distance in Residential Setting

.25 - .5 ac/1,000

Neighborhood Park

1 - 15 Acres

One Neighborhood

1/4 to 1/2 Mile Radius

1.0 - 2.0 ac/1,000

Community Park

16 - 99 Acres

Several

Neighborhoods

5.0 - 8.0 ac/1,000

Metropolitan Park

100 - 499 Acres

Several Communities Under 1 Hour Driving

5.0 - 10.0 ac/1,000

Regional Park

500 +

Several Communities Within 1 Hour Driving

Variable

Special Use Areas

Varies Depending on

Desired Size

No Applicable

Standard

Variable

Linear Park/Linkages

Sufficient Width to

Protect the Resource and Provide

Maximum Usage

No Applicable

Standard

Variable

TOTAL

11.25 - 20.5

Ac/1,000 Population

Standards from Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 56-57 and p. 68-69, 4th Printing, 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.



March 2004


NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES APPLIED TO TOTAL CARROLLTON PARK LAND INVENTORY

Park Facility

Existing Acreage

NRPA Average Guidelines for

2003 Population of 113,800

A



B



B

Range Range Range

Mini Parks

.50 28.45 – 56.90 29.81 – 59.62 29.86 – 59.72

Neighborhood

128.42 113.80 – 227.60 119.25 – 238.50 119.43 – 238.87

Community Parks

447.23 569.00 – 910.40 596.25 – 954.00 597.17 – 955.48

Metropolitan Park

630.00 569.00 – 1,138.00 596.25 – 1,192.50 597.17 – 1,194.35

Regional

0.00 N/A N/A N/A

Special Use Parks

551.00 N/A N/A N/A

Linear Parks

171.67 N/A N/A N/A

TOTALS 1,928.82 1,280.25 – 2,332.90 1,341.56 – 2,444.62 1,343.63– 2,448.42

A. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton, May 2003 B. Population projections provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments

NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES COMPARED TO 2003 POPULATION IN CARROLLTON

Existing Acreage

NRPA Guidelines for 2003 Population

Of 113,800 A

Difference Between NRPA Guidelines and Existing

Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 28.45 - 56.90 (27.95) – (56.40)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 113.80 - 227.60 +14.62 – (99.18)

Community Parks 447.23 569.00 – 910.40 (122.77) – (463.17)

Metropolitan Park 630.00 569.00 – 1,138.00 +61.00 – (508.00)

Regional 0.00 N/A 0.00

Special Use Parks 551.00 N/A +551.00

Linear Parks 171.67 N/A +171.67

TOTALS 1,928.82 1,280.25 – 2,332.90 +648.57 - (404.08)

A. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton, May 2003



March 2004



Zone

Existing Acreage


of 119,250 A


Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 29.81 – 59.62 (29.31) – (59.12)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 119.25 – 238.50 +9.17 – (110.08)

Community Parks 447.23 596.25 – 954.00 (149.02) – (506.77)


Regional 0.00 N/A +0.00



TOTALS 1,928.82 1,341.56 – 2,444.62 +587.26 - (515.80)

A. Population projections provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments.


Zone

Existing Acreage


Of 119,435

A


Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 29.86 – 59.72 (29.36) – (59.22)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 119.43 – 238.87 +8.99– (110.45)

Community Parks 447.23 597.17 – 955.48 (149.94) – (508.25)





TOTALS 1,928.82 1,343.63 – 2,448.42 +585.19 – (519.60)




March 2004


FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLIED TO CITY OF CARROLLTON

Activity/Facility

NRPA Recommended Guidelines:

Facilities Per Population

Existing Facilities in Carrollton

NRPA Recommended

Guidelines: Facilities for


D

NRPA Recommended

Guidelines: Facilities for Projected

Population of 119,250

F

in 2010

NRPA Recommended

Guidelines: Facilities for Projected

Population of 119,435

F

in 2015 Baseball Fields (league)

1 per 5,000 B 17 23 24 24

Basketball Courts (outdoor)

1 per 5,000 B 7 23 24 24

Football Fields 1 per 20,000 B 2 6 6 6

Pavilion/Picnic Shelter

1 per 2,000 A 14 57 60 60

Picnic Tables 1 table per 300 C 163 379 397 398

Playgrounds 1 area per 1,000 C 22 114 119 119

Recreation Center 1 per 20,000 - 30,000 C 2 4-6 4-6 4-6

Soccer Fields (league)

1 per 10,000 B 13 11 12 12

Soccer Fields (practice)

1.5 per each league facility

E 0 17 18 18

Softball Fields (league)

1 per 5,000

B 7 23 24 24

Softball Fields (practice)


E 0 34 36 36

Swimming Pool (outdoor)

1 per 20,000 B 3 6 6 6

Tennis Courts 1 court per 2, 000 B 18 57 60 60

Trails ½ - 1 mile per 10,000 C 12.95 5.69-11.38 5.96-11.92 5.97-11.94

Volleyball Areas (outdoor)

1 per 5,000 B 2 23 24 24

A. Guidelines from Kansas City Metropolitan Region Public Parks Standards in Recreation Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 67, 4th printing 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.

B. Guidelines from appendix A in Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 60-61, 4th printing 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.

C. Guideline from Carrollton Parks & Recreation Department (Feb. 1999). D. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton Department of Urban Development. E. Consultant recommendation based on years of park planning/design experience. Practice facilities

should average approximately 1.5 times the amount of league facilities. F. Population projections provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments.



March 2004


Recommendations/Priorities for Master Plan The recommendations and priorities in this section are a result of incorporating the inventory, standards analysis, and needs assessment into a ranking of priority needs. From the priority needs, an Action Plan can be established which will direct the growth, development, and maintenance of the parks, recreation, and open space system in Carrollton for the next five to ten years. The recommendations are based upon an existing population of 113,800 and a projected population of 119,435 in the year 2015.

Priority Summary

At the completion of the citizen survey during the needs assessment phase, a method of ranking priorities was implemented. This method included an extensive review of all standards, citizen input, staff input, board input, and consultant recommendations. The following factors were considered in order of importance with weighted values assigned to each:

1. Citizen Input/Survey Results - The specific needs and requests by the Carrollton community.

2. Parks & Recreation Staff Input – The specific needs as identified by staff based

upon recreation programs and demands upon resources. 3. Task Force Advisory Committee – Specific needs identified by members on the

committee that represent distinct recreational groups/activities in Carrollton.

4. City Council and Park Board Input – Specific needs throughout the community as identified by appointed board members.

5. Consultant Evaluation - Professional recommendations based upon years of park

planning/design experience as well as assessing the unique needs of Carrollton and its community, demographics, etc.

6. Youth Input – The specific needs and requests as identified by the Youth Task

Force.

7. NRPA Standards – Facility needs as identified through a comparison to national standards.

The results of the priority ranking were tabulated into three categories: High Priority, Moderate Priority, and Low Priority. The tables on the following pages provide a summary of the priorities for the City of Carrollton. These rankings do not represent a guarantee to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.



March 2004


IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK (Prioritized by Carrollton City Council)

PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT PRIORITY1 COMMENT

Walking Trails Picnic Shelter Playground

High High High

These three amenities comprise a neighborhood park. Hall & Steenson Parks are completed.

Recreation Center High Currently expanding 1 recreation center. Crosby Recreation Center update proposed in next bond election.

Lighted football field Moderate Proposed at TC Rice 2004

Lighted softball fields Moderate Will be included at TC Rice and Josey Ranch

Indoor basketball courts Moderate Adding gym to Rosemeade expansion

Lighted baseball fields Moderate Will have additional fields when TC Rice complete

Lighted & unlit soccer fields

Low Skiles property, 2003/2004

Fish areas Low Adding pond @ TC Rice

Cricket field Low Use existing field at McInnish

PROJECTS – PRIVATE

PROJECT PRIORITY* COMMENT

In-line hockey Moderate Working with private sector on existing low-use satellite tennis courts

Frisbee golf Low Working with association for new concrete tee boxes

PROJECTS REVIEWED BY CIPAC FOR NEXT BOND ELECTION


Bike Trails High Approximately 5 miles planned.


High High High

These three amenities comprise a neighborhood park. Plan to add on currently owned sites.

Recreation Center High Expanded1 recreation center. Crosby Recreation Center update proposed in next bond election.

Natural Area Nature Preserve

High High

Plan to add @ TC Rice in Phase II.

Practice soccer fields High CCA property and partner with school districts.

Practice baseball fields High CCA property and partner with school districts.

Restrooms Moderate Planned for community and regional parks

Practice softball fields Moderate CCA property and partner with school districts.

Practice football fields Moderate CCA property and partner with school districts.

Sand volleyball courts Moderate Added to neighborhood parks.

Bird watching areas Low Phase II TC Rice – currently have viewing area at Elm Fork Nature Center



March 2004


SUMMARY OF PRIORITY ITEMS * Carrollton Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan

Facility

High Moderate Low

1. Bike Trails

2. Walking Trails

3. Picnic Shelters/Pavilions

4. Playgrounds

5. Natural Areas

6. Nature Preserves

7. Practice Soccer Fields

8. Practice Baseball Fields

9. Restroom

10. Practice Softball Fields

11. In-Line Hockey

12. Lighted Football Fields

13. Lighted Softball Fields

14. Practice Football Fields

15. Indoor Basketball Courts

16. Lighted Baseball Fields

17. Lighted Outdoor Basketball Courts

18. Sand Volleyball Courts

19. Unlighted Football Fields

20. Lighted Tennis Courts 21. Outdoor Basketball Courts 22. Bird Watching Areas 23. Unlighted Soccer Fields 24. Lighted Soccer Fields 25. Botanic Garden 26. Unlighted Softball Fields 27. Unlighted Baseball Fields 28. Senior Center 29. Fishing Areas 30. Indoor Volleyball Courts 31. Indoor Ice Rink 32. Disc Golf 33. Equestrian Facilities 34. Vegetable Garden Area 35. Model Airplane Strip 36. Cricket Field

*This list summarizes citizens interests and suggestions. It does not represent a guarantee to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.



March 2004


Rank Action Plan Range of Locations * Proposed Budget Proposed Schedule

(Pending Funding) HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS

1. Bike Trails Greenbelt Parks 1 through 10

T.C. Rice Jr. Athletic Complex

Elm Fork Trinity River Corridor

Indian Creek Corridor

Dudley Branch Corridor

Furneaux Creek Corridor

Hutton Branch Corridor

New Community Parks

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park

McInnish Park & Sports Complex

R.E. Good Sports Complex

Varies – depends on paving type, width, length

10’ concrete trail averages $40-$50 per linear foot

Trail Amenities such as seating, lighting, landscape and irrigation are additional

Years 1 through 10

2. Walking Trails New Park Developments

Josey Ranch Greenbelt Park

W.J. Thomas Park

Jimmy Porter Park

Keller Springs Park

Mill Valley Park

Rosemeade Park

Oak Creek Park

Summerfield II Park

Branch Hollow Park

Ken Good Park

Martha Pointer Park

Mary Heads Carter Park


6’ concrete trail averages $24 per linear foot


Years 1 Through 10



March 2004


Rank Action Plan Range of Locations * Proposed Budget Proposed Schedule

(Pending Funding)


New Park Developments



Martha Pointer Park

W.J. Thomas Park


Greenbelt Parks

Ken Good Park

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park

Rosemeade Park

Summerfield II Park

Small:

$40,000 to $100,000 range

Large:

$350,000 (includes HVAC and restrooms)

Years 3 through 6

4. Playgrounds New Park Developments





Greenbelt Parks

Joint-use School Facilities

Upgrades:

$20,000 to $70,000 range

New:

$50,000 - $125,000 range

Years 1 through 10

5. Natural Areas T.C. Rice Jr. Athletic Complex

Josey Ranch Greenbelt Areas

Oak Creek Park

Provide Along Greenway Corridors

Joint-use School Programming w/Schools

McInnish Park and Sports Complex

Will vary depending on zoning, infrastructure, floodplain, restrictions, etc.

Years 1 through 10

6. Nature Preserves Expand Elm Fork Nature Preserve

Rural America Site

Joint-use Facilities


Years 5 through 8

7. Practice Soccer Fields Landfill

New Community Parks



$40,000 - $70,000 range

Years 2 through 8


Landfill

New Community Parks



$50,000 to $80,000 range

Years 2 through 8

*The implementation of these recommendations depends on future City Council approval and available funding.



March 2004


II. INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Plan The City of Carrollton has rapidly grown to a current population of over 113,800 in 2003.

Extensive development and population increases are placing pressure on the community for quality City parks and leisure services and creating a demand for new and expanded park facilities, recreation programs, and open space areas. The City selected the consultant team of Carter & Burgess, Inc., National Service Research, and Leon Younger & PROS to prepare a Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan through an interactive process involving the citizens of Carrollton and the City Parks and Recreation Department. The purpose of the Master Plan is to:

A. Provide the framework for orderly and consistent planning and development.

B. Provide detailed researched facts concerning the community and the role of parks and recreation.

C. Establish priorities and statements of direction based on researched and

documented facts and a community based needs analysis.

D. Provide direction in the area of acquisition and development of park land to meet future needs.

E. Conform to the preparation guidelines for local Park, Recreation and Open

Space Master Plans, prepared by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for Texas Recreation and Parks Account local park grant program.

This document outlines the methods, results and recommendations of the Master Plan study and is intended to be used as a guide for future Park, Recreation and Open Space development within the City of Carrollton.

Goals and Objectives The City has identified the following goals and objectives for the Carrollton Parks and Recreation Department:

A. Provide a parks and recreation program to meet the diverse needs of the citizens of Carrollton.

1. Provide immediate and short term improvements for parks. 2. Provide long term planning of a parks system. 3. Provide recreation facilities, opportunities, and programs for all ages of

the community.



March 2004


B. Determine practical means of maintaining and upgrading existing areas and facilities to a prescribed standard and purpose.

C. Acquire park land and develop outdoor recreational facilities, including orderly

development of existing park areas.

D. Enlist community interest by encouraging individuals and citizens groups to provide funds, property, manpower, and input for the development and operation of parks and recreational facilities.

E. Provide new and traditional parks and recreation experiences for current and

future community residents. The Master Plan is a result of a collaborative effort among the citizens of Carrollton, the City Council, the Park & Recreation Board, the Planning & Zoning Commission, Carter & Burgess, Inc., National Service Research, Leon Younger & PROS, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Urban Development Department.

Use of Master Plan This document includes specific recommendations for future land acquisition, park expansion, and park development and sustainability to serve the growing population and needs of Carrollton. Section IV of this report includes a complete inventory of existing parks, school facilities and private recreational facilities. Section V provides a review of park industry standards and comparisons to current Carrollton facilities. Section VI documents the results of the Needs Assessment as identified by the Focus Groups and citizen survey results. In Section VII, the report identifies the recommended priorities and budget estimates for actual park development. Section VIII provides implementation guidelines including policies and ordinances, potential funding sources, and a proposed ten-year action plan for implementing the Master Plan. This Master Plan should serve as the basis for the future development and fiscal planning for the Carrollton park system for the next five to ten years. Annual reviews of the Master Plan should be performed by the City to ensure that the implementation is on course to address specific changes in priorities and/or needs.



March 2004


INSERT REGIONAL LOCATION MAP



March 2004


III. METHODOLOGY

The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was prepared using a two phase process. Phase 1 involved the inventory/supply analysis, standards analysis and the needs assessment, while Phase 2 involved the recommended priorities, budget analysis, funding methods, and action plan.

A. STEPS OF THE PARK MASTER PLAN

The process in preparing the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan consisted of the following steps:

1. PHASE 1

Step 1 - Inventory

The first step involved a site tour by Carter & Burgess and City Parks and Recreation Department staff of all existing parks and recreation facilities in Carrollton. An inventory was prepared based on information provided by the Carrollton Parks Department of all existing parks owned by the City, all joint-use facilities with School Districts, and all existing recreation associations and organizations. The existing recreation programs were evaluated by obtaining citizen input from the citizens survey.

Step 2 - Standards and Guidelines

This step involved a comparison of Carrollton’s existing park facilities to standards developed by the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA). Acreage standards and facility standards, based upon population numbers, were analyzed. This allowed for an objective review of the Carrollton park system.

Step 3 - Needs Assessment

The City of Carrollton, Carter & Burgess, and National Service Research (NSR) performed the needs assessment utilizing a three step approach. The first step employed by the City was to identify as many of the potential community interests as possible. Subsequently, methods of involving those groups were selected. A Town Hall Meeting was conducted to allow Carrollton citizens the opportunity to express their interests regarding parks and recreation throughout the community. The second step was conducting three Focus Group sessions comprised of citizens actively involved in Carrollton through sports associations, recreation programs, etc., and citizens of Carrollton chosen at random. Details about the focus groups are given in the Appendix. Based upon input from the Town Hall Meeting and the Focus Group sessions, NSR prepared a citizen survey as the third step in the needs assessment study. The mailout survey sampled random households in the City of Carrollton. The Town Hall Meeting, Focus Group



March 2004


sessions, and the survey provided an overview of the needs and priorities for park facilities as identified by the residents of the City of Carrollton. A sample citizen survey is included in the Appendix.

2. PHASE 2

Step 4 - Recommendations/Priorities for Master Plan

This step involved ranking the priorities for future park facilities from highest to lowest needs. The citizen input obtained during the needs assessment phase was considered the most significant factor and was weighted more heavily in the priority ranking. Other factors considered in prioritizing the recommendations included City staff input, Task Force input, Park Board input, Youth Survey input, NRPA comparisons, and Carter & Burgess professional recommendations. This list summarizes citizens’ interests and suggestions. It does not represent a commitment to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.

After a summary of priorities was established, recommendations were established to guide and direct the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. An expenditure analysis was generated in considering facility cost and improvements.

Step 5 - Implementation

The final step establishes the framework and methods for public officials to use in implementation of the Master Plan. Policies, ordinances, and sources of funding are recommended. Also, a proposed Ten-Year action plan provides priorities for years 1-10 of the Plan. The proposed Ten-Year Action Plan Map graphically illustrates the priorities recommended in the Master Plan.

B. PLANNING PROCESS DIAGRAM

This Master Plan process is a continuous one which requires annual evaluation by the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Council. Every three years the Master Plan should be updated to provide current priorities, action plans, and budget estimates for implementation. The following pages illustrate the planning process for the overall Master Plan.

C. PLANNING PROCESS

Phase 1 - Inventory/Market Analysis

1. Base Map Preparation

Preparation of a computer generated base map



March 2004


2. Inventory/Supply Analysis

a. Public parks and recreation areas owned by the City b. Joint use facilities with local Independent School Districts c. Sites for preservation or conservation of natural areas d. Existing recreation programs offered by the City

Number of teams and children participating Facilities utilized by each Association

e. Existing non-City Sponsored Recreation Sports Associations and Organizations Number of teams and individuals participating in each association Facilities utilized by each association

3. Population Analysis

Population concentrating on the factors of growth, distribution, and projected changes.

4. Standard Analysis

a. Determine park standards and classifications which will apply to

Carrollton community. b. Compare existing facilities to NRPA standards to determine the amounts

of facilities and park acres needed to meet the needs of the community. c. Evaluate existing resources of the community for open space, greenbelt

linkages, parks and recreation facilities as based upon user participation. 5. Demand Analysis and Needs Assessment

a. Obtain public input pertaining to parks, recreation, open space and trails. b. Summarize needs assessment information. c. Evaluate expressed citizen needs versus available facilities.

Phase 2 – Master Plan

6. Priority Analysis a. Complete point analysis for various types of input.

b. Complete priority ranking system.

7. Expenditure Analysis

a. Complete the expenditure analysis based upon priority items.



March 2004


8. Action Plan

a. Develop a definitive program(s) for acquisition and development of park land to meet future needs.

b. Review existing ordinances and provide recommendations to implement the Action Plan.

c. Prepare a proposed ten-year action plan with timeline for implementation. 9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan - Preliminary Master Plan

a. Prepare conceptual illustrative park master plan graphics. b. Present the Preliminary Master Plan to City Staff and Park Board for

approval.

10. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan - Final Master Plan

a. Prepare final narrative and color CADD exhibits/maps from City review comments.

b. Present Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan to Planning and Zoning Commission and Carrollton City Council.



March 2004


IV. INVENTORY

During the first phase of the Master Plan process, a complete inventory was compiled of all

existing parks, recreation facilities and open spaces within the City of Carrollton. Carter & Burgess, Inc. toured all the park sites with Carrollton Parks Department staff. The City provided acreage and facility inventories for each of the parks, and lists of recreation associations and organizations throughout the City.

The following pages provide a complete inventory of the existing parks and recreational

facilities within the City of Carrollton.



March 2004


Joint Use Facilities And

Private Recreation Facilities



March 2004


PRIVATE RECREATION FACILITIES Fitness Centers X-Generation Curves for Woman Stone Works Climbing Gym The Gym Gymnastics 24 Hour Fitness (2) ASI Gymnastics Training Zone Cougar Cheer & Dance Women’s Fitness Center All-Star Gym Karate Sports Facilities Karate For Kids American Indoor Action Karate Academy (Soccer and Volleyball) Carrollton Martial Arts Academy Chung’s Tae Kwon Do Eagle Park Tae Kwon Do Eric Mattingly’s Cross Training Center Fighter’s House Sidekicks Martial Arts

PRIVATE SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITIES Carrollton Christian Academy American Heritage Baseball Field Football Field/Soccer Field Softball Field Gymnasium Soccer Field Gymnasium Prince of Peace Football/Soccer Field Gymnasium

PUBLIC SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITIES LEWISVILLE ISD

Polser Homestead Gymnasium Baseball Field Soccer Field Hebron Valley Gymnasium Baseball Field Soccer Field Arbor Creek Gymnasium Baseball Field Soccer Field (2) Gymnasiums



March 2004


Indian Creek Hebron High School Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Football Field Gymnasium Softball Field Soccer Field Creek Valley Track Gymnasium Tennis Courts Soccer Field (2) Gymnasiums

CARROLLTON/FARMERS BRANCH ISD Carrollton Elementary Blanton Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Gymnasium Gymnasium Central Country Place Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Baseball Field Gymnasium Gymnasium Track Davis Furneaux Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Gymnasium Gymnasium Good Kent Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Gymnasium Gymnasium McCoy McKinney Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Gymnasium Gymnasium Rainwater Rosemeade Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Gymnasium Gymnasium



March 2004


Mary Grimes Thompson Gymnasium Baseball Field Soccer Field Track Blalack Kelly Athletic Complex Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Softball Field Track Soccer Field Tennis Courts (2) Gymnasiums Dewitt Perry Ted Polk Half Track Baseball Field Tennis Courts Soccer Field (2) Gymnasiums Track Tennis Courts (2) Gymnasiums Creekview High School R. L. Turner High School Baseball Field Baseball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Track Track Tennis Courts Tennis Courts (2) Gymnasiums (2) Gymnasiums Softball Field Softball Field Soccer Field Soccer Field Newman Smith High School Softball Field Football Field Track Tennis Courts (2) Gymnasiums Swim Natatorium Swimming Pool



March 2004


TOTALS

Recreational Facility Number

Fitness Centers 5

Climbing Wall 1

Karate Studios 8

Gymnastic Studios 3

Indoor Sport Facility (Private) 1

Baseball Fields 26

Softball Fields 8

Soccer Fields 29

Gymnasiums 41

Tracks 9.5

Tennis Facilities 8

Natatorium 1

Football Fields 5



March 2004


ELEMENTARY DIRECTORY Blanton Elementary Carrollton Elementary 2525 Scott Mill Road 1805 Pearl Street Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-323-6600 Phone: 972-323-6101 Fax: 972-323-6449 Fax: 972-323-6104 Central Elementary Central Intermediate 1600 South Perry Road 1800 Cox Street Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-323-6167 Phone: 972-323-6548 Fax: 972-323-6195 Fax: 972-323-5865 Country Place Elementary Davis Elementary 2115 Raintree 3805 Dorchester Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, TX 75007 Phone: 972-323-6607 Phone: 972-323-6965 Fax: 972-323-6476 Fax: 972-323-6972 Furneaux Elementary Good Elementary 3210 Furneaux Road 1012 Study Lane Carrollton, TX 75007 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-323-5950 Phone: 972-323-6932 Fax: 972-323-6504 Fax: 972-323-6934 Hebron Valley Elementary Indian Creek Elementary 4108 Creek Valley Road 2050 Arbor Creek Dr. Carrollton, TX 75010 Carrollton, TX 75010 Phone: 972-394-0762 Phone: 972-394-1200 Kent Elementary McCoy Elementary 1800 Rosemeade Parkway West 2425 McCoy Road Carrollton, TX 75007 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-323-6900 Phone: 972-323-6244 Fax: 972-323-6916 Fax: 972-323-6247 McLaughlin Elementary Polser Elementary 1500 Webb Chapel 1520 Polser Rd. Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, TX 75010 Phone: 972-389-1050 Phone: 972-492-1929 Fax: 972-323-1079



March 2004


Rainwater Elementary Rosemeade Elementary 1408 East Frankford Road 3550 Kimberly at Raleigh Carrollton, TX 75007 Carrollton, TX 75007 Phone: 972-323-6550 Phone: 972-395-7900 Fax: 972-323-6554 Fax: 972-395-7927

Thompson Elementary 2915 Scott Mill Road Carrollton, TX 75007 Phone: 972-323-6618 Fax: 972-323-6510

MIDDLE SCHOOL DIRECTORY Arbor Creek Middle School Blalack Middle School 2109 Arbor Creek Dr. 1706 Peters Colony Carrollton, TX 75010 Carrollton, TX 75007 Phone: 972-492-1127 Phone: 972-394-3140 Fax: 972-323-6488

Creek Valley Middle School DeWitt Perry Middle School 4109 Creek Valley Blvd. 1709 Belt Line Road Carrollton, TX 75010 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-731-2330 Phone: 972-323-3670 Fax: 972-323-3696

Ted Polk Middle School 2001 Kelly Boulevard Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-417-8090 Fax: 972-417-8089

HIGH SCHOOL DIRECTORY

Creekview High School Hebron High School 3201 Old Denton Road 4207 Plano Parkway Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, Texas 75010 Phone: 972-939-4000 Phone: 972-862-1600 Fax: 972-939-4009 Newman Smith High School R.L. Turner High School 2335 North Josey Lane 1600 Josey Lane Carrollton, TX 75006 Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-389-3800 Phone: 972-389-3850 Fax: 972-323-5866 Fax: 972-323-5980



March 2004


CENTER DIRECTORY Bea Salazar Transition School 2416 Keller Springs Road Carrollton, TX 75006 Phone: 972-323-6557 Fax: 972-323-6559 GED in School Program AEP Program Career Placement Center Phone: 972-323-6651 Fax: 972-323-6657 Marie Huie Special Education Center 2115 Frankford Road Carrollton, TX 75007 Phone: 972-323-5755 Fax: 972-323-6559 Mary Grimes Education Center 1745 Hutton Drive Carrollton, TX 75006-6617 Phone: 972-323-6275 Fax: 972-323-6453



March 2004


Insert Existing City Parks

Map Here



March 2004


Insert Existing City Schools Map Here



March 2004


V. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The adequacy of existing parks, recreation facilities and open spaces can be evaluated by comparing the needs of the present and forecasted populations of Carrollton to specific goals and standards. This Master Plan includes the standards established by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) as included in the 1990 printing of Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. The NRPA standards have generally been the most widely accepted and used standards of their type, especially by local government. (Recreation, Parks and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 7) This section includes a comparison of Carrollton to national standards based upon park acreage per population and facilities per population.

Criteria for Standards

The most common standards for park planning guidelines, as recognized by park and

recreation professionals, are the published standards by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). As written in the introduction, the NRPA recognizes the importance of establishing and using park and recreation standards as:

1. A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities for the citizens of urban and rural communities.

2. A guideline to determine land requirements for various kinds of park and recreation areas and facilities.

3. A basis for relating recreation needs to spatial analysis within a community wide system of parks and open space areas.

4. One of the major structuring elements that can be used to guide and assist regional development.

5. A means to justify the need for parks and open space within the overall land use pattern of a region or community.

The purpose of this document is to present park and recreation space standards that are

applicable for planning, acquisition, and development of parks, recreation, and open space lands, at the community level. “These standards should be viewed as a guide. They address minimum, not maximum, goals to be achieved. The standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment relating to the particular situation to which they are applied and specific local needs.” (Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 11).



March 2004


Park Classification System

When evaluating existing or future parks in Carrollton, it is necessary to classify each park by type, size, service area, and acres per 1,000 population. The following seven NRPA classifications for parks have been used in this Master Plan: Mini-Park The mini-park is used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs of concentrated populations. Typically less than 1/4 mile apart in a residential setting, the size of a mini-park ranges between 2500 square feet and one acre in size. These parks may be either active or passive, but speak to a specific recreational need rather than a particular population density. Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks serve a variety of age groups within a limited area or “neighborhood”. They range in size from 1-15 acres and generally serve residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius. The neighborhood park is an area for active recreation such as field games, court games, playgrounds, picnicking, etc. Facilities are generally unlighted and there is limited parking, if any, on site. NRPA standards for these parks are 1.0 - 2.0 acres per 1,000 population. Community Park Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and serve several neighborhoods. They range in size from 16-99 acres and serve the entire city. The community park may be a natural area or developed area for a variety of outdoor recreation such as ballfields, playgrounds, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, picnicking, and trail systems. NRPA standards for these parks are 5-8 acres per 1,000 population. Metropolitan Park Metropolitan parks are large park facilities that serve several communities. They range in size from 100-499 acres and serve the entire city. The metropolitan park is a natural area or developed area for a variety of outdoor recreation such as ballfields, playgrounds, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, picnicking, and trail systems. NRPA standards for these parks are 5-10 acres per 1,000 population. Regional Park Regional parks are very large multi-use parks that serve several communities within a particular region. They range in size from 500 acres and above and serve those areas within a one hour driving distance. The regional park provides both active and passive recreation, with a wide selection of facilities for all age groups. They may also include areas of nature preservation for activities such as sight-seeing, nature study area, wildlife habitat, and conservation areas. NRPA standards for regional parks vary due to the specific site and natural resources.



March 2004


Special Use Areas Special use areas and parks are for specialized or single purpose recreation activities. NRPA defines these as areas such as historical areas, nature centers, marinas, zoos, conservatories, arboretums, arenas, amphitheaters, plazas or community squares. There are no specific standards for size or acreage since each community will vary. Linear Park/Linkages Linkages and linear parks are built connections or natural corridors that link parks together. Typically, the linear park is developed for one or more modes or recreational travel such as walking, jogging, biking, in-line skating, hiking, horseback riding, and canoeing. NRPA does not have any specific standards for linear parks other than they should be sufficient to protect the resource and provide maximum usage.



March 2004


NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES

Type

Size/Acres

Service Area

Acres per 1,000 Population

Mini-Park

2500 S.F. - 1 Acre

Less Than 1/4 Mile

Distance in Residential Setting

.25 - .5 ac/1,000

Neighborhood Park

1 - 15 Acres

One Neighborhood

1/4 to 1/2 Mile Radius

1.0 - 2.0 ac/1,000

Community Park

16 - 99 Acres

Several

Neighborhoods

5.0 - 8.0 ac/1,000

Metropolitan Park

100 - 499 Acres

Several Communities Under 1 Hour Driving

5.0 - 10.0 ac/1,000

Regional Park

500 +

Several Communities Within 1 Hour Driving

Variable

Special Use Areas

Varies Depending on

Desired Size

No Applicable

Standard

Variable

Linear Park/Linkages

Sufficient Width to

Protect the Resource and Provide

Maximum Usage

No Applicable

Standard

Variable

TOTAL

11.25 - 20.5

Ac/1,000 Population

Standards from Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 56-57 and p. 68-69, 4th Printing, 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.



March 2004


Updated Demographics from Census 2000 Total Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino

Number Percent

Total Population 109,576 100.0%

White 78,758 71.9%

Black or African American 6,862 6.3%

American Indian & Alaskan Native

503 0.5%

Asian 11,944 10.9%

Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander

75 0.1%

Some other race 8,451 7.7%

Two or more races 2,983 2.7%

Hispanic or Latino (any race) 21,400 19.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau



March 2004


Total Population by Age Groups and Sex

Number Percent

Total Population 109,576 100.0%

Male 54,275 49.5%

Under 5 years 4,479 4.1%

5 to 9 years 4,519 4.1%

10 to 14 years 4,325 3.9%

15 to 19 years 3,796 3.5%

20 to 24 years 3,239 3.0%

25 to 29 years 4,485 4.1%

30 to 34 years 5,005 4.6%

35 to 39 years 5,551 5.1%

40 to 44 years 5,125 4.7%

45 to 49 years 4,143 3.8%

50 to 54 years 3,480 3.2%

55 to 59 years 2,355 2.1%

60 to 64 years 1,479 1.3%

65 to 69 years 897 0.8%

70 to 74 years 644 0.6%

75 to 79 years 397 0.4%

80 to 84 years 227 0.2%

85 to 89 years 95 0.1%

90 years and over 34 0.0%

Female 55,301 50.5%

Under 5 years 4,214 3.8%

5 to 9 years 4,413 4.0%

10 to 14 years 4,238 3.9%

15 to 19 years 3,526 3.2%

20 to 24 years 2,957 2.7%

25 to 29 years 4,401 4.0%

30 to 34 years 5,069 4.6%

35 to 39 years 5,601 5.1%

40 to 44 years 5,381 4.9%

45 to 49 years 4,453 4.1%

50 to 54 years 3,647 3.3%

55 to 59 years 2,450 2.2%

60 to 64 years 1,534 1.4%

65 to 69 years 1,058 1.0%

70 to 74 years 860 0.8%

75 to 79 years 624 0.6%

80 to 84 years 455 0.4%

85 to 89 years 235 0.2%

90 years and over 185 0.2%



March 2004


Educational Attainment

Highest level attained Number Percent

Population 25 years and over 70,088 100.0%

Less than 5th grade 1,629 2.3%

5th to 8th grade 2,951 4.2%

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 4,985 7.1%

High school graduate (including equivalency)

12,175 17.4%

Some college credit, less than 1 yr.

5,568 7.9%

1 or more years of college, no degree

12,051 17.2%

Associate degree 4,807 6.9%

Bachelor’s degree 19,204 27.4%

Master’s degree 5,008 7.1%

Professional degree 1,217 1.7%

Doctorate degree 493 0.7%

High school graduate or higher 60,523 86.4%

Bachelor’s degree or higher 25,922 37.0%


Household Income Distribution in 1999

Number Percent

Total Households 39,166 100.0%

Less than $10,000 1,074 2.7%

$10,000 to $14,999 836 2.1%

$15,000 to $19,999 972 2.5%

$20,000 to $24,999 1,642 4.2%

$25,000 to $29,999 1,769 4.5%

$30,000 to $34,999 1,614 4.1%

$35,000 to $39,999 2,172 5.5%

$40,000 to $44,999 2,092 5.3%

$45,000 to $49,999 1,952 5.0%

$50,000 to $59,999 4,161 10.6%

$60,000 to $74,999 5,668 14.5%

$75,000 to $99,999 6,143 15.7%

$100,000 to $124,999 4,039 10.3%

$125,000 to $149,999 1,967 5.0%

$150,000 to $199,999 2,005 5.1%

$200,000 or more 1,060 2.7%

Median household income $62,406 Source: U.S. Census Bureau



March 2004


Population by Housing Type for 2003

Single Family 82,468

Multi family 29,886

Mobile Homes 982

Group Quarters (Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Centers) 435

Total 113,771

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Annual Population and Housing Estimates for January 1, 2003

Carrollton Community Profile Population trends and future population forecasts are important in evaluating Carrollton’s park system compared to national standards. The following information has been used to make comparisons to NRPA Standards. Population Trends Since 1940, Carrollton’s population has experienced incredible growth. The first signs of major growth became evident in the 1950’s, as the population increased by 163 percent between 1950 and 1960. Even the 1970 population, which represented a 227 percent increase over the previous ten years, did not accurately reflect the phenomenal growth that would impact the city over the next twenty years. Compared to other cities in the area, Carrollton experienced one of the highest rates of population growth during the 1980’s. As Carrollton “builds out,” population growth is expected to drop substantially. This is reflected in the population change between 1990 and 2000, which showed an increase of “only” 33 percent. According to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the 2020 population of Carrollton is projected to be 120,868. This would be an increase of 10.3% from 2000, a rate of increase lower than any Carrollton has ever seen since it incorporated in 1913.

Historical Population Growth of Carrollton

Year Population Percent Increase

1920 573 -

1930 689 20.2%

1940 921 33.7%

1950 1,610 74.8%

1960 4,242 163.5%

1970 13,855 226.6%

1980 40,595 193.0%

1990 82,169 102.4%

2000 109,576 33.4%




March 2004


Forecast Population Growth of Carrollton

Year Population Percent Increase

2005 114,164 4%

2010 119,250 4%

2015 119,435 <1%

2020 120,868 1%

2025 123,676 2%

2030 124,086 <1%

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments



March 2004


Demographic Characteristics In order to better assist in the analysis of demographic data, the City of Carrollton has been divided into seven (7) Community Development (CD) sectors. Although CD Sectors are generally composed of one or more Census Tracts and the boundaries of one are coterminous with the boundaries of the other, there are exceptions. Thus, values shown for a CD sector should be viewed as having a margin of error of approximately 3%.

Population and Race by Community Development Sector, 2000

Community Development

Sectors

Total Population

White Black or African

American

American Indian and

Alaska Native

Asian Other and Multiracial

Hispanic or Latino

(any race)

Central 8,653 5,748 568 56 1,461 820 1,565

% of sector 100.0% 66.4% 6.6% 0.6% 16.9% 9.5% 18.1%

% of city 7.7% 5.1% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% 1.4%

North Central 21,089 14,960 1,951 103 2,539 1,536 2,438

% of sector 100.0% 70.9% 9.3% 0.5% 12.0% 7.3% 11.6%

% of city 18.7% 13.2% 1.7% 0.1% 2.2% 1.4% 2.2%

Northeast 27,556 22,470 1,415 114 1,869 1,688 2,906

% of sector 100.0% 81.5% 5.1% 0.4% 6.8% 6.1% 10.5%

% of city 24.4% 19.9% 1.3% 0.1% 1.7% 1.5% 2.6%

Northwest 14,247 10,081 779 38 2,331 1,018 1,587

% of sector 100.0% 70.8% 5.5% 0.3% 16.4% 7.1% 11.1%

% of city 12.6% 8.9% 0.7% 0.0% 2.1% 0.9% 1.4%

Original Town

22,718 13,966 826 131 2,030 5,765 11,805

% of sector 100.0% 61.5% 3.6% 0.6% 8.9% 25.4% 52.0%

% of city 20.1% 12.4% 0.7% 0.1% 1.8% 5.1% 10.5%

Southeast 17,373 13,350 1,413 72 1,467 1,071 1,846

% of sector 100.0% 76.8% 8.1% 0.4% 8.4% 6.2% 10.6%

% of city 15.4% 11.8% 1.3% 0.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.6%

West 1,304 959 53 1 157 134 168

% of sector 100.0% 73.5% 4.1% 0.1% 12.0% 10.3% 12.9%

% of city 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

City Total 112,940 81,534 7,005 515 11,854 12,032 22,315

% of city 100.0% 72.2% 6.2% 0.5% 10.5% 10.7% 19.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Note: The 2000 population of Carrollton was 109,576 persons. The slight difference in total count as presented is due to an overlap in community development sector boundaries by census geography.



March 2004


POPULATION AND RACE According to the 2000 Census, the population of Carrollton was 109,576. Because the area west of Stemmons Freeway (Interstate Highway 35E) is largely open space, industrial and heavy commercial in character, the vast majority of the population (108,272 people) lives east of this highway. Of the six (6) CD sectors east of Stemmons Freeway, the greatest number of persons live in the Northeast Sector, which has 27,566 persons, or 24.4% of the city’s total population. The Original Town Sector is the next largest, with 22,718 persons (20.1% of the city’s total population), followed by the North Central Sector with 21,089 persons (18.7% of the city’s population). The Central Sector holds a large share of Carrollton’s industrial, warehouse and commercial development. In light of this, the Central Sector, though comparable in area to several of the other sectors, has a smaller population share; 8,653 people, or 7.7% of the total city population. The West Sector has the smallest population share. Only 1,304 persons, or 1.2% of the city’s population, reside there. Of the city’s total population, the majority (81,534 or 72.2%) identify as White in racial origin. Likewise, persons who identified themselves as White in the 2000 Census constitute the majority population in each of the CD sectors. While still a majority, the lowest concentration of Whites as a percentage of sector population (61.5%) occurs in the Original Town Sector. The highest concentration occurs in the Northeast Sector, with 81.5% of that sector’s population comprised of persons of White racial origin. Since the Northeast Sector has the highest population share of the total city, Whites in the Northeast Sector comprise 19.9% of the total city population. The largest minority population (19.8%) in Carrollton is those persons identifying as being of Hispanic origin. The highest concentrations of Hispanics are located in the Original Town and Central Sectors, with 52.0% and 18.1% of the populations, respectively. Although the Central Sector encompasses a relatively high proportion of Hispanics, it has a relatively small total population. In fact, the Hispanic population in this sector is only 1.4% of the city’s total population, while the Original Town Sector’s Hispanic population comprises 10.5% of the city’s total population. The third-highest concentration of Hispanics in any one sector is in the West Sector (12.9% of the sector population), but due to a small sector population this group is only 0.1% of total city population. The second-largest minority population in Carrollton is those persons identifying as being of Asian origins. The highest concentration of persons of Asian origin is in the Original Town Sector (1,461 persons, 16.9% of sector population), followed closely by the Northwest Sector (2,331 persons, 16.4% of sector population). Asian persons in these sectors comprise 1.3% and 2.1% of the total city population, respectively. The third-most-highly concentrated area is the West Sector (12.0%), although the low sector population results in this group comprising only 0.1% of the total city population.



March 2004


Persons who identified themselves as Black in racial origin represent 6.2% of the city’s total population. The highest percentage of Blacks in any one sector is 9.3% in the North Central Sector, followed by the Southeast Sector with 8.1% of its population and the Central Sector with 6.6%. The Black population of these sectors comprise 1.7% of the total city population (North Central Sector), 1.3% (Southeast Sector) and 0.5% (Central Sector). Persons in the “Other” racial category account for 10.7% of the city’s total population. A high percentage of the persons in the “Other” category are concentrated in the Original Town Sector at 25.4% of that sector’s population. Of the West Sector population, 10.3% of the population identifies as “Other” racially. Most likely, the concentrations in the Original Town Sector and the West Sectors are a reflection of the higher percentage of Hispanics that often identify their race as being “Other”. The Native American population in Carrollton represents the smallest population of all of the racial categories in Carrollton. The total number of Native Americans in Carrollton is 515 persons, or one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total city population. Because this population is so small, there are relatively minute proportions of Native Americans in each of the seven (7) sectors. Consequently, the highest sector percentages for Native Americans, in the Central and Original Town Sectors (0.6% each) account for less than 0.1% of the city’s total population.



March 2004


EDUCATION According to 2000 Census, Carrollton is home to a highly educated population. About 71.8% of the total population of Carrollton is 18 years of age or older. Of this group, 84.1% have at least a high school diploma, 65.9% have completed some college coursework and 34.2% have one or more university or college degrees.

Educational Attainment by Community Development Sector, 2000


Sector

Total Population

Population 18 years and over

Less than high

school grad.

High school grad.

Some college or associate degree

Bachelor’s degree or

higher

Central 8,653 6,243 1,148 1,310 2,260 1,525

100.0% 18.4% 21.0% 36.2% 24.4%

North Central 21,089 14,847 1,402 2,720 5,350 5,375

100.0% 9.4% 18.3% 36.0% 36.2%

Northeast 27,556 19,828 1,697 3,361 6,479 8,291

100.0% 8.6% 17.0% 32.7% 41.8%

Northwest 14,247 9,882 1,003 1,448 2,977 4,454

100.0% 10.1% 14.7% 30.1% 45.1%

Original Town 22,718 15,806 6,690 3,548 3,592 1,976

100.0% 42.3% 22.4% 22.7% 12.5%

Southeast 17,373 13,723 778 2,114 4,872 5,959

100.0% 5.7% 15.4% 35.5% 43.4%

West 1,304 824 191 242 228 163

100.0% 23.2% 29.4% 27.7% 19.8%

City Total 112,940 81,153 12,909 14,743 25,758 27,743

100.0% 15.9% 18.2% 31.7% 34.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Note: The 2000 population of Carrollton was 109,576 persons. The slight difference in total count as presented is due to an overlap in community development sector boundaries by census geography.

According to the 2000 Census, 12,909 (15.9%) of Carrollton citizens eighteen years of age or older have not attained a high school diploma. The Southeast Sector has the lowest proportion of persons (5.7%) with no diploma. The Northeast, North Central, and Northwest Sectors are slightly higher with 8.6% 9.4% and 10.1% of persons in each of those sectors with no high school diploma, respectively. In the Central sector, 18.4% of the population does not have a high school diploma. The Original Town and West sectors have the highest percentage of people in their sectors with no high school diploma. The Original Town Sector has the highest number of persons with no high school diploma, at 42.3% of that sector’s population. The West Sector, with its relatively small population, reports 23.2% of its population as not having completed high school.



March 2004


Of the population of Carrollton eighteen years of age or older, 18.2% or 14,743 persons possess a high school diploma. The sector with the highest percentage of its population with a high school diploma as the highest level of educational attainment is the West Sector, reporting 29.4%, although it’s small overall population means this is only 0.2% of the total City population. The Original Town and Central Sectors follow, with 22.4% (3.1% of total City population) and 21.0% (1.2% of total City population) respectively. The Northwest Sector reports the smallest percentage of its population as having only a high school diploma, at 14.7% (1.3% of total City population). The highest percentages of persons with some college or an associate’s degree reside in the North Central and Central Sectors, with 36% and 36.2% of each sector’s population. Sectors with the lowest percentages of their sector populations with some college work are the Original Town and the West Sectors. They report 22.7% (Original Town) and 27.7% (West) of sector population is persons with some college work completed. The population in Carrollton with a bachelor’s degree or more is 34.2% of the total city population. The Northwest and Southeast Sectors report 45.1% and 43.4% of their sector populations as having these type of degrees, followed by the Northeast Sector, with 41.8%. Those sectors with the lowest levels of such degrees are the Original Town (12.5%) and West Sectors (19.8%). MEDIAN INCOME Median Household Income, From 2000 U. S. Census By Community Development Sector, by Census Tract

Central Sector Census Tract 137.19 - $55,294 Census Tract 137.20 - $57,092 North Central Sector Census Tract 216.05 - $76,305 Census Tract 216.11 - $74,268 Census Tract 216.12 - $64,464 Census Tract 216.13 - $45,114 Northeast Sector Census Tract 216.04 - $81,153 Census Tract 216.06 - $78,924 Census Tract 216.14 - $62,201 Census Tract 216.15 - $63,793 Northwest Sector Census Tract 216.03 - $81,412

Original Town Sector Census Tract 137.13 - $32,076 Census Tract 137.14 - $42,925 Census Tract 137.15 - $61,058 Census Tract 137.16 - $59,232 Census Tract 137.17 - $38,090 Census Tract 137.18 - $41,094 Southeast Sector Census Tract 137.21 - $89,098 Census Tract 137.22 - $46,572 Census Tract 137.23 - $62,160 Census Tract 137.25 - $45,589 West Sector Census Tract 140.02 - $45,446



March 2004


The citywide median household income in 1999 was $62,406. The median household income for each of the Census Tracts in Carrollton ranges from a low of $41,094 (Tract 137.18, in the Original Town Sector) to a high of $89,098 (Tract 137.21, in the Southeast Sector). Because each Census Tract has a different number of households, simply averaging the median household income in each to arrive at an average median household income for each CD sector would introduce another margin of error, and is not advised. POVERTY RATE Poverty Level Among Individuals, From 2000 U.S. Census By Community Development Sector, by Census Tract

Central Sector Census Tract 137.19 - 9.6% Census Tract 137.20 - 5.6% North Central Sector Census Tract 216.05 - 2.4% Census Tract 216.11 - 0.8% Census Tract 216.12 - 2.1% Census Tract 216.13 - 13.6% Northeast Sector Census Tract 216.04 - 3.3% Census Tract 216.06 - 3.4% Census Tract 216.14 - 2.6% Census Tract 216.15 - 5.7% Northwest Sector Census Tract 216.03 - 3.0%

Original Town Sector Census Tract 137.13 - 18.8% Census Tract 137.14 - 18.2% Census Tract 137.15 - 2.3% Census Tract 137.16 - 5.3% Census Tract 137.17 - 10.2% Census Tract 137.18 - 12.9% Southeast Sector Census Tract 137.21 - 1.2% Census Tract 137.22 - 5.4% Census Tract 137.23 - 3.3% Census Tract 137.25 - 4.7% West Sector Census Tract 140.02 - 7.4%



March 2004


Carrollton has a relatively low poverty level. The community as a whole has a poverty rate among individuals of 5.6%, compared to 13.4% for Dallas County. Census Tracts in the CD sectors generally show individual poverty levels well below the Dallas County rate. Two notable exceptions are Census Tracts 137.13 and 137.14, which each have levels in excess of 18%. Both are located in the Original Town Sector. AGE DISTRIBUTION The age distribution of the population of Carrollton has been aggregated into six (6) age cohorts for analysis in terms of percentages of total sector population. The age cohorts are: 18 years of age or younger, 18 to 24 years, 25 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years of age and over.

Age Groups by Community Development Sector, 2000


Sector

Total Population

Under 18 years

18 to 24 years

25 to 44 years

45 to 64 years

65 years and over

Central 8,653 2,297 784 2,964 2,099 509

100.0% 26.5% 9.1% 34.3% 24.3% 5.9%

North Central 21,089 6,310 1,655 8,089 4,248 787

100.0% 29.9% 7.8% 38.4% 20.1% 3.7%

Northeast 27,556 7,811 1,596 10,508 6,320 1,321

100.0% 28.3% 5.8% 38.1% 22.9% 4.8%

Northwest 14,247 4,394 947 5,556 2,922 428

100.0% 30.8% 6.6% 39.0% 20.5% 3.0%

Original Town 22,718 7,022 2,593 7,750 3,841 1,512

100.0% 30.9% 11.4% 34.1% 16.9% 6.7%

Southeast 17,373 3,654 1,366 6,694 4,522 1,137

100.0% 21.0% 7.9% 38.5% 26.0% 6.5%

West 1,304 343 58 406 377 120

100.0% 26.3% 4.4% 31.1% 28.9% 9.2%

City Total 112,940 31,831 8,999 41,967 24,329 5,814

100.0% 28.2% 8.0% 37.2% 21.5% 5.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Note: The 2000 population of Carrollton was 109,576 persons. The slight difference in total count as presented is due to an overlap in community development sector boundaries by census geography.



March 2004


Carrollton is a community of young adults and children. The single largest group of citizens is adults from 25 to 44 years of age (37.2% of the total population), and the second-largest group is children under the age of 18 (28.2% of the total population). Of the CD sectors, the Original Town and Northwest Sectors have the most children, with 30.9% and 30.8% of their populations being under the age of 18. The Southeast Sector has the fewest children, with “only” 21.0% of its population under 18. As might be suspected by the number of young adults and children, Carrollton has relatively few older persons. The percentage of people 65 years of age and older in Dallas County is 8.1%, nearly 60% higher than Carrollton. Put another way, Carrollton has a “retirement age” population nearly 40% smaller than that for Dallas County. The CD sector with the highest level of “retirement age” citizens is the West Sector, reporting 9.2% of its population in this category. However, due to the small overall population in this area, the total number of persons in this category (120) is only about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the city population. The Northwest Sector reports 428 persons being 65 years of age or older. This is 3.0% of the sector population, and is the lowest rate of all the CD sectors.



March 2004


Comparison of Existing Park Land Acreage to NRPA Standards For many years, Carrollton has been a leading community in terms of available parkland based upon the overall population of the city. This has provided Carrollton citizens a broad base of park facilities and open spaces for a variety of recreational activities. When evaluating Carrollton’s overall park acreage, one good benchmark comparison is to compare Carrollton to recognized published standards by NRPA. Based upon NRPA standards for each different park classification, the recommended park acreage per 1,000 population is a range of 11.25 to 20.5 acres. Currently, the City of Carrollton includes a total of 1,928.82 acres of parkland for a ratio of 16.94 acres per 1,000 population at the current population of 113,800. This ratio is very close to the high end standard identified by NRPA of 20.5 acres per 1,000 population. The tables on the following pages summarize the NRPA standards applied to the existing parkland

acreage in Carrollton as well as comparisons to future population counts in 2010 and 2015.



March 2004


SUMMARY OF CARROLLTON PARK LAND ACREAGES

Mini-Parks Pioneer Park

.50

.50

Neighborhood Branch Hollow Park Clifford E. “Bill” Hall Park Del Santer Tract Francis Perry Park Gravley Park Harold K. Bessire Park Harvest Run Park Holman D. Rhoton Park Indian Creek Park Jimmy Porter Park Keller Springs Park Martha Pointer Park Mary Heads Carter Park Mill Valley Park Oak Hills Park Standridge Memorial Park Summerfield II San Chester Tract Timber Creek Park Ward Steenson Park

3.50 6.40 3.20 3.00

13.00 5.40 6.00 4.50 6.62 5.00 3.00 6.00

12.30 12.00

4.50 2.50 8.00 1.50 7.00

15.00 128.42

Community Amphitheatre Crosby Road Recreation Center Elm Fork Nature Preserve Green Belt Park Area 1 Green Belt Park Area 2 Green Belt Park Area 3 Green Belt Park Area 4 Josey Ranch Sports Complex Ken Good Park Nob Hill Noell Civic Center Oak Creek Park Rosemeade Park Skiles Property Thomas Center W.J. Thomas Park

4.00 5.00

40.28 14.53 41.02 12.39 23.69 50.00 20.00

102.00 7.30

54.22 28.00 15.30

4.50 25.00

447.23



March 2004


Metropolitan Josey Ranch Greenbelt Park McInnish Park and Sports Complex R.E. Good Sports Complex T.C. Rice Jr., Athletic Complex

100.00 220.00

48.00 262.00 630.00

Regional 0.00

Special Use Indian Creek Golf Club Landfill

415.00 136.00 551.00

Linear Park/Linkages Dimension Tract Greenbelt Area 5 Greenbelt Area 6 Greenbelt Area 7 Greenbelt Area 8 Greenbelt Area 9 Greenbelt Area 10

44.50 3.00

39.76 19.81 26.60 25.00 13.00

171.67

TOTAL 1,928.82



March 2004


NRPA PARK ACREAGE GUIDELINES APPLIED TO TOTAL CARROLLTON PARK LAND INVENTORY

Park Facility

Existing Acreage



A



B



B

Range Range Range

Mini Parks

.50 28.45 – 56.90 29.81 – 59.62 29.86 – 59.72

Neighborhood

128.42 113.80 – 227.60 119.25 – 238.50 119.43 – 238.87

Community Parks

447.23 569.00 – 910.40 596.25 – 954.00 597.17 – 955.48

Metropolitan Park

630.00 569.00 – 1,138.00 596.25 – 1,192.50 597.17 – 1,194.35

Regional

0.00 N/A N/A N/A

Special Use Parks

551.00 N/A N/A N/A

Linear Parks

171.67 N/A N/A N/A

TOTALS 1,928.82 1,280.25 – 2,332.90 1,341.56 – 2,444.62 1,343.63– 2,448.42

A. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton, May 2003. B. Population projections provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments.


Existing Acreage


Of 113,800 A


Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 28.45 - 56.90 (27.95) – (56.40)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 113.80 - 227.60 +14.62 – (99.18)

Community Parks 447.23 569.00 – 910.40 (121.77) – (463.17)


Regional 0.00 N/A 0.00



TOTALS 1,928.82 1,280.25 – 2,332.90 +648.57 - (404.08)

A. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton, May 2003.



March 2004



Zone

Existing Acreage


of 119,250 A


Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 29.81 – 59.62 (29.31) – (59.12)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 119.25 – 238.50 +9.17 – (110.08)

Community Parks 447.23 596.25 – 954.00 (149.02) – (506.77)





TOTALS

1,928.82 1,341.56 – 2,444.62 +587.26 - (515.80)



Zone

Existing Acreage


Of 119,435

A


Carrollton Parks

Range Range

Mini Parks .50 29.86 – 59.72 (29.36) – (59.22)

Neighborhood Parks 128.42 119.43 – 238.87 +8.99– (110.45)

Community Parks 447.23 597.17 – 955.48 (149.94) – (508.25)





TOTALS

1,928.82 1,343.63 – 2,448.42 +585.19 – (519.60)




March 2004


Insert Neighborhood Parks

Service Area Map



March 2004


Insert Community Parks

Service Area Map



March 2004


Insert Metropolitan Parks Service Area Map



March 2004


Comparison of Existing Facility Development to NRPA Standards Another way to analyze Carrollton’s park system to national standards is by facility development. This allows a detailed review of current facilities based upon population numbers. A facilities comparison allows the City to see where more recreational facilities may be needed in the community. The following table provides a detailed facility review based on the current population and the projected 2015 population in Carrollton compared to NRPA recommendations. According to the standards, the City has been able to keep up with demands for trail construction. The City is noticeably short in meeting facility standards in all other active recreation amenities such as baseball, basketball, football, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis and volleyball. The NRPA recommendations also address the standards for passive recreation facilities such as pavilion/shelters, picnic tables and playgrounds. The City of Carrollton currently falls short in these three categories for providing passive amenities to its citizens.



March 2004


FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLIED TO CITY OF CARROLLTON

Activity/Facility

NRPA Recommended Guidelines:

Facilities Per Population

Existing Facilities in Carrollton

NRPA Recommended



D

NRPA Recommended


Projected Population of

119,250 F

in 2010

NRPA Recommended


Projected Population of

119,435 F

in 2015 Baseball Fields (league)

1 per 5,000 B 17 23 24 24

Basketball Courts (outdoor)

1 per 5,000 B 7 23 24 24

Football Fields 1 per 20,000 B 2 6 6 6

Pavilion/Picnic Shelter

1 per 2,000 A 14 57 60 60

Picnic Tables 1 table per 300 C 163 379 397 398

Playgrounds 1 area per 1,000 C 22 114 119 119

Recreation Center 1 per 20,000 - 30,000 C 2 4-6 4-6 4-6

Soccer Fields (league)

1 per 10,000 B 13 11 12 12

Soccer Fields (practice)


E 0 17 18 18

Softball Fields (league)

1 per 5,000

B 7 23 24 24

Softball Fields (practice)


E 0 34 36 36

Swimming Pool (outdoor)

1 per 20,000 B 3 6 6 6

Tennis Courts 1 court per 2, 000 B 18 57 60 60

Trails ½ - 1 mile per 10,000 C 12.95 5.69-11.38 5.96-11.92 5.97-11.94

Volleyball Areas (outdoor)

1 per 5,000 B 2 23 24 24

A. Guidelines from Kansas City Metropolitan Region Public Parks Standards in Recreation Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 67, 4th printing 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.

B. Guidelines from appendix A in Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, p. 60-61, 4th printing 1990, a publication of the National Recreation and Park Association.

C. Guideline from Carrollton Parks & Recreation Department (Feb. 1999). D. Population numbers provided by City of Carrollton Department of Urban Development. E. Consultant recommendation based on years of park planning/design experience. Practice facilities

should average approximately 1.5 times the amount of league facilities. F. Population projections provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments.



March 2004


VI. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Introduction National Service Research (NSR), completed a comprehensive research study for The City of Carrollton, Texas as part of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. An important aspect of the Master Plan was to conduct a demand and needs assessment which involved public input. The purpose of the needs assessment study was to provide a foundation for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The results of the needs assessment study will provide guidance of the Master Plan which will be based upon citizen needs and priorities. NSR worked closely with Carter & Burgess, Inc. and the City of Carrollton staff throughout the research process. Research Methodology In order to complete this comprehensive research effort, National Service Research conducted three focus group sessions. The purpose of the focus group sessions was to identify key issues of importance to the citizens of Carrollton with regard to parks, open space and recreation programs. Based upon the findings of the focus groups, input from Carter & Burgess, Inc. and the City of Carrollton staff, NSR designed a citizen mail survey. A total of 10,000 surveys were mailed randomly to households and 900 surveys were returned and 700 were computer processed. This represents a 9% response rate. The margin of error of this sample size (700) at a 95% confidence level is plus or minus 3.8%. The citizen survey and focus group tape transcripts are presented in the Appendix. The report herein summarizes the findings of the survey effort.

About the Parks/Recreation Facilities in Carrollton The overall maintenance of Carrollton parks was rated excellent or good by 73% of the respondents. The chart below depicts the responses. About one out of ten Carrollton residents surveyed could not rate the maintenance of the parks.

Park Maintenance Rating

Percentage of all

Respondents Excellent (4)

19.4%

Good (3)

53.7

Fair (2)

16.4

Poor (1)

1.4

Don’t know/not familiar

9.0

Mean Score

3.00



March 2004


62% of respondents rated the quality of recreation programs as good or excellent in Carrollton, however, 22% of the respondents were not familiar with Carrollton’s recreation programs and could not rate the quality. Respondents that were not familiar with the recreation programs were excluded from the mean score calculation.

Recreation Program Quality Rating

Percentage of all


14.1%

Good (3)

47.6

Fair (2)

14.3

Poor (1)

2.3


21.7

Mean Score

2.94

More than half rated communication efforts to citizens about parks and recreation activities as excellent or good.

Communication Efforts Rating

Percentage of all


10.7%

Good (3)

54.0

Fair (2)

20.3

Poor (1)

7.6


7.4

Mean Score

2.73



March 2004


70% of the Carrollton respondents have been informed about park and recreation programs through the Leisure Connections Magazine and 58% through water bill inserts. Percentages in the chart will add to more than 100% due to multiple answers.

Information Sources

Percentage of all Respondents

Leisure Connections Magazine

70.4%

Water Bill Insert

58.1

Parks & Recreation Department Flyers

28.3

Youth Sports Association

14.1

Cable Television

3.1

City of Carrollton Website

3.6

Radio

0.4

Have not been informed

5.7

A total of 59% of all respondents rated parks, recreation opportunities and open space in Carrollton as excellent or good. A total of 10% could not rate these characteristics. Detailed findings by geographic area are depicted in the table below.

Overall Rating-

Parks, Recreation, Open Space

All

Respondents

Area 1-

Northwest

Area 2-

Northeast

Area 3-

Southwest

Area 4-

Southeast

Excellent (4)

10.1%

8.1%

8.0%

12.5%

11.6%

Good (3)

49.0

50.3

49.1

48.6

49.6

Fair (2)

25.1

29.2

28.8

19.4

22.5

Poor (1)

6.1

4.9

8.6

6.9

5.4


9.5

7.6

5.5

12.5

10.9 Mean Score

2.70

2.67

2.60

2.76

2.76



March 2004


Park/Recreation Facility Usage and Program Needs - Children A total of 46.4% of the respondents had children 18 years of age or younger within their household of which 98% of those children use the parks and recreation facilities. More than half (65%) of those households with children 18 or under reported their children have participated in a recreation program in Carrollton. Within the past year, the mean number of programs these children have participated in is 2.6. The programs these children participated in most were soccer, baseball, basketball, swim lessons and recreation classes. The top ten programs or activities of most interest to children 18 or under are listed in priority order in the table below.

Recreation Programs of Most Interest to Children Programs

All

Respondents

Northwest

Northeast

Southwest

Southeast

1. Soccer

39.1%

43.2%

39.0%

29.4%

35.8%

2. Swim Lessons

36.3

43.2

39.0

32.4

24.5

3. Basketball

27.7

33.9

23.7

20.6

26.4

4. Baseball

26.2

28.8

24.6

35.3

17.0

5. Arts and Crafts

22.2

27.1

23.7

14.7

13.2

6. Golf

19.7

24.6

17.8

11.8

17.0

7. Gymnastics

19.7

16.1

25.4

14.7

18.9

8. Summer Camp

17.2

22.0

18.6

8.8

9.4

9. Dance/Drama

16.9

18.6

17.8

14.7

11.3

10. Fishing

15.1

17.8

10.2

26.5

13.2

Other programs rating just below the top ten (in order of mention) were; tennis, softball, martial arts, music education, T-ball, in-line hockey, preschool, biking, teen programs and volleyball.



March 2004


Park/Recreation Facility Usage and Program Needs- Adults A total of 92.3% of the respondents had adults 18 to 64 years of age within their household of which 90% of those adults use the parks and recreation facilities. More than half (52.7%) of those households with adults reported they have participated in a recreation program in Carrollton. The top ten programs or activities of most interest to adults are listed in priority order in the table below. Recreation Programs of Most Interest to Adults Programs

All

Respondents

Northwest

Northeast

Southwest

Southeast

1. Walk/Hike

38.2%

31.7%

30.8%

35.8%

47.8%

2. Fitness Classes

36.4

42.8

35.8

40.3

32.2

3. Golf

24.3

23.3

25.8

19.4

24.3

4. How to instructional courses

22.9

23.3

23.9

20.9

27.0

5. Nature Study/Gardening

22.6

17.2

20.8

25.4

27.8

6. Health Wellness Classes

22.4

20.0

22.6

23.9

22.6

7. Arts and Crafts Classes

20.0

18.3

20.1

26.9

16.5

8. Tennis

15.5

15.6

22.6

7.5

13.0

9. Biking

15.2

14.4

13.2

14.9

17.4

10. Softball

11.8

13.3

13.8

7.5

11.3

A total of only 7.0% of the adults were not interested in participating in any recreation programs or activities.



March 2004


Park/Recreation Facility Usage and Program Needs- Seniors A total of 18.6% of the respondents had senior adults 65 years of age or older within their household of which 73% of those seniors use the parks and recreation facilities. Almost half (49%) of the seniors reported they have participated in a recreation program in Carrollton. A total of 12% of seniors were not interested in participating in recreation programs or activities. The top programs or activities of most interest to seniors are listed in priority order in the table below. Findings are also presented by geographic area.

Recreation Programs of Most Interest to Seniors Programs

All

Respondents

Northwest

Northeast

Southwest

Southeast

1. Hike, Bike, Walk

33.1%

34.8%

30.0%

21.4%

27.6%

2. Computer Classes

33.1

34.8

20.0

50.0

37.9

3. Trips

33.1

39.1

35.0

21.4

37.9

4. Water Exercise

32.3

34.8

30.0

21.4

17.2

5. Fitness Classes

24.6

26.1

30.0

14.3

20.7

6. Arts and Crafts

23.8

21.7

50.0

14.3

10.3

7. Socials

18.5

17.4

30.0

14.3

17.2

8. How to Instructional Classes

17.7

21.7

20.0

21.4

10.3 9. Fishing

11.5

8.7

10.0

7.1

10.3

10. Bridge/Cards

11.5

17.4

5.0

14.3

17.2

Park Safety Over half (66.7%) of the respondents feel very safe when visiting Carrollton parks. A total of 27.3% feel only somewhat safe and 0.7% do not feel safe.



March 2004


Needed Park Facilities An important element in planning for the future of Carrollton, are the facilities the citizens feel are needed. The table below presents the facilities that the citizens felt are needed in order of importance. The mean rating scale is calculated; 3=definite need, 2=somewhat needed, 1=not needed. Those who had no opinion or were not familiar with the need for a particular facility

were excluded from the mean calculation.

Needed Park and Recreation Facilities - Carrollton Facility

Mean Score

% Responding Definitely Needed?

Satisfied with facility availability?

All

Northwest

Northeast

Southwest

Southeast

All Respondents

% Responding Yes

1. Hike/bike trails

2.61

2.68

2.60

2.60

2.56

43.9

17.9%

2. Walking trails in parks

2.53

2.52

2.53

2.50

2.45

42.6

28.7

3. Restroom facilities

2.47

2.39

2.52

2.59

2.39

35.6

20.0

4. Natural areas

2.43

2.42

2.42

2.34

2.43

37.4

*

5. Botanic/flower garden

areas

2.41

2.41

2.35

2.42

2.43

39.3

*

6. Senior center

2.41

2.23

2.32

2.42

2.42

18.6

27.9

7. Nature preserves

2.39

2.38

2.32

2.20

2.45

33.4

*

8. Picnic shelters/picnic

pavilions

2.31

2.33

2.35

2.27

2.23

30.0

29.1

9. Playgrounds/play

equipment

2.30

2.36

2.35

2.33

2.14

27.3

32.7

10. Lighted tennis courts

2.25

2.31

2.26

2.11

2.24

22.0

20.4

11. Fishing areas

2.22

2.20

2.22

2.00

2.38

28.3

*

12. Indoor pool

2.19

2.19

2.22

2.18

2.19

29.3

16.9

13. Practice soccer fields

2.16

2.25

2.24

2.00

2.18

19.4

18.0

14. Outdoor basketball

courts

2.11

2.21

2.21

1.81

2.05

16.9

20.0



March 2004



Mean Score



15. Recreation center

2.10

2.01

2.09

1.93

2.11

20.7

37.0

16. Practice baseball fields

2.09

2.19

2.13

1.94

2.10

18.4

24.3

17. Lighted outdoor

basketball courts

2.09

2.13

2.11

2.00

2.15

17.6

19.1

18. Lighted soccer fields

2.07

2.15

2.02

1.97

2.12

17.0

21.4

19. Indoor basketball

courts

2.04

1.97

2.16

1.82

2.15

15.9

21.7

20. Outdoor aquatic center

2.01

1.97

1.97

2.00

2.08

18.9

29.7

21. Practice softball fields

2.00

1.98

2.14

1.75

2.02

15.3

19.9

22. Lighted softball fields

2.00

1.99

2.05

1.75

2.04

14.4

22.7

23. Designated bird

watching areas

1.99

2.01

1.85

2.02

2.03

17.6

*

24. Lighted baseball fields

1.96

1.98

1.96

1.84

1.95

15.0

25.4

25. Indoor/outdoor in-line

hockey

1.96

2.08

2.10

1.75

1.84

12.4

15.3

26. Sand volleyball courts

1.93

2.00

1.84

1.74

2.02

10.7

16.4

27. Indoor volleyball courts

1.84

1.76

1.83

1.90

1.86

8.4

17.0

28. Unlighted soccer fields

1.82

1.85

1.70

1.81

1.92

10.6

20.9

29. Lighted football fields

1.78

1.70

1.76

1.78

1.79

8.7

23.9

30. Practice football fields

1.74

1.69

1.67

1.70

1.79

7.6

21.9

31. Skateboard park

1.72

1.75

1.80

1.61

1.73

8.3

18.9

32. Indoor ice rink

1.71

1.79

1.84

1.60

1.67

12.1

17.3

33. Unlighted softball fields

1.67

1.69

1.56

1.56

1.69

7.6

22.4

34. Vegetable garden area

1.65

1.58

1.58

1.63

1.70

10.0

*



March 2004



Mean Score



35. Unlighted baseball fields

1.62

1.66

1.49

1.45

1.64

6.1

25.4

36. Unlighted football fields

1.59

1.50

1.46

1.69

1.59

4.6

22.0

37. Equestrian facilities

1.53

1.52

1.56

1.50

1.60

6.3

17.4

38. Disc golf

1.51

1.29

1.65

1.46

1.59

3.6

23.1

39. Model airplane strip

1.41

1.31

1.34

1.41

1.48

4.1

18.0

40. Cricket field

1.25

1.16

1.30

1.27

1.26

1.1

18.7

*Question was not asked for these categories



March 2004


How to Pay for Park and Recreation Improvements 40% of respondents prefer to pay for improvements through voter approved bond programs. One-third of those responding to the survey reported they would prefer to pay for improvements out of the General Fund. Only 2.4% do not support any of these payment options. Percentages will add to more than 100% due to multiple responses.

How to Pay for Park and Recreation

Improvements

All Respondents

1. Voter Approved Bond Programs

40.1%

2. Pay for Improvements out of General

Fund

34.0

3. All of the above

34.1

4. User fees

17.1

Survey respondents were informed that each resident pays $56 per year (per person) in property taxes for park system improvements. They were asked if they would be willing to pay additional property taxes for park improvements. Three-fourths of respondents were willing to pay slightly more taxes for park improvements. The table below outlines the responses.

Willingness to Pay Additional Property

Taxes for Park Improvements

All Respondents

Up to $60 per year

22.0%

$60 to $65 per year

23.7

$66 to $70 per year

17.6

Over $70 per year

11.9

Would not pay additional taxes

24.8



March 2004


Additional Park Dollars

One-third of residents would like the park department to spend additional funds (if available) developing new park facilities.

If additional funds were available, where do you want them spent?

All Respondents

Develop new park facilities

33.1%

All of the above

30.0

Enhance park maintenance

23.4

New and/or expanded special events

5.0

None of the above

1.9

Community Events 70% of respondents reported the City of Carrollton should spend tax dollars on community events such as July 4th Celebration, Rural America Day, etc. Events respondents want the city to spend tax dollars on are listed in priority order in the table below. Percentages will add to more than 100% due to multiple answers.

Tax Dollars - Spent on Community Events

All Respondents

July 4th Celebration

90.8%

Country Fair

53.7

Wildflower Festival

38.7

Holiday Parade

38.5

Pool Trout Fish Out

34.2

Rural America

29.5



March 2004


Acquire Additional Park Land A total of 63% of the respondents reported that Carrollton should acquire additional park land. Almost one-third said no additional land should be acquired and 7% did not answer. The type of park land residents would like added to the City is outlined below. Percentages will add to more than 100% due to multiple answers. The geographic location preference of parks is outlined in the table below.

Type of Parkland that Residents Would Like Added in Carrollton

All Respondents

Neighborhood Parks (1 to 10 acres)

38.3%

Linear parks/trails/creek corridors

38.0

Community Parks (10 to 100 acres)

26.0

Special Use Areas (nature areas)

24.3

Open Spaces

12.6

Regional Parks (100 to 500 acres)

8.6

None need to be added

10.1

In which area of the city does park land need to

be added?

All Respondents

Northwest

52.9%

Northeast

42.1

Southeast

21.2

Southwest

18.2



March 2004


Respondent Demographic Profile The average respondent who participated in the survey has lived in Carrollton 14.8 years, with an average household size of 2.87 persons, and is 47.6 years of age. A total of 48% of the households surveyed do not have any children living in their home. Among households with children, the average number of children in the home is 1.2.

Age Distribution of Survey Respondents

Age

All Respondents Under 35

13.0%

35 to 44

34.4

45 to 54

27.3

55 to 64

13.6

65 to 74

7.6

75 or older

3.1

Years Lived in Carrollton

Years

All Respondents Less than 2 Years

7.6%

2 to 5 Years

13.9

6 to 10 Years

19.7

11 to 20 Years

33.7

Over 20 Years

24.7



March 2004


Geographic Region

Area

All Respondents Area 1-Northwest

33.7%

Area 2-Northeast

29.7

Area 3-Southwest

13.1

Area 4-Southeast

23.5



March 2004


VII. RECOMMENDATIONS/PRIORITIES FOR MASTER PLAN The recommendations and priorities in this section are a result of incorporating the inventory, standards analysis, and needs assessment into a ranking of priority needs. From the priority needs, an Action Plan can be established which will direct the growth, development, and maintenance of the parks, recreation, and open space system in Carrollton for the next five to ten years. The recommendations are based upon an existing population of 113,800 and a projected population of 119,435 in the year 2015.

Priority Summary

At the completion of the citizen survey during the needs assessment phase, a method of ranking priorities was implemented. This method included an extensive review of all standards, citizen input, staff input, board input, and consultant recommendations. The following factors were considered in order of importance with weighted values assigned to each:

1. Citizen Input/Survey Results - The specific needs and requests by the Carrollton community.

2. Parks & Recreation Staff Input – The specific needs as identified by staff based

upon recreation programs and demands upon resources. 3. Task Force Advisory Committee – Specific needs identified by members on the

committee that represent distinct recreational groups/activities in Carrollton.

4. City Council and Park Board Input – Specific needs throughout the community as identified by appointed board members.

5. Consultant Evaluation - Professional recommendations based upon years of park

planning/design experience as well as assessing the unique needs of Carrollton and its community, demographics, etc.

6. Youth Input – The specific needs and requests as identified by the Youth Task

Force.

7. NRPA Standards – Facility needs as identified through a comparison to national standards.

The results of the priority ranking were tabulated into three categories: High Priority, Moderate Priority, and Low Priority. The tables on the following pages provide a summary of the priorities for the City of Carrollton. These rankings do not represent a guarantee to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.



March 2004


IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK (Prioritized by Carrollton City Council)

PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION



High High High

These three amenities comprise a neighborhood park. Hall & Steenson Parks are completed.

Recreation Center High Currently expanding 1 recreation center. Crosby Recreation Center update proposed in next bond election.

Lighted football field Moderate Proposed at TC Rice 2004

Lighted softball fields Moderate Will be included at TC Rice and Josey Ranch

Indoor basketball courts Moderate Adding gym to Rosemeade expansion

Lighted baseball fields Moderate Will have additional fields when TC Rice complete

Lighted & unlighted soccer fields

Low Skiles property, 2003/2004

Fish areas Low Adding pond @ TC Rice

Cricket field Low Use existing field at McInnish

PROJECTS – PRIVATE


In-line hockey Moderate Working with private sector on existing low-use satellite tennis courts

Frisbee golf Low Working with association for new concrete tee boxes

PROJECTS REVIEWED BY CIPAC FOR NEXT BOND ELECTION


Bike Trails High Approximately 5 miles planned.


High High High

These three amenities comprise a neighborhood park. Plan to add on currently owned sites.

Recreation Center High Expanded 1 recreation center. Crosby Recreation Center update proposed in next bond election.

Natural Area Nature Preserve

High High

Plan to add @ TC Rice in Phase II.

Practice soccer fields High CCA property and partner with school districts.

Practice baseball fields High CCA property and partner with school districts.

Restrooms Moderate Planned for community and regional parks

Practice softball field Moderate CCA property and partner with school districts.

Practice football fields Moderate CCA property and partner with school districts.

Sand volleyball courts Moderate Added to neighborhood parks.

Bird watching areas Low Phase II TC Rice – currently have viewing area at Elm Fork Nature Center



March 2004


SUMMARY OF PRIORITY ITEMS *

Carrollton Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan

Facility

High Moderate Low

1. Bike Trails

2. Walking Trails


4. Playgrounds

5. Natural Areas

6. Nature Preserves



9. Restroom

10. Practice Softball Fields

11. In-Line Hockey

12. Lighted Football Fields

13. Lighted Softball Fields

14. Practice Football Fields

15. Indoor Basketball Courts

16. Lighted Baseball Fields

17. Lighted Outdoor Basketball Courts

18. Sand Volleyball Courts

19. Unlighted Football Fields

20. Lighted Tennis Courts 21. Outdoor Basketball Courts 22. Bird Watching Areas 23. Unlighted Soccer Fields 24. Lighted Soccer Fields 25. Botanic Garden 26. Unlighted Softball Fields 27. Unlighted Baseball Fields 28. Senior Center 29. Fishing Areas 30. Indoor Volleyball Courts 31. Indoor Ice Rink 32. Disc Golf 33. Equestrian Facilities 34. Vegetable Garden Area 35. Model Airplane Strip 36. Cricket Field

*This list represents citizens interests and suggestions. It does not represent a guarantee to schedule or fund these projects in the City’s multi-year business plan.



March 2004


Land Acquisition Recommendations As mentioned before, the City of Carrollton has for many years been a leading municipality in terms of overall park acreage based upon the total population. This trend has helped establish a very successful park and open space system throughout the City. An example of this foresight is the amount of open space land associated with the various drainage corridors in Carrollton. One cannot help but take special notice when touring the City and seeing the wide open areas along and adjacent to the creek drainage ways. This provides citizens a wonderful opportunity to enjoy open space areas with trees, natural water bodies, and wildlife habitats that are within this environment. The recreational experiences range from trail activities, to sightseeing, to picnicking, to the growing popularity of disc golf. The City of Carrollton owns 1,951.52 acres of parkland, as of November 2000. This total is very close to the NRPA high end standard of 20.5 acres per 1,000 population. It should be noted that there are various methods in obtaining additional parkland. This includes land that is donated by developers to the City within the requirements of the current park dedication ordinance. Additionally, the opportunities for joint-use sites and facilities with the local school districts provide a tremendous dual-use of public facilities. When considering the amount of school district land that exists in Carrollton, this alleviates some of the need to acquire additional parkland. Through creative joint-use agreements with the school districts, both the City and the schools can expand recreational variety and opportunities throughout the entire community while maximizing the citizens tax dollars.



March 2004


Recommendations For Facility Improvements * A. HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS 1. Provide for new bike trails at existing parks and within new park developments. Create

a bike trail network along greenways that follow the existing drainage corridors throughout Carrollton. These drainage corridors include Elm Fork Trinity River, Indian Creek, Dudley Branch, Furneaux Creek, and Hutton Branch. Establish a hierarchy of trails along these drainage corridors as well as along street corridors, where feasible, to accommodate multiple user groups. Development of trail systems can become important connectors to link residential neighborhoods to schools, parks, shopping centers and libraries as well as other destination areas.

2. Provide for new walking trails at existing parks, new park developments, and within the

greenway trail network along the drainage corridors. Provide accessible walks to park elements such as playgrounds and picnic shelters. If parks are large enough, provide a loop trail throughout the park for regular walkers, joggers, and rollerbladers.

3. Provide picnic shelters/pavilions in existing and new neighborhood parks, community

parks, and special use areas. Picnic shelters should support other recreational activities at the park site and provide for handicap access throughout.

4. Provide playgrounds by upgrading existing park facilities as well as by providing new

equipment/playgrounds in areas currently not served in the community. Provide playground surfacing that meets current safety and accessibility standards. Playground structures should provide recreational opportunities for various age groups and child development skills. Pursue joint-use of school district facility playgrounds in specific neighborhood areas within Carrollton.

5. Provide for public access to natural areas that exist along trail systems associated with

the greenway corridors as well as within large parks that contain natural areas. Pursue joint-use initiatives with school districts for interpretive areas and outdoor learning opportunities within unique natural areas.

6. Expand the Elm Fork Nature Center to include more nature preserves for public

enjoyment. Additionally, explore opportunities for nature preserve areas behind Rural America.

7. Provide practice soccer fields in new community park developments and in open

space areas along wide sections of the greenbelt corridors. Pursue joint-use of school district facilities for use as practice fields during after school hours and weekends.

8. Provide practice baseball fields in new community park developments and in open




March 2004


B. MODERATE PRIORITY ITEMS 9. Provide new restrooms as a program item for new community parks. New restrooms

should be provided where high use occurs, such as competition athletic and ballfield complexes.

10. Provide practice softball fields in new community park developments and in open


11. Provide a new in-line hockey court as a program item within a new community park

development. An alternative plan would be to renovate an old tennis court in Carrollton to provide a permanent in-line hockey court for youth programmed activities.

12. Provide lighted football fields in future community parks and/or athletic complexes.

Additionally, pursue joint-use of school district facilities across the Carrollton community.

13. Provide lighted softball fields in future community parks and/or athletic complexes. Additionally, pursue joint-use of school district facilities across the Carrollton community.

14. Provide practice football fields in new community park developments and in open


15. Provide indoor basketball courts through joint-use agreements with local school

districts. Additionally, include new basketball courts as a program item in new recreation center developments or expansions.

16. Provide lighted baseball fields in future community parks and/or athletic complexes.

Additionally, pursue joint-use of school district facilities across the Carrollton community.

17. Provide lighted outdoor basketball courts in new community parks, as well as through joint-use of school district facilities.

18. Provide sand volleyball courts as a new program item at new community parks, and

possibly include sand volleyball as part of new swimming pool developments.

19. Provide unlighted football fields in new community park developments and in open space areas along wide sections of the greenbelt corridors. Pursue joint-use of school district facilities for use as practice fields during after school hours and weekends.

* The implementation of the recommendations depends on future City Council approval and available funding.



March 2004


Expenditure Analysis The following tables show preliminary cost figures associated with each priority item, and potential locations for each improvement. From this list, an Action Plan has been prepared in Section VIII, Implementation.

EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS

Rank Facility Improvement/ Recommendation

Range of Locations * Proposed Budget

HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS








New Community Parks

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park



Varies – depending on paving type, width, length

10’ concrete trail is average of $40 - $50 per linear foot

Trail amenities such as seating, lighting, landscape, irrigation are additional



W.J. Thomas Park

Jimmy Porter Park

Keller Springs Park

Mill Valley Park

Rosemeade Park

Oak Creek Park

Summerfield II Park

Branch Hollow Park

Francis Perry Park

Ken Good Park

Martha Pointer Park


Varies – depending on paving type, width, length

6’ concrete trail is average $24 per linear foot

Trail amenities such as seating, lighting, landscape, irrigation are additional



March 2004





3. Picnic Shelters/Pavilions New Park Developments



Martha Pointer Park

W.J. Thomas Park


Francis Perry Park

Greenbelt Parks

Ken Good Park

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park

Rosemeade Park

Summerfield II Park

Small - $40,000-$100,000

Large - $350,000 (includes HVAC and restrooms)






Greenbelt Parks


Upgrades:

$20,000 to $70,000 range

New:

$50,000 to $125,000 range



Oak Creek Park


Joint-use School Programming w/

Schools




Rural America Site



7. Practice Soccer Fields Landfill

New Community Parks



$40,000-$70,000 range

8. Practice Baseball Fields Landfill

New Community Parks



$50,000-$80,000 range



March 2004





MODERATE PRIORITY ITEMS

9. Restrooms T.C. Rice Jr. Athletic Complex $75,000-$125,000

10. Practice Softball Fields New Community Parks



$50,000-$80,000 range

11. In-Line Hockey New Community Park

Or Renovated Tennis Court

$150,000-$250,000

12. Lighted Football Fields New Community Parks



$200,000-$400,000

13. Lighted Softball Fields New Community Parks



$200,000-$300,000

14. Practice Football Fields New Community Parks



$50,000-$100,000

15. Indoor Basketball Courts Joint-use School Facilities

Crosby Rec. Ct. Expansion

Rosemeade Rec. Ct. Expansion

N/A

16. Lighted Baseball Fields New Community Parks



$200,000-$300,000

17. Lighted Outdoor

Basketball Courts

New Community Parks


$50,000-$75,000

18. Sand Volleyball Courts New Community Parks

Rosemeade Pool Expansion

Thomas Pool Center Expansion

$25,000-$30,000

19. Unlighted Football Fields New Community Parks



$50,000-$100,000




March 2004


VIII. IMPLEMENTATION This portion of the Master Plan identifies ways and methods of implementing the Master Plan recommendations. There are three avenues of implementation that are important to this Master Plan: Policies and Ordinances, Funding Sources, and a Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan. As the implementation of the Master Plan proceeds, yearly updates and adjustments should be made by the City to confirm the overall priorities, development activity, and funding of the Carrollton parks systems.

Policies and Ordinances

Policies Policies are tools which aid the citizens, staff, and public officials to communicate and coordinate on all matters which affect the Carrollton parks system. The elected officials and boards, the City staff, the associated school districts, adjacent municipalities, and the citizens of Carrollton must all communicate and work toward common goals. This will ensure the successful development of the park system for many generations to come.

1. Elected City Council and Boards and Commissions

Continue efforts for the review and comment procedure to coordinate communications between the Park Board, City Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council.

2. City Staff

Various City of Carrollton departments should communicate in the same manner previously described. Input from all of the departments will provide the best possible solution and create a team approach to getting the best parks, recreation, and open space system for Carrollton. Teams from operating departments should be formed to periodically review and recommend methods by which the implementation and continued support of the Master Plan is achieved.

3. Adjacent Municipalities

The Carrollton Parks Department should continue communications with the adjacent municipalities. Trail connections along drainage ways, open space connections, and joint use agreements can benefit all citizens in the region.

4. School Districts

The existing joint use agreement between the City of Carrollton and the various Independent School Districts is an excellent start to jointly utilize facilities. The City and School Districts serve many of the same citizens and perform some of the same tasks. A joint-use program of cooperation



March 2004


between the City and the School Districts saves tax payers money and maximizes local resources.

The City and various Independent School Districts should formalize and expand the agreements to include use of school district athletic fields and practice fields. The agreement should address maintenance, construction and liability issues for the proposed construction of amenities at school sites by the City and further use of existing indoor and outdoor school district owned facilities.

5. Citizens

The citizens of Carrollton have been and should continue to be involved in the Master Plan. A primary source of citizen involvement is through the various sports associations and other organized groups. These types of associations can support the implementation of this plan by volunteering for maintenance and recreations programs in their local parks. They can also provide unified support for fund raising activities, bond issues, and park issues that come before the City Council.

Ordinances Ordinances provide the legal framework for implementation of the Master Plan. The following ordinances will assist the City of Carrollton in meeting the goals and objectives for the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan:

1. City/School/Others Cooperative Program

A joint-use agreement and programs for the cooperative sharing of facilities and maintenance saves the taxpayers of Carrollton money for years to come and allows for more and better quality facilities.

Although specific City/School use agreements currently exist, a more comprehensive program will provide guidance for determining the need for development of land, facilities, maintenance and programs.

2. Landscape Ordinance

The City of Carrollton has recently adopted a Landscape Ordinance which includes a tree ordinance. It is intended to promote: preservation, protection, and enhancement of the ecological and aesthetic attributes of the City; ecological stabilization through urban forest management; protection, preservation and enhancement of the urban forest’s appearance; and protection and preservation of native and specimen vegetative species.



March 2004


3. Park Dedication Ordinance The City of Carrollton has a Park Dedication Ordinance which provides for

neighborhood park land dedication or payment of cash in lieu of as a condition to subdivision plat approval. Neighborhood parks provide a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities, and a significant portion of the cost can be shared with the ultimate residential property owners who will be the primary beneficiaries of such facilities.

Funding Sources There are several sources for funding the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. The following sources of funding are available and may be utilized by the City depending on specific projects undertaken:

1. Bonds

There are two types of bonds which are used and have to be approved by referendum. General Obligation Bonds finance projects which do not produce enough revenue to cover the cost of bond retirement such as streets, fire station, and some park projects. Revenue Bonds finance projects that produce enough revenue to retire their debt such as golf course and park projects.

Bond programs are affected by the bond indebtedness of the City, the bond rating of the City, the bond market conditions, and the types of other improvements which are competing with proposed park projects.

2. General Fund

This is the primary source of funds for providing capital programs and improvements. The various park grant programs that award matching funds to non-profit organizations and municipalities to improve park facilities should be continued as a way to garner public support while stretching the general fund dollars.

3. Enterprise and Revenue Funds

These are accounts separate from the general fund that can be used for specific program or activity such as recreation programs or facility expansion.



March 2004


4. Grants-In-Aid

These grant programs provide funding from sources other than municipal sources. The following list identifies potential grant programs:

a. Texas Recreation and Parks Account (TRPA) Program - Texas Local

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Fund, administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Funds are available on a fifty percent (50%) cost share basis.

b. The Landscaping Cost Sharing Program, administered by the Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Fifty percent (50%) cost sharing support is available for both highway and pedestrian landscape projects on routes within the designated permanent state highway system.

c. Partnership Enhancement Monetary Grant Program, administered by

the National Tree Trust. Matching grants are available on a 50/50 cost share basis. Funds are available for projects which promote public awareness in support of tree planting, maintenance, management, protection and cultivation of trees in rural, community and urban settings. These are small grants ranging from $500 to $20,000.

d. Urban and Community Forest Challenge Grant, administered by the

Texas Department of Forestry. Matching grants are available on a 50/50 cost share basis for a variety of projects including program development, beautification, staffing and training workshops. These are small grants of $5,000 to $15,000. In-kind services and/or private money can provide the matching funds.

e. CARA Funding: The Conservation and Reinvestment Act

establishes a fund with income derived from oil and natural gas royalties, and from exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf. Each year funding will be transferred to other federal funds and accounts for land conservation, acquisition, management and other activities.

f. CDBG Funding: The Carrollton “Consolidated Plan” receives funding

in accordance with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programs national objectives as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Carrollton entitlement for FY 99 was $741,000. In FY 2000, the city will receive $745,000 under the CDBG Program. Over a five-year period Carrollton’s 1999-2005 Consolidated plan will apply CDBG funding to Infrastucture Improvements, Public Facility and Park Improvements, Human Service Enhancements, Lead-Based Paint Education and



March 2004


Reduction, Housing Education and Assistance, and Economic Development and Anti-Poverty Strategies.

g. Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue: Revenue from municipal hotel occupancy

tax may be used to promote or enhance tourism. Acquisition of sites for and the construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of convention center facilities or visitor information centers or both. Promotional programs to attract tourists. Encouragement, promotion, improvement, and application of the arts. Presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of major art forms. Historical restoration and preservation projects or activities or advertising to attract tourists to historic sites or museums.

h. Dallas County Park and Open Space Program: Provides grant

funding to entities that “preserve naturally significant and environmentally sensitive open space” and to unite resources in a “comprehensive and coordinated” open space system throughout Dallas County.

Some of these are competitive programs that incorporate a scoring system, so funding is not guaranteed the first time an application is submitted.

5. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed into law on June 9, 1998, and makes over $3 billion dollars available to state and local agencies over the next six years for transportation enhancement projects. Funds are available for such projects as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, trails, rails-to-trails, historic preservation and similar projects.

6. Public Improvement District (P.I.D.)

New developments can establish a Public Improvement District (P.I.D.) when authorized by the City Council and legally set up according to state law. This taxing district provides funds specifically for the operation and maintenance of public amenities such as parks and major boulevards.

7. Parks Foundation

A Parks Foundation, a 501 (c) 3 Non-profit Organization, can support the activities, programs and facilities of the Carrollton Parks and Recreation Department. This type of organization provides an opportunity for donation of time and money for the enhancement of special events, programming and park improvements.



March 2004


8. Private Donations

Private Donations may also be received in the form of funds, land, facilities, recreation equipment, art or in-kind services. Donations from local and regional businesses as sponsors for events or facilities should be pursued.

9. Joint Use Agreement/Cost Sharing

Joint use agreements and cost sharing for initial development, purchase of land, use of existing land and facilities, and maintenance and operation costs of facilities can be established to allow for several entities paying and using the same facilities. Joint use agreements with the school district and private recreation providers should continue to be pursued.

10. Privately Run Enterprise

Privately run businesses which operate in conjunction with parks and recreation programs can provide another avenue to provide further recreation opportunities.



March 2004


Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan The Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan responds to the high priority items for facility needs and sets up a proposed time table with respect to the potential funding sources. Working in coordination with the City staff, the plan combines action item recommendations for improvements and new facilities in an effort to enhance the quality of programming and facilities throughout the City of Carrollton. The tables on Pages 162-164 outline facility improvements by ranking, location, proposed budgets, and a time frame within which projects could be funded. The map on Page 166 graphically summarizes the high priority items within the Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan. During the course of the next ten years, if additional funding is received, the schedule of projects may be advanced to move projects up earlier in the Proposed Ten-Year Plan, allowing funding for longer range projects. The chart on Page 161 outlines the current CIP budget for the City of Carrollton Parks Department. The Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan reflects some items already funded in the current CIP.



March 2004


CITY OF CARROLLTON PARKS & RECREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

($) THOUSANDS

CIP 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTALS

BOND PROGRAM:

Rosemeade Recreation Center $1,450 $1,450

Tennis Center Phase I & II $2,000 $2,000

NH Park – Timbercreek $450 $450

Ward Steenson Park Development $550 $550

Clifford E. “Bill” Hall Park Development $450 $450

Rural America/Skiles Land Acquisition $1,450 $1,450

Josey Ranch Lake Improvements $1,500 $1,500

Josey Ranch Lake Drainage $1,500 $1,500

Senior Center $3,200 $3,200

T.C. Rice, Jr. Athletic Complex-Phase I & II

$7,900 $2,775 $10,675

Woodlake Development $1,200 $1,200

AVAILABLE CASH BALANCES $100

$

TOTALS $450 $3,500 $1,500 $5,560 $1,450 $9,100 $2,775 $0 $0 $0 $24,425

A LIFETIME OF LEISURE CARROLLTON PARKS MASTER PLAN

March 2004


Rank

Action Plan

Range of Locations *

Proposed Budget

Proposed Schedule (Pending Funding)

HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS








New Community Parks

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park




10’ concrete trail averages $40-$50 per linear foot


Years 1 through 10



W.J. Thomas Park

Jimmy Porter Park

Keller Springs Park

Mill Valley Park

Rosemeade Park

Oak Creek Park

Summerfield II Park

Ward Steenson Park

Branch Hollow Park

Ken Good Park

Martha Pointer Park



6’ concrete trail averages $24 per linear foot


Years 1 Through 10


March 2004


Rank

Action Plan


Proposed Budget



New Park Developments



Martha Pointer Park

W.J. Thomas Park


Greenbelt Parks

Ken Good Park

Mill Valley Park

Oak Creek Park

Rosemeade Park

Summerfield II Park

Ward Steenson Park

Small:

$40,000 to $100,000

Large:

$350,000 (includes HVAC and restrooms)

Years 3 through 6






Greenbelt Parks


Upgrades:

$20,000 to $70,000 range

New:

$50,000 - $125,000 range

Years 1 through 10



Oak Creek Park


Joint-use School Programming w/Schools



Years 1 through 10


Rural America Site



Years 5 through 8


Landfill

New Community Parks



$40,000 - $70,000 range

Years 2 through 8


March 2004


Rank

Action Plan


Proposed Budget



Landfill

New Community Parks



$50,000 to $80,000 range

Years 2 through 8



March 2004


Plan Update and Refinement The preparation of this Master Plan marks the beginning of a new direction for continued development of the Carrollton parks system. The process of preparing the Master Plan has successfully involved the needs and specific goals of the community as identified by the Task Force Committee, Park Board, City Staff, City Council and citizens of Carrollton. The process of implementing the plan must now move forward into action. The Master Plan provides the guiding direction for Carrollton’s park system for the next five to ten years. It is a dynamic process, and therefore, will need to be carefully monitored as Carrollton matures. The plan is not static, therefore, it must be applied to the changing needs and demands for park facilities throughout the City. The City staff should make annual reviews of the proposed Ten-Year Action Plan and update current priorities, budgets, and time schedules. After five years, the overall Master Plan should be reviewed and evaluated, especially in the area of the needs assessment from the citizens. This will ensure that the Master Plan meets the needs of those who live and raise their families in the community. As this happens, the City will continue to provide its citizens with sustainable park facilities and services for all age groups.


March 2004


Insert Proposed Ten-Year Action Plan Map


March 2004


IX. APPENDIX Bibliography Lancaster, Roger A., ed. (1990). Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Alexandria, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association.


March 2004


DATED: MAY 2000 Carrollton Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of updating the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. We are asking for Carrollton citizens to participate in this study, by completing this survey, so the city can plan future parks and recreation facilities and programs based upon your needs. About the Parks/Recreation Facilities in Carrollton

1. In general, how would you rate the maintenance of the parks in Carrollton? Would you say; (5)

1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Don’t Know/Not Familiar 2. How would you rate the quality of recreation programs offered by the city? Would you say; (6)

1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Don’t Know/Not Familiar 3. How have you been informed of park and recreation programs and facilities in Carrollton? (Circle all that apply) (7-14)

(V5-75) 1-Leisure ConnectionsMagazine 4-Radio 7-City of Carrollton Web Site 2-Youth Sports Associations 5-Cable Television 8-Other 3-Park & Recreation Dept. Flyers 6-Water Bill 9-Have not been informed

4. How would you rate the City of Carrollton’s communication efforts to the citizens about Parks and

Recreation Activities? 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Not familiar with any communication efforts (15) 5. Overall, how would you rate the parks, recreation opportunities and open space in Carrollton?

Would you say; (16) 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Don’t know/No opinion

Youth and Teens Parks & Recreation Programs (Are there children under 18 in your household? If no, skip to Q7a.)

6a. How often do children under 18 in your household visit a park or park facility within the City of Carrollton? (17)

1-At least daily 3-At least monthly 5-Never 2-At least weekly 4-Less than monthly 6-No children under 18-Skip to Q7a.

6b. In how many Carrollton recreation programs did your children under 18 participate within the past year? (18)

1-One 3-Three 5-Five 7-Seven 9-Nine 11-None 2-Two 4-Four 6-Six 8-Eight 10-Ten or more

6c. In which City of Carrollton programs did your children participate in within the past year? (19-48)

01-Track 05-Basketball 09-Softball 13-Dance/Drama (V76-150) 02-Volleyball 06-Soccer 10-Tennis 14-Recreation Classes 03-Swim Lessons 07-Tennis 11-Disc Golf 15-Other special events 17-None 04-Football 08-Baseball 12-Recreation classes 16-Other____________


March 2004


6d. In which programs or activities would your children under 18 years old be most interested in participating in the City? (49-114)

(Circle those they would be most interested in participating) (V151-225) 01-Baseball 08-Volleyball 15-Gardening 22-Swim Lessons 29-After School Program 02-T-Ball 09-Sand Volleyball 16-Wrestling 23-Dance/Drama 30-Teen Programs 03-Softball 10-Racquetball 17-Hiking 24-Music Education 31-Preschool 04-Soccer 11-Golf 18-Biking 25-Nature Study 32-Evening Teen Programs 05-Football 12-Disc Golf 19-Rock Climbing 26-Arts and Crafts 33-Other 06-Basketball 13-Gymnastics 20-Martial Arts 27-Summer Camp 34-None/not interested 07-Tennis 14-In-line Hockey 21-Fishing 28-Agricultural Programs (4H/FAA)

Adult Parks & Recreation Programs (If no adults aged 18 to 64 in household, skip to Q8a.)

7a. How often do adults ages 18 to 64 in your household visit a park or park facility in the City of Carrollton? (115)

1-At least daily 3-At least monthly 5-Never 2-At least weekly 4-Less than monthly 6-No adults aged 18 to 64 in household-

Skip to Q8a. 7b. How often have adults in your household participated in a recreation program or activity in the City of Carrollton?

1-At least daily 3-At least monthly 5-Never 2-At least weekly 4-Less than monthly (116)

7c. In which recreation programs or activities would the adults in your household be most interested in participating in the Carrollton? (Circle those they would be most interested in participating) (117-164)

01-Baseball 08-Volleyball 15-Fitness Classes (V226-300) 02-Basketball 09-Sand Volleyball 16-Horseshoes 22-How to/instructional courses 03-Softball 10-Tennis 17-Music/Dance/Drama Theater 23-Cricket

04-Soccer 11-Swim Lessons 18-Camping 24-Special events 05-Racquetball 12-Running 19-Arts and Crafts Classes 25-Other____________ 06-Golf 13-Biking 20-Health/Wellness Classes 26-None/not interested 07-Disc golf 14-Walk/Hike 21-Nature Study/Gardening

Senior Parks & Recreation Programs (Are there senior adults aged 65 or older in your household? If no, skip to Q9a.)

8a. How often do senior adults in your household visit a park, park facility or senior center in the City of Carrollton? (165)

1-At least daily 3-At least monthly 5-Never 2-At least weekly 4-Less than monthly 6-No senior adults-Skip to Q9a.

8b. How often have the senior adults in your household participated in a recreation program or activity in Carrollton? (166)

1-At least daily 3-At least monthly 5-Never 2-At least weekly 4-Less than monthly


March 2004


8c. In which recreation programs or activities would the senior adults in the household be most interested in participating in the Carrollton?

(Circle those you would be most interested in participating) (67-202) 01-Fitness classes 06-Horseshoes 11-Senior Olympics 16-How to/instructional classes

(V301-375) 02-Water exercise 07-Fishing 12-Woodworking 17-Computer classes 03-Tennis 08-Bridge/cards 13-Health/wellness classes 18-Trips 04-Hike/bike/walk 09-Billiards 14-Socials 19-Other 05-Golf 10-Arts & crafts 15-Dominos 20-None/not interested

Park Safety

9a. In general, do you feel safe when visiting parks in the City? (203) 1-Very safe 2-Only somewhat safe 3-Not at all safe

9b. (Answer if responded not at all safe in Q9a. above) In which park do you feel unsafe? Why? (V376-450)

Needed Park and Recreation Facilities

10a. Which of the following RECREATION facilities need to be ADDED to existing parks or future parks in the City of Carrollton? Tell us if you are satisfied with the availability of each facility listed.

(Indicate the level of need by circling one answer for each facility) Facilities that Need to be Added Satisfied with Facility Availability?

(Circle one box for each facility listed) Definite Somewhat Not No Opinion/

Recreation Facility Need Needed Needed Not Familiar Yes No

204 Senior Center 1 2 3 4 (218)

205 Hike/Bike Trails 1 2 3 4 (219)

206 Walking Trail within a park 1 2 3 4 (220)

207 Indoor Ice Rink 1 2 3 4 (221)

208 Skateboard Park 1 2 3 4 (222)

209 Recreation Center 1 2 3 4 (223)

210 Picnic Shelters/Picnic Pavilions 1 2 3 4 (224)

211 Playgrounds and Play Equipment 1 2 3 4 (225)

212 Outdoor Aquatic Center 1 2 3 4 (226)

213 Indoor Pool 1 2 3 4 (227)

214 Model Airplane Strip 1 2 3 4 (228)

215 Restroom Facilities 1 2 3 4 (229)

216 Equestrian facilities 1 2 3 4 (230)

217 Other (list) 1 2 3 4 (231) (V451-525)


March 2004


10b. Which of the following ATHLETIC facilities need to be ADDED to existing parks or in future parks in the City of Carrollton? Tell us if you are satisfied with the availability of each facility listed. (Indicate the level of need by circling one answer for each facility)

Facilities that Need to be Added Satisfied with Facility Availability?

(Circle one answer for each facility listed) Definite Somewhat Not No Opinion/

Athletic Facility Need Needed Needed Not Familiar Yes No

232 Outdoor/Indoor In-Line Hockey 1 2 3 4 (255)

233 Skateboard Park 1 2 3 4 (256)

234 Indoor Volleyball Courts 1 2 3 4 (257)

235 Sand Volleyball Courts 1 2 3 4 (258)

236 Outdoor Basketball Courts 1 2 3 4 (259)

237 Indoor Basketball Courts 1 2 3 4 (260)

238 Lighted Outdoor Basketball Courts 1 2 3 (261)

239 Lighted Baseball Fields 1 2 3 4 (262)

240 Unlighted Baseball Fields 1 2 3 4 (263)

241 Practice Baseball Fields 1 2 3 4 (264)

242 Lighted Softball Fields 1 2 3 4 (265)

243 Unlighted Softball Fields 1 2 3 4 (266)

244 Practice Softball Fields 1 2 3 4 (267)

245 Lighted Soccer Fields 1 2 3 4 (268)

246 Unlighted Soccer Fields 1 2 3 4 (269)

247 Practice Soccer Fields 1 2 3 4 (270)

248 Lighted Football Fields 1 2 3 4 (271)

249 Unlighted Football Fields 1 2 3 4 (272)

250 Practice Football Fields 1 2 3 4 (273)

251 Lighted Tennis Courts 1 2 3 4 (274)

252 Cricket Field 1 2 3 4 (275)

253 Disc Golf 1 2 3 4 (276)

254 Other (list) 1 2 3 4 (277) (V451-525)


March 2004


10c. Which of the following PASSIVE facilities need to be ADDED to existing parks or in future parks in the City of Carrollton? (Indicate the level of need by circling one answer for each facility)

Definite Somewhat Not No Opinion/ Passive Facility Need Needed Needed Not Familiar Botanic/Flower Garden Areas 1 2 3 4 (278)

Vegetable Garden Areas 1 2 3 4 (279)

Designated areas for Bird Watching 1 2 3 4 (280)

Natural Areas 1 2 3 4 (281)

Open Spaces 1 2 3 4 (282)

Ponds/Lakes in selected parks 1 2 3 4 (283)

Fishing Areas 1 2 3 4 (284)

Nature Preserves 1 2 3 4 (285)

Others - list 1 2 3 4 (286) (V526-600) 11. How should the City pay for new and added park facilities (mentioned in Q10a.-c.& Q11.)? (Circle all that apply) (287-290) (V601-675)

1-Voter-Approved Bond Programs 4-Other suggestions 2-Pay for improvements out of the General Fund 5-Do not support any 3-User fees (A fee to use the facility)

12. If the City of Carrollton Park and Recreation had additional funds, in which area would you want

those funds spent? (291-294) V676-750)

1-Enhance the park maintenance 3-New and improved special events 4-None of the above 2-Develop new park facilities (Such as: 4th of July Celebration, Rural America) 5 Other_____________

13a. Should the City of Carrollton spend tax dollars on community events such as July 4th Celebration, Rural America, etc.? (295)

1-Yes 2-No - Skip to Q14.

13b. If yes, which events should the City invest in? (296-301) 1-July 4th Celebration 3-Pool/Trout Fish-Out 5-Holiday Parade 2-Rural America 4-Country Fair 6-Wildflower Festival

14. On average, currently each resident of Carrollton pays $56 (per person) in property taxes per year for park system services. In order to pay for park and recreation improvements, would you be willing to pay: (302)

1-Up to $60 per year 2-$60-$65 per year 3-$65-$70 per year 4-Would not pay additional taxes 15a. Do you feel the City of Carrollton needs to acquire additional park land? 1-Yes 2-No - skip to Q16. (303) 15b. If yes, in which area of the city does park land need to be acquired? 1-Northwest 3-Southwest (304)

(Refer to map attached) 2-Northeast 4-Southeast


March 2004


16. What type of parkland, if any, needs to be added to Carrollton? (305-311)

1-Neighborhood parks ( 1 to 10 acres) 4-Linear parks/trails/creek corridors 7-Specialty park (such as golf)

2-Community parks (10 to 100 acres) 5-Special use areas (nature areas) 8-None needs to be added

3-Regional parks (100 to 500 acres) 6-Open spaces

Household Information

17. How long have you been a resident of Carrollton? (312)

1-Less than 2 yrs 2 - 2 to 5 yrs. 3 - 6 to 10 yrs 4 - 11 to 20 yrs. 5-Over 20 yrs 18. How many persons, including yourself, reside within your household? (313)

1-One 2-Two 3-Three 4-Four 5-Five 6-Six or more 19. Your age? 1 - Under 18 3 - 25 to 34 5 - 45 to 54 7 - 65 to 74 (314)

2 - 19 to 24 4 - 35 to 44 6 - 55 to 64 8 - 75 or over 37. How many children live with you in each of the following age groups? 38. (If no children-Skip to Q22.) (315-320) Preschool or younger (4 yrs. or under) High school (15 to 18 yrs.)

Elementary school (5 to 11 yrs.) College age or older (19 and older) Middle school (12 to 14) Total Children living at home

21. In which geographic area of Carrollton do you reside? (Refer to map) (321)

1- Area 1-Northwest 2- Area 2-Northeast 3-Area 3-Southwest 4-Area 4-Southeast 22. What is the single most important issue or need concerning Carrollton parks and recreation programs and facilities? (V751-10500)

(Write in any comments) 23. OPTIONAL: Do you have interest in becoming a volunteer for Carrollton Parks and Recreation? If so, indicate areas of interest.

1-Special events 5-Youth sports (322-329) 2-Leisure Services (Kids camps) 6-Recreation Centers 3-Elm Fork Nature Preserve 7-Senior Center 4-A.W. Perry Homestead Museum 8-Other areas (please specify______________) (V1051-1125)


March 2004


24. If you have volunteer interest, please provide the following contact information.

Name:___________________________________ Daytime phone:____________________________ (V1126-1200)

Your time and participation in completing this survey is greatly appreciated.


March 2004


INSERT ACTION STRATEGY


March 2004


BENCHMARK ANALYSIS (May 2000) When developing a master plan for the City of Carrollton, Texas, Leon Younger & PROS undertook a study of five cities, picked for their location, size, and similar demographics (May 2000). The cities chosen to compare Carrollton to included Tempe, Arizona, (pop. 159,220), Plano, Texas (pop. 232,904), Henderson, Nevada (pop. 175,000), North Richland Hills (pop. 56,151) and Lawrence, Kansas (pop. 82,340). These cities have all received the National Recreation and Park Association Gold Medal Award for outstanding park and recreation services. The primary objective of the benchmark analysis is to determine how Carrollton compares to these cities. The following information demonstrates Carrollton’s investment in comparison to these other communities. This information can also assist Carrollton as it continues to achieve sustainability. Total Operating Budget Carrollton’s operating budget was fifth out of the six cities compared to with an average per capita investment of $63.66.

Cities Per Capita Investment

Carrollton $63.66 Henderson $102.85 Lawrence $69.46 N. Richland Hills $124.54 Plano $59.74 Tempe $75.47

Number of Employees The numbers of full time employees are compared to the total population of the cities. Carrollton ranks second in the number of full-time employees per population served with North Richland Hills ranking first.

Cities Ratio of FTE: 1,000 population

Carrollton 1:1,019 Henderson 1:1,682 Lawrence 1:1,266 North Richland Hills 1:719 Plano 1:1,640 Tempe 1:1,234


March 2004


Capital Improvement Budget The yearly average for capital improvement budgets was derived by dividing the total number of CIP dollars allocated annually against the population based on a per capita expenditure. Carrollton ranks fifth in annual per capita spending for capital improvements for parks and recreation facilities.

Cities Per Capita Investment per person

Carrollton $28.57 Henderson $137.14 Lawrence $60.72 N. Richland Hills $106.85 Plano $42.93 Tempe $15.07

Trail Miles Carrollton ranks last among the cities surveyed for the number of trails miles available per level population. The number of total miles of trails available per capita is as follows:

Cities Miles per population

Carrollton 1:17,633 Henderson No trails available Lawrence 1:1,176 N. Richland Hills 1 mile per 9,389 people Plano 1:6,129 Tempe 1:2,394

Acres of Community Parks The city of Carrollton has five community parks totaling 607 acres. Carrollton ranks first in the number of acres of community parks per person among the five cities in the comparison. The comparative number of community park acreage from the other cities is as follows:

Cities Acres Per Capita

Carrollton 1:174 Henderson 1:1,346 N. Richland Hills 1:218 Plano 1:219 Tempe 1:303


March 2004


Acres of Neighborhood Parks The city of Carrollton has 21 neighborhood parks totaling 157 acres. Carrollton ranks second in available neighborhood parkland per population served. The comparative cities of neighborhood parks acreages per capita is as follows:

Cities Acres Per Capita

Carrollton 1:673 Henderson 1:921 N. Richland Hills 1:1,604 Plano 1:1,068 Tempe 1:513

Budget and Taxes Carrollton’s operating budget ratio between taxes and user fees is the lowest among the comparative cities. Of the city’s total operating budget, 11% comes from other revenues sources outside of taxes. Gamefields The city of Carrollton has 36 game fields to serve 105,000 people compared to a per field population level as follows:

Cities Fields Per Capita

Carrollton 1:2,938 Henderson 1:10,294 Lawrence 1:1,680 N. Richland Hills 1:1,517 Plano 1:2,305 Tempe 1:2,151

Game Courts Carrollton ranks fifth in the number of courts available per person among the five comparable cities. The number of game courts per population served is as follows:

Cities Courts Per Capita

Carrollton 1:3,750 Henderson 1:3,645 Lawrence 1:1,960 N. Richland Hills 1:2,159 Plano 1:7,057 Tempe 1:125


March 2004


Pools The city of Carrollton has two (2) pools and ranks fifth in the pools per people served which is only behind N. Richland Hills. The number of pools per population served is as follows:

Cities Pools Per Capita


Recreation Centers The city of Carrollton has two (2) recreation centers to serve their current population and ranks fourth when compared to the other cities. The number of recreation centers for the population served is as follows:

Cities Recreation Centers Per Capita



March 2004


NUMBER OF GAMEFIELDS

This number includes baseball, football, multi-purpose, soccer, and softball gamefields

36

17

49

37

101

74

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Carrollton Henderson Lawrence North

Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Game Fields

Carrollton 36

Henderson 17

Lawrence 49

North Richland Hills 37

Plano 101

Tempe 74


March 2004


NUMBER OF GAMECOURTS

This number includes basketball, multi-purpose, shuffleboard, tennis and racquetball courts

28

48

42

26

33

127

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Game Courts

Carrollton 28

Henderson 48

Lawrence 42


Plano 33

Tempe 127


March 2004


NUMBER OF POOLS (INDOOR/OUTDOOR)

0

2

1

4

1

2

0

1

3

2

1

3

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

Indoor Outdoor

City Indoor Outdoors

Carrollton 0 2

Henderson 1 4

Lawrence 1 2

North Richland Hills 0 1

Plano 3 2

Tempe 1 3


March 2004


NUMBER OF RECREATION CENTERS

2

3

6

1

6

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Recreation Centers

Carrollton 2

Henderson 3

Lawrence 6


Plano 6

Tempe 5


March 2004


TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET (1999-2000)

$6.68

$18

$5.72$6.99

$13.86

$12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Operating Budget

Carrollton $6.68 million

Henderson $18 million

Lawrence $5.72 million

North Richland Hills $6.99 million

Plano $13.86 million

Tempe $12 million


March 2004


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET

$3

$24.4

$5 $6

$10

$2.4

0

5

10

15

20

25


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Average Capital Improvement

Yearly Budget

Carrollton $3.0 million

Henderson $24.4 million

Lawrence $5.0 million

North Richland Hills $6.0 million

Plano $10.0 million

Tempe $2.4 million


March 2004


NUMBER OF PARK AND RECREATION EMPLOYEES The total employee number includes full time employees only in the following categories: Administrative, recreation programming, facility maintenance, and parks staff.

58

20

103

62

31

104

1820

65

27

10

78.5

101

41

142

72

32

129

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

Park Program Total

City Park Employees Program Employees Total Employees

Carrollton 58 20 103

Henderson 62 31 104

Lawrence 18 20 65

North Richland Hills 27 10 78.5

Plano 101 41 142

Tempe 72 32 129


March 2004


TRAIL MILEAGE This number is the total mileage from the park, connector, equestrian and all-terrain bike trails

6

0

70

5.98

38

66.49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Trail Mileage

Carrollton 6

Henderson 0

Lawrence 70

North Richland Hills 5.98

Plano 38

Tempe 66.49


March 2004


NUMBER OF COMMUNITY PARKS

607

5

130

4 14

257.44

7

1062.27

19

525

2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Carrollton Henderson Lawrence North Richland

Hills

Plano Tempe

City Acreage Community Parks

Carrollton 607 5

Henderson 130 4

Lawrence 14

North Richland Hills 257.44 7

Plano 1062.27 19

Tempe 525 2


March 2004


NUMBER OF REGIONAL PARKS

00

2

1

00

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2


Richland

Hills

Plano Tempe

City Acreage Regional Parks

Carrollton 0

Henderson 0

Lawrence 2


Plano 0

Tempe 0


March 2004


NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

157.24

21

190

21 2135.5

3

218.24

29

310

39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Acreage Neighborhood Parks

Carrollton 157.24 21

Henderson 190 21

Lawrence 21


Plano 218.24 29

Tempe 310 39


March 2004


BUDGET AND TAXES

Carrollton $6,675,000 $678,000 89%

Henderson $18,000,000 $4,200,000 76%

Lawrence $5,722,944 $1,760,900 69%

North Richland Hills $6,993,284 $3,451,000 49%

Plano $13,865,397 $3,080,000 78%

Tempe $12,000,000 $3,492,061 71%

89%

76%

69%

49%

78%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City 99-00 Budget 99-00 Fees (Estimated) % Subsidized


March 2004


COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE

Carrollton 100% 0%

Henderson 100% 50%

Lawrence 100% 50%

North Richland Hills 100% Youth Sports Assoc.

Plano 100% 100%

Tempe 100% 50%

City Adult Athletic Youth Athletic

100%

0%

100%

50%

100%

50%

100%100%100%

100%

50%

0%

100%


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

Adult Ath. Youth Ath.


March 2004



Carrollton 100% 50%

Henderson 100% 100%

Lawrence 100% 80%

North Richland Hills 100% 100%

Plano 100% 100%

Tempe 100% 50%

100%

50%

100%100%

100%

80%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

City Adult Rec. Youth Rec.


March 2004



Carrollton 80% 80% 30%

Henderson 100% 100% 50%

Lawrence N/A N/A N/A

North Richland Hills 100% 100% 70%

Plano 100% 100%

Tempe 50% 100% 50-100%

City Senior Fitness/Wellness Cultural

80%80%

30%

100% 100%

50%

100%100%

70%

100%100%

50%

100%

50%

0%

100%


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

Senior Fitness/Wellness Cultural


March 2004



Carrollton 50% 80%

Henderson 50% N/A

Lawrence 50% N/A

North Richland Hills 100% N/A

Plano 50% 100%

Tempe 50% out 100% in Comp. Fees

City Swimming Pools Therapeutic

50%

80%

50% 50%

100%

50%

100%

50%

0%

100%


Richland Hills

Plano Tempe

Swimming Pools Therapeutic


March 2004


PRICING POLICY (May 2000) City of Carrollton Parks and Recreation Pricing Policy is designed to provide the City Council, Parks and Recreation Board, and Staff consistent guidelines in pricing parks and recreation services. This will allow the users of the parks and recreation services to better understand the philosophy behind pricing a service and how the level of benefit they receive is translated into a price that is based on a set subsidy level or on the level of benefit consumption that is involved outside of what the general taxpayer receives. To gain and provide consistency among users and user groups, staff and elected officials must develop a philosophical foundation and incorporate a ten-step process to effective development of a pricing policy. 1. Rationale: The City Council, Park Board, and staff need to agree that pricing services to the

level of benefits received to help offset operating cost makes good sense. They agree that communicating this approach is a fair method to distribute City resources to the largest number of users of the system.

2. Authorization: The City Council should allow the Department Staff to present prices for programs and services with the highest amount of pricing flexibility to maximize all pricing strategies to the fullest. Ideally, prices should be set based on levels of subsidy set by City Council after direct and indirect costs are established. Allowing the Department Staff to work within a price range will give staff the ability to discount for prime time/non-prime-time, season and off-season rates, and allow for group rate pricing to occur.

3. Revenue philosophy: The City Council and Park Board should adopt a revenue philosophy that promotes revenue production to offset operating cost but allows for revenues collected to stay in the fund where it was generated to build incentives for staff to be aggressive in seeking revenues. This will also develop user support for pricing of services because the dollars they invest in their recreation experience will come back in better quality service and facilities.

4. Citizen input: Where possible allow for citizen input into pricing of services by allowing them a choice in what components of the service they want to invest in. Allowing multi-tiered pricing to occur provides this opportunity. This means allowing users to pick and choose what level of quality or quantity they want and pay accordingly. One price fits all does not work effectively in maximizing pricing alternatives and in gaining revenue production.

5. Program Services and Classifications: The City Council and Park Board need to allow in the pricing policy classifications of services. These classifications will include prime time, non-prime-time, season and off-season rates, multi-tiered pricing, group discounting, volume food and beverage pricing, and incentive pricing. These are all market strategies to encourage the users to move to a classification they are most interested in versus one-price fits all.

6. Levels of public benefit: Pricing of services should be based on the level of benefit and consumption received. The higher the benefit above what the general taxpayer receives should be priced accordingly. Recreation services in general are consumptive in nature. Once an activity is over the most we can hope for is a memorable experience. Allowing prices to reflect the opportunity for users to invest in them based on an individual benefit received is easy to communicate and the users understand it.


March 2004


7. Cost accounting: The City Council and Park Board should support the Department Staff in developing an effective Activity Based Costing model to help determine cost per experience and subsidy levels before pricing of the service occurs. This will allow for more effective decision making on the staff’s part in determining the best way to introduce the service or program in the most cost effective manner.

8. Pricing methods: The pricing methods outlined in this policy should be incorporated into all program and facility development efforts.

9. Consumer pricing expectations: Users expect higher quality of services when pricing efforts are instituted. This will require program and facility standards to be implemented to meet the users expectations and willingness to pay.

10. Communication and evaluation: In all cases communicating the true cost of a service or program to users will increase the users understanding of the value they are receiving. Messages which convey personal gain encourage significantly higher reference prices. In a recent study on pricing, consumers willingness to pay for services increased by 33% when told the actual cost of providing the service and by 36% when told the actual cost plus conveying program attributes.

There are basically three ways to establish a price: 1. Charging “the going rate” is non-controversial, but really has no rationale. 2. Differential pricing is an excellent method as long as it doesn’t cause resentment. Different

rates can be charged for:

Different participants (senior citizens, teens)

Different products (heated pool vs. non-heated)

Different places (best field vs. worse; best shelter vs. worse) or different times (peak times vs. weekdays)

3. Pricing via “type of program continuum” (public vs. merit vs. private services) which means offering the cost of a program at direct cost to the participant - minus the cost that the agency would incur anyway if the program was offered or not, plus utilizing market techniques so that the program is not over saturated.

The objectives of pricing user fees is fourfold: I. Equity II. Revenue production III. Efficiency IV. Redistribution of income


March 2004


I. EQUITY Equity means that those who benefit from the service should pay for it and those who benefit the most should pay the most. Public agencies offer three kinds of services. The type of service will directly determine the cost recovery strategy or pricing strategy to be used in pricing park and recreation services. 1) Public services normally have no user fee associated with their consumption. The cost for

providing these services is borne by the general tax base. Public services are those services that parks and recreation offers that provide all users the same level of opportunity to access the service. The level of benefit is the same to all users. Examples of pubic services are open public access to use a park, a playground, a trail, or a picnic area that is not reservable.

2) Merit services can be priced using either a partial overhead pricing strategy or a variable cost

pricing strategy. Partial overhead pricing strategies recover all direct operating costs and some determined portion of fixed costs. The portion of fixed costs not covered by the price-established represent the tax subsidy. The Department needs to tell the public through effective communication the level of subsidy being provided. Merit services are usually services whereby the user receives a higher level of benefit than the general taxpayer and yet the taxpayer benefits as a whole because the service provides a more livable community and the service has good public benefit as well. Examples of Merit services are providing swim lessons, youth sports, teenage programs and after school care for youth.

3) Private park and recreation services, where only the user benefits, are priced by most park and

recreation agencies using a full cost recovery strategy. The price of this particular service is intended to recover all fixed and variable costs associated with the service. Examples of private services are instructional golf and tennis lessons on an individual basis or high-end competitive individual sports for youth and adults where there is high cost to provide the service.

II. REVENUE PRODUCTION Revenue production means that user fees from parks and recreation programs and activities will assist in the overall operation of the Park and Recreation budget. Revenue production gives the City needed cash flow for projects not budgeted in that year’s budget. It gives the staff flexibility in providing services not normally provided through tax dollars. Example: Promotional dollars for programs and services. Revenue production gives the City in-kind dollars for grant matches. Revenue production helps offset tax dollars spent on a specific program that over time has lost enthusiasm by the public, but demands more tax dollars to maintain expenses associated with a market that is losing support. Example: Tennis and day camp programs. Revenue dollars paid by individuals would place a value on the experience that the individual is obtaining from the services provided by the Department and develops a deeper commitment to the programs they help support.


March 2004


III. EFFICIENCY Departments utilize revenue dollars because expenditures are not made unless there are necessary revenues to cover the expenses. Priorities in management of park lands, resources and activities are clearly defined when direct user dollars are associated with the activities that the public wants provided. Cost tracking of dollars spent for each activity is documented. Pricing can achieve seven positive results: 1) It reduces congestion and overcrowding 2) It indicates clientele demand and support 3) It increases positive consumer attitudes 4) It provides encouragement to the private sector (so it can compete with us, and we can

reallocate our resources when necessary) 5) It provides incentive to achieve societal goals 6) It ensures stronger accountability on agency staff and management 7) It allows multi-tiered pricing to occur so those users who want a higher level of quality can

pay for it. IV. REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME Redistribution of income means that the dollars generated from each activity are redistributed to the area it came from to pay for direct cost and indirect cost in some situations and for future improvements associated with the activity. Example: Adult softball players pay fees for maintenance and capital improvements associated with the activity they choose to participate in. Golfers user fees support operations and maintenance cost of the course and capital cost associated with the activity. An Activity Based Costing Model has been developed for Carrollton Parks and Recreation that will help to determine the true cost of services provided. The true cost of each activity is defined as all direct and indirect costs associated with providing the service. The Activity Based Costing Model is not universally utilized to price programs and services consistently throughout the department now. Most of the pricing is determined by what other departments are charging or by how much the staff feels the participants are willing to pay. (See appendix A) A review of all fees periodically is recommended to document the changes that have occurred within the program or service. This will help evaluate which program fees should be adjusted based on the pricing policy. Sample fee review questionnaires are provided in appendix B. This is a good starting point to determine a benchmark. If the program fits the profile to increase prices, the true cost, including direct and indirect costs, needs to be determined and the level of investment the user and the City is making needs to be communicated to the user.


March 2004


With the ability to apply the Activity Based Costing Model to each service provided at the time of pricing, all direct and indirect costs need to be identified consistently by the staff for each program or service. Sample forms (Justification of Expenditures) are provided in the appendix as examples to determine the true cost of the programs. These forms need to be customized to match the City of Carrollton budgets and line items with the activity based costing model incorporated into the form utilizing the overhead or indirect cost formulas consistently throughout the department. The number of participants determines the price of the program. The number of participants should be set at the minimum number to create a break-even point for the program. If program registration does not reach the minimum number of participants, the program should be cancelled and the participants moved to another program if possible. After the true cost of the program is figured, the appropriate tax subsidy level approved in the pricing policy can be applied to determine the price. Based on the community focus groups and the staff focus group information, recommended subsidy levels per target group are shown below.

PROGRAM AREA RECOMMENDED GOAL NATIONALLY Adult Sports 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Fitness/Wellness 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Clinics 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Outdoor Recreation 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Rentals 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Youth Individual Sports 20% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Dance 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy* Day Camps 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Aquatic Programs 20% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Arts Programs 20% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Special Events 25% tax subsidy 25% tax subsidy Teen Programs 0% tax subsidy 50% tax subsidy Senior Programs 0% tax subsidy 30% tax subsidy* Adaptive Recreation Prog. 50% tax subsidy 50% tax subsidy Disadvantage Youth and 80% tax subsidy 80% tax subsidy Family Golf 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Tennis 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Contract Classes 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Flat water pools 50% tax subsidy 70% tax subsidy Family aquatic centers 10% tax subsidy 10% tax subsidy

* These program areas can be more fees supported based on the national

figures although the community information showed the recommended tax subsidy rate is more appropriate in the City of Carrollton.

After the price is determined, it can be benchmarked against the going market rate in the area. The best way to benchmark is to compare a per unit cost (cost per game, cost per hour, cost per class, etc.) for activities that match the services provided. Length of program or season can be shortened or lengthened to make the price more appealing if necessary.


March 2004


The City of Carrollton should consider letting the public know the true cost of providing the program or service and the subsidy level used to determine the price. This is a great marketing strategy that helps the participants understand where their tax dollars are being spent. This strategy works best if the pricing policy is in place and the mandate for increasing revenue is made public. The programs that have price increases are easier to market than increasing fees without explanation. It is also recommended to upgrade facilities and improve the quality of the service when increasing user fees so the participants can see improvements at the same time the fee increases.

The impact increased fees may have on the demand is called “elasticity of demand.” Elasticity depends on the availability of substitutable products, and on the proportion that the fee is to the total cost of the experience. If the demand is elastic, even though it drops some with an increase in price, the total revenue still increases. If the demand is inelastic, demand will drop so far that total revenue drops. Also, when you first charge for something previously offered for free or a low cost, you should expect demand to drop at first and then return to its original level in a year or two. “Willingness to pay” - A study done by NRPA documents that citizens generally find user fees acceptable and prefer the pay-as-you-go financing of facilities and services in indoor and outdoor recreation areas and programs. Studies have also shown that the lower a family income is, the higher the percentage that goes to taxes. Parks and Recreation is primarily a middle class service, so the poor are subsidizing every middle class child who participates in free or low cost park and recreation programs. Also, where a higher fee is imposed on a park and recreation service, the low-income family benefits the most because their tax burden is reduced. Any system of fees and charges may be found to have inequities for certain individuals or groups. Therefore, the department must recognize these special situations and be flexible in order to meet them. Where individuals have a known inability to pay the established fees for basic programs and facilities, fees should be paid from special funds established for that purpose. Sponsors will need to be secured to develop this fund. Trade-out programs that allow participants to work and earn passes or program fees work well also. OTHER PRICING STRATEGIES

Non-resident rates should be charged for all individual programs. A good marketing strategy is to set prices at the non-resident rate which can be termed market rate, and give the City of Carrollton residents a 15% discount. This can also be rounded up to the next dollar for simplicity. This needs to become part of the pricing policy.

Multi-child families would possibly sign up more children if the second child were discounted in the same program. This discount usually is between 20% and 30%.

Rentals of facilities should be offered during non-prime time hours only. A true cost for set-up, clean up, utilities, etc. should be figured as well as a loss of revenue figure. For example, if the pool is rented out and the public is not admitted to swim, an average


March 2004


hourly non-prime time revenue loss can be calculated into the true cost of the facility. In most cases, renting a room off of the pool and allowing participants to swim within the rental fee is the best option.

Price all activities with the pricing policy and include in the pricing policy that City of Carrollton will not turn down anyone for recreational services. Put a work related program in place and market it where any child can earn admission into any program or toward any pass simply by performing minor duties for the parks and recreation department under the supervision of staff to get credit toward the activity they choose. A program of this type is usually successful based on the value system of earning something rather than receiving a handout. Parents support this. Publicizing a program like this gains community support rather than singling out underprivileged families. The program is open to anyone. The tasks performed are usually those not requiring power tools and are typically tasks that someone on the staff will need to do or something that will enhance the facility or program.

Whenever referring to the cost of a program, whether it is verbally or in print, it is more customer friendly to refer to the cost as “price” versus “fee”.

PRICING STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Without knowing the true cost of the program areas studied, these price recommendations will be market based within the local market area. A price per unit comparison will also be utilized along with national standards for like services. Some assumptions will be made when determining price structure and should be checked with the recommended pricing process described in the previous section.

Earned income opportunities exist such as partnerships, use of volunteers, trade-outs, etc. that can help offset prices. The City of Carrollton Park and Recreation Department staff are encouraged to supplement the revenue generated through the fees and charges assigned to services provided by creating opportunities for private sector involvement in the delivery of programs and services. Opportunities are particularly apparent in the promotion of special events, facilities, and recreation programs.

Private sector partners are encouraged to attach their name to appropriate events in exchange for a sponsorship fee developed by program staff. Program staff must provide detailed benefits to the sponsor in exchange for their sponsorship fee.

Partnership agreements are recommended in all cases to document the agreement between the private, not-for-profit, and public sectors. Without written agreement, it is left up to a verbal agreement that is not easy to settle in the future. A monetary value should be assigned to each partner’s contribution based at market rate to identify the contribution. A matching (50-50) value is recommended as a goal in each situation. This would include all youth sports organizations.

Park staff reserve the right to reject sponsorship offers if the sponsoring company is determined to be inappropriate for the particular activity, for example, a city-wide community health fair sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company.

Recommended Pricing The following areas were evaluated to determine the pricing structure recommendations. Without knowing the true cost of each program area, the following pricing recommendations are


March 2004


based on market rates, benchmarking, focus group information, condition of facilities, amenities, and an understanding of current rates. In all cases, the true cost of each program needs to be determined including direct and indirect costs and the pricing strategy formula applied. The program areas listed have new pricing recommendations. Admission Prices: These prices help offset the cost associated with providing the service. (Merit Service)

Pool Admission Prices need to be $2 to $3 for flat water pools.

Family Aquatic Centers Prices need to be $4 to $5.

Park Entrance Prices need to be established based on length of stay and the level of subsidy agreed to by the City Council, Park Board and staff.

Recreation Centers Drop-in Prices need to be built around a $2 or $3 admission for drop-in activities.

Gate Admission for Adult Games and Youth and Adult sports tournaments should be priced at $2 or $3 per session or a tournament pass for $5 to $10 per person.

Season Passes need to reflect what service or facility the average pass user utilizes and discount it at least 15% off of admission price. (Example: if a person swims 30 times in the summer on the average for a season pass 30 x $3 admission equals $90 dollars discounted by 15% equals $67.50 for the season pass.)

Reservation of Facilities Prices: These prices should be assessed for the right to exclusive use of a shelter, pool rental, game fields, gyms, meeting rooms, reception rooms etc. (private service). These prices should be developed at the City’s true cost and compare it to the private sector to determine the price. Prices should be developed on prime-time and non-prime-time basis and season and off-season rates. (Private Service) Program Prices: These prices for lessons, camps, leagues, and classes should be based on a cost recovery level from 20 to 100% depending on the service provided. Subsidy rates need to be adopted by the City Council. (Merit Service) Concession Prices: These prices need to be based at 100% plus rates and priced by size of drink or food item, volume or group, value package, or special foods/specials for the day. (Private Service) Permit Prices: These prices should be determined by the cost of the service, maintenance and security. These prices should not be subsidized. (Private Service) Rental Prices: These costs include rental of golf clubs, bicycles, sporting equipment, sound/stages, picnic tables, bleachers, tents, chairs/tables, and other related services (Private Service) Facility Use Prices: These prices should reflect the cost to provide the space and for any special arrangements that need to be made to accommodate the user. Facilities could include a softball/baseball complex, driving range, archery range, group campground (Merit Service).


March 2004


Special User Prices: These prices reflect a discount for seniors, juniors, teens, season pass/off-season pass, coupons, memberships, by location, by volume, by group. (Merit Service). The overall goal for City of Carrollton services will be developed on a four-tiered program. 1. Market Adjustment The outcome goal will be to significantly reduce subsidy levels in 3 to 4 years by increasing prices toward existing market rates for services/programs. This will include reducing cost per experience/hour rate to $3 or below within 3 to 4 years. 2. Activity Based Costing The outcome goal will be to define true cost and adjust prices as necessary to cover costs. 3. Revenue Management Incorporate costs for an increased level of maintenance above current levels when requested. 4. New Revenue Sources The goal of the staff will be to supplement operating budgets and create greater revenue sources to keep user prices down on non-consumptive services. Other Funding Sources for Earned Income Opportunities to Add Value to the Plan Corporate Sponsorships This revenue-funding source allows corporations to invest in the development or enhancement of new or existing facilities in park systems. Sponsorships are also highly used for programs and events. Partnerships Partnerships are a joint development funding source or an operational funding source between two separate agencies, such as two government entities, a non-profit and a City department, or a private business and a City agency. Two partners jointly develop revenue producing park and recreation facilities and share risk, operational costs, responsibilities, and asset management based on the strengths and weaknesses of each partner. Dedication/Development Fees These fees are assessed for the development of residential and/or commercial properties with the proceeds to be used for parks and recreation purposes, such as open space acquisition, community park site development, neighborhood parks development, regional parks development, etc. Foundation/Gifts These dollars are raised from tax-exempt, non-profit organizations established with private donations in promotion of specific causes, activities, or issues. They offer a variety of means to fund capital projects, including capital campaigns, gifts catalogs, fundraisers, endowments, sales of items, etc.


March 2004


Recreation Service Fees This is a dedicated user fee, which can be established by a local ordinance or other government procedure for the purpose of constructing and maintaining recreation facilities. The fee can apply to all organized activities which require a reservation of some type, or other purposes as defined by the local government. Examples of such activities include adult basketball, volleyball and softball leagues, youth baseball, soccer and softball leagues, and special interest classes. The fee allows participants an opportunity to contribute toward the upkeep of the facilities being used. Intermodal Transportation and Efficiency Act This funding program, commonly called TEA-21 Grants, was authorized by the Federal Government in 1991. Funds are distributed through the state. There are several million dollars in enhancement revenues available for transportation related projects, including bicycle and pedestrian trails, rail depot rehabilitation, landscaping, and beautification projects. Land and Water Conservation Fund These funds are awarded for acquisition and development of parks, recreation, and supporting facilities through the National Park Service and State Park System. General Obligation Bonds Bonded indebtedness issued with the approval of the electorate for capital improvements and general public improvements. Industrial Development Bonds Specialized revenue bonds issued on behalf of publicly owned, self-supporting facilities. Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Tax Revenue from municipal hotel occupancy tax may be used to promote or enhance tourism. This includes acquisition of sites and the constructing, improving, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operating, and maintaining of convention center facilities or visitor information centers or both. It also provides for promotional programs to attract tourists. It promotes encouragement, improvement, and application of the arts and presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of major art forms. Historical restoration and preservation projects or activities or advertising to attract tourists to historic sites or museums are included as well. Grants A variety of special grants either currently exist through the Federal and State governmental systems or will be established through the life of current and proposed facilities. Special Improvement District/Benefit District Taxing districts are established to provide funds for certain types of improvements that benefit a specific group of affected properties. Improvements may include landscaping, the erection of fountains, acquisition of art, and supplemental services for improvement and promotion, including recreation and cultural enhancements. Annual Appropriation/Leasehold Financing This is a more complex financing structure which requires use of a third party to act as issuer of the bonds, construct the facility and retain title until the bonds are retired. The city enters into a lease


March 2004


agreement with the third party, with annual lease payments equal to the debt service requirements. The bonds issued by the third party are considered less secure than general obligation bonds of the City, and therefore more costly. Since a separate corporation issues these bonds, they do not impact the City’s debt limitations and do not require a vote. However, they also do not entitle the City to levy property taxes to service the debt. The annual lease payments must be appropriated from existing revenues. Interlocal Agreements Contractual relationships entered into between two or more local units of government and/or between a local unit of government and a non-profit organization for the joint usage/development of sports fields, regional parks, or other facilities. Revenue Bonds Bonds used for capital projects that will generate revenue for debt service where fees can be set aside to support repayment of the bond. Private Concessionaires Contract with a private business to provide and operate desirable recreational activities financed, constructed, and operated by the private sector with additional compensation paid to the City. Bond Referendum The plan recommends massive capital needs, renovation, and new facilities to meet the needs and demands of residents of Carrollton. The plan recommends that a referendum be sought beginning in 2004. These bonds would be general obligation bonds initiated through City Council approval and citizen vote. Fees/Charges The plan has documented that the Department is far undervalued and must position its fees and charges to be market-driven and based on both public and private facilities. The potential outcome of revenue generation is consistent with national trends relating to public park and recreation agencies, which generate an average 35% to 50% of operating expenditures. Cost Avoidance The Department must take a position of not being everything for everyone. It must be driven by the market and stay with the Department’s core businesses. By shifting its role as direct provider, the City will experience savings by deciding whether or not to provide that facility or program. This is a cost avoidance. The estimated savings listed could be realized through partnering, outsourcing, or deferring to another provider in the provision of a service and/or facility. Real Estate Transfer Fees As cities and counties expand, the need for infrastructure improvements continues to grow. Since parks add value to neighborhoods and communities, some cities and counties have turned to real estate transfer fees to help pay for needed renovations. Usually transfer fees amount to ¼ to ½ % on the total sale of the property.


March 2004


Land Trust Many cities have developed land trusts to help secure and fund the cost for acquiring land that needs to be preserved and protected for greenway purposes. This could be a good source to look to for acquisition of future lands. Establish a Greenway Utility Greenway utilities are used to finance acquisition of greenways and development of the greenways by selling the development rights underground for the fiber optic types of businesses. Naming Rights Many cities and counties have turned to selling the naming rights for new buildings or renovation of existing buildings and parks for the development cost associated with the improvement. This opportunity exists in Carrollton. Establish a Designated License Plate for Parks This funding mechanism can be used to finance improvements or programs in the County or city through a designated license plate. Cell Towers Cell towers attached to existing light poles in game field complexes is another source of revenue the City could seek in helping support the system. Private Developers These developers lease space from City-owned land through a subordinate lease that pays out a set dollar amount plus a percentage of gross dollars for recreation enhancements. These could include a golf course, marina, restaurants, driving ranges, sports complexes, equestrian facilities, and recreation centers and ice arenas. Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code section 54703 et seq.) This statute provides a uniform procedure for the enactment of benefit assessments to finance the maintenance and operation costs of drainage, flood control, and street light services and the cost of installation and improvement of drainage or flood control facilities. Under legislation approved in 1989 (SB 975, Chapter 1449), this authority is expanded to include the maintenance of streets, roads, and highways. As with most other assessment acts, cities, counties, and special districts that are otherwise authorized to provide such services may use it. Facilities Benefit Assessment The FBA ordinance establishes areas of benefit to be assessed for needed improvements in newly developing areas. Each parcel within an area of benefit is apportioned its share of the total assessment for all improvements (including those required for later development phases) which is then recorded on the assessment roll. Assessments are liens on private property as with the state assessment acts. Upon application for a building permit the owner of the parcel must pay the entire assessment (the payment is pro rated if only a portion of the parcel is being developed at one time). Payment releases the city's lien on the property. The funds that are collected are placed in separate accounts to be used for the needed improvements and do not exceed the actual cost of the improvements plus incidental administrative costs.


March 2004


The Mello-Roos Act The 1982 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Government Code Sections 53311 et seq.) enables cities, counties, special districts, and school districts to establish community facilities districts (CFDs) and to levy special taxes to fund a wide variety of facilities and services. The proceeds of a Mello-Roos tax can be used for direct funding and, in the case of capital facilities, to pay off bonds. Mello-Roos financing has similarities to special taxes and special assessments, and in some situations, it has advantages over both. Licensing Rights This revenue source allows the Department and City to license its name on all resale items that private or public vendors use when they sell clothing or other items with Carrollton name on it. The normal licensing fee is 6 to 10% of the cost of the resale item. Sales Tax The revenue source is very popular for funding park and recreation agencies either partially or fully. The normal sales tax rate is 1cent for operations and one half cent for capital. This tax is very popular in high traffic tourism type cities and with counties and state parks. Capital Improvement Fees These fees are on top of the set user rate for accessing facilities such as golf, recreation centers and pools to support capital improvements that benefit the user of the facility. Merchandising Sales This revenue source comes from the public or private sector on resale items from gift shops and pro shops for either all of the sales or a set gross percentage. Concession Management Concession management is from retail sales or rentals of soft goods, hard goods, or consumable items. The city either contracts for the service or receives a set of the gross percentage or the full revenue dollars that incorporates a profit after expenses. Friends Associations These groups are formed to raise money typically for a single focus purpose that could include a park facility or program that will better the community as a whole and their special interest. Advertising Sales This revenue source is for the sale of tasteful and appropriate advertising on park and recreation related items such as in the city’s program guide, on scoreboards, dasher boards and other visible products or services that are consumable or permanent that exposes the product or service to many people. Easements This revenue source is available when the city allows utility companies, businesses or individuals to develop some type of an improvement above ground or below ground on their property for a set period of time and a set dollar amount to be received by the city on an annual basis.


March 2004


Irrevocable Remainder Trusts These trusts are set up with individuals who typically have more than a million dollars in wealth. They will leave a portion of their wealth to the city in a trust fund that allows the fund to grow over a period of time and then is available for the city to use a portion of the interest to support specific park and recreation facilities or programs that are designated by the trustee. Life Estates This source of money is available when someone wants to leave their property to the city in exchange for them to live on their property until their death. The city usually can use a portion of the property for park purposes and then all of it after the person’s death. This revenue source is very popular for individuals who have a lot of wealth and their estate will be highly taxed at their death and their children have to sell off their property because of probate costs. This allows the person to receive a good tax deduction yearly on their property while leaving a life estate. It is good for the city because they do not have to pay for the land. Permits (Special Use Permits) These special permits allow individuals to use specific park property for financial gain. The city either receives a set amount of money or a percentage of the gross service that is being provided. Reservations This revenue source comes from the right to reserve specific public property for a set amount of time. The reservation rates are usually set and apply to group picnic shelters, meeting rooms for weddings, reunions and outings, or other type of facilities for a special activity. Catering Permits and Services This is a license to allow caterers to work in the park system on a permit basis with a set fee or a percentage of food sales returning to the city. Also many cities have their own catering service and receive a percentage of dollars off the sale of their food. Volunteerism This is an indirect revenue source in that people donate time to assist the department in providing a product or service on an hourly basis. This reduces the city’s cost in providing the service plus it builds advocacy into the system. Sale of Mineral Rights Many cities sell their mineral rights under parks for revenue purposes to include water, oil, natural gas and other by-products for revenue purposes. Integrated Financing Act This legislation creates an alternate method for collecting assessments levied under the Landscaping and Lighting Act, the Vehicle Parking District Law, and the Park and Playground Act. This act applies to all local agencies. This act can be used to pay the cost of planning, designing, and constructing capital facilities authorized by the applicable financing act, pay for all or part of the principle and interest on debt incurred pursuant to the applicable financing act, and to reimburse a private investor in the project. It serves two unique properties: (1) it can levy


March 2004


an assessment which is contingent upon future land development and payable upon approval of a subdivision map or zone change or the receipt of building permits; (2) it allows the local agency to enter into an agreement with a private investor whereby the investor will be reimbursed for funds advanced to the agency for the project being financed. Business Excise Tax This tax is for new business in a community on products sold based on the wholesale cost. Park Districts in Illinois use this source as one of its revenue sources. Wheel Tax on Cars/Vehicles Many cities have a city sticker tax on vehicles based on the type of vehicle. This allows for park agencies to receive a portion of this money to cover the costs of roads, hard surface paths and parking lots associated with parks. Parking Fee This fee applies to parking at selected destination facilities such as beach parking areas, major stadiums and other attractions to help offset capital and operational cost. Equipment Rental The revenue source is available on the rental of equipment such as tables, chairs, tents, stages, bicycles, roller blades, boogie boards, etc. that are used for recreation purposes. Ticket Sales/Admissions This revenue source is on accessing facilities for self-directed activities such as pools, ice skating rinks, ballparks and entertainment activities. These user fees help offset operational costs. Special Fundraisers Many park and recreation agencies have special fundraisers on an annual basis to help cover specific programs and capital projects. Utility Roundup Programs Some park and recreation agencies have worked with their local utilities on a round up program whereby a consumer can pay the difference between their bill up to the even dollar amount and they then pay the department the difference. Ideally, these monies are used to support utility improvements such as sports lighting, irrigation cost and HVAC costs.


March 2004


APPENDIX A Justification of Expenditures

Program Name Budget Code

Preparer Name Year Expenditure Quarter 1 2 3 4

Type of Service: Private Merit Public

Expenditures

I. Salaries - Character 01 Actual $ Budgeted $

0100 Bi-weekly salaries

0200 Part-time Year-round

0201 Seasonal

0300 Overtime Straight

0301 Overtime Premium

0740 PERF (full-time/part-time .08)

0750 FICA (.765)

In-house Maintenance Charges (Maintenance Budget)

Total $ $

II. Supplies - Character 02 Actual $ Budgeted $

2021 Janitorial Supplies

2023 Safety Supplies

2031 First Aid Supplies

2040 Concession Food

2041 Concession Ice

2049 Other Concession - Retail

2110 Stationary Supplies

2113 Copy Machine Supplies

2119 Other Office Supplies

2120 Printing Paper

2129 Other Printing

2210 Arts & Crafts Supplies

2211 Sports Supplies

2212 Pool Supplies

2219 Other Recreational

2709 Reference Materials

2712 Training Equipment


March 2004


II. Supplies - Character 02

(continued)

Actual $ Budgeted $

2719 Other Equipment (under $300)

2994 Training Materials

2995 Uniforms

2999 Other Supplies

In-house Maintenance Supplies (Maintenance Budgets)

Total $ $

III. Other Services and Charges - Character 03

Actual $ Budgeted $

3100 Postage

3110 Long Distance

3110 Local Service

3120 Mileage Local (.25 city vehicles)

3121 Mileage Travel (.25)

3200 Electric

3201 Gas

3202 Water

3203 Sewer

3300 Conference Fees

3409 Advertising

3414 Printing of Pamphlets

3502 Maintenance Agreement

3509 Other Equip. Repair

3710 Rent Building Space

3730 Copy Machine Rental

3746 Telephone Pagers


March 2004


III. Other Services/Charges - Character 03 (continued)

Actual $ Budgeted $

3770 Newspapers

3771 Magazines

3800 Arts Grants

3806 Special Financial Assist.

3820 Membership Dues

3905 Contracted Entertainment

3909 Pest Control

3917 Security Services

3979 Other Services/Charges

In-house Maintenance Equip.

(Maintenance Budget)

Total $ $

IV. Equip. - Character 04 Actual $ Budgeted $

6401 Copy Machines

6403 File Cabinets

6409 Other Office Equip.

6410 Office Chairs

6411 Desks

6412 Tables

6419 Other Office Furniture

Total $ $

Expenditures Summary Actual $ Budgeted $

Expenditures

Indirect Cost - 18% of Total Expenditures

Grand Total $ $


March 2004


Estimated Program Revenue - Means of Financing

I. Participation Fees Total $

Cost per Person

Min # Users x User Fee

Max # Users x User Fee

II. League Fees

Cost per team

Min # Teams x User Fee

Max # Teams x User Fee

III. Resales (Concession/Resale Items)

Minimum Revenue

Maximum Revenue

IV. Facility Rental Fees

Min Rev. x # Users

Max Rev. x # Users

V. Admission Fees

Fee$ # Users x User Fee

Youth

Adult

Senior

Group

Spec. Event

Misc.


March 2004


VI. Sponsorship/Donations

Total

Financial Summary Minimum Maximum

Estimated Revenue

Actual Expenditure

Estimated Carry Over (tax support)

% of Tax Support = Expenditure


March 2004


Appendix B Program: ____________________________________________________ Date: ____________________________

1. Is this public service, merit service, or private service? ___________________________ 2. What are the total costs of the program? 3. What is the anticipated revenue at current prices? 4. Does the fee cover direct operating costs? □ Yes □ No 5. How much, if any, of the direct, support costs are covered? ___________%;

$_________

6. To what extent is the program tax supported? ___________________________________ Has this been made public to the users? □ Yes □ No

7. Are fees, in general, comparable to those of other similar service providers in the area?

□ Yes □ No Exceptions: _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Can we, or should we, charge, “what the market will bear”? □ Can □ Should □ Are Now Why? __________________________________________________________________

9. How does the fee of one program compare to the fee of like programs, i.e., adult ballet

vs. adult tap? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


March 2004


10. Are we able to contract qualified instructor, or hire directly, with current pay schedule? □ Yes □ No

Specifically: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Is payment fair to both parties? □ Yes □ No Alterations: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Increase: (When was the last fee increase for this class, program?)

$$$ Disadvantages __________________________ _________________________ __________________________ _________________________ __________________________ _________________________ __________________________ _________________________

13. What is (are) the recommended increase(s)? Attach. 14. What is the anticipated gross revenue with the increase?

$_________________________ 15. How long can fee(s) remain at this level?

______________________________________ 16. Conclusion/Recommendations:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


March 2004


VALUES (May 2000) Community

Family

Environmental

Economic

Religious values

Education

Sports for youth

Connectivity

Time

Aquatics

Open space

Equity

History

Wellness

Government responsiveness Staff

Quality services and programs

Community interests

Customers

Partnerships

Family

Individual interest

Background

Ethics

Goals

Diversity

Time

Buy-in

Education and training

Leadership

Communication

Dependability

Moral

Youth

Compensation

Efficiency

Creativity


March 2004


Key Issues To Address In The Master Plan and Resolve Political

Cost/subsidy

ISD relations

Hebron Alliance as it applies to youth sports

Priority ranking/CIP

Users,ie churches

Education of council and park board on key issues

Money available for parks and recreation CIP and operational cost Programs

Cost recovery and subsidy rates

Space needs

Partnerships

Contracts with instructors Land Use

TC Rice park

Park Land acquisition in the North

Neighborhood park updating

Field equity

Natural areas versus development of greenbelt Facilities

Cost of operations and CIP

Space/overcrowding including staff space, community space and equipment needs

Prioritizing development

Location of facilities

Partnerships involvement Management Issues

Trust

Communication

Sharing of resources

Standards


March 2004


Trends/National and Regional Top Five Facilities Needed

Linking the city’s trail system

Update Crosby Recreation Center

Development of a Family Aquatic Center facility

Development of a new Recreation Facility

Development of a Signature park facility (T.C. Rice)

Next Five

Development of a new Skateboard park

Expand the existing Interpretive Center

Staff office area needed

Develop natural areas

Expand neighborhood parks Program trends top five

Develop more Interpretive programs

Create more Family programs

Develop more performing arts

Develop aquatic park(s)

Multi-tiered programs and camps Programs Trends Next Five Years

Volunteer development

Haunted hay rides and special events

Teen festivals/summit

Development of an outdoor adventure park

Preschool programs Next Five Programs Area To Be Developed

Inclusionary programs

Adult center

Intergenerational programs

Graffiti walls

Homework help centers Management Trends Top Five

Policies and procedures/ABC development

Define clear responsibilities for staff and roles

Grant development and earned income development

Outcome management

Partnership development and sponsorship development


March 2004


Historical Issues To Manage Against In The Plan

Thomas Center-house

Perry Park- passive

Gravley Homestead- deed restrictions i.e., program restrictions, purchasing land next to it

Woodlake’s

Josey Ranch Lake-Thomas center

Old downtown center-square/gazebo/train station

Grain towers

Mary Heads Carter Park-historical Black Family

Jimmy Porter

Strandridge, Martha Pointer, Harold Bessire, Clifford E. ”Bill” Hall

Nature Center open space 20 acres

Josey Ranch Development


March 2004


RECREATION PROGRAM FINDINGS REPORT (May 2000) The City of Carrollton Recreation Program Findings Report focuses on an evaluation of the City’s approach to recreation services as it applies to industry standards. The analysis includes a review of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities of each program provided along with other evaluations such as pricing of services, program lifecycle, position in the market place, participation levels and marketing efforts. SPECIAL EVENTS (based on Year 2000 events) The Special Events that were evaluated in the analysis included “Celebration” and “Pool Trout Fish Out”. Program Strengths

These family oriented events have excellent participation levels due to their wide demographic appeal.

Both events help the City “look good” to its citizens.

To provide added value to users and keep costs at a minimal, partnerships were developed for each event. The next step is to seek sponsors for these events.

With the “Pool Trout Fish Out”, citizens were provided with the opportunity to fish for trout, which is outside what a person would normally find in Texas. Fees for this event are very reasonable.

The “Celebration” event helps create patriotic values. Since most people enjoy fireworks, they always bring out a wide audience.

Program Weaknesses

The trout event should be changed to a warmer time.

Improve transportation to the “Celebration” event and provide longer fireworks.

The “Celebration” event does not have a major sponsor to help offset operating costs.

Few charge backs occur from other city service providers who help put on the event.

Add more children’s events.

There were environmental concerns as it applies to this event but seem to be resolved.

Full-time staff need to be available at registration sites. Overall Program Findings and Observations These two events are excellent events to showcase families having fun together. Ideally, these community wide events have the ability to be sponsored by an outside business located in Carrollton. The community benefits from these events because they build a sense of community pride and togetherness. The staff that develops these events should look to continue to build other events around specific themes that coincide with other historical or regional events in Carrollton. The wider the demographic appeal the higher levels of sponsorship dollars can be obtained. These events have high volunteer appeal and the City should seek more help in using volunteers outside of City staff. A total of 23 volunteers put in 138 hours, which is good, but more help could have been obtained. From this event, other programs for fishing should be created to capture the fishing enthusiasts market. The fees are very reasonable and appreciated by the community. The added value services for cleaning of fish are excellent. The


March 2004


“Celebration event should incorporate the City of Carrollton’s name into the event name if possible. TENNIS CLASSES AND CAMPS (Based on Year 2000) The Tennis Camp and Classes program lacks a specific program direction. The Business Plan included in the program analysis describes a good start on a site specific program and operational plan, but still lacks an overall approach to tennis in the City that is demographic wide. The summer guide lists three programs with all three focused on an 8-week program. Ideally, a program strategy for youth 5 to 18 should have an overall theme and approach along with an adult program from 19 to 80 plus. The new tennis center should help in many areas. Program Strengths

There are excellent tennis instructors.

The prices for the programs are at market rates.

Tennis is listed as its own program section in the summer brochure.

The tennis camp is described well in the summer brochure.

The business plan for tennis is good with the exception of lacking a Proforma to manage against and a specific approach to each targeted age segment to participate in the center.

Program Weaknesses

The programs listed in the summer fun guide do not cover a wide range of demographic groups.

Program times are limited.

All programs listed are 8 weeks long and no programs are targeted for early in the day except the tennis camps.

Program descriptions are marginal.

The tennis camp program should also have been listed in the sports camp section in the summer brochure.

The tennis program in the City needs an overall program approach and a marketing theme to encourage people to experience tennis again for the first time with Carrollton Parks and Recreation.

Tennis is not described as a lifetime sport.

The City’s split with the contractor needs to be reduced to a level of 65/35 split versus the 85/15 split.

Overall Findings The program listed in the self-evaluation form was very limited in information. Currently the staff does not understand how much of the market they actually control. There has been very little market research done on the Carrollton market. There were no feedback forms included in the self-evaluation. The budget for the program will need to be enhanced. Differential pricing strategies will need to be included in the overall program approach. More tennis league marketing efforts will need to be a major strategy to encourage people to play. Leagues will need to be developed on a classification level so people are able to move through the program and feel challenged in the process.


March 2004


RECREATION SWIM CLASSES (Based on Year 2000 classes) The recreation swim classes were focused on Learn to Swim classes that are designed by the Red Cross. Four sessions are listed in the summer brochure. All classes are 30 minutes long and listed to start in the morning and in the evening. The program class information describes the overall intent of the Learn to Swim program direction. Program Strengths

The program has very good instructors

The program is very well received by the community

Program prices are offered at market rates

The revenue to expense budget is excellent

There is a wide level of demographic appeal

The instructor-to-student ratio levels are excellent Program Weaknesses

There is no WSI in the area to teach classes even though the program descriptions say that all classes are taught by WSI’s

The pay for instructors is below market rate

Long waiting lists for classes need to be resolved

Program classes should also be offered in one-hour levels. This would allow for more classes and sessions to be taught

The features, benefits and advantages of the program are not described in the program descriptions

More weekend classes should be offered and classes extended into August

Program evaluation forms were not included in the self evaluation Overall Findings The Recreational Swim Class is an excellent core program for the city. The program provides a wide range of demographic appeal for youth. The program is priced at market rates. Overall, the program staff needs to re-think how they approach this program in terms of how they set up the program to reduce waiting lists. In flat-water pools, more time should be allotted for classes and the number of sessions needs to be increased. The staff should reconsider the 30-minute program time and allow some 1-hour classes to occur. The instructor-to-student ratio is excellent but should be reconsidered and open wider to accommodate the number of people who want to learn to swim. Overall, this is an excellent program that needs some adjustment in the approach to be more accommodating to the number of people who desire the program. DIVING CLASSES The Diving Class program is offered for 5 years and up. The program has four levels of instruction and is offered at one pool only. The program has four sessions and coincides with the Learn to Swim program. The program lasts two weeks and is priced at market rates.


March 2004


Program Strengths

The program has a wide demographic appeal for youth

The program has excellent instructors and coaches

This progressive program has levels to obtain for youth who want to compete

The program is priced competitively for the market

Three levels of diving training levels are taught

The program offers a nice feeder program to the high schools in the area

The program has excellent participation Program Weaknesses

The program has limited available time for classes

The program offers no times for evening instruction

The program split with the instructors is 85/15, which is too much for the instructors versus the City

The program is offered in the summer only due to the lack of an indoor pool available in the fall and winter

The program is offered at one pool only

Overall Program Findings The program offers a wide range of instruction opportunities for youth who are interested in diving. The program has excellent participation levels and good levels of instruction opportunities for youth interested in diving. The program is priced correctly. The need exists for this program to be offered year round, but lack of available pool space indoors is a problem. The overall split with instructors and the City needs to be changed to reflect what is occurring in the region, which is a 65/35 split. ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUES (Based on Year 2000 Leagues) The Adult Basketball League is offered on a minimal level. Eight teams are involved in the program. The program is offering adult male and female players a place to play. The program has slowly been losing market appeal. The program is offered as a full court basketball program. Program Strengths

The program offers local residents a place to play competitive basketball

The program is offered for both male and females

The program has a long history in the City

The program is competitively priced

The program is offered on Saturday mornings Program Weakness

The program does not provide 3-on-3 programs and invitational tournaments

The program does not offer levels of competitive play

The program does not have play available during the weekdays

Other service providers in the area are also providing a similar program

Staff view the non-resident policy as a weakness

No practice space is available for teams


March 2004


Overall Findings The adult basketball program needs a new focus and some new energy. The program has steadily lost participation over the years. Ideally, both men and women like to play competitive basketball but various levels of play need to be introduced such as A, B, 3 on 3, 6’ foot and under, Run and Shoot, and tournament play. The high school intramural programs could be a natural lead into keeping players interested. The program needs more time during the week to encourage more play. The play needs to be provided on a citywide level at several locations in the City. This league could be introduced into another program in the City through the YMCA or area recreation and park departments. KAMP KIDSCOPE This is the City of Carrollton’s main summer camp for youth between the ages of 6 to 12 years. The camp is offered at seven sites and allows 45 kids to attend per site per week. The camp program is heavily subsidized, and the program provides transportation, supervision, instructors and camp supplies. Field trips are included in the program. Some of the camp weeks have themes. Program Strengths

Program participation levels are increasing

The camp is very affordable to parents

The camp is educational and safe

The camp provides a well-rounded experience

Participation levels are at maximum levels

The program provides before and after care Program Weaknesses

The program is not meeting the demand in the City

The program is under valued

The registration process needs to be improved

Staff retention is a problem due to low pay

Specialty camps are not provided

The camp needs to operate from a set of standards to provide consistency in field trips and program content

Staff need to learn how to market the features, advantages and benefits of the program

Staff do not know the market position they hold in the City in terms of the total market they control

Overall Program Findings The overall program findings indicate a high level of demand for the program. More sites need to be developed. The pricing program approach needs to be valued at market rate with differential pricing alternatives provided. More themes and diversity of camps are needed. In addition, travel camps for 13 to 15 year olds are needed. The benefits of the program need to be outlined in the program brochure. Greater staff advance planning needs to be done to provide greater consistency and quality. Staff need to know the market position they control and how many underserved youth exist in the City. More staff training is needed and pay levels increased to hold and encourage staff to work in the camp. The program needs to have more


March 2004


feedback from parents and kids involved in the program to keep the program exciting. ADULT VOLLEYBALL PROGRAM (Based on Year 2000) The program is very limited in size due to lack of places to play. The program focuses on young adults and includes three 8-team leagues. One league is for men, one for women and one for coed. The program is offered one night a week in two gyms. Other service providers in the City offer the program. Program Strengths

The program is priced at market rates

The program tries to meet the needs of young adults

The program is offered in two seasons

The program is located at two locations

Program Weaknesses

Staff has very little information from users on how to improve the program

The City does not seek sponsorships for the leagues or for promoting the program.

The City offers no practice or free play opportunities for teams

The City has not established a feeder program for adult leagues from a youth based program

The City lacks indoor space to build this program on that is consistent

The City doesn’t offer weekend times for volleyball leagues

The City does not have partnerships in place with other service providers to grow the synergy in the program

The staff feel that this program is in its down cycle Overall Program Findings The volleyball program incorporates a small number of teams in the City. For the size and population of Carrollton, participant numbers are low. Currently volleyball is a growing sport for youth, especially girls and adult women. The program quality is good, but the program needs more opportunities to grow. Ideally the staff should try to develop a partnership with the YMCA, local churches or private clubs in creating more play opportunities. A citywide adult and youth volleyball tournament needs to be developed to raise the awareness and value of the sport in the City. This tournament could be expanded into a regional tournament involving more cities and locations. Staff need to incorporate more focus groups and evaluations to seek user input into the program design. The City should work with the high school volleyball coaches to establish off-season clinics for girls and develop a sand volleyball league in the spring and summer. SPORTS CAMPS (Based on Year 2000) The sports camp program provided by the City offers a variety of opportunities for boys and girls to participate in Volleyball, Basketball, Soccer, and Baseball skill clinics throughout the summer. The program provides local coaches the opportunity to instruct youth in the program. The program appears to target youth between the ages of 7 – 16 with 7 – 12 age groups being the primary targeted group. Fundamentals are the basis of most camps with higher levels of skill development being taught as a secondary option.


March 2004


Program Strengths

The sports camps have a long program history in the City for youth to participate

The sports camps use local coaches who have been involved in the program for a long period of time

The program fees for the various camps are within market rates for the type of camp being provided

The camps provided are for a week with hours varying from one hour a day to seven hours a day

The variety of sports clinics offered is excellent with varied fee options available

The locations of the clinics are spread evenly around the City

Program participation at Rosemeade has been increasing over the past two years and more gym space is needed

The Skyhawks Sports Academy concept is a great theme to build on

The benefits of the program are well laid out in the program brochure Program Weaknesses

The Clinics have moderate to low participation levels at Crosby Recreation Center

The Clinic programs need a major marketing push with more coaches teaching and more efforts to expand the variety of specialty skills to be taught

The Clinic program needs to incorporate professional or college coaches, women and men into the program

The age groups need to be narrower in design with no more than two age groups targeted in one setting. This will broaden the teaching levels for each age group involved

The sports camps do not have an overall theme and the program titles and program descriptions listed in the Leisure Connections are boring

There are no evening clinics available for teenagers who work during the day to participate

More locations could be added to the camp schedule

Incorporating the summer day camp program into the clinic program especially in the one to two hour program would help develop more awareness in the program

Adding additional clinics for football, hockey, skateboarding, and wrestling would add value to the overall program schedule

Overall Program Findings The clinic programs appear to be tired and in need of a major remarketing effort especially in the Crosby Recreation area. More coaches need to be added with higher levels of skill development being added. More locations need to be included. An overall theme for the summer clinics needs to be developed with an individual marketing effort started earlier in schools for registration. The staff needs to incorporate evening clinics for working teens as well and adding more sports. Offering some actual controlled playing opportunities would add value to the camps. Adding the opportunity for professional athletes to participate in the program or college coaches would also add value to the camps. Adding more women coaches as instructors in the camps would increase female participation in the clinics.


March 2004


PRESCHOOL PROGRAM (Based on Year 2000) The preschool program is offered at two locations in the City and focuses on specialty classes for youth between the ages of 3 and 8. The programs vary in length from 1½ hours to 3 hours. The programs are offered during the day only. The programs offered vary, provide many choices and are creative in design. The program fees are reasonable for the benefits received. Program Strengths

Professional instructors provide the programs for the City

There is a good variety of programs provided during the day hours

The prices for the programs appear to be at market rates and the revenues that the City receives for the program are excellent

The program titles and program descriptions in the Leisure Connections are creative and well written

The majority of programs are set up on a one-day basis

The programs are positioned well in the Leisure Connection

Many of the programs are offered on Saturday for working parents to get involved in Program Weaknesses

The majority of the programs are offered only one time and should be repeated several times if possible

The programs include youth over the age of five, which is truly not a preschool program The age groups are too wide to be effective for the older child in the program

The program offers no time in the evening for working parents to get their child involved

The program offers no opportunity for the parents to participate with their child in these programs together

Only one program provides for a kid fit type of program and or a Pee Wee type of sports programs for 4 and 5 year olds to participate in

The program only uses contract instructors and could be expanded to include volunteers or professionals from other youth serving agencies

A separate program area for youth ages 6 to 8 and 9 to 10 year old program needs to be included in the Leisure Connection

Staff do not conduct focus groups with parents on how to improve the program

More space for preschool programs is needed especially at Rosemeade Overall Program Findings The preschool program provided by the City offers a variety of excellent classes that are one day and eight weeks long. The programs are priced reasonably and offer a good variety of learning benefits to preschoolers. Many of the classes offered extend the age groups in the classes to well beyond preschool and these should change and be provided as six to eight year old programs and nine to ten year old programs. More programs targeted for youth fitness and sports would add value to the preschool program variety. Adding evening classes for working parents like the Saturday morning classes would also be a good option for the staff to consider. It appears there is a lot of creativity built into the programs and an overall marketing strategy for preschool programs should be considered. Preschool programs and classes continue to be on the rise in terms of market appeal and serves well for the City in meeting their lifetime customer goals.


March 2004


RACQUET SPORTS (TENNIS AND RACQUETBALL) (Based on Year 2000) The City provides opportunities for racquet sports in tennis and racquetball. With the new tennis center opening up at the end of year 2000, it will provide even more opportunities for youth and adults to participate in these activities. Participation in racquet sports in general have dramatically declined throughout the United States in recent years and it is important for the City to spend a great amount of marketing efforts to encourage use of these facilities to maximize the City’s investment. Currently the City’s effort to program tennis and racquetball is very limited. The program information provided by the staff was limited.

Program Strengths

The programs are offered for adults and children in tennis and racquetball

The program prices are affordable for the level of benefit received

Professional staff are instructors for the programs

Programs will be offered on a year round basis when the new tennis center opens in December 2000

Racquetball leagues are provided

The RA-KID-BALL program provided for youth is excellent

The beginning instructional program for adults is excellent

Program Weaknesses

The classes currently provided are limited in scope and times

Marketing of these programs and classes is needed

Participation levels in the programs are low in numbers

More learning type of programs are needed for youth 4 to 5, 6 to 8 and 9 to 10 ages groups in the City

The City does not participate with any of the National Youth tennis programs to grow awareness

The program descriptions from the spring and summer Leisure Connections are the same as the Fall Leisure Connection

No tournaments for adults or youth are provided in racquetball or tennis in the two Leisure Connections guides provided for review

Overall Program Findings The City’s effort to market racquet sports is very limited. This may be due in part to the decline in racquet sports in general. For the City to be successful in the new tennis center and racquetball, an overall market strategy is needed to build up the awareness in the City and provide a combination of instruction, leagues, clinics and tournaments to be successful. Currently the programs provided appear to be well developed. The age groups are too wide for youth programs. Professional instruction is provided which adds value to the program. Program pricing is very reasonable for the benefits received. GYMNASTICS (Based on Year 2000) The City of Carrollton offers an excellent gymnastic program for boys and girls at two locations in the City. The variety of programs provided is good with preschool programs provided all the way up to team gymnastics. The City provides professional staff for the program and dedicated space in one recreation center. The prices for the programs appear to be at market rates or below for the level of benefit received.


March 2004


Program Strengths

The City offers a wide age group of gymnastic type programs for youth in the City

The prices for the programs appear to be at market rate or below for the benefit received

The City hires contract professional instructors to teach and design the programs provided and to coach the City’s team

The City provides dedicated space at one recreation center and needs to do the same at Rosemeade

The majority of programs and classes are 8 weeks in length

The City provides the opportunity for qualifying meets to regional and state competition

The instructors are USAG certified

The programs are well marketed in the Leisure Connections with good program descriptions

The program provides good revenue for the City and covers the majority of its operational costs

The program provides residents the first opportunity to sign up for classes Program Weaknesses

Very few programs are offered during Saturday’s for working parents and at Rosemeade in the evening

No programs are offered for four or six weeks at a time for younger students who are just wanting to learn about the program

The ages are too wide in some programs provided to provide a fair experience for all participants

Participation is low to moderate at the Crosby Recreation Center. This could pick up with the Summer Olympics being televised. At Rosemeade, it is flat but not deteriorating

The Leisure Connections needs to provide an overall plan for gymnastics for parents to understand what the City’s objectives are in providing this core program

Not many clinics are provided to improve a specific skill area

The Department does not conduct a lot of parent or youth evaluations on the programs in the form of focus groups to gain feedback on the program and where to improve it

Overall Program Findings This program area is a core business for the City. The program provides a wide demographic appeal for boys and girls ages three to eighteen. The program is marketed well and has excellent instruction from certified instructors and coaches. The program is priced at market rates. The program provides all levels of instruction. More flexibility is needed in class times and on Saturdays for working parents. Participation levels need to be increased at Crosby Recreation Center. This could be increased through more marketing and clinics provided as well as shorter class periods.


March 2004


WATER AEROBICS (Based on Year 2000) The water aerobic program offers program opportunities for adults 16 and up. The program provided has morning, noon and evening times available. The programs are offered at a local school district pool. The programs are set up on monthly schedule. The program is offered at one location and is reasonably priced. Program Strengths

The program has three key times during the day for the activity

The class rates are at market prices

The program provides shallow and deep water classes

Professional staff teaches the program

Programs are provided on a month-to-month schedule Program Weaknesses

There are no Saturday times provided for this program

The age levels for the programs are too wide

The level of skill required for the program is the same for all classes with no opportunity to go to a higher level except to deep-water programs

The program description and title in the program brochure is limited and should be more exciting

There are limited days this program is available and at only one location Overall Program Findings The program offers a nice setting in a warm water pool for adults wanting to improve their flexibility, strength and cardiovascular condition in a water related environment. The program is well balanced with professional instruction. The program has good market appeal and is in a growth mode. The program could be expanded to offer more levels of skill development and be broken down into narrower age categories. The prices for the program are at market rates. The marketing of the program is limited and could use more creativity in the Leisure Connection. DANCE (Based on Year 2000) The dance program provided at Crosby and Rosemeade provides a well-rounded program for youth and adults. The majority of the programs are targeted to youth ages 6 to 12. The programs provided cover the full level of dance programs that includes Ballet, Tap, Jazz, Modern Dance, Swing, Hip Hop and Country Western. The program classes are built on a 45-minute time schedule and are offered one time a week every month. Professional instructors teach the program classes. All classes are during the week with no classes provided on Saturdays. The program is designed by a local dance academy. Program Strengths

The classes are year round and provided on a weekly basis

Professional instructors teach the classes

The location of the programs is in two centers in the City

The pricing of the programs and classes are at market rates

Recitals, camps and performances are provided in the program

The program has a long history in the City through the parks and recreation department


March 2004


The programs are offered in a very quality design and instruction

A nice variety of program types are offered for youth and adults Program Weaknesses

The multipurpose rooms are not adequate for a true dance program. Ideally a dance studio is needed at each recreation center

Instructor turnover is a problem

The department does not receive a fair share of the gross revenues from the program, and they are paying out more than the market is paying for like kinds of programs

Age groups are too wide in some of the classes provided

The department does not engage the users in focus groups to see how they could change the program to better meet their needs

No Saturday classes are provided

The multi-purpose rooms do not have mirrors in them, which drive some participants away

Overall Program Findings The Dance program provided by the dance academy offers the Carrollton community a wide variety of options. Professional instructors teach the program classes. The lack of designated dance room space that is designed to meet the needs of this program at both centers hurts the quality of the program and pushes some participants away. The split between the City and dance academy is not equitable and needs to be renegotiated. It appears the participation levels in the programs are flat and not growing which will require the department to focus on better marketing strategies. The program offers youth and adults a lot of dance opportunities at a reasonable price. SENIOR PROGRAMS (TRIPS) (Based on Year 2000) The Senior Tours program provided by the senior center staff offers seniors various opportunities to visit educational and tourism sites in Texas. The Tours are reasonably priced and cover the direct cost of the trips. Senior trips nationwide are on the increase because of the level of discretionary income seniors have to spend on travel. It appears that the majority of trips are one day trips with a few that are extended each season. Staff leads the trips from the senior center. Program Strengths

The participation level of trips continues to increase

The trips serve a wide range of senior’s ages 55 to 90+

Trips cover their direct costs

The trips are very affordable and convenient

Trips include professional staff as tour guides

The trips provide an educational and entertainment opportunity for seniors in a safe environment

The types of trips provided offer a nice balance between one day and extended day trips


March 2004


Program Weaknesses

The trip cost does not cover indirect cost, which upsets other travel providers in the area. Indirect cost includes staff time and benefits, marketing costs, insurance and overall administration of the program

The travel program does not have its own bus, which should be purchased as a gift or from donations to support this revenue driven program

The marketing of the trips needs to be increased in the Leisure Connections by developing more descriptions about each trip and what will occur or in a separate trips- only newsletter

The staff does not incorporate focus groups with seniors on how to improve the trips from the feedback gained

More variety of trips needs to be included in the schedule for reaching a larger audience. An example would include wilderness trips, elder hostel trips, women only trips, men only trips, and parent and adult child trips

A local bank or investment institution could sponsor the trip program to help offset indirect costs while keeping the program costs affordable

SENIOR PROGRAMS PROVIDED AT THE SENIOR CENTER (Based on Year 2000) The senior programs provided out of the senior center are varied and provide seniors with many social and educational opportunities. The majority of the classes provided are educational or fitness related. The program prices are very affordable and the ongoing daily activities provided are excellent. The programs provided include educational classes, senior athletics, home improvement programs, dominoes, fitness and stretching classes, card playing, music, crafts, dance programs and events. The senior center is open 8 am to 5 pm four days a week and till 9:30 pm on Thursdays. The senior center is open from 10am to 5pm on Saturdays. Program Strengths

Many educational and social alternatives are provided for seniors throughout the year

The senior facility is a very nice facility

The programs provided are of quality nature

The participation levels are high in the programs and daily activities

The City has a Senior Advisory Council in place to help plan and guide the staff in the activities provided

The staff is very professional and knowledgeable in senior programming

The program and senior center receive good marketing and promotion in the Leisure Connection

Program Weaknesses

The majority of seniors who participate in the programs and classes are over 70 years of age. Greater efforts to develop 55 to 60, 60 to 65, and 65 to 70 year programs are needed to attract the younger seniors

The senior center should be considered to be renamed the Carrollton Adult Center to attract more of the younger seniors

The senior center will need to provide a full cardiovascular fitness facility in the future to draw younger senior adults and to meet the needs of the type of seniors moving into the market place


March 2004


Longer hours during the week to attract working seniors needs to be considered

The senior center program and facility is heavily subsidized and introduction of some fee based classes to off set operational costs needs to be considered to move away from an entitlement mindset that is currently in place

Ideally a senior center needs to be included in an overall multi-generational facility instead of a stand-alone facility

Overall Program Findings for Senior Trips and Program The overall senior program for trips and for programs held at the senior center is excellent. The opportunities for educational, social and recreational experiences are well done and the quality of the programs and trips is excellent. Staff should consider adding more trips to reach a wider audience. Trips do not cover indirect costs, which upsets area travel providers. Staff should also gain customer feedback concerning improvements to the trips and programs. The staff needs to begin preparing programming efforts to attract younger seniors into the program. Most people feel that they are fifteen years younger than they are, and to engage them in a senior program will not occur until they are in their seventies. This leaves a hole in meeting the goal of a lifetime customer. Ideally the City should consider changing the name of the senior center to adult center to encourage more people who are 55 years of age to use the facility. The program is heavily subsidized and the City should consider operating the senior center similar to other recreation centers in the City that cover some of the operating cost and move away from an entitlement mindset that is present currently.

The City should consider adding a full fitness center in the new senior facility planned.

KARATE (Based on Year 2000) The Karate program provided by the City is excellent and serves a wide range of people in the program. The program is provided at two recreation centers in the city. The participation levels in the program are excellent and the price of the programs is very affordable for the eight-week program. The program offers two levels of instruction and covers ages six to adults in the program. Professional instruction is provided. Program Strengths

The program is offered at two locations in the City

The program is offered in the evenings during the week

The program is offered for 1½ hour segments

The program description describes the benefits of the program for users

Testing in the belts is provided Program Weaknesses

The City split with the instructors is too wide and needs to be renegotiated

The City needs to provide tournament opportunities similar to gymnastics

The program needs to provide additional skill opportunities outside of karate that are in the martial arts program categories

The program is not targeted to adults and should be considered as well

Each skill level should be described in the Leisure Connections to accurately meet the goals of the program

The program price does not include the cost of the uniform for beginners


March 2004


Overall Program Findings The Karate program provides primarily youth an opportunity to experience a martial arts program. The program is well received by the community and has good participation in the classes. The prices are affordable for the level of instruction provided. The City does a good job marketing the program in the Leisure Connection. The age segments in the program are too wide. The program is offered at two locations in the City and is a year round program. The City should consider allowing class participants to participate in tournaments as a team. EXERCISE CLASSES (Based on Year 2000) The Exercise Program offered at Rosemeade is very extensive without having a fitness center on site. The programs offered are targeted to adult women even though men are invited. The programs are offered during the day and evening. The majority of programs are cardiovascular or strength driven. Program Strengths

The location of Rosemeade Recreation Center serves the community well

The classes are very affordable and cover direct costs

Childcare is provided for the morning classes

The Department contracts with professional instructors

The program participation is at a mature state but flat in terms of participation levels.

The revenue received from classes is good

The marketing of the programs is good as it applies to the program descriptions in the Leisure Connection

Program Weaknesses

The lack of childcare in the evening is a weakness for working parents

Lack of a designed aerobics studio to provide the quality experience that most participants would desire

The fitness facilities are inadequate for the needs of the program

New programs in cardio boxing and judo are not provided

Expansion of the program is difficult due to lack of designated space

The staff does not incorporate all levels of customer feedback to improve the program

Narrowing the age demographics of the program would increase participation and allow for more skill levels to be incorporated into the overall program

Overall Program Findings The fitness programs offered at Rosemeade provide an excellent opportunity for the community to engage in exercise classes. The program is not balanced as it applies to men and women but reaches a large women’s audience. The program is convenient for the north Carrollton residents. The pricing of the programs is at market rate for the benefits received. Additional programs should be added that incorporate cardio boxing and judo. The City needs to provide programs in the Crosby area and at the senior center that mirror some of the same classes offered in Rosemeade. Saturday classes should also be considered for the program.


March 2004


FUNTASTICS (Based on Year 2000) The Funtastics Summer Camp is provided for people with disabilities ages 7-22 years of age. The program is designed to promote basic motor coordination skills, communication and socialization. Activities include arts and crafts, games, sports skills, field trips, special events, swimming and music. The program is eight weeks in length and costs $40 dollars per week. The program is offered from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday. Program Strengths

The program participation is well received by the community

The program meets a need in the community

The program provides a good service to parents at a reasonable price

The program provides a vast number of recreational opportunities for people with disabilities

The staff to participant ratio is excellent

The price of the program is very affordable Program Weaknesses

The program does not have any partnerships to assist the City in providing the program

The space is limited so it only allows 21 people a week in the program

The City does not own a van to transport participants to other recreational sites or on field trips

The staff turnover is high which causes problems

A lack of volunteers causes problems in meeting goals of program quality

The program could be expanded to other sites or held in a school district facility designed to serve people with disabilities

The program is heavily subsidized

A regional partnership program with other cities surrounding the City of Carrollton should be considered to combine efforts to serve people with disabilities

The Camp does not have a sponsor to help offset operational costs Overall Program Findings The Funtastics program is well designed and serves the needs of the community well. The program can only serve a small number of people in the program. The program is heavily subsidized but provides a very affordable price for parents. The staff is well qualified but has a high turn over rate. The program has a limited number of volunteers, which causes a problem for the staff and in meeting the quality of the program desired. Ideally the City should try and develop a co-op program with other cities in the region to maximize everyone’s talent. MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION CLASSES (Based on Year 2000) The miscellaneous Recreation Classes offered in the Leisure Connections provide programs that add value to a person’s life. The majority of classes are targeted to youth. The classes include programs on manners, automobile maintenance, bike rodeo, arts and crafts, cooking, music, fitness, open play times and performing arts. The programs are offered during the week after school and in the evening.


March 2004


Program Strengths

The program offers excellent instructors and convenience

The programs are either free or very reasonably priced

The programs provide a good cross section of diversity

The programs have a good history and value in the community

These classes help to serve youth who are not interested in sports Program Weaknesses

The programs lack consistent program space

More space is needed to provide more programs in these areas

The program age demographics are too wide to meet the needs of all youth in the programs

Marketing of the programs in the Leisure Connections is confusing

The majority of the programs are offered at Rosemeade and not at other sites in the City Overall Program Findings The overall program findings demonstrate that the City is meeting the needs of the community. The programs provided lack consistent space and are mainly offered in one location in the City. Ideally a program plan for these types of classes needs to be formalized and balanced. The programs are reasonably priced but are subsidized. The programs need to narrow down the age segments to allow for a more quality experience for people who take advantage of the program. A.W. PERRY HOMESTEAD MUSEUM The City provides a small museum on the history of Carrollton’s founder. The museum does not provide much in the way of programs but mainly on the City’s history. The museum is managed in partnership with the library. OVERALL PROGRAM FINDINGS The museum needs a business plan to outline its role in education in the City. Ideally the museum should provide some programs that center on the time period of the museum. The museum should be managed in partnership with the historical society and incorporate more volunteers. The City can still manage the site and grounds. ELM FORK NATURE PRESERVE The outdoor recreation programs are educationally driven and include field trips and greater use of the nature center. The programs are low impact, environmentally sensitive and target people of all ages. Currently the number of programs offered is very limited but includes nature tours, classes and a wildflower festival. The current programs include nature hikes, habitat exploration, a junior ranger program and animal safety.


March 2004


Program Strengths

The programs are targeted to youth with adult participation

The nature hikes are offered during the weekday and weekends

The programs are offered in partnership with the library

The program is targeted to increase with a greater emphasis on school groups and family activities

Program Weaknesses

The program needs a business plan to how to direct an overall strategy for outdoor recreation

The program needs to have a base program that is built around youth and education

A marketing plan is needed for the nature center on how to maximize its use and productivity

A school curriculum needs to be developed and incorporated into the plan

Maximizing the Nature Preserve and trails is excellent but it is important to incorporate volunteers and the community into the park on work projects in the park

Overall Program Findings The overall program findings demonstrate a desire by staff to grow the appreciation by the public into understanding and valuing the nature preserve in the community. The programs that have been created offer the community an educational experience in the outdoors. An overall market and business plan for the park and nature center is needed to maximize the City’s investment and staff commitment. The partnership with the library is excellent and this concept should be expanded to include a partnership with the school district as well.


March 2004


PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING STRATEGIES In reviewing and analyzing the programs of the Carrollton Parks and Recreation Department, several key components need to be incorporated into the management practices of the leadership within the Department. The following strategies should be developed for all program areas as it applies to maximizing the City’s investment. The key management trends facing the Department that need to be incorporated into the future are as follows:

Developing an Activity Based Costing program to track direct and indirect cost for all programs and facilities. This will help the Department to evaluate the level of tax subsidy they want to manage from for programs throughout the department.

Implement the new pricing policy outlined in the master plan.

Establish a separate partnership policy based on three levels that include a public/public policy, a public/non-for-profit policy and a public/private policy.

Establish program standards for all programs provided by the department to demonstrate quality throughout the City in all program areas and facilities.

Develop an effective sponsorship and earned income program to help offset operational cost and build on the quality of the activities.

Incorporate more volunteers into assisting staff in delivery of programs and managing of facilities.

Develop a goal of creating a lifetime customer to build advocacy throughout the City.

Develop marketing and business plans for key recreation facilities and core programs in the City.

Incorporate performance measures that can be tracked and demonstrate value and success to City leadership. The performance measures that could be included are as follows:

1. Measure cost per experience 2. Measure customer satisfaction levels for each program and activity 3. Measure revenue to expense to track subsidy levels 4. Track participation levels and program lifecycles 5. Track equity in partnerships created. 6. Measure earned income development throughout the department 7. Track the development of partnerships in all areas 8. Track facility capacity levels and the number of programs offered versus held

Establish core recreation programs to build market share. The core programs that will be developed are as follows:

1. Aquatics 2. Adult Athletics 3. Tournaments and Clinics in all sports for youth and adults 4. Day Camps for ages 6 to 12 year olds 5. Life Skill programs for 4 to 5, 13 to 15 year olds, and adults. 6. Gymnastics/tumbling 7. Home School 8. Community Special events 9. Fifty+ and 70+ senior type programs


March 2004


10. Family programs 11. Teenage programs 12. Outdoor Education programs 13. Art programs 14. Adaptive programs 15. Volunteer programs 16. Fitness programs

Incorporate evaluations of all programs through pre-evaluations, post-evaluations and focus groups.

Develop programs for each segment of the market based on demographics of the City and into each core recreation program area.

Change the contractor percentage from 80% instructor - 20% city to 65% instructor - 35% city to help eliminate subsidy levels of contract programs.

Incorporate a stronger working agreement with the school district on use of City owned facilities and school owned facilities.

Establish the level of staff and operational needs for facilities before new programs or facilities are created so they don’t continue to spread staff any more than they are now.

Move the youth sports association entitlement program to the same management practice of cost recovery as other programs provided in the system.

Develop a youth sports commission targeted to football and basketball to begin with to ensure that all sports participation levels are treated the same. This will provide more management consistency for parents and youth involved in the city. The process would include the following:

Each sports group that plays on your fields is entitled to two seats on a Youth Sports Authority Advisory Board.

Each sports group retains their individual identify but must be a part of the authority to receive park district fields or funds through your subsidy.

A visioning session is established with the park board, staff and youth sports authority on where youth sports in general is going in the City and the level of commitment the department can effectively make toward the vision.

Needs and priorities are established based on real participation numbers and funding opportunities.

The department will set a per-kid level of investment that is equal for each sport and participant.

Base level of performance standards for each sport and gamefield facility will be set and youth sports groups will be required to pay the difference between the departments commitment and the standards established.

Some of the earned income derived by the department through advertising, sponsorship and events directly connected to the gamefields or from activities of the “sports authority members” could be used for capital improvements on the fields or to the sports parks.

Each sport will be required to submit rosters and participation numbers for leagues and tournaments held each year to gauge growth or decline in sport participation.

A full accounting of each sports revenues and expenses will be shared with the department to access permits on an annual basis.


March 2004


The department will provide the sport authority members with an accounting of the costs of maintenance and capital improvements.

Each sports group will commit to meet the department’s goals of participation play levels and sportsmanship requirements.

The youth sports authority will meet eight times per year to go over key issues, policies and equity concerns. The youth sports authority will meet annually with the park board on the results of their work and the performance levels met.

Change the part-time workers pay levels to market rates to keep quality staff from leaving the organization.

Incorporate four age segments into program design for the senior programs based on four generations of seniors.

Continue to strive to develop multi-generational facilities instead of stand-alone facilities.

Incorporate more staff training in establishing standards, tracking performance measures, and marketing of programs and facilities.

When the city has experienced staff who are capable of developing and managing recreation programs that are efficient and effective they should not contract for those services. When this occurs the city loses their ability to impact the market place from a market position perspective and image perspective.

These management trends will help the staff to meet their goals in being known for developing and maintaining quality programs and facilities. This will allow the department and staff to be recognized as a leader in Texas and the region for providing the best in programs and facilities. As the Department learns to create a lifetime customer for all core programs, it is imperative that they track program opportunities for each core business. This process needs to incorporate the following management practices for each of the core businesses outlined. Aquatics The goal for the department will be to develop an indoor pool in the north part of the city. Ideally the city should try and convert Thomas Pool and Rosemeade Pool into a 1200 to 1500 bather capacity family aquatic center.


March 2004


Develop age segment program in aquatics as follows: (Shaded areas indicate programs that need to be developed in the respective age segments.)

Program 2-5

yrs old 6 – 8

yrs old 9-10

yrs old 11-18

yrs old 19-50

yrs old 51-90

yrs old

Learn to Swim/Swim Lessons

Zero Depth Entry into Pool

Recreational Swimming

Adaptive Classes

Swim Team

Diving

Snorkeling Classes

Olympic Swim

Synchronized Swim

Jr. Life Guard Program

Scuba

Red Cross Life Guard Training

Lap Swim

Water Aerobics

Parent and Tot

New programs that will be developed will include adaptive programs, sports training, distance training, rehabilitation training, swim team. Adult Athletics Adult athletics will incorporate the following programs and levels:

Volleyball (co-ed, women, men, teen, senior and sand volleyball)

Basketball (women’s, men’s, 6’ft and under, 35 and older, 3 on 3, run and shoot, girls high school, church)

Soccer (indoor, outdoor, men’s, women’s, co-ed)

Softball (co-ed, men’s, women’s, church, over 35, industrial, senior)

Baseball (19-23, 24-30, and a wood bat league)

Flag Football (men’s, 8 on 8, air it out)

Tennis (leagues 2.5-5.5, senior, women)

Senior Olympics (tie into other communities)

Tournaments The City will develop tournaments for youth and adults in the following areas: (1) Youth

Youth 13-14 (soccer, baseball, girls softball, basketball, in-line hockey)

Youth 12 and Under (soccer, baseball, girls softball, basketball, in-line hockey)

Youth 10 and Under (soccer, baseball, girls softball, basketball, in-line hockey)

Youth 8 and Under (soccer, baseball, girls softball, basketball, in-line hockey) (2) Adult Tournaments

Adult 19-35 (soccer, softball, basketball, tennis)


March 2004


Adult 35 and up (soccer, softball, basketball, tennis)

50+ (soccer, softball, basketball, tennis) The department will participate in the Texas State Games. Day Camps Develop a joint agreement with the school district. For ages 6 – 12, camps offered at seven sites (Level 4). A total of 15 sites are needed. A tiered pricing plan needs to be established to develop a 5-star camp.

CIP: Develop two (2) indoor AC Pavilions (Level 5 – the facility will have all the amenities beyond the basics) Six sites converted to outdoor day camps with water misters and fans (Level 2 - basic

level service)

8 Week Camp: (7 sites) Two sites for 6 – 7 year olds Four sites for 8 – 9 year olds One site for 10 – 12 year olds One Therapeutic camp for ages 7 – 22 (one site)

10 Week Camp: (8 new sites)

Two AC targeting 8 – 9 year olds Six AC targeting 10 – 12 year olds

Day Camps to also include travel Camps (trip in city and out) for ages 13 – 15 and adult camps (back to the basics and fantasy camps). All adult camps should be contracted. Family Programs Develop the following family programs.

Parent and Tot Sports – golf, tennis, basketball, fishing, hunting, etc. Fitness – bike and walk clubs Arts – performing and crafts Trips – seniors, adventure clubs Outdoor Adventure – camping, hiking, canoeing, rafting, skiing Education Program – living history


March 2004


Outdoor Activities

Age Segments

Outdoor Activities

Environmental Education

Hikes Outdoor

Adventure Park Community

Trails Adventure

Camps

2 – 5

6 – 8

9 – 10

11 – 12

13 – 15

16 – 18

19 – 23

24 – 30

31 – 50

51 – 70

70+

Senior Programs

Programs 50 - 55

55 - 60

60 - 65

65 - 70

70 - 75

75 - 80

80+

Computers

Dance

Arts (oil, water color, crafts)

Fitness

Education Seminars (financial, lifetime skills)

Trips

Special Events

Clubs

Sports

Tech Center

Teen Programs The programs apply to ages 13 – 15 and 16 – 18. One-time Events Café Skateboard Park Teen Fair Targeted Activities (Performing Arts) Music Club Sports Adventure Programs Smart Clubs


March 2004


Arts Programs The programs are targeted to the following age groups. 2 – 5 6 – 8 9 – 10 11 – 12 13 – 15 16 – 18 19 – 23 24 – 30 30 – 50 50 – 70

Fine Arts: Judged Show Water Color Performing Arts Dance

Ballet Tap Modern Jazz Music

Drama Theater Drama Red Stocking Review The outdoor amphitheater with seating for 1,500 should develop a market plan to include transportation. Lifetime Leisure Programs The key issue for these type programs is lack of space. The following are lifetime leisure programs that need to be developed. For Preschool age children (2-3 and 4-5), specific programs include arts & crafts, ABC

learning, movement, kid fit, parent & tot, and birthday. Gymnastics programs include tumbling, team, pre-tumbling, gymnastics, cheerleading and

drill team. Marshal Arts include karate and tai-chi. Cooking – limited effort. Computer programs (Seniors, NRPA Tech Centers, SeniorNet) Gardening Parenting Classes Club Activities – bicycle, photography


March 2004


Community-wide Special Events include “Celebration” on July 4th, “Rural America” at the end of September, “Pool Trout Fish Out” in February, Country Fair in October and the Holiday Parade in December. MARKETING The department has launched a major marketing effort over the last year. Overall, the department needs to develop a marketing plan that evaluates each segment of the market and how to program and manage each area in the City based on Carrollton’s diverse demographics. The City’s effort in developing the Leisure Connections has created a very marketable piece with good shelf life. Leisure Connections needs to improve in the following areas:

The class and program descriptions need to sell the benefits of the program more and the program titles need to be more creative.

The program guide is very colorful and is easy to read.

The use of pictures in the program guide is excellent.

The City should consider positioning program information first in the guide versus after all City business and news.

A program matrix should be included in the guide to cross reference locations with classes and age groups.

Some of the program descriptions are not in the right location as it applies to miscellaneous classes. Ideally the City should create a family section.

The Age segments need to be reevaluated in many programs especially in the preschool section where 7 and 8 year olds are incorporated into classes designed for preschoolers.

The process to register for classes needs to be improved and easier to understand.

Ideally the City should create four seasons versus three times a year. This will help keep the City’s program more in front of the public and will increase the City’s revenue opportunities.

The staff must do a better job in seeking input from the users on how they feel about the programs provided and how to improve them.

Many of the facilities the City owns are outdated and need an image update and renovation to a year 2000 design.

Establishing the goals for a lifetime customer needs to be consistently tracked by staff as well as tracking the program lifecycles to eliminate programs in their down cycle.


March 2004


MARKET SEGMENTATION FOR PARTICIPATION LEVELS AND PROJECTED LEVELS NSGA Report NSGA (National Sporting Goods Association) has been conducting national research on participation in various sports and activities for more than twenty years. Carrollton is included in the area of Dallas, TX. The activities are in descending order by the Index of Participation column.

Activity Dallas Area %

National % Index of Participation

Horseback riding 9.6 3.7 261

Calisthenics 6.1 4.1 150

Racquetball 2.9 2.2 134

Skiing – downhill 5.6 4.2 134

Football – touch 6.6 5.0 131

Running/jogging 11.7 9.1 129

Football – tackle 4.6 3.6 127

Baseball 8.0 6.5 124

Fishing – fresh water 19.0 16.8 113

Soccer 6.0 5.5 110

Swimming 28.0 25.7 109

Aerobic exercising 10.6 10.0 107

Basketball 13.8 13.4 103

Exercise with equipment

20.1 19.5 103

Exercise walking 29.8 30.3 98

Golf 9.7 9.9 97

Tennis 4.8 5.1 95

Camping 16.5 18.5 89

Volleyball 6.9 7.7 89

Billiards 12.2 13.9 88

Bicycle riding 19.8 23.2 86

Softball 6.8 7.9 86

Martial Arts 1.6 1.9 80

Hiking 7.4 10.9 68

Index of Participation: This relates the Dallas area participant proportion to the national population proportion. This implies the likeliness of Dallas area population to participate in that sport as the national population. Example: Running/jogging - the Dallas area population is more likely (1.29 times) to participate in that activity compared to the national population, but the Dallas area population is less likely to participate in marital arts, softball and hiking than the national population. (100 is the national participation index)


March 2004


THE LIFESTYLE MARKET ANALYST 1998 REPORT The following information provides a comprehensive overview of some lifestyle interests of the adult population/households in the area. The information is provided by the joint venture of SRDS and Polk. SRDS have been supplying media and marketing information for 75 years. The data is collected and analyzed by Polk, a leader in database marketing services such as comprehensive market segmentation. The 1998 Lifestyle Market Analyst profiles are based on a sample of 8.6 million households over a period of one year. This included the area of Dallas County, TX.

Sports, Fitness & Health Households % Index

Running/jogging 127,189 16.8 140

Career oriented activities 94,635 12.5 136

Tennis, frequently 57,538 7.6 123

Attend cultural/arts events 145,359 19.2 118

Self improvement 164,286 21.7 118

Physical fitness/exercise 321,758 42.5 116

Improving your health 191,540 25.3 107

Dieting/weight control 179,427 23.7 100

Snow ski frequently 59,052 7.8 99

Walking for health 237,722 31.4 93

Golf 141,573 18.7 91

Wildlife/Environmental 102,962 13.6 83

Camping/hiking 155,958 20.6 81

Bicycling frequently 118,104 15.6 79

Index: Households in the DMA (Designated Market Area [a formal term for what is more commonly known as a TV or broadcast market]), which are compared to the US household rate of participation. Example: households in the local area participate in tennis at a rate that is 1.23 times greater than the US household rate of participation. Participation levels for these activities are above the national average of participation. It also confirms the Dallas area has high interest in activities such as running/jogging, career oriented activities, tennis and cultural/arts events.


March 2004


Aerobics

Typical Participant Profile Age: 25-34 Gender: Female (78%) National Mean of Participating Days: 83 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 84 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $75,000+ National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parent

Age % of Age Participating Females

7-11 2.3 12-17 5.9 18-24 13.6 25-34 21.2 35-44 15.8 45-54 9.3 55-64 4.0

65+ 5.5


March 2004


Aerobics - Step

Typical Participant Profile Age: 25-34 Gender: Female (90%) National Mean of Participating Days: 64 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 66 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $35-49,999


7-11 1.5 12-17 3.6 18-24 17.9 25-34 28.5 35-44 22.3 45-54 9.5 55-64 3.6

65+ 2.9


March 2004


Baseball

Typical Participant Profile: Age: 7-11 Gender: Male (75%) National Mean of Participating Days: 36 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 35 Education: School age Household Income: $35-49,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents

Age % of Age Participating Males

7-11 23.0 12-17 20.5 18-24 11.5 25-34 8.7 35-44 6.9 45-54 3.0 55-64 1.0

65+ 0.9


March 2004


Artificial Wall Climbing

Participation Trend 1994: 700,000 1996: 2,300,000 1998: 2,700,000 Typical Participant Profile Age: 12-17 Gender: Male (54%) National Mean of Participating Days: 9 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 17 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: NA


7-11 9.9 12-17 17.3 18-24 9.0 25-34 7.4 35-44 6.6 45-54 2.6 55-64 0.7

65+ 0.3


March 2004


Basketball

Typical Participant Profile: Age: 12-17 Gender: Male (69%) National Mean of Participating Days: 34 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 35 Education: High School Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 13.6 12-17 16.9 18-24 12.7 25-34 12.6 35-44 8.2 45-54 2.9 55-64 1.2

65+ 0.4


March 2004


Bicycle Riding

Typical Participant Profile Age: 7-11 Gender: Male (53%) National Mean of Participating Days: 63 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 68 Education: School age Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working parents

Age % of Age Participating Males and Females

7-11 23.1 12-17 18.0 18-24 8.2 25-34 16.3 35-44 16.7 45-54 8.9 55-64 4.8

65+ 3.9


March 2004


Wellness/Fitness (calisthenics)

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Female (52%) National Mean of Participating Days: 86 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 76 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $35-49,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents

Age % of Age Participating Males and Females

7-11 14.3 12-17 15.9 18-24 13.5 25-34 16.2 35-44 18.9 45-54 10.4 55-64 4.2

65+ 6.6


March 2004


Camping

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Male (53%) National Mean of Participating Days: 13 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 14 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 6.4 12-17 7.1 18-24 7.2 25-34 10.0 35-44 11.4 45-54 6.4 55-64 2.8

65+ 2.0


March 2004


Canoeing

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Male (55%) National Mean of Participating Days: 6 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 6 Education: College Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999


7-11 4.6 12-17 9.6 18-24 6.6 25-34 10.3 35-44 13.0 45-54 6.4 55-64 2.7

65+ 2.3


March 2004


Cheerleading

Typical Participant Profile Age: 12-17 Gender: Female (94%) National Mean of Participating Days: 53 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 53 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: N/A


7-11 34.0 12-17 42.9 18-24 8.3 25-34 2.6 35-44 1.7 45-54 2.2 55-64 0.7

65+ 1.5


March 2004


Exercise Walking

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Female (63.5%) National Mean of Participating Days: 97 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 96 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Affluent Empty Nesters


7-11 2.2 12-17 3.1 18-24 5.9 25-34 11.7 35-44 13.8 45-54 10.8 55-64 6.7

65+ 9.3


March 2004


Exercise with Equipment

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Female (51%) National Mean of Participating Days: 83 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 74 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $75,000 + National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 1.1 12-17 3.5 18-24 7.6 25-34 10.3 35-44 11.9 45-54 8.9 55-64 3.9

65+ 4.1


March 2004


Fishing



7-11 7.6 12-17 7.7 18-24 8.2 25-34 12.0 35-44 14.1 45-54 8.6 55-64 5.6

65+ 4.6


March 2004


Football – Touch and Tackle

Typical Participant Profile Age: 12-17 both Gender: Male (88% Tackle – 79% Touch) National Mean of Participating Days: 35 (Tackle) 21 (Touch) West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 39 (Tackle) 29 (Touch) Education: School age Household Income: $35-49,999 - both National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents - both

Age % of Age Participating Males Tackle

% of Age Participating Males Touch

7-11 13.6 18.7 12-17 37.4 21.8 18-24 19.6 15.4 25-34 11.6 13.0 35-44 3.0 6.2 45-54 1.5 1.9 55-64 0.5 0.8

65+ 0.6 0.9


March 2004


Golf

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Male (79%) National Mean of Participating Days: 27 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 25 Education: College Graduate Household Income: $75,000+ National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 3.1 12-17 8.1 18-24 9.4 25-34 15.9 35-44 16.3 45-54 12.5 55-64 6.8

65+ 6.9


March 2004


Hiking



7-11 6.6 12-17 6.4 18-24 7.4 25-34 11.8 35-44 11.2 45-54 6.6 55-64 3.0

65+ 1.7


March 2004


Hockey – Ice and Roller

Typical Participant Profile- Ice Hockey Age: 18-24(Ice) 12-17 (Roller) Gender: Male (75% Ice – 81% Roller) National Mean of Participating Days: 26 (Ice) 23 (Roller) West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 17 (Ice) 26 (Roller) Education: School age Household Income: $50-74,999 (both) National Lifecycle Segmentation: N/A

Age % of Age Participating Males Ice Hockey

% of Age Participating Males Roller Hockey

7-11 14.2 26.4 12-17 13.9 27.0 18-24 17.8 11.2 25-34 12.3 6.3 35-44 13.2 8.0 45-54 2.2 2.2 55-64 0.8 0.0

65+ 0.0 0.0


March 2004


Martial Arts

Typical Participant Profile Age: 7-11 Gender: Male (60%) National Mean of Participating Days: 67 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 76 Education: School age Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Single Parents


7-11 15.0 12-17 11.7 18-24 9.0 25-34 12.9 35-44 6.3 45-54 3.4 55-64 1.3

65+ 0.7


March 2004


Mountain Biking – On Road/Off Road

Typical Participant Profile – Off Road Age: 25-34 (Off and On Road) Gender: Male (66% Off Road – 58% On Road) National Mean of Participating Days: 20 (Off-Road) 34 (On Road) West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 20 (Off Road) 32 (On Road) Education: High School (both) - College Graduate (Off Road) Household Income: $50-74,999 (both)

Age % of Age Participating Males Off Road

% of Age Participating Males On Road

7-11 7.6 7.0 12-17 10.8 7.8 18-24 7.3 6.6 25-34 20.2 17.9 35-44 12.4 11.1 45-54 5.6 5.1 55-64 1.7 2.0

65+ 0.5 0.6


March 2004


Racquetball

Typical Participant Profile Age: 25-34 Gender: Male (73%) National Mean of Participating Days: 19 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 20 Education: College Graduate Household Income: $75,000 + National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 4.4 12-17 7.0 18-24 18.0 25-34 22.4 35-44 13.8 45-54 4.7 55-64 2.3

65+ 0.5


March 2004


Rollerblading

Typical Participant Profile Age: 7-11 Gender: Female (51%) National Mean of Participating Days: 23 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 22 Education: School age Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: N/A


7-11 16.4 12-17 12.6 18-24 7.5 25-34 7.6 35-44 5.9 45-54 1.4 55-64 0.2

65+ 0.3


March 2004


Running and Jogging



7-11 3.8 12-17 7.4 18-24 10.3 25-34 13.0 35-44 9.8 45-54 6.1 55-64 2.4

65+ 1.4


March 2004


Skateboarding

Typical Participant Profile Age: 7-11 Gender: Male (82%) National Mean of Participating Days: 33 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 23 Education: School age Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 32.1 12-17 30.9 18-24 7.4 25-34 4.2 35-44 1.4 45-54 0.2 55-64 0.2

65+ 0.8


March 2004


Soccer

Typical Participant Profile Age: 7-11 Gender: Male (63%) National Mean of Participating Days: 33 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 32 Education: High School Household Income: $75,000 + National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 25.6 12-17 16.5 18-24 6.9 25-34 7.3 35-44 4.2 45-54 1.1 55-64 0.3

65+ 0.6


March 2004


Softball

Typical Participant Profile Age: 25-34 Gender: Male (53%) National Mean of Participating Days: 28 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 30 Education: High School Household Income: $35-49,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 8.3 12-17 6.6 18-24 7.9 25-34 15.1 35-44 10.0 45-54 4.7 55-64 0.6

65+ 0.6


March 2004


Swimming

Typical Participant Profile Age: 35-44 Gender: Female (53%) National Mean of Participating Days: 43 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 46 Education: High School Graduate Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 9.0 12-17 8.8 18-24 5.9 25-34 8.8 35-44 9.8 45-54 5.0 55-64 2.6

65+ 3.5


March 2004


Tennis



7-11 6.1 12-17 8.7 18-24 10.2 25-34 10.9 35-44 9.9 45-54 5.0 55-64 2.1

65+ 2.3


March 2004


Volleyball

Typical Participant Profile Age: 12-17 Gender: Female (54%) National Mean of Participating Days: 18 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 15 Education: High School Household Income: $50-74,999 National Lifecycle Segmentation: Working Parents


7-11 5.4 12-17 19.1 18-24 9.5 25-34 10.0 35-44 7.2 45-54 2.3 55-64 0.8

65+ 0.2


March 2004


Work out at a Club

A. PARTICIPATION TREND 1998: 26,544,000

B. C. TYPICAL PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Age: 25-34 Gender: Female (53%) National Mean of Participating Days: 93 West South Central (TX) Region Mean of Participating Days: 97 Education: College Graduate Household Income: $75,000+ National Lifecycle Segmentation: N/A


7-11 0.7 12-17 2.7 18-24 9.6 25-34 14.0 35-44 12.0 45-54 6.6 55-64 3.4

65+ 4.4


March 2004


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

millions

aerobics

basketball

climbing - artificial

exercise walking

exercise w/equip

racquetball

inline skating

running/jogging

softball

swimming

volleyball

soccer

skateboarding

roller hockey

tennis

baseball

fishing

golf

hiking

kick boxing

martial arts

mountain biking - on road

step aerobics

skiing - downhill

snowboarding

Overall Participation in Sports and Recreation


March 2004


This is a general overview of where sports participation is in the nation. Its purpose is to illustrate which activities are more popular than others; and possibly where Carrollton can expand programming in these activities to capture some of the market. Other Activities and Facilities Standards from the National Recreation and Park Association: Format Number of Units Per Population Service Radius

Badminton 1 per 5,000 ¼-½ mile Basketball 1 per 5,000 ¼-½ mile Volleyball 1 court per 5,000 ¼-½ mile Multiple Recreation Court (basketball, volleyball, tennis)

1 per 10,000 1-2 miles

1/4 Mile Running track 1 per 20,0000 15-30 minute drive

Swimming Pools 1 per 20,000 (should accommodate 2-5% of total population at a time)

15-30 minute drive

Ice Rinks 1 per 100,000 30-60 minute drive


March 2004


Participation Correlation Utilizing information provided by NSGA survey, the following correlation between people who participate in aerobic exercising and working out at a club and the other potential activities are highlighted. Activity % of Aerobic

Exerciser % of Running/Jogging

Exerciser % of Tennis Players

Aerobics 100% 27.9% 22.5% Basketball 14.4% 32.0% 37.6% Bicycle riding 30.2% 36.9% 37.1% Billiards 21.5% 28.1% 35.6% Bowling 22.2% 29.5% 41.1% Camping 22.9% 27.4% 29.9% Exercise Walking 62.1% 51.0% 44.9% Exercise with equipment

53.7% 52.2% 37.5%

Golf 10.7% 22.3% 30.1% Hiking 22.6% 27.5% 26.2% Racquetball 3.8% 7.3% 8.5% Running Jogging 24.4% 100% 31.5% Swimming 36.4% 48.5% 52.4% Tennis 9.8% 15.7% 100% Volleyball 12.5% 20.5% 24.8% Example: 62% of aerobic exercisers also exercise walk 52% of runners also exercise with equipment Example of how to use this information: promotional efforts for exercise walking would be more effective by targeting the people who also participate in tennis, aerobic exercisers and runners. These people are more likely to participate in exercise walking than those who do not participate in any activity.


March 2004


VISION STATEMENT (May 2000) Carrollton Parks and Recreation will acquire, develop and maintain appropriate levels of parkland for recreation and natural preservation purposes. The Department will seek to develop services that create lifetime advocates, which support diversity and economic growth while connecting the community through providing exceptional programs, facilities and events.

VISION ACTION STATEMENTS:

1. Pursue all funding options available to acquire, develop, and manage park and recreation facilities and services consistent with the community of Carrollton’s needs, values and goals.

Price all recreation programs to the subsidy level the Council will support based on benefits received.

Develop a greenway utility to support the development and maintenance of trails in the City.

Seek all available grants to support acquisition and development of parks in the City.

Develop equitable partnerships with other service providers both inside the City and with outside organizations.

Develop a Parks Foundation to supplement the capital and operational costs associated with providing services.

Develop a sports authority to coordinate and manage youth sports in the City.

Seek all outside earned income opportunities in the City focusing on partnerships, sponsorships, and alliances to support operational costs and scholarships for families to access services.

Develop and maintain revenue producing quality facilities to offset operational costs.

Seek all tax generating options available that other communities have used to support parks and recreation services.

Develop a real-estate transfer fee to support future park infrastructure when the City reaches build out.

2. Acquire and develop parks, trails and greenbelt land that will enhance the quality of life for Carrollton residents.

Create a trails plan for the City.

Update trails standards in the City.

Create a Capital Improvement Program for acquisition.

Create a Capital Improvement Program for development.

Coordinate potential uses with utility owners.

Identify key landowners and identify key property for trail access through purchase or easements.

Explore abandoned railroad tracks for key trail linkages.

Create an ongoing maintenance fund for trail maintenance.


March 2004


3. Provide innovative core recreation programs and services that are market-driven and cost effective, which promote health, fitness and encourage citizen participation.

Identify existing core programs.

Incorporate a citizen survey into the City’s surveys.

Identify future core programs.

Create a lifetime customer approach to recreation services.

Develop an annual market study on pricing and subsidy rates.

Re-evaluate contract instructor pay levels.

Redevelop existing core programs with updated data.

Implement new and improved programs and allow for transition time and follow-up with surveys as needed.

Develop a mini-market plan for each core program and facility.

Benchmark current programs and services against other service providers to evaluate the City’s position in the market place as it applies to recreation services.

Incorporate a third location for program registration which should be targeted to T.C Rice Park when it is developed.

4. Develop effective strategies to preserve, educate and promote historical and environmental resources in Carrollton.

Develop a partnership with the Historical Society and the Museum Board focusing on archeology, rail history, early settler history and natural resources.

Utilize local foundations to promote and generate funding.

Enhance the environmental committee’s role to include auditing existing natural resources and how these resources can benefit the quality of life for now and the future.

Preserve existing vegetation and re-establish native vegetation for education purposes.

Utilize Bioengineering to preserve natural habitat in creeks and lakes to provide community access through trails.

Work with local business and landowners to demonstrate the economic benefits and opportunities that could be available with a complex trail system in place.

5. Create specialized park and recreation facilities that address the diverse needs of the community.

Commit to fund completely the Rosemeade Recreation Center addition.

Finalize the Senior Center development and commit to fund the Master Plan for Josey Ranch Park.

Develop T.C. Rice into a signature park for the City to include the nature areas of the park for trail access.

Link the trails system citywide with a 20-year implementation plan that includes natural areas of the City.


March 2004


Consolidate an administration office to improve efficiency and communication.

Renovate Crosby Recreation Center.

Renovate neighborhood parks to include walking trails, upgraded playgrounds and picnic shelters.

Convert Rosemeade pool into a family Aquatic Center.

Develop a Skateboard Park in the City.

Develop an Athletic Field House in the city to enhance sports activities.

Develop more practice fields along greenbelts and on school facility sites.

Develop an indoor pool in conjunction with the school district or a private partner.

Add a large covered shelter to McInnish Park to support groups.

Develop a NE Park to support the growth in the City.

Establish a designated capital fund for walking trails and playgrounds.

Develop the Rural America site.

Incorporate into the budget process a 2% to 3% cost for improvements for each new project for landscaping improvements to improve image appeal.

6. Develop well-defined staff responsibilities and effective policies and procedures that

incorporate alternative funding sources and partnerships as a sound foundation for outcome based management.

Update a comprehensive organizational chart for the department.

Update and define job responsibilities and accountabilities.

Develop a market approach on all compensation packages for positions in the department.

Provide adequate training and transition time for all staff in their new roles and responsibilities.

Define and develop multi-level partnerships and sponsorships.

Evaluate all policies and procedures that need to be implemented to support efficient use of resources.

Incorporate the new pricing policy as part of management practices.

Develop consistent standards and track performance measures to meet expected outcomes.

Consolidate all staff into one location if possible to improve communication, work team relationships and efficiency.


March 2004


City of Carrollton Pricing Policy (May 2000) City of Carrollton Parks and Recreation Pricing Policy is designed to provide the City Council and Parks and Recreation Board and Staff consistent guidelines in pricing parks and recreation services. This will allow the users of the parks and recreation services to better understand the philosophy behind pricing a service and how the level of benefit they receive is translated into a price that is based on a set subsidy level or on the level of benefit consumption that is involved outside of what the general taxpayer receives. To gain and provide consistency among users and user groups, staff and elected officials must develop a philosophical foundation and incorporate a ten-step process to effective development of a pricing policy. 1. Rationale: The City Council, Park Board and staff need to agree that pricing services to

the level of benefits received and to help offset operating cost makes good sense. And they both agree that communicating this approach is a fair method to distribute City resources to the largest number of users of the system.

2. Authorization: The City Council should allow the Department Staff to present prices for programs and services with the highest amount of pricing flexibility to maximize all pricing strategies to the fullest. Ideally, prices should be set based on levels of subsidy set by City Council after direct and indirect costs are established. By allowing the Department Staff to work within a price range, this will give staff the ability to discount for prime time/non-prime-time and season and off-season rates and allow for group rate pricing to occur.

3. Revenue philosophy: The City Council and Park Board should adopt a revenue philosophy that promotes revenue production to offset operating cost but allows for revenues collected to stay in the fund where it was generated to build in incentives for staff to be aggressive in seeking revenues. This will also develop user support for pricing of services because the dollars they invest in their recreation experience will come back in better quality service and facilities.

4. Citizen input: Where possible allow for citizen input into pricing of services by allowing them to pick and choose what components of the service they want to invest in. Allowing multi-tiered pricing to occur provides this opportunity. This means allowing users to pick and choose what level of quality or quantity they want and pay accordingly. One price fits all does not work effectively in maximizing pricing alternatives and in gaining revenue production.

5. Program Services and Classifications: The City Council and Park Board needs to allow in the pricing policy classifications of services. These classifications will include prime time, non-prime-time, season and off-season rates, multi-tiered pricing, group discounting, volume food and beverage pricing, and incentive pricing. These are all market strategies to encourage the users to move to a classification they are most interested in versus one price fits all.

6. Levels of public benefit: Pricing of services should be based on the level of benefit and consumption received. The higher the benefit above what the general taxpayer receives


March 2004


should be priced accordingly. Recreation services in general are consumptive in nature. Once an activity is over the most we can hope for is a memorable experience. Allowing prices to reflect the opportunity for users to invest in themselves based on an individual benefit received is easy to communicate and the users understand it.

7. Cost accounting: The City Council and Park Board should allow the Department Staff to develop an effective Activity Based Costing model to help determine cost per experience and subsidy levels before pricing of the service occurs. This will allow for more effective decision making on the staff’s part in determining the best way to introduce the service or program in the most cost effective manner.

8. Pricing methods: The pricing methods outlined in this policy should be incorporated into all program and facility development efforts.

9. Consumer pricing expectations: Users expect higher quality of services when pricing efforts are instituted. This will require program and facility standards to be implemented to meet the users expectations and willingness to pay.

10. Communication and evaluation: In all cases communicating the true cost of a service or program to users will increase the users understanding and value they are receiving. Messages, which convey personal gain, encourage significantly higher reference prices. In a recent study on pricing, consumers willingness to pay for services increased by 33% by telling people the actual cost of providing the service and by 36% by telling them the actual cost plus conveying program attributes.

There are basically three ways to establish a price:

Charging “the going rate” is non-controversial, but really has no rationale.

Differential pricing is an excellent method as long as it doesn’t cause resentment. Different rates can be charged for:

o Different participants (senior citizens, teens) o Different products (heated pool vs. non-heated) o Different places (best field vs. worse; best shelter vs. worse) or different times

(peak times vs. weekdays)

Pricing via “type of program continuum” (public vs. merit vs. private services) which means offering the cost of a program at direct cost to the participant - minus the cost that the agency would incur anyway if the program was offered or not, plus utilizing market techniques so that the program is not over saturated.

The objectives of pricing user fees is fourfold: I. Equity II. Revenue production III. Efficiency IV. Redistribution of income


March 2004


I. Equity means that those who benefit from the service should pay for it and those who benefit the most should pay the most. Public agencies offer three kinds of services. The type of service will directly determine the cost recovery strategy or pricing strategy to be used in pricing park and recreation services. 1) Public services normally have no user fee associated with their consumption. The cost for

providing these services is borne by the general tax base. Public services are those services that parks and recreation offer that provide all users the same level of opportunity to access the service. The level of benefit is the same to all users. Examples of pubic services are open public access to use a park, a playground, a trail, or a picnic area that is not reservable.

2) Merit services can be priced using either a partial overhead pricing strategy or a variable

cost pricing strategy. Partial overhead pricing strategies recover all direct operating costs and some determined portion of fixed costs. The portion of fixed costs not covered by the price established represent the tax subsidy. Whatever the level of tax subsidy the Department needs to tell the public through effective communication the level of subsidy being provided. Merit services are usually services whereby the user receives a higher level of benefit than the general taxpayer and yet the taxpayer benefits as a whole because the service provides a more livable community and the service has good public benefit as well. Examples of Merit services are providing swim lessons, youth sports, teenage programs and after school care for youth.

3) Private park and recreation services, where only the user benefits, most park and

recreation agencies are pricing services using a full cost recovery strategy. The price of this particular service is intended to recover all fixed and variable costs associated with the service. Examples of private services are instructional golf and tennis lessons on an individual basis or high-end competitive individual sports for youth and adults where there is high cost to provide the service.

II. Revenue production means that user fees from parks and recreation programs and activities will assist in the overall operation of the Park and Recreation budget. Revenue production gives the City needed cash flow for projects not budgeted in that year’s budget. It gives the staff flexibility in providing services not normally provided through tax dollars. Example: Promotional dollars for programs and services. Revenue production gives the City in-kind dollars for grant matches. Revenue production helps offset tax dollars spent on a specific program that over time has lost enthusiasm by the public, but demands more tax dollars to maintain expenses associated with a market that is losing support. Example: Tennis and day camp programs. Revenue dollars paid by individuals would place a value on the experience that the individual is obtaining from the services provided by the Department and develops a deeper commitment to the programs they help support.


March 2004


III. Departments utilize revenue dollars because expenditures are not made unless there are necessary revenues to cover the expenses. Priorities in management of park lands, resources and activities are clearly defined because the services provided are clearly made priorities because direct user dollars are associated with the activities that the public wants provided. Cost tracking of dollars spent for each activity is documented. Pricing can achieve seven positive results: 1) It reduces congestion and overcrowding 2) It indicates clientele demand and support 3) It increases positive consumer attitudes 4) It provides encouragement to the private sector (so it can compete with us, and we can

reallocate our resources when necessary) 5) It provides incentive to achieve societal goals 6) It ensures stronger accountability on agency staff and management 7) It allows multi-tiered pricing to occur so those users who want a higher level of quality

can pay for it. IV. Redistribution of income means that the dollars generated from each activity are redistributed to the area it came from to pay for direct cost and indirect cost in some situations and for future improvements associated with the activity. Example: Adult softball players pay fees for maintenance and capital improvements associated with the activity they choose to participate in. Golfers user fees support operations and maintenance cost of the course and capital cost associated with the activity. An Activity Based Costing Model has been developed for Carrollton Parks and Recreation that will help to determine the true cost of services provided. The true cost of each activity is defined as all direct and indirect costs associated with providing the service. The Activity Based Costing Model is not universally utilized to price programs and services consistently throughout the department now. Most of the pricing is determined by what other departments are charging or by how much the staff feels the participants are willing to pay. (See appendix A) A review of all fees periodically is recommended to document the changes that have occurred within the program or service. This will help evaluate which program fees should be adjusted based on the pricing policy. Sample fee review questionnaires are provided in appendix B. This is a good starting point to determine a benchmark. If the program fits the profile to increase prices, the true cost including direct and indirect costs needs to be determined and the level of investment the user is making and the City is making needs to be communicated to the user.


March 2004


With the ability to apply the Activity Based Costing Model to each service provided at the time of pricing, all direct and indirect costs need to be identified consistently by the staff for each program or service. Sample forms (Justification of Expenditures) are provided in the appendix as examples to determine the true cost of the programs. These forms need to be customized to match the City of Carrollton budgets and line items with the activity based costing model incorporated into the form utilizing the overhead or indirect cost formulas consistently throughout the department. The number of participants determines the price of the program. The number of participants should be set at the minimum number to create a break-even point for the program. If program registration does not reach the minimum number of participants, the program should be cancelled and the participants moved to another program if possible. After the true cost of the program is figured, the appropriate tax subsidy level approved in the pricing policy can be applied to determine the price. Based on the community focus groups and the staff focus group information, these are the recommended subsidy levels per target group.


March 2004


PROGRAM AREA RECOMMENDED NATIONALLY Adult Sports 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Fitness/Wellness 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Clinics 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Outdoor Recreation 10% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Rentals 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Youth Individual Sports 30% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Dance 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy* Day Camps 20% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Aquatic Programs 20% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Arts Programs 20% tax subsidy 20% tax subsidy Special Events 45% tax subsidy 25% tax subsidy After School Programs 40% tax subsidy 15% tax subsidy* Youth (13-15) Programs 50% tax subsidy 50% tax subsidy Youth Team Sports 30% tax subsidy 15% tax subsidy Teen Programs 50% tax subsidy 50% tax subsidy Senior Programs 40% tax subsidy 30% tax subsidy* Adaptive Recreation Prog. 80% tax subsidy 50% tax subsidy Disadvantage Youth and 80% tax subsidy 80% tax subsidy Family Golf 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Tennis 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Contract Classes 0% tax subsidy 0% tax subsidy Flat water pools 70% tax subsidy 70% tax subsidy Family aquatic centers 10% tax subsidy 10% tax subsidy Youth Specialty Camps 40% tax subsidy None Nature Education 50% tax subsidy None Museum Education 80% tax subsidy None Senior Trips 0% tax subsidy None Contract Employee 65%/35% (35% City)

* These program areas can be more fees-supported based on the national figures although the community information showed that the recommended tax subsidy rate is more appropriate in the City of Carrollton.

After the price is determined, it can be benchmarked against the going market rate in the area. The best way to benchmark is to compare a per-unit cost (cost per game, cost per hour, cost per class, etc.) for activities that match the services provided. Length of program or season can be shortened or lengthened to make the price more appealing if necessary. The City of Carrollton should consider letting the public know the true cost of providing the program or service and the subsidy level used to determine the price. This is a great marketing strategy that helps the participants understand where their tax dollars are being spent. This strategy works best if the pricing policy is in place and the mandate for increasing revenue is made public. The programs that have price increases are easier to market than increasing fees without explanation.


March 2004


It is also recommended to upgrade facilities and improve the quality of the service when increasing user fees so the participants can see improvements at the same time the fee increases. The impact increased fees may have on the demand is called “elasticity of demand.” Elasticity depends on the availability of substitutable products, and on the proportion that the fee is to the total cost of the experience. If the demand is elastic, even though it drops some with an increase in price, the total revenue still increases. If the demand is inelastic, demand will drop so far that total revenue drops. Also, when you first charge for something previously offered for free or a low cost, you should expect demand to drop at first and then return to its original level in a year or two. “Willingness to pay” - A study done by NRPA documents that citizens generally find user fees acceptable, and prefer the pay-as-you-go financing of facilities and services in indoor and outdoor recreation areas and programs. Studies have also shown that the lower a family income is, the higher the percentage that goes to taxes. Parks and Recreation is primarily a middle class service, so the poor are subsidizing every middle class child who participates in free or low cost park and recreation programs. Also, where a higher fee is imposed on a park and recreation service, the low-income family benefits the most because their tax burden is reduced. Any system of fees and charges may be found to have inequities for certain individuals or groups. Therefore, the department must recognize these special situations and be flexible in order to meet them. Where individuals have a known inability to pay the established fees for basic programs and facilities, fees should be paid from special funds established for that purpose. Sponsors will need to be secured to develop this fund. Trade-out programs that allow participants to work and earn passes or program fees work well also. Other Pricing Strategies

Non-resident rates should be charged for all individual programs. A good marketing strategy is to set prices at the non-resident rate which can be termed market rate, and give the City of Carrollton residents a 15% discount. This can be rounded up to the next dollar for simplicity. This needs to become part of the pricing policy.

Multi-child families would possibly sign up more children if the second child were discounted in the same program. This discount usually is between 20% and 30%.

Rentals of facilities should be offered during non-prime time hours only. A true cost for set-up, clean up, utilities, etc. should be figured as well as a loss of revenue figure. For example, if the pool is rented out and the public is not admitted to swim, an average hourly non-prime time revenue loss can be calculated into the true cost of the facility. In most cases, renting a room off of the pool and allowing participants to swim within the rental fee is the best option.


March 2004


Price all activities with the pricing policy and include in the pricing policy that City of Carrollton will not turn down anyone for recreational services. Put a work related program in place and market it where any child can earn admission into any program or toward any pass simply by performing minor duties for the parks and recreation department under the supervision of staff to get credit toward the activity they choose. A program of this type is usually successful based on the value system of earning something rather than receiving a handout. Parents support this and publicizing a program like this gains community support rather than singling out underprivileged families. The program is open to anyone. The tasks performed are usually those not requiring power tools and are typically tasks that someone on the staff will need to do or something that will enhance the facility or program.

Whenever referring to the cost of a program, whether it is verbally or in print, it is more customer friendly to refer to the cost as “price” versus “fee.

Pricing Structure Recommendations

Without knowing the true cost of the program areas studied, these price recommendations will be market based within the local market area. A price per unit comparison will also be utilized along with national standards for like services. Some assumptions will be made when determining price structure and should be checked with the recommended pricing process described in the previous section.

Earned income opportunities exist such as partnerships, use of volunteers, trade-outs, etc. that can help offset prices. The City of Carrollton Park and Recreation Department staff are encouraged to supplement the revenue generated through the fees and charges assigned to services provided by creating opportunities for private sector involvement in the delivery of programs and services. Opportunities are particularly apparent in the promotion of special events, facilities, and recreation programs.

Private sector partners are encouraged to attach their name to appropriate events in exchange for a sponsorship fee developed by program staff. Program staff must provide detailed benefits to be provided to the sponsor in exchange for their sponsorship fee.

Partnership agreements are recommended in all cases to document the agreement between the private, not-for-profit, and public sectors. Verbal agreements are difficult to settle. A monetary value should be assigned to each partner’s contribution based at market rate to identify the contribution. A matching (50-50) value is recommended as a goal in each situation. This would include all youth sports organizations.

Park staff reserve the right to reject sponsorship offers if the sponsoring company is determined to be inappropriate for the particular activity, for example, a city-wide community health fair sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company.


March 2004


Recommended Pricing The following areas were evaluated to determine the pricing structure recommendations. Without knowing the true cost of each program area, the following pricing recommendations are based on market rates, benchmarking, focus group information, condition of facilities and amenities, and an understanding of current rates. In all cases, the true cost of each program needs to be determined including direct and indirect costs and the pricing strategy formula applied. The program areas listed have new pricing recommendations. Admission Prices: These prices help offset the cost associated with providing the service. (Merit Service)

Pool Admission Prices need to be $2 to 3 dollars for flat water pools.

Family Aquatic Centers Prices need to be $4 to 5 dollars.

Park Entrance Prices need to be established based on length of stay and the level of subsidy agreed to by the City Council, Park Board and staff.

Recreation Centers Drop-in Prices need to be built around a $2 or $3 admission for drop-in activities.

Gate Admission for Adult Games and Youth and Adult sports tournaments should be priced at $2 or 3 dollars per session or a tournament pass for $5 to 10 dollars per person.

Season Passes need to reflect how much the average pass user utilizes a service or facility and discount it at least 15% off of admission price. (Example: if a person swims 30 times in the summer on the average for a season pass 30 x $3 admission equals $90 dollars discounted by 15% equals $67.50 for the season pass.)

Reservation of Facilities Prices: These prices should be assessed for the right for exclusive use of a shelter, pool rental, game fields, gyms, meeting rooms, reception rooms etc. (private service) These prices should be developed at the City’s true cost and compare it to the private sector to determine the price. Prices should be developed on prime-time/ and non-prime-time basis and season and off-season rates. (Private Service) Program Prices: These prices for lessons, camps, leagues, and classes should be based on a cost recovery level from 20 to 100% depending on the service provided. Subsidy rates need to be adopted by the City Council. (Merit Service) Concession Prices: These prices need to be based at 100% plus rates and priced by size of drink or food item, volume or group, value package, or special foods/ specials for the day. (Private Service) Permit Prices: These prices should be determined by the cost of the service, maintenance and security. These prices should not be subsidized. (Private Service)


March 2004


Rental Prices: These costs include rental of golf clubs, bicycles, sporting equipment, sound/stages, picnic tables, bleachers, tents, chairs/tables, and other related services (Private Service) Facility Use Prices: These prices should reflect the cost to provide the space and for any special arrangements that need to be made to accommodate the user. Facilities could include a softball/baseball complex, driving range, archery range, group campground, (Merit Service). Special User Prices: These prices reflect prices that translate into a discount for seniors, juniors, teens, season pass/off-season pass, coupons, memberships, by location, by volume, by group. (Merit Service). The overall goal for City of Carrollton services will be developed on a four-tiered program. 1. Market Adjustment The outcome goal will be to significantly reduce subsidy level, in 3-4 years, by increasing prices toward existing market rates for services/ programs. This will include reducing cost per experience/hour rate to $3 or below within 3 to 4 years. 2. Activity Based Costing The outcome goal will be to define true cost and adjust prices as necessary to cover costs. 3. Revenue Management

Incorporate costs for an increased level of maintenance above current levels when requested.

4. New Revenue Sources The goal of the staff will be to supplement operating budgets and create greater revenue sources to keep user prices down on non-consumptive services.

a lifetime of leisure

Documents