HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark Board Minutes 12.02.2013 City of Laurel
Public Town Hall Park Minutes
From Monday, December 2, 2013
In attendance were Mark Mace, Chuck Dickerson, LuAnne Engh, Amy Pollock, Penny McSweyn and
Gretchen Paulson. Jolene Reick, Peaks to Plains Designs, presented. Called to order at 7:OOpm.
Jolene Reick presented the Citizen Survey results of the Laurel Park Board Park Survey. As she
presented, she used slides that were discussed at length at the November 7 Park Board meeting. Here is
a summary of what was discussed.
The citizen survey was completed in October 2013 with a sample of 705 addresses selected. 314
returned the survey. This resulted in 45% return rate, very high for a citizen survey. This gives us a 95%
accurate estimate when considering issues. As in most surveys, you hear them say the results are within
5% of general public opinion.
Survey Objective was how to use the parks, citizen satisfaction with the parks, citizen feedback
section, etc. Jolene covered the survey sample and mailing process and how they performed quality
control. Jolene covered
• the usage and perception results: Frequency of visits - Developed parks; Non usage of Non -
developed parks.
• Satisfaction with park land and facilities shows our citizens want small neighborhood parks,
playgrounds and Natural areas.
• Satisfaction related to frequency of park use - those who don't use the parks are relatively
satisfied. While those that do use the parks are relatively unsatisfied.
• Under served Age Groups are 13+ and 65+ age groups. We need to ask ourselves "whatdo they
need ?"
• Under served Community segments: runners /walkers, cyclists, dog owners, and disabled.
Organized sports are fully covered in our current parks.
• Our new park facilities should have more multi -use trails, splash park and a dog park. These
were the highest ranked, in this order.
• House holds usage with children would like the splash park and more multi -use trails.
• The acceptance of Tax Increase: currently we pay around $90 per house on parks and pool. This
is within the general fund which also pays for ambulance, police, and other general city
expenses. The survey asked what would be the top level of taxes a house would pay, this would
mean expensive parks. It also asked what would be an amount so low in taxes question if the
parks could be maintained at that price? The survey shows the willingness to accept tax
increase, pay be $15 and $20 more in taxes for parks only, this is based on a flat fee per city lot.
21% of survey say they do not want additional taxes and 51% say they want no new parks
purchased.
• The survey covered at a high level that the General city funds pay for park maintenance. The
parks have to compete with EMT, fire, sewer and street maintenance funds. When there is a
shortfall in general funds, those are taken first from parks to pay for other city services.
• A council resolution can pass a minimum allowance of mills to be guaranteed annually, this
would mean that funding would not be allowed to fall below this certain threshold.
• It was questioned whether citizens wanted a special county district created to control /maintain
the parks or keep it in the city. The citizens want to keep the park maintenance within the city
at the Public Works function. 70% responded they want to keep it within the city.
• There were over 130 voluntary comments, mostly covering the topics of garbage can issues,
wanting walking trails, and permission to sell unused parks.
Park Board Next Steps:
1. Inventory existing park facilities. This can be done with volunteer help such as Boy or Girl scouts
counting trees, benches, tables, etc. Public Works would need to be involved in inventorying the Parks
equipment such as mowers.
2. Decide to a Special Park District or not. This special district would add an additional tax revenue
between $85,000 - $114,000.
3. Identify and priortize potential improvements to the highest use parks. Possibly pursue grants and
donations or matching grants to gain additional funds to complete improvements.
4. Consider selling underutilized park land and applying those funds to future park improvements
identified in step 3.
Questions from audience:
• Can we use contractors, such as Peaks to Plains, to write grants? Yes. It could take 200 hours at
$100 per hour to write the grant, this would have to be paid before the grant is awarded. The
grant writing itself could cost more than the grant awarded. Big Sky EDA offers grant writing
classes. Big Sky EDA is part of Yellowstone County.
• How many grants are available? Playgrounds, yes available. Mulit -use Trail grants are
competative. Skate park grants are very specialized, but there are special foundations available
to help get projects going such as the Tony Hawk Foundation.
• Is there a breakdown by park of expenses such as water, fuel for mowers, etc? We did not have
an answer for this, but Mark did direct him to contact Kurt Markegard.
Finally, Jolene suggested the Park Board pick their top 3 projects to start, simple projects. Then to map
out remaining projects to complete using the data from this survey of what the citizen want in their
parks.
The Parks meeting adjourned at 7:55pm.
Submitted by
Gretchen Paulson, Park Board member.
— la , , "V„:,•, olgikir
\ ,
IWO* Afra• , -**.k. 11 6" ' • * iiik* .A4 .
,...4110 Ato.
... .. * ,„,,„ do , t , , * *10 . . '--....,/, ' 0. 4 - : 41110 • -46_ 4 ,....; .,.„ , , , * . . - . i - -,...
4 * • ' .. • -,— Jr.; iii 4 # ' , ' ' :" - , •
USA* - ,,, ' ' 4.440" ' ' f ei- ••.-
' 1* ''''' ''.- ..-"' ' ' ' ' I ' 4 ' 41 • 311. . . ' 4
' ,,, . , I S* - •
,... —IL, ••••„ _ 4 - . 4, .
N ' •
.
, , .. , 41 low, . A ,.., w it IliL. '4 _,, , -
r ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1. ......., ,-..... "-- ' - -• '
•N ' ,
.. -
••• fo ° - • . •
wow
Ait * - lr 44111 -" 'Iltati. _ —
" 4110. ."'-'-i ...., r - I, •=s, oriporurs . - 4 ° •••,.:
• - - ..ar
''''' . Ir . ' . 'IPLI■ 0
•
. 34T , II 4
•• . ' 10 •
V ... .. . . ..
''.."' ' ' .7■ IlL
- . -• : . .... --;
. _ .
I -
. -
°
. .
LAUREL CITIZEN SURVEY - PARKS
...---
i1 „...,,, - -,,
it 1,11ii .
ii. ..... v. ' '
4,
\
nvisi
. on
R E S E ARCH
' - A Experience you can count on
MOWS" AO it'• - , l'eilks (0 Plains I)esign
Agenda >
1) Welcome ____ z
2) Goals A _ z
3) Survey Results II al C�
4) Participant Feedback � ��� f.
5) Next Steps '1
1
r
m
.
;f
J i
I'e!iks to Plains Design
Pur p ose & �utc �"� " S P� w; � g ' `��
Purpose:
cip
To provide an opportunity for the general public to participate in r
the future planning for the parks in Laurel.
2
Outcomes:
1) Attendees are informed about the feedback that the City has
received as a part of this project;
2) Attendees will have a greater understanding of the process for
developing a comprehensive parks plan; r
3) Participants will have the opportunity to express their opinion
regarding this planning process.
Pcaks to Plains Design
PARKS PLANNING FOR LAUREL
t: ' ;3 ' . g z - - :r•
.e
- i t ..- .....,
a .. . 6 ' ..- .......
.- .........
vs
*a. I
•■■•••
- .., ,..,...
.....
....,
" I 1 j 1 c 7.... .■••■•
.,....
.- ,...-
t— 1,
‘...e
....
.4.....,
!
I
i
_ - i
_.,- .T- •*--
F3 : •
o. • A '.:' -1-" .--'
f4.)
...I
.11.4 7 . .7-. ."- .2 VI Id ‘•
• ... .." 7 ": C. ..:-- .....
3 ...4 t..4 ..., - c .... .... f%
•■ 4...
_ ....
0 = •••,-- 7 5 C"...: al :LI
,... -- c..
... c ;...:
C:JD -,.;,' ...,
7, c
r-
U ... Z 0 •••• C ,..."" "Z 7,
= 4, I.
..0 i•-■ II = II :,,,
• Poll 1.. .
=
0 O. .t.
E A'.
I: >-,..
14 L.I
'..--• r:
CS I
i
pm" 4-• a 1 .... . ....
' • ' ' .*1
i 1 x _.
. = -
A 1
.. • ,...:,, 4-•
.... "'. k 1 ." .--- .C.:
:::. -.... «..
A" ..7.:
;MI .
et z : i
2
3 I 1
410 e s
..-7
Ai I
2
' a ' I E
i , ....,
..,.,
C ---.
i 1
• IMO di)
--..
-....
_.7... . ;:.
- v ■ .0 _ a _
f j i
- i
CO —
c
III4 ."
: -
. .,, :...., E x • 'i <,. ..t :-.
... j. ...:
CIO ,... „L
-, 1.-
0 - , .7.. .,-;
- .,
C . • - ., ..•
E ......
..,
z..., ,_
..( ...3 .. , ,..
,.. ._2.
_ _ .......,...., , _
,... ...:
..... „:
o
(..)
PARKS PLANNING FOR LAUREL
. ....... ;4 .
.
...,
....,
c...
=
.....
.....g
...._
;..
c_
..,
, 4 ; Om
x c 0 a. = >
G. ..__
c ..7 '-' -....:. ...: -.0 ; Z ' 7••• 0 il ' ■ , a i
o .5', Et . .TE . 4 ' '; 1 2 1
_
,,,,,, .4
2 1 i 1
1 cr
• --.
c4
a-,
....
,-..
, .......„,
- ---, --., '', t :'
> t C
S I, I L..' 1 al 5 t4
tr. E
= ,
• ''''' r.0
,C X
• Pei
c
s
Cil ----
Z . _
v , I
.., i
0 11111111 F.., ":::'s
W) .-
■ "" .'...., 5.
.., ...... .
".., ."-' .....?
;MI .A: '...- ..., • .-
C il .., . ,--• 7:: ,-_,
,... ,....
0 V
• MI ......
....* ...- .... -0 - 0 4)
W1 >
* 40 C
= C 0
4) a:
001) -
0.) ‘
s. -Y
0
E o..
Cldl 0
V
;MO
Clit
E
o
co)
Survey O ectives & Methodology Y J gY z,
• Survey conducted in October 2013
• 705 addresses were selected for the survey sample z
• 314 surveys were returned, 44.7% completed response rate
0
LAUREL CITIZEN SURVEY
I. YOUR USAGE OF LAUREL PARKS r
1. FSease provide you best estimate of how the during the past 12 months you or atl+e t C
members of roots housetYrid wsned each of the pans shown. :Pease select oar arm e. far each poi ray
- 66 , 1,4 ShGAT? war "r•4 Ef you eidot losea v& at a'' &tax the past year.' y
1-2 3-6 __ 13-24 _'e+ l
A. Developed parks tv. ,e ' T*S t ^• in ''MS tiles r °r;
Ereria D 7 7 _ 7
r ^r.-• tti • 7 7 7 7 7 7
r s...-.s Pa R s r 93011: .....
7 7 7 7 7
4.. HNIts P41. 7 7 7 7 7 7
v - SCPa. ._ 7 > 7 3 3 7
F .... Pte. 7 7 7 7 7 7
F Pa 7 7 7 7 7 7
Y Frioe • 7 7 7 7 7
3 7 7 7
T .7rLG Pa • 7 7 J . 7 J
PelikS (0 O(0i0S I)E slgll
Survey Objectives
o
m
n
m
D
The survey questionnaire was designed to: o
• Determine residents usage of Laurel Parks. K
m
• Assess citizen satisfaction with existing parks and preferences for various o
types of park lands. °o
• Obtain citizen feedback on how well Laurel Parks serve the community. o
• Assess citizen preferences for potential new park facilities. -`
• Determine residents' positions on issues regarding future management,
funding, and strategies for development of Laurel's parks.
• Profile park users and issue preferences by demographic characteristics.
_ , r . . i '1 "-IfMS Orv� '... f .sh. l+Y`$ Ct1N ?'WTIi'iY ✓xl fr'�eAifY “AR �` -0'L' ..
�v, \\ fa . « - 112.')%Y Sd1T(f111g t'ffK11
t1 ' Wan «prx ✓ ?'
Warn - r Net xfete x xx+, i n '
$ _.._
>RUir.f cv , _ . m f >s fa rc. r t
.+t' w>°' vY ',a°r sat ,t, '! w YIY.Md am N', . MO 21r7NlIl9+s 3 -...T �� F . M '
iiiizi 1 j .. -2vi _ A .�.!'a., ,A. , ld rr 3 3 r 1
t Pli.eyounts ... .. _ ..._.._.._..___.._..., 7 ........ s..____.._.._. _..e..._._...__.,,...._.,._..._ .._.....w..._
.. b.V..*ant -. '?- :!yc' J E We of d s sr* M+iarx+h ...
J
s —.., ...
.” ..n.PW .,.".....-se Oft
m.
3 3 ] j¢t
3 tM tr. d ... Y- s. , 4 W. wf.. Tr V∎to t+".>•rS M 131.• + Design
f 1
I'�f��k� I�► Pla Design
Survey and Mailing Process = o
n
The survey covers all households in Laurel. A commercial list of residences was
obtained, reflecting households with Laurel addresses in ZIP Code 59044,
excluding rural routes. The list contained 2,614 addresses, from which 705 were
randomly selected for the sample.
Sampled addresses were contacted up to 4 times:
Sep -19: Announcement letter (from Mayor Olson) O
0
Oct -07: Questionnaire packet
Oct - 14: Thank you /reminder letter
Oct -21: Duplicate questionnaire packet (to non - responders only)*
The sample is household- based, though a single respondent (typically a `head of
household') would generally complete the questionnaire. Where survey findings
relate to an individual (e.g., voter registration), this respondent is represented;
where survey findings relate to a household (e.g., frequency of park usage), the
entire household is represented.
*Questionnaires were numbered to avoid including duplicate responses.
'Peaks la Plains Design
Qua lity Control °
m
n
All completed returns received through October 29 are included in this report
of findings, excluding: ulm
D
• 4 respondents who identified themselves as living outside the Laurel city
limits
• 3 respondents who removed the survey tracking number from their
questionnaires prior to returning the completed form (this exclusion was o
to avoid possible duplication) 0
• 6 duplicate responses (only the first return received from a given -<
household was accepted)
Questionnaires received were reviewed for completeness and consistency; in
some cases, editing of certain items was applied (e.g., to eliminate duplicate
answers to a single question, to assure consistency on household composition
questions, and to eliminate responses to the tax rate sensitivity question if all
four parts were given the same value) . After review, questionnaires were data
entered and 100% verified to assure accuracy of the entry process. Survey
comments were transcribed and edited to remove identifying information.
' Peahs (4) Plains Design
-74
k
-...
.:....-'-
_,-,...
.■••
....
.....
.......
-.,
cn
k ilD/ = irAbtr;'
, , k
III
AO
Yfile\ , or
' 111
;1114
ri4
\
i \
\ ,
\ \
0.4
\ .
,
0
/,,,,,, ,.
‘' ,
*II, ,
cn
. iirr,
)1
•.1 ,
olittiii
• -
4 1*
. i
it
„,_
.
‘ ' \\(-
Po
W.4
\ , N ,
, 4
V
i ;1114
' 1
\ f> 1
i
0 ..........
;ILI
k .
4
i ,
1 4
i • 4 ,
\ '
4. Cisi
4 rd,
....A '
rt
9.,
1 ,
,...2
k
\ 1) (
, : •
l'' '.
Fre 1 uenc of Visits — Develo 1 ed Parks g c
m
There are 6 of the 11 developed parks in Laurel that 85% or more of the City's
households never or rarely visit. Conversely, Kiwanis (Kid's Kingdom), Lions Family Park m
7)
(South Pond), and Thomson Park are frequent destinations (more than 12 times per m
year) for between 12 % -14% of Laurel households.
0
z
Number of Visits to Laurel Parks Past 12 Months v)
co
a. 0
-0100% is ....
CD I
4- >
• 80% C
> 4 # 0 4/0 t 7)
o r
s 60%
>
88% 78" ° 9 4% 88% 89%
40% 72 /°
70 55% 60%
46%
cu 20%
0
1 .
O n% 6
4— Alder Firemen's Kiwanis Lions Murray Nutting Riverside Russell Soccer State Thomson
O Family Heights Field Firemen's
o Memorial
Frequently Occasionally Never /Rarely
(13+ times) (3 -12 times) (0 -2 times)
I'a0 (0 Plains Design
Fre f uenc of Visits — Undevelo • ed Parks c
m
Only a very small percentage of Laurel households utilize any of Laurel's undeveloped
parks. m
73
n
m
0
L Number of Visits to Laurel Parks Past 12 Months
0
,_ tom.. ..,...
T
a) 100% ._..., - r—
C
> 80 %'
o m
60%
98% 96% 97% 96% 97% 94% >
40%
o
N 20%
o Alder Cherry Emma Mayors Rotary Veterans
Hills Murray
Frequently Occasionally Never /Rarely
(13+ times) (3 -12 times) (0 -2 times)
I'caks to Plain I)esign
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 =III. I I I I M I II I I I I I I I I I 111 III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II . 7'D . i
0 . \
o „ 2
6 : 1-11
1 g01 1, ...- cr,
(....D
LLJ -- — `" ,. •
•z •,, .1‘ a ....I 0
8 t c t •,E
6 ,, ___I .a to 7.=-. 7
c 3- , •(.3 .
ff .,
M b '',, L.9
- I
o i = < 0 Ill 1 N.
....
ON ;OIAJO 08VA ' r_* .
... ,..,,,
•
0 P.
1.....
ill 5 1,4c t .. _
i ,..
0 if. c
Z.' c.. C
—.... ,.
Ni k (Min
II Mi
oi,
tl.• 2rf
. ....
■ . I.■ , ,
. i
.....,,
.---. 4 = , ,,
N \
. ......'
3AV
0
1.. o
5 '
1---
0 01
0 E
E I--
il, Ct -It
.% ,..I..Cf ) a, r•T 4 LI II) ..
8 c--
H.1./.. .2.
ii,,, .\-- 3AV H.1.:5
;
.t
..1..
—
_Jct.
€ .r.
T 1— 4 %
V) a
rel ..
Z CS c ^
13
% —
mg) I <
Z_., . 0 •
_.,
,'‘‘.•.\ \eloi .4 .
. 0 Ali 2.AV H.161-
N,
...._
? 8
, -- -
Satisfaction with Park Lands and Facilities c
O
Relative Importance and Satisfaction 0
T
with Park Types and Facilities
i NOTE: Bubble size represents 70
C relative % citizens aware of Natural Small neighbo-- rr ,
OD park type or facility areas ., hood parks
Large central
parks
4 Enhanced strips Corridors/ o �v
o connectors
D
\Oho) Playgrounds
NOTE: This chart zooms in on a narrow
L. range of responses (approximately 2.0 Outdoor
— 3.0 on each 4 -point scale) in order to pool
highlight di fferences.
Lower a Importance Higher
J Design
Satisfaction Related to Frequency of Park Use D
G)
m
m
7J
m
Satisfaction with Park Types and Facilities z
by Frequency of Park Use p
4 (Very) T '
Lowest Users ,—
Heaviest Users c
3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 m
2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 �� 2.6 2 2.6 r
co 2.3 2.1
,
1 (Not ,
at all)
Large Small Connector/ Natural Enhanced Outdoor Play -
central nbhd corridor area strip pool grounds
park park
Park Lands Facilities
Nea(.s io Plains Design
Underserved Age. Grou p s �� c
.
Slightly more households perceive inadequate opportunities for the 15 -24 age group 37%
rn
g Y p q pp g g p� (37%)
than for children under 15. m
n
m
"...small children are covered, but our teens don't have anything." -0
O
z
Age Groups Inadequately Served by
Current Parks in Laurel T'
r
>
N 100% C
CU
v m
Q1 r
80%
Cn J
c o 60%
~ 37%
Q 40% 28% 27% 31% 30% 33%
7) 20% `
O
0%
5orunder 6 -14 15 -24 25 -44 45 -64 65+
Age Group
Pcaks to Plains I)e ign'
Underserved Community Segments
Community Segments Inadequately Served by
Current Parks in Laurel O
m
D
CU
100%
U
++-+ 80%
o o 51% 54% o
22 I o 60/ 43% 45/0
o 40%
CIO 16%
c �
'4 L 20%
cc o
0%
Org sports Runners / Bicyclists Dog owners Disabled
teams Walkers
Community Segment
Pall., to Plains Design
.,•-•
'rt.'
. ,--
"."
...
4 ` ,
.<..•
''' •
..-
. <
. ,
' .
0 .. V"......L.. '
r ,,,,,,.....i.......
...
. ....
..,,.,... , .......
,
..._
......
_
,
....
,..,...
..,...,.„4. ,
L.
v .
\ . .
,
• ',..) 1 ''' '
. \ \ \ lt,4
. , • :, " ,, , \ ` ,‘, \
. 1 ,."...., \
J1 •". c
,>4 \ 1 ', „
\
/ ..
..,
, \ - t • ,,,,, ,, ,
ilt" 4 Ii•• \...." . ,
,'* 4, , W•I4
, 4 /
... .,.>. ,
. .
1....... l I ' kr "* • - ?'
.. „
- Ilk
it
i
r W . . . ...
. ,
1 - .'-' ' '.- • 4 '. '. alit , 10 1 ": , _ . .
- . ...... %... . ,..oit . ...,.. \ .,... . -,„:
0■4
44
.„,' ',‘ , ' - ' • - ' 1, • '
il.
, . ,...
\ . .•
.,..
!..., i... ., „
,
.,..
- - r '
. .„,„. ..
. ,
. .. .„
s 1111'
-. ,.
- , - 1 ■ - ,
.1,f
-, \ .../ ,,,.. .7,-
lie
ami
Importance and Usage of New Park Facilities
p g
r-
O
Relative Importance and Expected Usage
of New Park Facilities
2.5 m
z
+� n
� m
o Multi -use
2 2.0 Trails
- o
"' 1.5
1.0 Dog Park
Splash
� ,\\ Park
- o Tennis
v
0.5 i Courts NOTE: Unlike the previous bubble
QJ
, Skate Park chart, bubble size does not
w , convey information in this chart.
0.0 I----
Not at all a Importance Very
Peaks h Maim Design
Expected Facility Usage by 11/11 with Children
0
m
m
r
m
z
Expected Monthly Usage of New Facilities 73
70
Contrasted by Presence of Children in Household T
m
3 m
c 1 Have kids under 18 z
o 2.3 n
2.1
No kids under 18 tl "'
CI)
0.8
P 1 0.6 0.7 0.7
cu 0.3 0.3
a)
x 0
w
Tennis courts Skate park Splash park Dog park Multi -use
trails
f\
Peoks to Ildim Design
Preferences for Long Term Park Strategy Options
m
m
ES
v
rn
Favorability of Long-Term Park Planning Strategies H
Downsize /dispose of
underutilized parks 14% 16% 30% 24% m
m
Maintain /improve existing 2%
parks ° 26% 58%
1 /o m
m
cn
Acquire and for open space
and future parks 25% 18% 27% 14%
Acquire and develop new
parks now 34% 16% 21% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of All Laurel Households
NOTE: Values shown sum to less • Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose
than 100% because some
respondents had no opinion or Somewhat Favor Strongly Favor
did not answer the questions.
Peaks lu Plains Design
- f 1 ' ,, ' l'.; ' ', ,", '''' ,,' ' -.."' ,,,:''',f,'4',4
;; t.'' " —I;
IC�
A
a } , i4
� � '' t
li i, I I i
„ a
* >. ',,�
7 s
4 /
li
i ` '$ g
ilmil
o „. ,
` � �..�
4
� 0.4 ^ C)
, W
• 1
{ r ' fie. '''_4
4
, s d
Pml
y '-'110 V
4 x , : II! . , , . , ,,
4 41 %
y t t <
Tax Rate Sensitivity Analysis
• Current annual property tax revenue used for parks /household: $90 /year rn
0
• Can the City generate additional tax revenue specifically for parks?
They were then asked to provide tax bill amounts that they felt corresponded to D
x
the following concepts: z
a. What annual tax amount on the average household would you consider so low that (
D
you would question whether parks could even be maintained adequately by the City?
b. What annual tax amount on the average household would you consider a good
value for parks that meet your needs?
c. What annual tax amount on the average household would you consider expensive,
but worth it, as long as the parks meet your needs?
d. What annual tax amount on the average household would you consider too
expensive for parks in Laurel; that is, you would oppose a levy that included this
amount for parks?
Peoks to Plains Design
C
m
-
IV. YOUR PREFERENCES FOR NEW PARK FACILITIES I0
C
The taint ind Questions in tries survey well ask .cu about pruritus to part fa your wtlrtprtess to tend pans and potential th wrier Arereertt5, m
and y about rot e parrs n Lasorl and the •,into ndnQ area stntukd be devPitp)tid and rthanaaed. Please read the n r w, tcx Mow,
which wriil provide backorcwrnd that will help se tw
vtaa ont Sa S,•strortc H
LAUREL PARKS MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 0
z
(uttii)D,. me :Lr•te Jeial.: 141 ortr - h:tat ha'. re • tv to part development and mantP'n.YYe. Laurels Puha Worts t)eLk.artnts t 6 Mai, Z
reSponstie tCY Soviet nklontOnartte, er'k?te ' d w
iry !lunar' .- , water, vino,. and saag? decrerY
>
ru
The cadet for parks in lasel vane's tIOM yrVr to yf. , dPI ndnq on City of Laurel General Fund Budgeted Appropriations
CO priorities and on the ae�'eliMlrt• d
.Y ta•'even,* The budgeted
e.jletiSK Qenethity dal: tilde, tie category of rtllatritaning e•tstrio TuLI [apendrtvr :. $3 2'41ell.cv m
park grounds and tabbies. For t war Ydar :011 14. p3'1ks atrourt . ... , : 4
to about b'r rrt the t s, s :.r+rterat Fund to rfd}et. 1. — a:
In total, the twfpet tn. parks reptP_Sents:Wined e' -r " ouro. T ,• ar er„ 4*.
attout $1+0,0t0 0 ;two are appro.msaten 2,800 naranolris n e ara. n ~
tn -
Late!. T , to e purposes ass thprses of this sVey, cr ier that The
laurel /nxtsenold pays takes SYatiaQ aorva.' ate fP Cue.o, R •
SQt/ yew tor harks. A ettretreeoa -
t
COSTS OF IMPROVING PARKS AND PARK FACILITIES 114 haw, Art
t.yta rc b• .., Show e.arttpte..s 01 the aptxn. a ..'.. CCM to (
• . r•N ,'r t • 4. , :.irnea is n parks to nett* .•'• , t. 'e t:: vanions antt
' .1PK addressed n M r s scrtrey. i . 4 t ,,, ., et :0‘r=
z, :::-..1-;.4e...:7--
Park land atquout.on Cost Facility construction (pat 'Auld,/ construction Cott
., .. ._ - :.rL ..: .s•• ('.. ... .an i1 e•r, ._— rO.lo) '_ t..r.' .ant• 4 . V Lfl ,
- r . 1 , V ay 1 S • • , ., r. c ti t t u. t,i: S6i,CG 1 S kate
J tears (cart. -rr;_ • u
$1 •redo 4 'rca.nt t'it u.ta r;•..e t .::1 I Sf'.G) MLA-ur Res 7t. Jot _+xir „rr r'.tr: .'•ir
aril. •lww sr. a ;tr . ._r air. eel. . .-t1 or ,. <' 1 t - »err, we vx :te- .tttursta'K
Peaks to Plains Design
' " mil.111111111111111.11111111117 ,130 , i
6 UJ
2
.77. CD 4-.
.,.
-,..,
Li.1 := ,_ cz
2 22
• ,-....
re
4 ---
.1 1 1
(__
.7.-. c.
1.,
Wi
‘-- ,, NI kaNri
4 .
N.. . r;r3 •
5i filws i -, -
., A. ..C.
VT — ' ''''' ,, • ' '' - g .
pt 1.1.1
-H --1_1]
—
L , ..,.
—, -- ', ( i .
...
c
0
l'
,....
r ,... T.
— m i--
4
, ,
ci) t
kffi- - 4%?
,-A.Lu oci. 0 ,
(-- - - i
ii k i. ' .8 r.ri
3 AV H II
DAV H1.13
E .,.
T -- -
0
3:- 50. iL 1:1) 0
410..
.....
l 1
C3 w 'iti _
i 4"' •• -
0
-..i
AA AV H 16 I,
N.....i 4 _
la 15 8
ge
, _
eh
....,
_
I- =
r
Cli CO L
i+
' ' '` 4, > M '.1) —1 -?-•''' 76 " cu - Z 0 c .... "
t• 0 _ 0
0 Q
1 CO L r'
, .1 'T• g 4 --.'
A 01 1
A
. ..., ,,,,.„) a-3 ..• : ', 5 0
' S ..•.• -.,
- ---- I
a. 1
, .
L
1:3
t.
,.,
( I . i -x
m „ ,
C9 0
(1) 0
fl_ 1
dk
li t
' - \
‘
— •
.J
..... ... r ma \ ' .
0
g
,. 0 ■
t (i. (.144 ,..„ • .
-
. •
\ ... .
-..\-. .. .
2 cu ' 1 k 4i f .•,), - '".r
. •-> 9
— J)
9' T.: t.-.. t"::, N. f9.. ■
1.
E '%',.■
0 --, e T- .,- ■-.1,
...,
4) • \ N-N 6 :-. ti) .':- -,... ,
0 ■.‘ \X "' 1 e
— 4 ''='• '''3, . el
\‘'`.• 4 ) 9 .....0 _,.: . - m
ii i
it „...e..
'''. , '4P 4 \ 0 ri C C3
a)
In 1 - ,
N.
AV P..1.9
a.
_ ,
z
\ ;72
1.Y
/
co A 7)
c -.Ne 11111 a, / ta
IL a.
r ..."/" .■,... I.:3
. -- 4 4). C1. 4 •„,
"...
.. lo
CI 3
CT
a,
o , , • ewe
rc.
... ,. ..
.:1
.4 '
--,
7 .• ...:
1 .
i
Tax Rate Sensitivity — All Households D
rn
A. Only about 8% feel more than $90 /year is required to assure minimum maintenance. D
B. About 60% feel a bill as low as $90 /year is a good value for parks that meet their needs. However, this Z
percentage declines rapidly above $90. m
C. Almost 20% consider a bill of $150 /year or more to be worth the price of parks that meet their needs. 0
D. 50% feel a bill as high as $145 /year is too expensive. Only 20% feel $100 /year or more is too expensive. T '
D
Park Property Tax Rate Sensitivity Analysis x
100% (All Laurel Households) n
c . _._zp_,____.r.....___:_,.......____,,..---_
T.;
m
ea cf)
"5 75% 4
= B. \
0
C : __ So low that you would feel that parks could not
0) 50% I - be adequately maintained
-
O A tax bill at which parks that meet your needs
O. would be a good value for the money
0)
AO Starting to get expensive, but worth it, as long
0 25% __ /dik D. as the parks meet your needs
✓ A.
OD A tax bill that is too expensive for parks in
., Laurel; would oppose this levy
CU
u
Q 0% m.M, �.
a $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Average Household Annual Property Tax Bill for Parks
I'eokk to ['loins Design
Willin • ness to Acce 1 t a Tax Increase n
... ... .
��_ .. �.
m
v
• 21% or more are unwilling to pay any additional tax D
z
• 51% are unwilling to pay to acquire park land n
m
0
m
H
Additional Annual Property Tax Willing to Pay for Option X
z
Improve maintenance n
30% 35% 27% xi
of existing facilities m
D
Construct new rn
park improvements 27% 30% 33% cn
Acquire land
for new parks 51% 18% 21%
Recreation programs
targeting all ages 4% 24% 33%
a
Maximum for 12 60 %
multiple options above
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
NOTE: Values shown sum to % of All Laurel Households
less than 100% because some
respondents did not answer • Nothing $10 Over $10
the questions.
Peaks to Plains Design:
Willin ness to Pay by Special District Su ort n
g Y Y p pp n
m
D
z
n
m
O
D
Averag Additional Property Tax Willing to P for Option x
(Base: Households Willing to Pay at Least $10 Additional) z
n
70
Improve maintenance $16 m
of existing facilities . : 14 m
cn
Construct new $18 I • Favor Special District
park improvements $16
111111111111111111111111111111111 Oppose Special District
Acquire land $19
for new parks $16
i
Recreation programs $18
targeting all ages $16
Maximum for $38
multiple options above $33
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40
Additional Annual Property Tax Bill Above Average of $90 /Year
Pcaks to Plain` Design
A FA:
...-
' - 411 ilar ,
,-- - '
.........
...
....
• ,4,.. .....—
_ _) - ' - - 1,,,,■•••• -Illiell" k ( \‘‘
\ -=
tt, ! ---.-- .:;:r , 2-" - •
_ -., - ,,.., • . i ,_. IR - -...... f• . J . \
.....
....
....
.0'
.:'..e
.... . ' :F --lr - • 1, V li ,-
v.
. ...;ig' - ' • '-.-- i I '. 1 '
. 7" , ) ....,.. -...,- -• --....*...s, ,,,,,.-;-,..: ;„ , '
, .
-..0
_!..... . i k L
- -' ,,,,...;,.- -,:. • s 1,
- , t's • , i-,: • , 's.
."..,S • ''•‘- • • • ^
1 / ) ,.
4 ' ...
•■•ilbr lts. ili
C14
• ..,L, ...,- 1 .. '..': A
-------- ..,.....-....---- .... -... . -,,
...„,
...N: , IF-.,„?„, , .,;:.%;
• ■ *A 4 ,6 •,. „. 4 • . .
I,
, .it . •Is,. _. -:,..- — ,..,.4. ,. ,.,
. , ).....o
......
_
lit. si,,\:, _1", ___-_, ,
, .
1
_ - -.I.."' I
•Va
. ,. ' 4i1), \i - ',1111M, ,
amil
\
r i t , , , ,..- ),.■ • ,;,:- 7 ....... — * Ioa. - 5116
, : ,4i;. . ' '' f • ''.4 - ' .
4s ' lio. . A V ' O ';1 •V
)11 . --
,:
lIl
' ‘ k" • Olt li '*-
I 0
4 ' *, **, •. i Adak ' I_
L ...... CII3
.,. ,.
6 Fr#r ,
1117 '... , It
C 1111 4
Vicikill f PI.
...,......s. sitat „
7 ' - -- 1 1 ; 4 ... •i, i f 41
. 4: .„.• - 14 ,-.. 7 i 1:r• r . I .
p,...1
,. :..
,.,„.;. ... V)
,,,,?. . . - ,,, ,,4 • s t ,:,,,e, ,
. ,,,.,,, - .., ..-,, -,.. git• '-",- 4..o k%
„
g4
A.
0 . -
r ' . ... ,...4, itik 7 ...,:, ..,,, ,', ;
144
; 1111111 0
..,":. , • . U „.....1p...;.,
• . 4 ■.
• - irk- . , . AI A . 1
E mil
1.' ' ' .' . 1111 . '' :&;','•
i ' ' $f - ' - '-*'' •"., - ' . 1 4 , - 4; `, .• - ' ' `, ,
IP 0 (1 g:4
,..
..., ,__. ....4„,_,,,, , • . i i ‘ 0,, \ , I
. - .4 ' :'; ' ,2 ' 04 -,..• - '-'''' Nk ' , \ i!
1 %. -- - I • ' ' . ) 1 0
• - • lii -,- - , IS • i
II(
_ -.•;■,,,_>. .. . '''''S - • ---- / 4 . ', „Lj p
'' t 1
•.-Arit ' 8 ! __,„,,,---- - --
. '1------- . 2 . - -:'' : ;11' . - •=r . ,..- - - is - - , r
•Vi i 14 ' • \ ' °..
(A -'''',;',.'-- -- - ' ' _-- s .,'• 7 1 i ,0 . • . V 4
''.= i .. :e"-* 1.- - - --:'-- - \ ‘i ', k) \ '
L *
C ity of Laurel's Options
0
• Continue to fund parks with general fund revenues, competing
with fire, EMT, streets, water, sewer and police (as -is) c
• Council can state by resolution a minimum allowance of mills
guaranteed annually specifically for parks
• MCA 7 -11 -1003 allows for the creation of a Special District,
such as a park district, to generate revenue and governance
• City -run district
• County -run district (i.e. irrigation districts)
• Partner with a private or non - profit entity to fundraise and
pursue grants for specific improvements
___ to Plains Design
City vs Special District Control of Parks
p
O
T
Q
Z7
m
Preferred Option for Oversight of Laurel Parks
D
Continue to manage parks 55%
through the existing Public
Works department 57%
n
Create a new City department 25%
devoted to parks 24%
1
Create a special district that All Respondents
would be independent of City 15% Registered Voters
government, similar to an o
1/0
irrigation district
NOTE: Values shown sum to 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
less than 100% because some % of All Laurel Households
of respondents did not
answer the question. Peaks to Plains Design
Local vs Regional Parks
O
70
T
70
Prefer City Management of Local Parks
or Special District Management of Local & Regional Parks D
680/
City government continues to _
manage parks only in the City
70
limits 69%
MIM E H
o NOTE: Values shown sum to
Create a special district that 26
less than 100% because 6% I / b u e 6 of
includes parks in the City respondents did not answer
limits and surrounding areas 27% the question.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of All Laurel Households
Peaks to Plains Design
Support for Special District Tax Authority
0
7,
0
m
D
Acceptance of District Taxing Authority for Park Budget Activities
(Base: All Respondents) D
100%
- District should have authority to 0
80% tax Laurel property owners for... -1
0 80%
v L ■ parks inside city F5
L s 60% parks outside city H
o Q 38% 35
�, > 40% �. 27%
QJ T 19% 18% 20%
t = 15% 1110
Q 20%/
o
Maintain Renovate Construct new Acquisition of
existing existing improvements land for new
parks /facilities improvements parks
V\,Pcaks to Plai Design:
Voluntary Comments (Over 130 submitted)
• "I very much enjoy the parks in Laurel and think they should
be improved...as opposed to new ones being built."
• "There could be more (covered) garbage cans."
• "Please, please, please establish family friendly
bike /walking /running trails, priority one."
• "I feel the parks we have in Laurel are adequate. I do not want
to see an increase in taxes for park expansion."
• "I think Russell Park needs to be upgraded. Get a little
playground for the kids. I would like to see walking trails also.
• "Sell underutilized park property; use the money to improve
others.
• "Question the process involved in setting district that would
have the taxing authority for both city and rural."
/\/\„1),(11, 14) I'Idin% Design
Next Steps
o
1. Inventory the existing park facilities.
1. Can be done with volunteers.
2. Decide whether or not to pursue a Special District for Laurel's
parks.
1. Additional taxation can only realistically enerate
g
between $85K - $114K per year above the current
general fund allocation within City limits. y
3. Identify & prioritize potential improvements to the highest use z
park lands.
1. Pursue grants & donations
4. Consider selling underutilized park land & applying those
funds to park improvements.
Peaks 10 Plains Design
For More Information o
2
This is a pro' ect of the n
l H
Please contact: City of Laurel
Peaks to Plains Design, P.C. Park Board
404 North 31 Street, Suite 405
Billings, Montana 59101
z „--- - :. --- ":-..„ �. ---,
(406) 294 -9499 •i•r•...
www.peakstoplains.com
' i 1 r .cet. —
,,
i ,I., . r. ', ' '
( ....- i-..- ---.1 \ ', t
nVision Research
� t
1602 S. Parker Road, Suite 203 ' '
i
Denver, Colorado 80231 1 ' , ( III OF t
(303) 322 -1220 y REL
www.nvisionresear;1i.,, ,1 OH TAU Alk ' .
Connecting People To Their Environment Peaks 1 ) Plains Design