COCONINO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATIONAL MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN SUMMARY November 2009 Prepared by: Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary Master Plan Summary The Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR) contracted with PROS Consulting LLC (PROS) to develop an Organizational Master Plan that would aid the Department in sustaining a high quality park and recreation system over the next 10 years. This project seeks to provide sound and realistic recommendations, strategies, tactics, and suggested initiatives that address current and evolving park and recreation needs of residents of Coconino County. Objectives The overarching objectives of the Organizational Master Plan evolved over the course of the project, and resulted in the following: 1. Update the strategic vision, mission and goals of the Department. 2. Balance the equitable access to County park and recreation resources throughout Coconino County and its communities. 3. Identify capital projects that include both improvement of existing facilities and development of new facilities. 4. Improve and expand the revenue generating capacity, as well as capital and operational funding options of CCPR. 5. Provide a detailed action plan for improving and enhancing CCPR operations to support the renewed vision, mission, and goals. These objectives were met through a logical approach to developing iterative reports and findings. These reports were assembled as a “scaffold” upon which sound and reasonable recommendations that reflect national industry best practices and innovations could be built. Approach The approach the PROS Team utilized for this project was focused seeking to improve the balance of County parks and recreation resources throughout Coconino County, and establish the strategy for optimal performance of the Department into the future. PROS worked directly with CCPR, the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Commission, County Manager’s Office, County Board of Supervisors, and the general public to identify the following: • • • • • • Maintenance management priorities Customer service priorities Administrative priorities Strategic development priorities Cost sharing / Partnership development Capital and operational funding options Additionally, PROS worked to identify opportunities to improve and expand earned revenues that are realistic and reliable. This included, but was not limited to: • • • • Improved revenues from existing user base Expansion of service market and user base Expansion of services / revenue diversification Concessions / Partnership development 3 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary Finally, PROS worked to ensure that the value of the user and resident experience is not compromised through initiatives to streamline the operations of the Deparment. This focus included, but was not limited to: • • • Facility conditions Diversity and equity of programs and services Service quality The development and completion of iterative deliverables that captured the key findings and recommendations of the Organizational Master Plan was driven by a set of analyses designed to achieve the following: • Engage the community is providing direction and setting expectations • Engage County leadership in the setting the priorities to supporting a high quality parks and recreation system • Engage local elected officials in establishing the strategic framework that enables the Department to sustainably meet its goals • Engage the Department recommendations in tactical planning for implementation of key Deliverables The project involved iterative steps that resulted in a series of three (3) major deliverables: 1. Organizational Assessment Report – completed May 2008 2. Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis – completed September 2008 3. Development and Action Plan – completed November 2009 4 Cocon nino County Parks and Recreaation Organizational Mastter Plan Master Plan Summary Proccess An illu ustration of th he process off this project is detailed in the figure beelow. Project Goaal P Setting Community Profille Updated Strategic Vision, M Mission, and Goals Financial Assessments Le evel of Service Standards Faacility and Orgganizational Nee eds Analysis Facility Assessments Park Classifications C Program Assessments Demographics D and Trends Community Input Orrganizationall A Assessment Report Community C Priorities Funding Realities Devvelopmentt an nd Action Plan 5 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary The Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR) seeks to develop and maintain a system of parks that reflects the unique natural and cultural landscape of the region, the park and recreation trends and needs of Coconino County residents, and the capacity of the County to balance the resources necessary to manage a high quality park system. The content of this report establishes the identified community needs and preferences for parks and recreation, the organizational needs and priorities of CCPR, and the facility priorities to achieve a standard of excellence within the Coconino County Parks system. Key Findings Identified Community Needs and Preferences There were multiple methods used to assess community input including a random household survey, seven (7) focus groups, and six (6) public forums. From those exercises, detailed findings were provided in the Summary Assessment Report and the following were identified as key needs and preferences: • Natural areas, open spaces, and corridor trails are priority facilities; nature education, adventure camps, and special events are priority programs. • County parks can be more effectively utilized as a tourism resource. • Community communication can be greatly improved regarding park operational performance, services, and amenities available to the public. • Equitable and strategic partnerships are critical to improve the conditions of facilities, diversity of services available at existing parks, and to assist local communities to develop their own parks. • Maintaining current parks are equally or more important than building new ones. • Facilities and programs that target youth are needed to build stronger communities. • More adequate funding to support maintenance of park facilities needs to be addressed. • County parks have an inequitable distribution that can be corrected – there are more parks needed outside of Flagstaff and in the outlying areas of the County. • Park and recreation facilities and programs need to reflect the diversity of Coconino County residents. • Not all park and recreation needs are an appropriate responsibility of the County Parks and Recreation Department – this should be a shared responsibility with other levels of government. Identified Organizational Needs and Priorities Contained within this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis are select opportunities for improving and developing the capacity of CCPR to manage its daily operations, future planning, and organizational success as identified throughout the community input and assessment processes. These opportunities are described within this report in detail, and can be summarized as follows: • Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs, and sustainable program development. 6 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary • It is critical to establish a tradition of excellence through the implementation of consistent standards for facility and program development, and design and maintenance of park and recreation facilities that provides equity, safety and cleanliness. • Provide balance and consistency in the delivery of core recreation programs and services to the community and the region by meeting the needs of all ages and interests through new and fresh programs, incorporating a family and environmental ethic and accessible year‐round facilities. • Manage recreation facilities and programs that generate revenue at established cost recovery goals to off‐set operational costs while considering affordability, customer need and demand, value of services received and leveraging of resources. • Enhance the operational budget structure and cost tracking practices to improve cost of service accounting. • Develop a system of tiered pricing that is based on total costs of service, level of service, cost recovery goals, characteristics of the users and user groups, and a sustainable approach to managing programs and facilities. • Maximize resources through equitable partnerships to leverage facilities and open space development opportunities and achieve efficient and effective operations. • Implementation of an appropriate and relevant park classification system will improve the ability of CCPR to manage and measure performance within the Coconino County Park system. Identified Facility Needs and Priorities While the current system offers a wide range of park assets, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues and their partnerships. Future partnerships can be modeled after the success achieved with current partners like the Pine Mountain Amphitheater LLC, and Willow Bend Environmental Education Center. As the County Parks and Open Space Program is implemented, it will be just as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire new resources. From a tour of the county park system, substantial public input, and extensive interviews with Department and County staff the following key findings were developed: • Significant deferred maintenance has accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of the both facilities and the visitor experience. • Substantial upgrades and redevelopment of select amenities at Fort Tuthill, Raymond Park, and Pumphouse Greenway will provide opportunities to meet community expectations of high quality facilities, enhance and develop revenue generation potential of the County park system, and support the growth of balanced programming and services. • Need exists for park development in the communities of Williams, Page, Tusayan, and Fredonia, with particular focus on group and youth amenities. • Partnership opportunities with both the public and private sector will be sought to share the burden of capital and operational requirements supporting identified facility needs. 7 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary • Encroachment and lack of buffer from development nearby to county parks is a growing issue. • Specific facility needs have been detailed and organized into a priority matrix that mirrors identified community values. • Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs. Key Organizational Recommendations There are a number of key policies and practices recommended for the Department in accordance with predominant findings from the research and analysis associated with developing the Organizational Master Plan. Contained within this report is a detailed discussion of the process and logic that yielded these recommendations, as well as the suggested action plan for implementing them. The key organizational recommendations are detailed in the table on the following page. Organizational Recommendations CCPR Function Enhanced funding for maintenance of facilities Facility Management Increased usage of key facilities Programs and Services Diversified programs and events Programs and Services Improved marketing and communications Programs and Services Consistent and formalized partnerships Facility Management / Programs and Services Improved operational budget structure Financial / Budgetary Management Distinguish “public” versus “private” services Financial /Budgetary Management Research on residents and users Strategic Growth Improved positioning as a community asset Strategic Growth Improved customer fulfillment efforts Strategic Growth 8 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary Key Development Recommendations Aligned with the needs and priorities revealed throughout the process of developing the Organizational Master Plan, this Development and Action Plan provides prioritized recommendations for the development and growth of CCPR over the next 10 years. These recommendations are discussed in more detailed throughout the remainder of this report and are summarized in the table below. Development Recommendations Recommended Priority Fort Tuthill utilities and infrastructure Short Term Priority Fort Tuthill Stable Repair and Enhancements Short Term Priority Fort Tuthill campground repair and enhancements Short Term Priority Fort Tuthill picnic areas and general recreational amenities Short Term Priority Page/LeChee Regional Park Medium Term Priority Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park Medium Term Priority Fort Tuthill Visitor Center Medium Term Priority Fort Tuthill Grandstand Racetrack Long Term Priority Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park Long Term Priority Redevelop Cataract Lake County Park Long Term Priority Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Long Term Priority Open space acquisitions Long Term Priority Trails and connectivity Long Term Priority 9 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary Vision and Mission Elements of CCPR Vision and mission elements are critical in public plans because they describe purpose and priorities for the system. For Coconino County, they offer a philosophy of parks to guide the County system for the next ten years. The vision and mission elements associated with this plan resulted from extensive research into the trends of the region’s park and recreation demands, a comprehensive process of community input, one‐on‐one interviews with the County Board of Supervisors, and a thorough assessment of the current CCPR Park System. The specific elements include the five major components detailed in the table below. Element Description County Strategic Priorities Vision Strategic priorities established by the Board of Supervisors that all aspects of County management should be aligned to Describes the vision for how CCPR desires to be positioned and viewed by both internal and external stakeholders Reflects the obligations and responsibilities of CCPR to the community of Coconino County Defines the community values pertaining to parks and recreation that is upheld by the facilities and services practiced of CCPR Outlines the organizational and performance goals of CCPR over a 10 year period Mission Community Values Goals Process Used to Develop and Vet Plan Elements To develop the proposed vision and mission elements, PROS Consulting LLC met with the Board of Supervisors in a work session (August 28, 2007) and individually (December 11); developed key findings from public involvement meetings; conducted an assessment of current conditions; and facilitated two work sessions with County staff (June 5, 2008) and the Parks & Recreation Commission (June 24, 2008). Finally, the process returned to the Board in work session for their further input (August 26, 2008) and review. The Vision and Mission Elements contained within this report are aligned with the County Strategic Priorities detailed below and reflect the input of County residents and leadership. County Strategic Priorities 1. Community Vitality – Facilitating connections and engaging individuals to enrich the quality of life in Coconino County communities. 2. Economic Development – Supporting the creation of a strong economy. 3. Cultural & Natural Resources – Protecting the magnificent cultural and environmental treasures of the Coconino Plateau. 4. Fiscal Health – Ensuring exceptional value for our residents through long‐range fiscal planning and performance‐based budgeting. 5. Organizational Health ‐ Providing the highest quality of service by fostering a culture that supports innovation and an investment in our people. 6. Public Safety & Welfare ‐ Ensuring safety and well being throughout Coconino County. 10 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Master Plan Summary CCPR Vision Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation (CCPR) establishes a standard of excellence for engaging residents and visitors with Coconino County’s natural, recreational, and cultural environments to promote healthy lifestyles and communities. CCPR Mission Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation engages the public in (1) developing and delivering quality, sustainable parks, equitable community partnerships, accessible, diverse recreational and educational opportunities; and (2) protecting unique natural areas and open spaces. Coconino County Community Values Regarding Parks and Recreation Coconino County residents have a legacy of recreating in the outdoors that is important to individuals and communities. This legacy gives rise to shared values regarding County parks and recreation services. County residents believe in: • • • • • • • • • attracting and retaining knowledgeable parks and recreation professionals who demonstrate outstanding customer service; managing parks and open space responsibly and sustainably; recognizing and supporting the County’s unique natural landscapes, diverse communities, and cultural traditions; providing passive public recreation areas and expanding protection for open spaces and wildlife corridors; using public and private sector partnerships to reach shared goals; striving for equitable access to parks and recreation experiences for urban and rural youth, seniors, and families; promoting volunteer stewardship as an integral part of park management; balancing the funding and provision of services between public and private sectors; and demonstrating environmental leadership through policies, practices, and programs. CCPR Goals Coconino County Parks and Recreation’s mission will be implemented through programs and policies focused on five core endeavors over the next 10 years. These are: 1. Develop and implement effective marketing and communications plans to better meet customer needs and interests. 2. Develop and maintain equitable and creative public and private‐sector partnerships to reach shared goals. 3. Explore new ways to provide programs, facilities, and operations that engage more residents and promote accessible, equitable, and sustainable park services. 4. Develop a 10‐year financial plan that analyzes the resources needed to accomplish the major components of the Organizational Master Plan, specifically resources to : a. establish a capital repair and replacement program; b. dedicate a funding source for operations and maintenance; c. fund new park and open space facilities, and new outdoor education and recreation programs; d. develop existing facilities as enterprise zones to generate operating revenue. 5. Demonstrate environmental leadership and sustainability in practices and policies. 11 COCONINO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATIONAL MASTER PLAN ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT An Appraisal of Facilities, Programs, Community Needs, and Financial Capacity May 2008 Prepared by: Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2 FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENT OF FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 5 Section 1 - Purpose and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5 Section 2 - General System Overview ...................................................................................................... 5 Section 3 - Facility Assessment Summary By Park.................................................................................... 8 Section 4 - Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 13 PROGRAM AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 14 Section 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 14 Section 2 - Current CCPR Programs ........................................................................................................ 14 Section 3 - Additional CCPR Services...................................................................................................... 32 COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 32 Section 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 33 Section 2 - Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................................ 35 Section 3 - Community Forums Findings Summary ................................................................................ 37 Section 4 - Household Survey ................................................................................................................ 38 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................ 42 Section 1 - Financial Assessment Methodology ..................................................................................... 42 Section 2 - Assessment of Financial Strength ......................................................................................... 42 Section 3 - Cost Recovery Analysis......................................................................................................... 47 Section 4 - Policies to Shape Financial Strength ..................................................................................... 49 Section 5 - Readiness to Track Full Cost of Services ............................................................................... 52 Section 6 - Financial Assessment Summary ........................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX A: Household Survey Report................................................................................................ 57 APPENDIX B: Summary of Key Responses by Question ....................................................................... 100 APPENDIX C: Summary of Community Forums by Meeting Location ................................................... 108 APPENDIX D: Facility Assessment Details by Park ............................................................................... 123 i Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Organizational Assessment is an important component to the Organizational Master Plan for Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR/Department) upon which the recommendations will be based. The objectives of the Organizational Master Plan are to:  Develop a consensus around a renewed strategic direction for a more robust Department  Perform a basic review of existing facilities, programs and practices  Identify community values and expectations appropriate for CCPR  Align organization to existing and potential resources  Identify and guide the pursuit of strategic development opportunities  Define a realistic action plan for achieving expected outcomes The specific objectives of this Organizational Assessment are to:  Identify community values and expectations appropriate for CCPR  Assess the general condition, current capacity, and overall performance of existing facilities, programs and services  Review and summarize the financial capacity of the Department  Create a reference point for future recommendations This report combines four (4) assessments performed: Community Input Assessment, Facilities Assessment, Financial Capacity Analysis, and a Programs and Services Assessment. The following descriptions provide a brief overview of some of the key observations made throughout the assessment processes. Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department is operating a relatively small system of parks that features a diverse range of facilities and events. The Department is unique among peer departments because of the prevalence of existing programs and partnerships that creatively utilize county park facilities rather than more traditional park and recreation programs. There emerged five predominant findings from the individual assessments that are detailed within this report. These findings are discussed briefly within this executive summary. 2 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Significant Deferred Maintenance The facilities managed by Coconino Parks and Recreation Department are being “loved to death” by residents and visitors. Substantial amounts of deferred maintenance have accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of both the facilities and the visitor experience. Significant capital repair, renovation, and replacement will be required to maintain existing special event venues and their respective programs and partnerships. It is noted on industry best practices, as well as community input from within Coconino County that the priority of protecting the integrity of current facilities is equal or more important than developing and acquiring new facilities. This issue is addressed in more detail in the “Findings and Assessment of Facilities” and “Community Input Summary” sections of this report. Insufficient Labor and Budget Resources As a result of thorough review of the parks and recreation system and the Department staffing, it is clear there is an inadequate level of labor and budget resources to support the existing facility needs of the county park system. While the current maintenance team is well qualified and well equipped, there is not enough manpower to stay abreast and ahead of ongoing facility repair and maintenance responsibilities. The current inventory of the park system is approximately 589 acres, and this is anticipated to grow by 400% in the next five to ten years as a result of County Parks and Open Space (CPOS) acquisitions. The Department is on an inevitable collision course with a severe inability to maintain its assets because of inadequate staffing and maintenance funding. This issue is addressed in more detail in the “Findings and Assessment of Facilities” and “Financial Assessment” sections of this report. Programmatic Imbalance The development of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department comes from a legacy of successful events. These events have remained a prevailing fixture and area of focus for Departmental operations. Many of the events and predominant facility usages are centered around private, or exclusive, leased use of the facilities. Generally, these events generate substantial revenues for the Department, but are not recovering 100% of their total associated costs. This traditional modus operandi has resulted in limited traditional parks and recreation department programming such as outdoor recreation, nature education, and community education events. An area of responsible growth and development for the Department will be to balance the existing exclusive use programs with more accessible and traditional park and recreation programming that serves a wider proportion of County residents. This issue is addressed in more detail in the “Program and Services Assessment” and “Community Input Summary” sections of this report. Poor Communication It is evident from community input and interaction with County leadership that the Department suffers from poor and inadequate external communication regarding multiple areas of operations. Improved communication regarding challenges of operational responsibilities, total costs of service, operational constraints, and public park and recreation obligations will assist the Department to better position itself for community support and County leadership advocacy of agency needs. Additionally, improved communication to the community and targeted users 3 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment regarding facilities and opportunities available in the Coconino Parks and Recreation System would improve visitation, subsequent revenue generation, and community perceptions of accessibility. Finally, more adequate research regarding park and program users and community needs is critical to managing a cost effective communications plan, and is currently deficient. This issue is addressed in more detail in the “Program and Services Assessment,” “Community Input Summary,” and “Financial Assessment” sections of this report. Convoluted Budgeting While the Department demonstrates commendable levels of revenue generation by earning the equivalent of approximately 70% of agency operational expenses, the current budget structure and expense allocation practices do not sufficiently track departmental indirect costs. The complexity of the budget structure through which the Department’s funding is managed creates a sense of poor transparency and unjustifiable expenses which inhibits communication to citizens and County leadership regarding true costs of service and use of public funds. The accounting and bookkeeping practices of the Department have dramatically improved over the last 10 years, but incomplete and confusing allocation of costs leaves the impression of poor budget management. Essentially, the Department can adequately account for all expenses, but cannot properly apply costs to service delivery and/or facility management activities. This issue is addressed in more detail in the “Program and Services Assessment” and “Financial Assessment” sections of this report. This assessment revealed there is tremendous work to be done to address facility conditions of existing assets, improving terms and performance of current partnerships, pursue future projects that are aligned to community needs and preferences, diversify programs and services to include those considered to have more public benefit, and prepare for the increased operational and maintenance requirements of planned developments and acquisitions. 4 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment FINDINGS AND ASSESSMENT OF FACILITIES Section 1 - Purpose and Methodology The Coconino County Parks and Recreation System (System) was assessed to identify gaps between the current offerings and those desired by the constituency. The results of this task are essential for determining facility and programming strategies necessary to meet the needs of users and ascertain, sustain, and preserve human and physical capital intended for the delivery of services to the community. The park and facility assessment provides necessary input for the Facilities Development Plan. During the assessment, data was collected and existing information was reviewed. A tour of the park system was also completed with Department staff. During this tour, general observations of park facilities included:  General state and condition  Compatibility and connectivity with neighborhoods  Aesthetics / design  Safety / security  Public access  Program capacity and compatibility with users  Partnership opportunities  Revenue generation opportunities Section 2 - General System Overview Coconino County Parks and Recreation System services the second largest county in the fortyeight (48) contiguous United States. Possessing more than 18,600 square miles of land and considered home to nearly 128,500 persons, Coconino County has 6.90 persons per square mile (128,439 persons divided by 18,617.42 square miles), or 1 person per 100 acres (128,439 persons divided by 11,915,000 acres). Population density is significantly less than the U.S. average of 86 persons per square mile, or the state average of 54 persons per square mile. Flagstaff alone accounts for more than 45% of the total County population. Although the County’s vast size has the potential to create issues in regards to the equitable distribution of park land amongst all constituents, the majority of the current system is accessible to a greater part of the County in less than an hour drive. It is imperative to consider the geography of park land distribution comprehensively as the Department plans for the future. Currently planned expansions in the Flagstaff area include Fort Tuthill, Rogers Lake, Observatory Mesa, Old Growth Forest, and Walnut Canyon. This will potentially expand the system by over 400% percent but does not address important opportunities to acquire natural areas in other parts of the County. The Department will also need to address the potential expansion of services customarily found 5 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment in municipalities to a broader geographic area. Future phases of this Organizational Master Plan will provide specific recommendations for addressing these issues. While the current system offers a wide range of park assets to the constituency, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues and their partnerships. The fairgrounds, racetrack, and stables at Fort Tuthill can benefit from the design principles used at the newly developed amphitheater. Future partnerships can be modeled after the success achieved with current partners like the Pine Mountain Amphitheater LLC, and Willow Bend Environmental Education Center. As the CPOS Program is implemented, it will be just as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire new resources. A summary of parks, and their amenities and features is provided in Tables 1a and 1b on the following page. 6 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Park Size Nearest Community Fort Tuthill 413 acres Flagstaff Peaks View 27 acres Raymond 14 acres Sawmill 2 acres Cataract Lake 15 acres Williams Louise Yellowman 6 acres Tuba City Pumphouse Greenway 117 acres Amenity / Feature Quantity Total park units 7 Total park acreage 589 Playgrounds 8 Picnic areas (open-air) 6 Picnic shelters 10 Group pavilions 7 Public restrooms (unplumbed) 3 Public restrooms (plumbed) 6 Trail mileage (earthen) 19 Trail mileage (improved surface) 0.25 Diamond playing fields 2 Multipurpose rectangular fields 1 Basketball courts 4 Volleyball courts 7 Tennis courts / Racquetball courts 4/2 Stables 332 Equestrian area / racetrack 5 Amphitheater 1 Campsites 126 Skatepark 1 Enclosed space (buildings) 67,100 sq. ft. Parking lots 1,066,200 sq. ft. Roads 3 miles Tables 1a and 1b – Summary of Coconino Parks and Recreation Sites and Amenities 7 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Section 3 - Facility Assessment Summary By Park The following section provides a facility assessment summary of each park located within Coconino County. The assessments are based upon collected data, the review of existing information, and tours of the System. A detailed, bulleted list of items for each park is located in Appendix D. 3.1 Fort Tuthill County Park Fort Tuthill County Park is a primary revenue generator for the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department, due in part to its prime location and the destination assets that the park houses. Fort Tuthill is located within minutes of nearly half of the entire County population and houses the County fairgrounds, racetrack, amphitheater, and horse stables. Multiple, wellknown trails such as the Flagstaff Urban Trail System, Soldier Trail, and Bridge Trail travel through the park. While the park has many strengths and opportunities ahead, some challenges and constraints within the park exist. For example, the recreation sports courts are significantly deteriorated, the standard traffic configuration leads to congestion during large events, and the historical lack of operational contracts with partners (monetary and relational partners) has created an air of entitlement throughout the park. Additionally, current procedures and infrastructure have lead to severe annual degradation of the asphalt surface and structures of the fairgrounds. The realignment of Highway 89A will provide the County with an opportunity to increase the Fort Tuthill County Park’s exposure, while potentially placing a burden on the park as 600 feet of park land will be relinquished to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for right-of-way issues. Two options are under exploration by the Department related to the realignment: 1) sell all the land required for the realignment to the DOT, and 2) sell only the easement and retain the remainder of the land so the Department can control future development. Unrestricted expansion could create an eyesore of retail and commercial development at the park entrance. The park will also lose the Pima Pavilion/Ramada on the north end of the park due to the realignment and easement that Arizona DOT requires. Existing vehicular, pedestrian, and equestrian trails and roadways require more clear delineation and improvement to simplify access and egress to the site and its respective amenities, and eliminate existing safety hazards arising from heavy mixed pedestrian/equestrian/vehicular uses during large events. An examination of the maintenance yard and the buildings and structures within it revealed that the yard and its buildings are no longer adequate to house personnel or equipment due to the growth of the Department. The growth in personnel has also placed a burden on the vehicle fleet and resulted in shortages. The Department has turned to the Department of Public Works, utilizing three public work fleet vehicles to assist in the delivery of programs and services. Additional aspects, such as the tool bay and metal working bay are both at capacity. Overall, there is a general need for increased storage for personnel and equipment, and an increase in the number of fleet vehicles available to staff. Over the years, intense usage of the equestrian area has led to degradation of the stable area and infrastructure erosion in the stalls. Much of the area needs repair, as well as routine and 8 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment preventative maintenance. Routine maintenance at the Sheriff’s Posse Arena is also needed. It should be noted that the deteriorating stable area and surrounding facilities does not seem to deter park visitors from using the facilities. However, the Department should take a closer look at creating a cost efficient revenue zone, and waste service practices should be evaluated. The removal of manure alone cost the Department $30,000 during the last fiscal year. The racetrack recently completed its 52nd season of operation. Due to poor footing and surface degradation, however, the rectangular area on the racetrack infield is no longer in use. To bring the surface back up to standard, the cost has been estimated at approximately $40,000. Additionally, the racetrack, the round arena within the racetrack, and the Sherriff’s Posse arena are in need of resurfacing. The County Fairgrounds, listed on the National Register of Historical Places, received a $137,200 grant in 2000 from Arizona State Parks to pay for exterior renovations of buildings dating back to the days of the Fort. Unfortunately, a significant amount of work is needed at the Fairgrounds, including annual repairs to the asphalt surface due to subsurface degradation and upgrades to existing sewer, water, and electrical infrastructure. Additional storage space is needed to house large equipment on a year-round basis and increased space is needed in the staff and office equipment area. The staff currently has less than 25 square feet on average for individual office/personal space. In addition, several vendors using the buildings do not pay for the specialized use of the area, nor are there contracts in place defining the usage. Similar to the fairgrounds, there are no contracts in place or user fees required for the archery range. Entitlement to the area has been passed down through the users. Opportunities exist for Fort Tuthill to work with the U.S. Forest Service regarding the land that is owned by the Forest Service that abuts the park. The 500-600 acres of land next to the archery range has been discussed as a potential site for a recreational vehicle (RV) campground. The Forest Service approached CCPR about campground development in order to alleviate pressures placed upon the Forest Service. The current Fort Tuthill campground is not conducive for modern day RV’s or high traffic use. The campground has no restroom facilities, only portable toilets. Pine Mountain Amphitheater is a large outdoor performance venue that provides a variety of uses for diverse groups of attendees. The facility includes a large covered stage equipped with electricity and lighting to support night performances, fixed seating, lawn seating, concession and restroom amenities, controlled access points, adequate parking and access, and attractive landscaping. All aspects of the amphitheater appear to be well designed to accommodate maximum usage, reasonable maintenance expectations, and environmental considerations. The amphitheater is the youngest structure at the park at only two years old. Bookings at the amphitheater have lead to ancillary usages at the campground. Turning the current campground into a special event campground has been explored, provided the aforementioned Forest Service campground area is developed. 9 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 3.2 Sawmill County Park Sawmill County Park is a unique facility celebrating the cultures and talents of Coconino County residents amongst a backdrop of Flagstaff’s beautiful natural environment. The park, which was dedicated to the residents of Coconino County in 2003, is surrounded by aesthetically pleasing landscaping, gardens, and natural habitat areas. Over the years, the park has developed a dynamic partnership with the Willow Bend Environmental Education Center (WBEEC) for the provision of on-site environmental education services. Due to the success of this partnership, the County would like to develop similar relationships for other parks within the system. Sawmill County Park is located adjacent to a law enforcement complex and is soon to be adjacent to a mixed use, new urban development. The new development could possibly increase exposure and visitation to the park. As a result, the park should explore the possibility of shifting to a city function rather than a county function. The park currently operates as a community park; however, with the influx of new urban development just across the street, the function of the park will likely shift to a neighborhood park. First class interpretive signage which introduces each of the distinct gardens, indicates what is grown in each garden further completes the park. There are multiple benches and sitting areas strategically located throughout the park along the paths. The playground area is beginning to show signs of surface degradation and high use areas have experienced limited rutting. Overall, the playground zone is in good condition. 3.3 Peaks View County Park The community park setting of Peaks View County Park features a synthetic surface multipurpose field capable of accommodating soccer, football, lacrosse and diamond sport usage. The artificial turf allows for year-round usage of the facility. The park has one large pavilion with permanent barbeque grills nearby, two smaller pavilions, and a playground. Phase II improvements to the park are scheduled for summer 2008 and include parking lot overlay, sidewalks, ground surfacing enhancements and landscaping. Phase III of the construction plan is under development and is anticipated to include the addition of a ball field and an expansion of the park utilizing the CPOS funding and future grant awards. The park has recently been the victim of vandalism, due in part to its location off the main road, and the permanent restroom structure seems to have taken the largest hit after being burned down. The restroom is now open again but has experienced additional problems with tagging on both the men’s and women’s side. High winds are also a problem for the park, increasing the demand for preventative and routine maintenance. The second phase of park improvements attempts to address this issue with the placement of berms on the southern end of the park. While the synthetic surface sports field does allow for year-round usage, only one type of activity may occur at a time. At the time of the field assessment, the player dugouts were overgrown with weeds and there were limited spectator areas (i.e. 4 sets of bleachers). The playground contains 2 play structures, each surfaced with wood chips. A wooden fence installed around the playground does help reduce some of the wind effects. Due to minimum staffing and the remoteness of the park to headquarters, portions of the park, including the playground, are in need of increased routine maintenance. 10 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 3.4 Pumphouse Greenway The Pumphouse Greenway Park emphasizes the protection of wetland habitat and water resources, and is the first natural area park in the County System. Herronburg Wash is serene and could lend itself to an excellent loop trail with accompanying view sheds. The CCPR is currently exploring the possibility of developing such a trail around the wetland area. Pumphouse Greenway borders Raymond County Park and features a watershed and wetland that provides tremendous natural diversity to the County System. Inappropriate access into the wetland is a growing problem. Trespassing, unleashed dogs, litter, etc. are especially disturbing to neighbors who abut the meadow because they are acutely aware of wildlife, especially elk. Access into and out of Kachina Village is limited and easily congested when visitors use the nearby sled hill or watch elk in the meadow. Currently, negotiations are in process to enroll the Pumphouse Greenway into the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Preserve Program to ensure permanent protection from development pressure. 3.5 Raymond County Park Raymond County Park, which connects to the Pumphouse Greenway, is a community park that serves Kachina Villagers. The park, totaling 13.5 acres, features a basketball court, baseball field, playground, picnic tables, and a youth climbing wall. There are three acres of land adjacent to the park that is zoned as commercial property that could threaten the integrity of the park unless a natural buffer is created between potential retail and heavy traffic congestion. Recent grant awards and matching County funding will result in numerous upgrades to Raymond Park, including a permanent restroom, small and large pavilions, an upgrade of the baseball field, the addition of a basketball court and replacement of the volleyball court. View sheds to the wetland will be developed with trail connections that encourage visitors to enjoy the wetlands without disturbing it. The Department hopes to acquire additional wetland and structures that can be utilized for the provision of outdoor education programs and services. Acquisition of this land would allow the Department to develop a successful partnership for the provision of programs and services – much like the relationship between WBEEC and the Sawmill County Park. 3.6 Cataract Lake County Park New and existing residential developments around the park provide a built-in market that few County parks can boast about. The housing developments, however, have encroached upon park boundaries to within 50 yards. In some cases, unrepaired fencing creates a barrier between private residential property and park property, and residents are using their property directly abutting the park for the storage of large items such as travel trailers. This creates an eyesore for park visitors. The Department should explore creating a park buffer policy. Cataract Lake is a 35-acre reservoir maintained by the City of Williams that provides access to Cataract Lake County Park. It is a popular fishing lake stocked by the Arizona Game & Fish Department. There is a cement boat launch ramp and boats with either single electric or gasoline motors up to 8 horsepower are permitted. Kaibab National Forest operates a small campground across the lake and manages much of the lake’s waterfront. The lake water is pumped out of the lake to irrigate a local golf course near the park. The Department may 11 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment explore taking over lake management and the agreement for water pumping. The park itself lacks modern design and amenities with no distinct separation between the day use and campground areas. None of the 25 campsites have electric or water hookups and the day use area, which is primarily concrete, is in disrepair. The campground is adjacent to the County Public Works Department maintenance yard with no barrier in place to camouflage the view. 3.7 Louise Yellowman County Park Louise Yellowman County Park is a newly developed site in the County System that utilized CPOS funds and an ASP grant to celebrate its Grand Opening on May 10, 2008. This facility is the result of momentous collaboration between all public partners, as well as integration with local art, culture, and environment. The park is approximately 100 acres and provides diverse amenities supporting day visits and utilization. The improved surface trail promotes greater access and opportunity to attract new park users. This park features a playground, basketball court, skate park, large pavilion, and a picnic ramada. This facility is the first public park in the direct vicinity of Tuba City and seems well suited to provide enriched recreational opportunities to the residents of Tuba City and its immediate area. 12 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Section 4 - Conclusions The general observations of the park system can be summarized into the following: 1. Absence of design standards results in substantial design-related maintenance issues, and an absence of a developed and recognizable brand for the CCPR System. 2. Protect park resources by planning and addressing encroachment by private development. Currently, no buffer policy exists for the System and encroachment by private development is occurring at multiple locations. 3. An equitable distribution of parks assets and programs throughout the System will require new resources and/or new partnerships. 4. Significant deferred maintenance has accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of the both facilities and the visitor experience. 5. While the current system offers a wide range of park assets to the constituency, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues. 6. As the CPOS Program is implemented, it will be equally as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire and develop new resources. 7. Facility design and site configuration issues are prevalent contributors to ongoing maintenance concerns. 8. Build on the current examples of high quality parks and facility design within Coconino County. 9. Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs. 13 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment PROGRAM AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT Section 1 - Introduction Coconino Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR/Department) has evolved from its origins of managing two (2) specific programs on behalf of the County for many years: the Coconino County Fair, and the Coconino County Horse Races. These two annual events have historically been a fixture of the County and its culture, and have sustained tremendous popularity among local residents. Within the last two decades, however, the population and subsequent needs of the County have become more diversified with changing demographics and economic conditions. This has resulted in growth and development of what was once titled the County Fair Department to the present day County Parks and Recreation Department. The Department is at a pivotal crossroads in its legacy. It currently manages seven (7) parks within its system that encompass approximately 67,220 square feet of buildings and improved facilities, multiple campsites and trails, critical open space and habitat, and unique historical structures. With the addition of Coconino Parks and Open Space (CPOS) acquisitions in the upcoming years, the system is in dire need to continue to evolve its range of services targeted to meet public park and recreation needs in the County. There is currently limited traditional recreation programming at Coconino County Parks, such as regular outdoor education, natural science, and/or interpretive activities. There are, however, long-standing programs that are dear to County residents for which the Department is responsible. This analysis was performed to examine and evaluate existing programs to provide insight into how the performance of these programs can be preserved and/or improved. Additionally, this analysis in concert with the community input, facilities assessment, and financial capacity analysis can contribute to the subsequent recommendations of this Organizational Master Plan on strategic directions for future programs of Coconino County Parks and Recreation. Section 2 - Current CCPR Programs The origin of CCPR was founded in the management of select programs on behalf of the County. These programs have been built upon resulting in a larger programmatic portfolio overseen by the Department today. Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department currently manages seven (7) major programs which are the focus of this analysis: 1. Coconino County Fair 2. Coconino County Horse Races 3. Pine Mountain Amphitheater 4. Livestock Auction 5. Special Events (Lessee Events) 6. Stables 7. Outdoor Education – “Discover Your Parks” This Program Analysis and Assessment reviews each of these programs across multiple 14 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment dimensions to provide understanding of current strengths and challenges, as well as strategic opportunities for program development. The issues evaluated for each program in this analysis include the following seven (7) areas of focus:  Mission support  Site / venue review  Public need  Participation / attendance  Financial performance  Marketing  Sustainability The sections that follow provide a review of the identified existing CCPRD programs on each of these dimensions. 2.1 Coconino County Fair Coconino County Fair (Fair) was first established in 1948 and continues today on Labor Day weekend at Fort Tuthill County Park with tremendous support from local County residents. The fair provides a venue and opportunity for local individuals and special groups to display wares and works of art for sale and/or auction, features traditional carnival rides, livestock shows and auctions, multiple performances, and independent exhibitors. Additionally, county government utilizes the annual event to provide public health and education services at the Fair for residents and guests. 2.1.1 Mission Support The description of the event as found in promotional literature boasts that the Fair features, “…the best exhibits in floriculture, home economics, gems & minerals, hobbies and collectables. Themed activity areas feature demonstrations, performances and other educational opportunities in the areas of Conservation & Sustainable Environments, Arts & Culture, and Life & Leisure. The Carnival offers thrillseekers the ride of their life.” The Fair supports the mission and agency objectives of CCPR by: 1. Creating opportunity for county parkland to be used for public gatherings and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 3. Providing opportunities to educate the public on the benefits and opportunities for an active healthy lifestyle, environmental stewardship, conservation of natural resources, and responsible recreation 15 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.1.2 Site / Venue Review The Coconino County Fair is traditionally held at the quadrangle (quad) of Fort Tuthill County Park, with the historic military mess halls used for traditional fair exhibits and displays. Food and other vendors are organized to set up tents througout the center of the quad creating manageable traffic flow for Fair-goers in approximately a 5-acre area. A contracted carnival sets up in the nearby open area, livestock auctions are held in the cinder barn, and additional vendors are staged in the commercial building. The central stage is positioned essentially between the commercial building and the main quad area, on the east side of the quadrangle. Parking is organized throughout the open areas and roadways of Fort Tuthill County Park. The recently completed Pine Mountain Amphitheater is not currently being used for activities during the Fair, but provides an exceptional auxiliary facility for performances and other events. The existing utilities and infrastructure of the fairgrounds are not sufficient to accommodate the event. As a result, substantial rental of electric generators and light towers to the extent of approximately $10,000 annually is required to address event demands. Inadequate public restrooms facilities require the lease of approximately 35 portable toilets and eight (8) standalone hand washing stations costing approximately $14,000 over the four (4) days of the event. The Consultant Team observed in both site visits and with interviews of CCPR staff that the current configuration of the quadrangle site in which the majority of the Fair’s activities are held does not provide the optimal environment for growing the scope and innovation of the event. The traditional Fort Tuthill quad has become steadily deteriorated from excessive use and substantial deferred maintenance, resulting in a venue that does not echo the majesty and integrity of Coconino County’s natural environment. While the former mess halls provide organized and sheltered exhibit space, the historic military architecture and deteriorating buildings do not promote the character of the event or the County. 2.1.3 Public Need The findings in the 2007 Arizona SCORP report indicate that outdoor events are among the highest priorities of state and local residents for future recreational interests. Additionally, it is supported by the numerous interviews, focus groups, and public meetings conducted for the purposes of this Organizational Master Plan that the Coconinio County Fair is an integral component to the culture of local residents. This event provides an opportunity for the County to celebrate its cultural and ethnic diversity, and resident skill base. Fair attendance has steadily grown in recent years as has subsequent revenue generation from the event, indicating the popularity of the event among residents and visitors. 2.1.4 Participation / Attendance The Coconino County Fair is among the highest attended events sponsored by CCPR, with no less than 30,000 to 40,000 estimated total attendance in the last three years. Event participation from FY 2006 through FY 2008 is detailed in Table 3 below. Participation Measure FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Ticket Sales 18,562 20,576 20,312 Registration 34,900 37,900 39,600 Table 3: Coconino County Fair Participation 16 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Ticket sales reflect actual paid attendance to the event in each fiscal year, while registration is an estimated total attendance that also includes free tickets and admission given to VIPs, vendors, volunteers, superintendents, school children, underserved populations within the county, department employees and families, 4-H members and their guest, and people who enter on a family pass. Utilizing this data, estimated total attendance at the Fair has increased by approximately 13% from FY 2006 to FY 2008, an indication that the event remains a popular attraction for county residents and visitors. There is little to no detailed information regarding point of origin, customer satisfaction, demographics, or other profile characteristics of the attendees to the Fair. The Department currently does not utilize an exit survey or some other viable method for capturing data from Fair-goers to better understand who is attending, what are their interests and characteristics, and where they are from. This will greatly improve the ability of CCPR to strategically market, price, and plan future Fair events and activities. More detailed participant information will also support necessary improvement to the admittance policies. It is notable that CCPR works hard to provide equitable access to the Fair for children and underserved populations within the County, as reflected in the difference between estimated total attendance and ticket sales. A more accurate quantification of those attending the Fair can improve the financial performance of the event through the implementation of tiered pricing and discounting practices, while protecting the efforts to maintain equitable access for youth and the underserved. 2.1.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, the Coconino County Fair is among the programs sponsored by CCPR with the highest level of financial performance. Currently, the Department reports the Fair to recover approximately 146% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the Fair. There is no existing Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree to which the departmental indirect costs can be applied to total costs for planning and facilitation of the Fair. The local Pepsi distributor is a cash sponsor of the event in the amounts of $8,000, as well as inkind contributions of product, signage, and in-store event promotions. Additional in-kind sponsors are identified that provide limited promotion, educational services, and exhibiting at the Fair. There is no major corporate sponsor for the event, or a sales plan in place that can strategically pursue and capture significant cash and in-kind donations from sponsors and advertisers. It appears from data provided that volunteers are readily used by the local 4-H and FFA clubs for their events and activities, but CCPR struggles to recruit volunteers for the overall preparation and management of the Fair itself. The newly formed Friends group could manage the volunteer program on behalf of the CCPR. 2.1.6 Marketing Promotion and marketing of the Coconino County Fair utilizes a diverse blend of marketing activities including advertising, publicity, multi-media outlets, and signage. While this event features adequate marketing for promotion to County residents, if CCPR seeks to attract more out-of-county visitors then it is a necessity to conduct a survey as previously mentioned to learn 17 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment more about the existing point of origin for tourists visiting the Fair. This data can provide the background for more targeted and efficient promotion beyond the County borders with a much greater probability of measureable results. The use of in-kind sponsorship by the local radio station for promotions of the Fair is commendable and can potentially be replicated with additional media outlets to both reduce marketing expenditures and increase promotional impact. 2.1.7 Sustainability The Coconino County Fair has been around for 59 years and features no indication of reaching the end of its lifespan. Recent measures indicate the Fair attendance is actually on the rise, which can be amplified in future years with more effective information about attendees and subsequent targeted marketing. The greatest concern of PROS regarding sustainability of the County Fair is actually more in the use and abuse of existing facilities. It is the understanding of the PROS Team that the quadrangle of Fort Tuthill where the Fair is centered has a pending proposal for rehabilitation and redevelopment. 2.2 Coconino County Horse Races Coconino County Horse Races was first established in 1955 and continues today on July 4th weekend at the Grandstands Racetrack located at Fort Tuthill County Park. The races are a six (6) day event that provide a venue for both live racing and off-track betting. Coconino County Horse Races grew from an historic partnership with the Sheriff’s Posse that continues to be involved with aspects of the event. The Sheriff’s Posse is a local non-profit organization that originally relocated the Grandstands to Fort Tuthill County Park from another location, as well as constructed a smaller arena located on the north side of the stables several years ago. 2.2.1 Mission Support The description of the event as found in promotional literature boasts that: “The Coconino County Horse Races has been a Fourth of July tradition and the only live horse racing event in Arizona. It features four days of action-packed, live horse races, which are simulcast to approximately 46 off-track betting sites throughout Arizona. Full pari-mutuel wagering for live Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse racing featuring daily doubles, quinellas and trifecta specials increase your odds of going home a winner. Live race days are July 4 to 7. Gates open daily at 11:00 a.m. with a post time of 1:00 p.m. Family Day is on Tuesday, July 7 and will be feature fun activities for children. The best thing about Family Day is that admission is free to all. Dark days, simulcast off-track betting races only, are on July 3 and 8 and begin approximately at 11:30 a.m.” The Horse Races support the mission and agency objectives of CCPR by: 1. Creating opportunity for County parkland to be used for public gatherings and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 18 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.2.2 Site / Venue Review The Horse Races are held at the Grandstands Racetrack of Fort Tuthill County Park, with the stables, and other arenas available for support facilities. Food vending can be facilitated from the row building located within the Grandstands complex, but is predominantly provided by vendors operating from portable concession units. Betting is organized from built-in booths beneath the stands. Betting reconciliation and counting is managed within two (2) portable buildings located at the rear of the grandstands, and are connected to the back of the betting booths. Parking is organized throughout the open areas and roadways of Fort Tuthill County Park. The Consultant Team observed in site visits and with interviews of CCPR staff that many of the facilities within the Grandstand complex are terribly deteriorated and in serious need of repair. While the stands themselves are of metal construction and weathering fairly well, the ancillary structures and all wooden construction has become dilapidated as a result of many years of deferred maintenance and heavy use. Specific examples include the collapsed roofs of the counting buildings behind the Grandstands, and rotted flashing and siding on the paddock and food vending structures. Additionally, it has been noted by state racing officials that the main track will soon require resurfacing. Four (4) areas of observed concern that indicate potential design flaws within the Grandstands complex are: 1. There is apparent poor preparation of substrate prior to applying asphalt surfacing to the grounds beneath and surrounding the Grandstands. This has led to areas of upheaval and sinking that has caused serious damage to the asphalt surfacing and can potentially cause issues with the stability of building foundations in the future. 2. There is poor roof design not intended for climates with significant snowfall. Because of the pitch and lack of snow guards on the sloped roof of the Grandstands, large quantities of snow have fallen from the roof at the rear of the structure and collapsed the roofs of the smaller bulidings below. These smaller buildings were clearly not designed to withstand the force of massed snowfall from the roofs above. 3. The water system that feeds the restroom buildings, which are in good condition, is not adequate to accommodate maximum demand and usage during the races. For dust control purposes, water trucks operate during the races and fill from the main water lines from a connection point “upstream” of the restroom. As a result, water pressure in the restrooms are insufficient for proper use and the facilities are shut down during the event. The restroom facility is therefore unusable and locked during one of the largest annual events at the park, resulting in the rental of 19 portable toilets and four (4) hand-washing stations to accommodate the crowds at an annual cost of $6,200. 4. The jockey area in the paddock is insufficiently sized, and does not include divided changing areas, restrooms, or showers that can accommodate both male and female jockies. 19 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.2.3 Public Need The findings in the 2007 Arizona SCORP report indicate that outdoor events are among the highest priorities of state and local residents for future recreational interests. Additionally, it is supported by the numerous interviews, focus groups, and public meetings conducted for the purposes of this Organizational Master Plan that the Coconinio County Horse Races are an integral component to the culture of local residents. This event is unique within the State of Arizona and provides an opportunity for the County to showcase its history, significant natural beauty and diverse cultures. Horse Race attendance has steadily dropped in recent years as has subsequent revenue generation from the event. This is an indication that there is a generalized loss of popularity in horse racing events around the country that is not unique to Northern Arizona, and/or there is need for refreshing the style, approach, and promotions of the Coconino County Horse Races event. 2.2.4 Participation / Attendance While the Coconino County Horse Races remain among the highest attended events sponsored by CCPR, event participation has been steadily decreasing since FY 2006, as indicated in data provided to PROS. Event participation from FY 2006 through FY 2008 is detailed in Table 4 below. Participation Measure FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Ticket Sales 7,192 6,617 5,501 Registration 15,000 14,500 13,750 Table 4: Coconino County Horse Races Participation Ticket sales reflect actual paid attendance to the event in each fiscal year, while registration is an estimated total attendance that also includes free tickets given to sponsors, the horsemen (trainers and owners and their families), and employees and their guests, as well as one (1) day of the event features free admission. Utilizing this data, estimated total attendance at the Races has decreased by approximately 8% from FY 2006 to FY 2008, an indication that the popularity of the event is waning slightly. There is little to no detailed information since 2003 regarding point of origin, customer satisfaction, demographics, or other profile characteristics of the attendees to the Horse Races. It is a general observation of the Department that the day of the week in which the July 4 th holiday occurs potentially influences overall attendance to the event. Estimated total participation in the event has dropped approximately 8% from FY 2006 to FY 2008, ticket sales in that same period have decreased by approximately 24%. The Department has been working over the last three years to “tighten” policies regarding the distribution of free admission tickets in order to improve the financial performance of the event. 2.2.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, the Horse Races are among the programs sponsored by CCPR with the highest level of financial performance. Currently, the Department reports the Horse Races to recover approximately 96% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the event. There is no existing 20 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree to which the departmental indirect costs can be applied to total costs for planning and facilitation of the Horse Races event. Cliff Castle Casino and Pepsi are the major cash sponsors of the event, providing approximately $12,000 in FY 2008 directly supporting the event in addition to in-kind contributions. Additional sponsors and advertising proceeds total approximately $15,000 in revenues supporting the event. There appears to be no major corporate sponsor or advertising sales plan in place that can strategically pursue and capture significant cash and in-kind donations above and beyond existing efforts. CCPR utilizes formal agreements through competitive selection processes to provide concessions at the event which the County receives a percentage of gross sales. Additional in-kind sponsors are identified that provide limited promotion and marketing of the event. Data provided indicates that volunteers are readily used by the Sheriff’s Posse, but CCPR struggles to recruit volunteers for the overall preparation and management of the Horse Races event. 2.2.6 Marketing Promotion and marketing of the Coconino County Horse Races utilizes a diverse blend of marketing activities including advertising, publicity, multi-media outlets, and signage. While this event features adequate marketing for promotion to County residents, if CCPR seeks to attract more out-of-county visitors then it is a necessity to conduct a survey as previously mentioned to learn more about the existing point of origin for tourists visiting the races. This data can provide the background for more targeted and efficient promotion beyond the County borders with a much greater probability of measureable results. The use of in-kind sponsorship by the local radio station for promotions of the races is commendable and can potentially be replicated with additional media outlets to both reduce marketing expenditures and increase promotional impact. 2.2.7 Sustainability The Coconino County Horse Races has been around for 52 years. Recent measures indicate the that event attendance is on the decline, which may be explained by reasons beyond the event itself. This trend can be reversed, however, with aggressive program planning and marketing to the target audiences from out of the area. It is critical for more effective information about attendees to be obtained for this to be successful. A meaningful sense of arrival, logical and organized parking, and necessary facility / infrastructure redesign to better address facility and usage needs can dramatically improve the effectiveness and efficiency of managing customer access, egress and satisfaction. 2.3 Pine Mountain Amphitheater Pine Mountain Amphitheater is one of the newest additions to the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department’s facilities and assets. This outdoor amphitheater is well designed to accommodate several thousand attendees at one time, and reflects a high standard of architectural excellence when compared to most other current CCPR facilities. Events for the amhitheater are developed and facilitated through a parternship agreement with Pine Mountain Amphitheater LLC, that manages the events of this facility in tandem with another performance venue in the Flagstaff area. 21 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.3.1 Mission Support Pine Mountain Amphitheater (Amphitheater) located at Fort Tuthill County Park is a unique outdoor performance venue in Coconino County. Designed and built in context to the natural environment in which the facility is located, the amphitheater provides an aesthetic and functional space that has grown to be immensely popular for musical performances. It is the goal of CCPR staff to diversify the programming featured at the facility, to including outdoor theatre and appropriate sporting events. The facility and events of Amphitheater support the mission and agency objectives of CCPR by: 1. Creating opportunity for county parkland to be used for public gatherings and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 3. Providing facilities that accommodate programs which blend arts and culture with outdoor recreation 2.3.2 Site / Venue Review Pine Mountain Amphitheater is a large outdoor performance venue that provides for a variety of uses for diverse groups of attendees. The facility includes a large covered stage equipped with electricity and lighting to support night performances, fixed seating, lawn seating, concession and restroom amenities, controlled access points, adequate parking and access, and attractive landscaping. All aspects of the amphitheater appear to be well designed to accommodate maximum usage, reasonable maintenance expectations, and environmental considerations. Due to the terrain and expanse of Fort Tuthill County Park, a large-scale adventure sport festival could be well accommodated into the site, with Pine Mountain Amphitheater being a focal point of the festivities. 2.3.3 Public Need The findings in the 2007 Arizona SCORP report indicate that outdoor events are among the highest priorities of state and local residents for future recreational interests. Additionally, it is supported by the numerous interviews, focus groups, and public meetings conducted for the purposes of this Organizational Master Plan that the current and potential uses of Pine Mountain Amphitheater will be aligned with expressed public interest and recreation demands. 2.3.4 Participation / Attendance Based upon the data provided to PROS, Pine Mountain Amphitheater appears to accommodate up to 3,200 persons at a time, and boasts total annual usage of approximately 22,646. This is a blend of attendance at events and performances, as well as rental of the facility for private events including weddings, receptions, etc. 22 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.3.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, Pine Mountain Amphitheter and its programs perform moderatey well in terms of recovery of associated operational expenses. Currently, the Department reports the Amphitheater to recover approximately 80% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the facility and its events. There is no existing Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree to which the departmental indirect costs can be applied to total costs for planning and facilitation of Amphitheater events. Data provided indicated that BSI Construction and Honda are corporate cash sponsors of the facility for event marketing. These sponsors do not provide any financial contribution to CCPR, but rather to the management partner of the facility. Pepsi is the “official beverage sponsor” for events at the Amphitheater, but it is unclear if this requires a cash contribution or otherwise to maintain. All sponsors contribute to event marketing at the Amphitheater. Finally, Flagstaff Symphony Orchestra is an annual lessee of the Amphitheater providing two (2) free concerts each year for the public. 2.3.6 Marketing Promotion and marketing of Pine Mountain Amphitheater and its events utilize a diverse blend of marketing activities including advertising, publicity, multi-media outlets, and signage. While this event features adequate marketing for promotion to county residents, if CCPR seeks to attract more out-of-county visitors then it is a necessity to conduct a survey as previously mentioned to learn more about the existing point of origin for tourists visiting the Amphitheater. This data can provide the background for more targeted and efficient promotion beyond the County borders with a much greater probability of measureable results. 2.3.7 Sustainability The Pine Mountain Amphitheater is a relatively new addition to the CCPR system. Recent measures of public need and interest indicate that outdoor events are among the activities with the highest projected growth in upcoming years. Innovative program planning and marketing to target audiences within and from out of the area can prove this facility to be a major asset of Coconino County. It is critical for more effective information about attendees to be obtained for this to be successful. 2.4 Livestock Auction The Livestock Auction is a long-standing tradition of the Coconino County Fair, and is managed by the local 4-H and FFA clubs. This event provides a venue for the auctioning of fair animals by youth participants in the 4-H and FFA progarms. 2.4.1 Mission Support The Livestock Auction at the Coconino County Fair is an event in which the partners are youth service organizations with youth devlopment at the core of their mission. It is the position of both the 4-H and FFA clubs that the Livestock Auction is a unique learning experience and therefore provides unique childhood development opportunities and enhancement of youth familiarity with agribusiness economics. 23 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment The Livestock Auction supports the mission and agency objectives of CCPR by: 1. Creating opportunity for county parkland to be used for public gatherings and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 3. Providing facilities that accommodate programs for youth education and development 2.4.2 Site / Venue Review The Livestock Auction at the Coconino County Fair is held in the cinder barn located at the northwest corner of the fairgrounds. While this structure has great utility for vehicle and equipment storage for CCPR throughout the year and is large enough to accommodate the Auction, it is architecturally incongruent with all other facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park. It is the understanding of PROS that the cinder barn will be razed as part of the rehabilitation of the County fairgrounds. 2.4.3 Public Need Beyond providing the facility for this annual event associated with the County Fair, it is unclear whether the Livestock Auction satisfies a major aspect of public need or demand. This event is immensely popular and traditional to the partner clubs that support it, as well as being a fixture of the County Fair. It is the belief of the PROS Team that the Livestock Auction should remain as component of the Fair, but budgetary responsibility for this event should potentially be transfered to a different and more appropriate entity. 2.4.4 Participation / Attendance Participation in the Livestock Auction is unclear to PROS at this time, as no event-specific data has been collected. The event is facilitated as a component of the Coconino County Fair, which is the highest attended event managed by CCPR. It can be surmised that the Livestock Auction is well attended, but predominantly by the select audience that it serves. CCPR has no target goal for participation in the Livestock Auction for each year. 2.4.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, the Livestock Auction performs well in terms of recovery of associated operational expenses. Currently, the Department reports the event recovers approximately 95% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the event. There is no existing Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree to which the departmental indirect costs can be applied to total costs for planning and facilitation of the Livestock Auction. Based upon the data provided to PROS, the financial capacity of the Livestock Auction to recover associated costs appears to be in slight decline. It is observed by CCPR program staff that interest in the event is waning, and subsequent revenue projections are falling off. Specifically, the revenue projection for FY 2008 is estimated to be 30% lower than the revenue actuals for FY 2007. It is unclear why this projection is substantially lower than the previous year. There appears to be no major corporate sponsor or advertising plan in place that can 24 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment strategically pursue and capture significant cash and in-kind donations. 2.4.6 Marketing Promotion and marketing of the Livestock Auction is the responsibility of the 4-H and FFA partner organizations. CCPR provides promotional assistance via the CCPR website, flyers and brochures, program guides, and on-site event signage. 2.4.7 Sustainability The position of the PROS Team on the sustainability of the Livestock Auction requires interview and study with CCPR staff and strategic plans for the Coconino County Fair. While this event has been a traditional element of the Fair, it is likely that to continue the event will require additional facility, program and operational planning on the Department’s behalf. 2.5 Special Events (Lessee Events) There are multiple events throughout the year that are conducted predominantly at Fort Tuthill County Park in which private event producers and/or organizations “lease” facilities for use. These events typically utilize one (1) or more of four (4) major aspects of the park: fairgrounds, the commercial building, grandstands race track, and Sherriff’s Posse Arena. This is an innovative program that can be dramatically improved with minor shifts in pricing and use policies to better protect the assets and the ability of CCPR to recover enough costs to help pay for required maintenance to facilities as a results of this use. 2.5.1 Mission Support Lessee Events at CCPR facilities provide diverse opportunities for private individuals and/or organizations to utilize public facilities for events and activities. This program is available through a fee-based agreement between the user and CCPR, and attempts to provide equitable access to County assets for private use. Lessee Events support the mission and agency objectives of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department by: 1. Creating opportunity for county parkland to be used for private use and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 3. Leveraging facilities to generate earned revenues when not otherwised programmed for use by CCPR 2.5.2 Site / Venue Review Lessee Events take place predominantly at Fort Tuthill County Park, and are focused at four (4) major aspects of the park. The brief descriptions below describe the general condition of these facilities.  County fairgrounds The fairgrounds offer a diverse set of buildings and open areas that can be utilized for many types of events or programs, but these facilities are largely in a state of deterioration. The asphalt surfacing of the open areas between buildings is cracked significantly, large pieces have been torn out in places, and there is sinking and upheaval 25 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment in many areas. Generally, the barracks buildings appear to be in good condition, but many of the “add-on” fencing and corrals are in desperate need of repair, replacement or demolishment. The cinder barn needs replacement, as do the buildings in the center of the farigrounds currently utilized for food service. The stage is generally in a good state of repair.  Commercial Building The frame and structure of the Commercial Building is generally in a good state of repair, but the roof requires replacement in the next 5 to 10 years. The building needs renovation on the inside. This facility has tremendous opportunity for hosting small or large events for a number of uses, and could generate additional revenues from increased fees that are justified because of improved facilities. An acoustic ceiling, reconditioning and repainting walls, possible new flooring throughout, and interior overhaul in the side rooms will dramatically improve the quality of this facility for use and rental.  Grandstands Racetrack The Grandstands themselves are generally in good repair, but all of the support buildings within the complex are seriously deteriorating. Some of these buildings feature collapsed roofs and other major structural damage. The asphalt surfacing of the complex is cracked and features areas of sinking and upheaval. All wooden construction needs to be replaced and/or repainted. The racetrack and small round arena need to be resurfaced, and the rectangular arena is currently unusable because of poor surfacing. The paddock and jockey area need to be renovated, including the addition of a divided changing area, showers, and restrooms in the jockey building.  Sherriff’s Posse Arena The Sherriff’s Posse Arena appears to generally be in good condition, but requires some ongoing maintenance to accommodate heavy use throughout the year. 2.5.3 Public Need The popularity and demand placed on the facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park provide an indication of the need for providing these unique facilities for private use to individuals and groups. 2.5.4 Participation / Attendance Lessee Events generates significant visitation to Fort Tuthill County Park, with some events featuring up to 3,500 attendees. Total annual visitation to the Park from Lessee Events is 32,860 persons, reflecting significant participation from this program. It is the understanding of the PROS Team that the majorty of Lessee Events are equestrian-based and utilize the facilities designed for these uses. From the data provided, there appear to be approximately 40 events annually in which facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park are leased for private use. The number of events and their approximate size by facility are detailed in Table 5 on the following page. 26 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Event Size Facility < 100 101 – 200 201 – 1,500 > 1,500 Fairgrounds 1 - 1 3 Commercial Building 1 6 4 1 Grandstands Racetrack 2 4 3 2 Sherriff’s Posse Arena 4 5 2 1 TOTAL 8 15 10 7 Table 5: Number of Lessee Events at Fort Tuthill County Park by Size and Facility It is unclear as to whether there is a target goal for participation or capacity in Lessee Events for each year, which would reflect a more strategic (versus responsive) approach to program planning and revenue generation from facility usage. 2.5.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, Lessee Events perform well in terms of recovery of associated operational expenses. Currently, the Department reports the event recovers approximately 110% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the leased usage of facilities. There is no existing Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree the indirect maintenance costs these specific facilities or administrative costs of the Department are applied to the pricing of leased facility usage. Based upon the data provided to PROS, the financial capacity of Lessee Events to recover associated costs appears to be in slight decline because of increased deferred maintenance of select facilities as a result of heavy use. Additionally, CCPR staff projections indicate an estimated 18% less revenues for FY 2008 from FY 2007 from this program. The reason for this projected loss of revenue is potentially due to the timing of events during the summer across the divide between fiscal years. PROS observed that facility usage pricing varies by different types of organizations and different types of events. For example, there exists a price-break for all non-profit organizations which represent the majority of lessees. Additionally there are a diversity of terms that are enforced through contract agreements for different users that places the Department at a disadvantage in some cases. It is sound business practice to only use percentage of gross proceeds for events in which pricing for facility usage is based upon participation. Contract arrangements that use percentage of net proceeds are extremely difficult to reconcile and places CCPR in the position where the County is paid for facility usage based upon the user’s ability to manage their own costs well. 2.5.6 Marketing Promotion and marketing of Lessee Event opportunities appears to be limited, but effective based upon both the revenue generated and the resulting annual visitation to Fort Tuthill County Park as a result of this program. 27 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan 2.5.7 Organizational Assessment Sustainability It is the position of the PROS Team that this program is sustainable and should be continued in the future with alterations in the pricing and contract strategies for users. 2.6 Stables The stable facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park are vast and diversified, including both open-air and fully-enclosed, single-horse pens that can accommodate up to 320 horses at one time. The complex also includes a multi-stall horse washing station for users of the facilities. The stables area is juxtaposed between the Grandstands Racetrack and the Sherriff’s Posse Arena, and is well shaded within a grove of ponderosa pine. These facilities are available for leased use and are largely utilized as support facilities for events going on at the park using the arenas or racetrack. 2.6.1 Mission Support The stables provide necessary support facilities to Fort Tuthill County Park, which features extensive equestrian amenities and events. Lessee Events at CCPR facilities provide diverse opportunities for private individuals and/or organizations to utilize public facilities for events and activities. This program is available on a fee-based agreement between the user and CCPR, and attempts to provide equitable access to County assets for private use. The stables support the mission and agency objectives of CCPR by: 1. Creating opportunity for county parkland to be used for private use and economic development 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy a treasured county park with historical significance 3. Leveraging facilities to generate earned revenues when not otherwised programmed for use by CCPR 2.6.2 Site / Venue Review The stables program is only available at Fort Tuthill County Park and are potentially a tremendous amenity and reliable revenue generator for CCPR. Currently, these facilities are in substantial disrepair as a result of deferred maintenance and poor design. The major areas of focus for redevelopment or rehabilitation of these facilities are detailed below.  Poor roof design It is clear from site observation and interview with CCPR maintenance staff that the roof design of several of the “clusters” of stables is not appropriate for the area. These specific stable units feature a low-pitch roof that is grossly insufficient to facilitate snow removal during the winter. As a result, large amounts of snow accumulate and have caused the roof to collapse in multiple cases. In many cases where the roof has not yet collapsed, the weight of the snow has caused warping of the support beams. This issue continually plagues the maintenance staff each season to make repairs to these facilities. 28 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan  Organizational Assessment Poor site design Based upon observation at the site, only two of the stable buildings appear to well situated on the site. Specifically, all other stable units are aligned perpendicular to the topographical fall line, which results in flooding during large rain events. Heavy precipitation and subsequent run-off also erode existing earthen footing material on the floor of the stables. Finally, configuration of structures on the site do not properly accommodate logical traffic, parking and camping that results in extreme congestion and potential safety hazards during heavy use.  Multiple contruction styles It appears that the current inventory of stable units have been accumulated, or constructed, over a period of time. This assumption is based on the observation that there are many different styles of construction, including use of diverse materials. There is little economy of scale for maintenance tooling and supplies as a result of this diversity. Additionally, some units tend to be favored over others because of design differences, creating an imbalance of usage onto select units.  Deferred maintenance As a result of insufficient maintenance funds being available to CCPR to perform ongoing maintenance of these, a substantial backlog of deferred maintenance has accumulated regarding the stables. Painting, repairs, and capital replacement in some cases has reached a proportion that is difficult for CCPR maintenance staff to complete prior to the upcoming high usage season. 2.6.3 Public Need The popularity and demand for the stable facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park is from a small proportion of citizens of Coconino County that have a special interest in equestrian facilities. Additionally, there are two private providers within the community of Flagstaff, one of which offers facilities within a comparable price range. While this user group is small and traditionally vocal in the community, the elevated visibility of their interests should not be an indication of true public need. In fact, despite vocal protests to the contrary the County’s continued investment into subsidizing the availability of stable facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park does not serve an element of public need that is truly representative of the population. 2.6.4 Participation / Attendance The stable facilities have the capacity to accommodate up to 320 horses at one time. CCPR staff indicate there are a relatively small number of weekends (generally centered around large Lessee Events) in which the usable stables are at 100% capacity. Overall, the facility operates at less than 15% annual occupancy, and less than 30% overall occupancy during the 140-day peak season from May 1 to September 30. It is unclear as to whether there is a target goal for participation or capacity for stable rentals each year, which would reflect a more strategic (versus responsive) approach to program planning and revenue generation from facility usage. 29 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.6.5 Financial Performance As indicated in the Financial Capacity Analysis associated with this project, the stables perform moderately well in terms of recovery of associated operational expenses. Currently, the Department reports the event recovers approximately 85% of associated expenses through earned revenues attributed solely to the leased usage of facilities. There is no existing Department policy detailing requirements for program cost recovery. Additionally, the budget structure utilized by the Department makes it difficult to assess the degree the indirect maintenance costs these specific facilities or administrative costs of the Department are applied to the pricing of leased facility usage. Based upon the data provided to PROS, the financial capacity of the stables to recover associated costs appears to be on the rise. CCPR staff projections indicate an estimated 20% increase in revenues for from FY 2007 to FY 2008 in this program. The reason for this projected increase in revenues is improved fiscal management of incoming receipts and expenses. 2.6.6 Marketing There appears to be little or no promotion and marketing of the stables facilities. More extensive marketing wil be recommended in the Organizational Master Plan after facility improvements have been made. 2.6.7 Sustainability It is the position of the PROS Team that this program is sustainable, but should be critically evaluated either to be operated by private concessionaire and/or to feature alterations in the pricing and fees for users. 2.7 Outdoor Education – “Discover Your Parks” The outdoor education programs of CCPR are relatively new and being piloted in the winter/spring 2008. These programs are a innovative addition to CCPR services and represent a programmatic approach more traditional to public park and recreation departments. Little performance data is available regarding these programs given their infancy, but a cursory review of the approach is provided in this assessment. 2.7.1 Mission Support The developing outdoor education programs of CCPR have the following articulated mission and goals: Mission: “To offer recreational and educational opportunities and events to the community through a diverse range of programming at County Parks and surrounding areas.” Goals:  “Maintain low CCPR program operational costs to keep this program free or inexpensive for participants.”  “Execute six (6) programs in 2008 involving 100 participants.”  “Create programming that allows for a wide range of ages and abilities to attend.”  “Provide opportnuities that are not currently offered in our community.” 30 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment The outdoor education program supports the mission and agency objectives of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department by: 1. Creating opportunities for community members to experience the benefits of quality outdoor recreation 2. Providing access and opportunity for residents and visitors to enjoy outdoor programs at county parks 3. Leveraging private partners and organizations to maintain equitable pricing of programs for participants 2.7.2 Site / Venue Review Outdoor education programs are being developed and scheduled for multiple sites throughout the CCRP system. PROS commends the Department in purposely choosing to design a blend of programs that features the natural and/or cultural significance of different parks in the System. Additionally, the distribution of programs throughout the County System ensures that access to programs is equitable also by geographic distribution. 2.7.3 Public Need Based upon participation levels at the recently facilitated programs, as well as the results of the community input process of this project, there is expressed public need for a limited quantity of quality outdoor programs introducing youth and adults to the outdoors. These programs should vary from basic education of the outdoors, to appropriate skills to learn in the outdoors. Future programs can also include clinics and workshops in organic gardening, responsible landscaping, range management for private landowners, and other educational workshops that can feature instructors from outside CCPR staff. 2.7.4 Participation / Attendance The single program that has been facilitated reported 23 participants, which is higher than CCPR staff anticipated. The forcasted goal of 100 participants in 2008 is realistic and easily obtainable. Participation levels in 2008 should be utilized to establish challenging, but realistic goals for 2009 and beyond. 2.7.5 Financial Performance The financial performance of outdoor education programs is unavailable at this time. It is presumed that the application of indirect costs, including program staff time, would indicate these programs are less than 50% cost recovery. An objective of later stages of this Organizational Master Plan will be to establish realistic financial goals for this program. 2.7.6 Marketing Marketing of these programs has been observed to utilized creative partnships and relationships within the community to expose the opportunity to the target markets. It is an objective of later stages of this Organizational Master Plan to detail potential cooperative marketing strategies to support these programs. 2.7.7 Sustainability It is the position of the PROS Team that this program is sustainable, and can continue to reflect programs that are more representative of the “general good” of the population. It is improtant for Department and County leadership to understand these programs will rarely feature significant financial returns. 31 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Section 3 - Additional CCPR Services Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department currently provides traditional services through existing facilities for public reservation and private rental including:  Camping  Picnic ramada rental  Reservable sports field While there is no occupancy data currently available in which to measure the capacity versus demand of these facilities, overall financial performance data is detailed in Table 6 below. FY 2008 Direct Expenses FY 2008 Revenues % Direct Cost Recovery Fort Tuthill Campground $43,105 $45,000 104% Fort Tuthill Picnic Ramadas $50,240 $8,000 16% Cataract Lake Campground $15,565 $4,500 13% Peaks View Sports Field and Ramada $42,731 -- -- Service / Facility Table 6: Budget Performance of Additional Services 32 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Methodology The community input process engaged key leadership in one-on-one interviews, focus groups with key stakeholders and user groups, public forums open to all residents and a statistically valid household survey. The community input represents qualitative and quantitative data that is used to define need, values, and vision for parks and recreation in Coconino County. The following is a list of the different methods used and various groups that comprised the community input process.    Seven (7) focus groups (100+ individuals - geographically distributed throughout the County) o Community Leaders o Park and Recreation Commission o Park Department Staff o Key Stakeholder Groups o Partners o General Recreation Users Six (6) Public Forums (150+ residents) o Page, AZ o Tuba City, AZ o Willliams, AZ o Sedona, AZ o Flagstaff, AZ o Fredonia, AZ Countywide Household Survey o Random Sample Telephone Survey o 603 valid responses This input process was designed to gather information through a broad format to gain insight into the wide variety of current and potential users and stakeholders in order to create a balanced and far reaching Organizational Master Plan. From this input, community values emerged that serve to frame the overall strategic objectives, and the supporting strategies and actions. 33 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 1.2 Summary of Findings Detailed responses from participants in the stakeholder interviews as well as the public meetings are included in Appendix B and C of this report. The following points summarize the responses of public opinion as captured in these public meetings and interview sessions.     Strengths o County’s greatest asset is its natural beauty o Fairly progressive County leadership that recognizes the value of parks, open space and recreation amenities o Department has a foothold of credibility due to CPOS and current park development o Small, nimble organization able to respond to changes quickly Issues o Significant lack of awareness of CCPR outside of Flagstaff area including internal County agencies o Bureaucracy and internal agency coordination within County limits productivity and effectiveness o County Park System is not balanced with respect to amount of park land or geographic distribution - “System is Flagstaff centric” o Maintaining and operating the System with limited funding o County will be critical partner for camping sites with U.S. Forest Service o Flagstaff does not recognize the tremendous economic impact of Fort Tuthill on local businesses o County Park System does not offer a real sense of place o Nothing in the County is seen as a universal “Shining Star” – something that everyone can be proud of Role of County Park System o Support sustainable tourism o Promote and expand tourism associated with natural and habitat experiences o Manage facilities and programs within region; maintain access to open space; and be a resource to facilitate/coordinate technical support and long range planning o Partner with local governments and non-profits for operations of remote County parks Facility and Program Needs Identified o Additional passive and active parks and recreation – sites and amenities throughout County o Protect and preserve unique natural resources o Upgrade Fort Tuthill to be the County’s “Signature” Park 34 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan  Organizational Assessment o Educational and interpretive facilities and programs o Joint ventures with outlying cities and communities for park development o Winter recreation areas o Tourism support facilities o Health and wellness programs in rural communities Priorities o Establish a dedicated funding mechanism to ensure long-term sustainability of System o CCPR to have a presence throughout the County o Identify most precious natural resources and open space and provide protection for it o Create a unique brand identity that positions System as a lead agency o Expand CCPR’s role into oversight of larger recreation and tourism coordinator and facilitator Section 2 -Stakeholder Interviews 2.1 Methodology The PROS Team utilized contacts and relationships of Department officials to identify stakeholders and organized the invitation and logistics for the focus groups and public forums. Meetings were scheduled in various areas of the county based on population centers with focus groups and public forums grouped together to facilitate efficient travel. The PROS Team members worked with the Department to identify all groups and key contact persons for each group. The focus groups were all asked the same questions to help identify common trends related to vision, values, and key issues and to provide insight into facility and program needs, operational issues, and opportunities with the System by directly identifying personal value ascribed to parks, trails, recreation and open space. This information provides critical input into other tasks including the Facilities/Recreation Program Development Plan, Financial Plan and the final Organizational Master Plan. Seven (7) focus groups were conducted in geographically distributed areas throughout the county and involved a wide range of stakeholders representing a balanced array of interests. These interests included parks and open space, recreation activities, environmental stewardship, partners, regulatory agencies, county staff and appointed officials and elected officials. The dates and locations of the focus groups included:  Tuesday, October 16 in Page, AZ - Public Safety Building  Wednesday, October 17 in Tuba City, AZ - Tuba City High School  Thursday and Friday, October 18 and 19 in Flagstaff, AZ – Coconino County Community Services Building and Administration Building  Tuesday and Thursday, October 23 and 25 in Flagstaff, AZ - Staff and Commissioners, Fort Tuthill 35 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 2.2 Areas of Focus The stakeholder focus group interviews sought to capture public opinion regarding parks and open space, recreation activities, environmental stewardship, and partnerships as it pertains to Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. The summary of findings was developed from responses to the following 12 questions and subsequent discussions: 1. Have you used any of the CCPR facilities, parks and programs? If so what parks, recreation facilities or programs have you used? 2. Have you used other recreation agencies including public, private or not-forprofit in the County? How do they compare with the County's facilities and/or programs? 3. What are the strengths of the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department that we need to build on for this plan? 4. What are the key issues facing Coconino County as a whole? County Parks and Recreation, specifically? 5. How would you describe the values of the residents in Coconino County as it applies to parks and recreation? 6. Coconino County has six (6) parks with approximately 600 acres. Based on your understanding and experience, how balanced do you think the parks and recreation system is in terms of park types, facilities and programs? 7. What role should Coconino County serve in providing parks and recreation facilities and programs throughout? 8. What are the parks and recreation facility needs for the County as it applies to both indoor and outdoor facilities? 9. What are the recreation program needs you hear about that are needed in the County? 10. Are there any operational or maintenance issues that need to be addressed in the plan? 11. Currently, the major portion (75%+/-) of the Department’s Operations &Maintenance budget is funded from net profits from the County Fair and County Horse Race. This funding is consumed by existing service requirements. a. What are your feelings regarding this approach? b. Are there other opportunities or approaches for funding and/or partnering in Coconino County for the development or delivery of recreation facilities or programs? c. Should user fees cover all costs for participation in a program or use of a facility? d. Should user fees cover all costs for Department administration and maintenance operations? 36 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 12. If you could change one thing in parks and recreation in Coconino County in the next 10 years what would it be? Detailed responses to each of these questions from the focus group sessions are included in Appendix B. Section 3 - Community Forums Findings Summary 3.1 Purpose and Methodology The PROS Team conducted six (6) public forums throughout the County to gather insight from citizens at large. County staff in conjunction with PROS Team members utilized neutral locations and worked to gain maximum media exposure to inform citizens of the purpose and importance of the meetings and clearly note time and locations. County staff assisted in the outreach and coordination of these meetings including preparing and distributing press releases and related media contacts, coordinating the invitations to stakeholders and their respective constituencies, facilitating meeting room logistics and assisting in attendee sign-in and greetings. PROS Team members facilitated the public forums to gain an understanding of residents opinions and perceptions surrounding parks and recreation. An agenda was provided to the participants to maintain the focus and purpose of the meeting and ensured coverage of all issues. Professional facilitation managed and directed the sessions toward open and constructive input. The six (6) locations of the public forums included:  Tuesday, October 16 in Page, AZ – Page Public Library  Wednesday, October 17 in Tuba City, AZ – Tuba City High School  Tuesday, October 23 in Willliams, AZ – Williams City Council Chambers  Wednesday, October 24 in Sedona, AZ – Jordan Historical Park  Wednesday, October 24 in Flagstaff, AZ – NAU Forest Science Auditorium  Thursday, October 25 in Fredonia, AZ – Town Council Chambers The PROS Team and County staff worked with local community leaders to develop a customized outreach approach for each community. A summary of outreach methods included:  Ninety (90) direct mail and telephone follow-up invitations to cross-section of stakeholders for focus groups  Direct mail to more than 385 individuals/organizations informing and inviting them to public forums  Thirteen (13) public meeting notices in six (6) local and regional newspapers prior to public forums for each community  News release and Public Service Announcements (PSA) sent to 45 local and regional media providers  Purchased 25 PSA spots on KNAU over eight (8) day period  Extended public comment opportunity through questionnaire on County website 37 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 3.3 Areas of Focus The public forums sought to capture public opinion regarding parks and open space, key issues, community needs, recreation activities, partnerships, and priorities as it pertains to Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. The summary of findings was developed from responses to the following six (6) questions or areas of focus, and the subsequent discussions: 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize? 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation? 3. What parks and facilities are needed? 4. What recreation programs are needed? 5. What are the funding and partnership opportunities that should be addressed by CCPR? 6. What should be the short and long-term priorities for CCPR? Detailed responses to each of these questions from the public forums are included in Appendix C. Section 4 -Household Survey The PROS Team commissioned the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University to conduct a household survey of County residents. The survey focused on understanding perspectives residents have of County parks, experiences and use of County parks, and desired programs. The survey also explored support for various types of funding options. The survey was conducted between February 16 and February 24, 2008, with 603 randomly-selected Coconino County residents, 18 years of age and older. Due to population distribution and sample size constraints, sample specifications were unable to produce statistically valid results that clearly demonstrate regional differences and preferences for parks and recreation within Coconino County. It is locally understood that there are regional distinctions of community preferences, as well as diverse community needs. The survey analysis reviewed for any point of reference that can support the observations and findings of the public forums and focus groups. Most importantly, the survey analysis is a useful tool to be utilized in concert with the other forms of community input facilitated with the project. Listed and unlisted residential households have similar probabilities of being included in the RDD study. Potential respondents were screened for living within County boundaries and for considering the County to be their primary place of residence. Calling took place every day of the week, with morning, afternoon and evening shifts. The average length of the survey was approximately 12 minutes. 38 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Summary of Findings  Coconino County residents are very aware of their Parks and Recreation department (78%) and are regularly visiting their parks. Two-thirds (63%) of residents have visited a County park in the last 12 months. Of the remaining one-third who did not visit within the last year, 28% have visited a County park in the past. Respondents reported visiting Fort Tuthill the most, with 49% saying they have visited this park in the last 12 months. Nineteen percent (19%) reported visiting Peaks View Park and 16% reported visiting Sawmill Park. When asked why they did not visit parks more often, the most common reason given by nonvisitors was that parks are viewed as too far from their home (28%). The second most common explanation for not visiting was lack of time (23%). When asked to rank their interest in various types of parks, residents rated “natural areas and open spaces” highest, followed by “corridor trails.” When asked to rank their interest in new recreation programs, residents strongly preferred “nature education” and “adventure camps.” Methodology Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department, in collaboration with PROS Consulting, is undertaking an organizational master plan. As part of this plan, PROS commissioned the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University to conduct a telephone survey of County residents. The survey focused on understanding perspectives residents have of county parks, experiences and use of county parks, and desired programs. The survey also explored support for various types of funding options. The survey was conducted between February 16 and February 24, 2008, with 603 randomly-selected Coconino County residents, 18 years of age and older. Social Research Laboratory and the PROS Team collaboratively developed the survey instrument. Once written, the survey instrument was thoroughly pre-tested before data collection was initiated. The survey utilized a random-digit dial (RDD) sampling technique to generate a representative sample of households living in Coconino County. RDD produces a more representative sample of the population than other sampling methods because all households with working telephones have an equal chance of being contacted. Listed and unlisted residential households have similar probabilities of being included in the RDD study. Potential respondents were screened for living within County boundaries and for considering the County to be their primary place of residence. Calling took place every day of the week, with morning, afternoon and evening shifts. The average length of the survey was approximately 12 minutes. Margin of Error The “sampling error” associated with the 603 person survey drawn from a population the size of Coconino County is +/- 3.97 percent at a 95% confidence level. “Sampling error” is a social science term that describes the probable difference between interviewing everyone in a given population and interviewing a sample drawn from that population. The percentages obtained in  These findings are provided by the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Citizen Survey (2008) performed by the Social Research Laboratory of Northern Arizona University. 39 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment telephone surveys such as these are estimates of what the percentage would be if the entire population had been surveyed. Survey Implementation Once a phone contact was initiated, trained interviewers introduced the survey to potential respondents by identifying the name of the calling center and the purpose of the survey. Respondents were assured that nothing was being sold or solicited, and they were guaranteed confidentiality of responses. Respondents were asked for their consent to take the survey and told the survey would take approximately 10 to 12 minutes to complete. Every effort was made to obtain the highest possible completion rate. Several techniques were employed to achieve this goal. Survey fielding utilized an established pattern of callbacks to minimize non-sampling errors that occur from certain types of people not being available at particular times of the day. Also, a refusal conversion process helped to maintain the integrity of the original sampling framework and minimize non-response bias in sampling. In the refusal conversion process, declined interviews were reattempted using a prescribed callback schedule. The first time a respondent declined to participate in the survey, the respondent was coded as a “soft-refusal.” The telephone number was returned to the sample database and called again by a skilled “refusal converter,” an interviewer specially trained to convert refusals into completed interviews. If a respondent refused a second time, they were coded as a “medium-refusal” and re-contacted by a skilled interviewer in an attempt to complete the interview. If the respondent refused a third time, they were coded as a “hard-refusal” and their number was removed from the sample database. Telephone numbers that were busy, rang without answer, or answered by an answering machine were called a minimum of ten times at different hours of different days before being removed from the sample database. Once “dead,” another phone number in the sample was substituted for the original number. This “call-back” procedure minimized the possibility of nonrandom bias from entering into the data. Quality Control The Social Research Laboratory utilized several quality checks in the collection of data. All interviewers were thoroughly trained in telephone surveying methodology prior to interviewing. After several general training sessions, interviewers received training specific to this project and remained in practice mode until maximum proficiency was reached. Once an interviewer was prepared to administer the survey, supervisors performed frequent and regular monitoring of calls and data collection. Supervisors trained to check on the accuracy and validity of data collection completed a “supervisor call-back” of randomly selected calls. Each calling shift held a pre-shift meeting that prepped interviewers on updates and changes in survey procedures. Interviewer meetings were held regularly and meetings with calling center staff were also held throughout the fielding of the survey to address questions that may have arisen. Study Limitations The goal of this study was to interview a representative sample of adults from households within Coconino County, Arizona. However, despite the use of rigorous scientific methodology, all telephone sample studies face certain challenges and limitations. Only households that contain a working telephone were capable of participating in the study. Other types of survey methodologies were not used to reach residents who may not have a working telephone in the home. Random-digit dial (RDD) telephone sampling generates telephone numbers that are both 40 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment listed and unlisted. Since telephone companies’ boundaries for telephone exchange areas are not necessarily coterminous with geopolitical boundaries such as counties, telephone companies are not exact in assigning phone numbers within a defined geographical region. The survey was administered in English and Spanish, as these two languages are the widest spoken languages in the state. Survey data was weighted by gender to compensate for differential participation by men and women. Detailed findings from the survey are provided in Appendix D. 41 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT Section 1 -Financial Assessment Methodology As a key element of the Organizational Master Plan, the PROS Team reviewed available information to assess the financial situation of the Department. The revenues, expenditures, and capital funds were analyzed to identify trends and assess the Department's financial strength. Department programs were studied for the level of cost recovered by user fees and charges. Policies that shape financial strength and long term sustainability were examined. Last, the Department's tracking of costs and services was analyzed to assess the Department's readiness to move to a cost of service basis for pricing its services The PROS Team reviewed the detailed cost and activity information prepared by the Department staff. Cost and activity data reviewed by PROS is listed below:            Annual Adopted Budget - Fiscal Year 2008 Performance Measures February 2008 Event cost analysis - 2008 Sponsorship policy User fee policy Public-private partnership policy Park use policies Amphitheater revenues and expenditures Amphitheater contract details Department expenditures and revenues from the past five years Capital funding program Section 2 - Assessment of Financial Strength The operating revenues and expenditures for fiscal years ending 2003 through the 2008 were analyzed to assess the financial situation. The operating revenues include earned revenues including fees and charges, rentals, and interest income. The operating expenditures include all costs of operations excluding capital program costs. $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Years Ending Revenues Expenditures Linear (Revenues) Linear (Expenditures) Figure 1 – Operating Revenue and Expense Trends FY 2003 to FY 2008 42 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment The operating expenditures exceeded the earned revenues for each year as shown in Figure 1 on the previous page. This operating deficit between operating revenues and expenditures is restored by the County’s General Revenues. For the review period, the operating revenues covered between 69% of the operating expenditures in FYE 2003 to a projected 74% in FYE 2008. The highest recovery is 80% in FYE 2005. While the percent of cost recovery from operating revenues has increased, the County General Fund contribution has also increased. The estimated FYE 2007 general fund contribution is $393,901 and the projected FYE 2008 contribution is $617,271. The trend lines show that the expenditures are increasing slightly more than the increasing revenues. Future expenditure projections are potentially unreliable as a result of unclear budgetary obligations. Future CCPR acquisitions, CPOS-funded redeveloped facilities, programmatic changes, or increases in operational requirements are necessary to address previously deferred maintenance. Figure 2 below shows the mix of revenue sources by year along with a trend indicator from the previous fiscal period. The operating revenues are increasing year to year, but are growing at a lower rate than the operating expenditures. The receipts from the annual Coconino County Horse Races increased between 2003 and 2006. Then in FY 2007, the Horse Race revenues dramatically decreased by 10%. The Horse Race revenues are one of two major revenue sources for the Department. The other major revenue source is the County Fair that shows increasing revenues during the review period. Revenue Categories Park Operations Fair Racing Division Stable Operations Events Amphitheater Livestock Auction Thinning Projects (Grants) CPOS-Funded Park Operations & Maintenance Trend Description Increase Decrease Flat 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 61,949 59,002 71,976 89,415 107,899 343,665 321,508 303,652 333,190 388,162 403,013 442,760 436,787 462,226 415,028 48,683 32,267 50,949 59,010 76,543 55,501 127,972 93,702 121,040 131,834 - - 81,692 89,276 112,238 - 64,122 91,255 121,055 34,532 43,589 68,960 11,877 126,610 - 153,704 145,048 152,308 199,590 Trend          Symbol    Figure 2 – Operating Revenue Trends by Category 43 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 3.1 General Fund Contribution County General Funds have traditionally funded a portion of the Department operations. The contribution trend, shown in Figure 3, has increased from $469,000 in FYE 2003 to $617,000 in projected FYE 2008. If the trend continues, the County’s General Fund contribution to the Department could be more than $800,000 by FYE 2013. $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fiscal Year Ending General Fund Contribution Figure 3 – General Fund Contribution 3.2 Capital Program Capital improvements are primarily funded through a dedicated sales tax. The sales tax revenues are for the development of specific capital projects identified in the sales tax election. The 1/8 cent sales tax started on January 1, 2003, after voters approved the initiative with designated capital projects outlined in the package details. The $33 million capital program will be developed over a ten (10) year period. The sales tax will end when the $33 million maximum revenues is attained. Based on our projections, the sales tax will end in September, 2014. Planned capital expenditures by year are shown in Figure 4 on the following page. Projected expenditures for FYE 2010 are significantly greater than other years and could be difficult to attain without additional staff or contracted project management to coordinate the larger amounts and greater number of individual projects. Project expenditures for fiscal years ending 2009 and 2011 are higher than past years and could also present problems with project coordination and supervision. Figure 4 does not include $1,489,743 in earned interest associated with the CPOS revenues, which represents a total planned expenditure of approximately $33,000,000. 44 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Project Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Project Amount $142,996 $476,004 $2,470,647 $1,026,512 $3,897,316 $1,414,570 $4,028,254 $11,888,672 $4,580,743 $1,584,542 Total $31,510,257 Figure 4 – Capital Spending Plan 3.3 Debt Capacity The Department’s capital program is funded by dedicated sales tax revenues. Department revenues combined with the County General Fund contribution provide for the operations and maintenance of park system and programs. Operating revenues for the Department are not sufficient to fund additional capital projects through debt. 3.4 Deferred Maintenance There is significant deferred maintenance that has accumulated at County parks, with the majority present at Fort Tuthill. This is a result of diminished operating budgets available to CCPR to address ongoing facility needs. Heavy use, seasonal severity of natural elements and climate, facility design, and site configuration aspects are strong contributors to the deterioration of facilities and structures at a more rapid pace than would normally be expected. Specific examples of this include the stables, County Fairgrounds, and Grandstands Racetrack. A sample of deferred maintenance projects, excluding those in the CPOS program, and their estimated costs to address are provided in Table 7 on the following page. This information was taken from the 2005 Coconino County CIP Report, as well as interviews with CCPR staff and general site observations. Additionally, the estimated costs provided are predominantly from the 2005 capital projects report. These deferred projects do not include ongoing minor repair that is frequently postponed due to unavailable human resources to address, nor does it include newly identified capital repair and replacement projects that address existing deteriorated facility conditions. An example of this includes upgrading utilities and infrastructure of Fort Tuthill to reduce annual operational expenditures necessary to accommodate the crowds at existing large-scale events. Projects identified here also do not include those that are preliminary or proposed to enhance existing or develop new facilities to improve the performance of specific parks. Examples of this include an upgraded campground and a visitor center both at Fort Tuthill. 45 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Project Estimated Cost Electrical distribution requirements FTCP annex remodel County Fairgrounds renovation (non-CPOS) $24,000 $100,000 $1,365,000 Arena lighting (Grandstands) $65,000 Grandstands rehabiitation $80,000 Grandstands restroom replacement Grandstands secondary electric distribution Grandstands racetrack and rectangular arena resurfacing FTCP stables renovation FTCP stables shower building Portable bleachers FTCO water and sewer infrastruction repair and upgrade Entrance signs – Raymond and PHGW FTCP cinder barn demolition $250,000 $55,000 $140,000 $3,481,600 $45,000 $175,700 $7,270,000 $5,000 $70,000 OTHER: OTHER: OTHER: TOTAL $13,096,300 Table 7– Current Deferred Maintenance 3.5 Summary Observations on Financial Strength Citizens of Coconino County have made a significant contribution toward enhancing and expanding the Department’s facilities with the CPOS initiative. Programming and maintaining the new facilities will enhance Department services and the citizens’ experiences. County general funds are not currently closely linked to public benefits and mission components of the Department. The County can improve current funding of operations and maintenance for parks operations and facilities that are open to the public as a public service. Not all facilities and programs that are exclusive/non-public are recovering a minimum of 100% of the direct costs associated with those facilities and programs. Earned revenues are essential to maintaining the level of general fund contributions to the Department. This includes annually reviewing fees and charges and looking for new services and programs that will increase the use of available facilities. The Department’s financial strength may be improved with additional funding and stronger efforts in marketing, advertising, and programming of new and existing facilities. 46 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Section 3 - Cost Recovery Analysis The cost recovery analysis includes different types of costs, as cost recovery goals are often determined according to the type of cost incurred. Direct costs are those expenditures that are tracked directly with the program or service in the Department’s financial reports. Departmental indirect costs are expenditures that are essential to delivering programs and services, and facility maintenance, but are tracked separately in the Department’s financial reporting. These include departmental administrative and overhead costs, park maintenance, and non-program related external service charges. Departmental indirect costs also include age and external charges for that are not directly linked to providing a program or service, but are required to manage the Department. Capital costs include facility development costs and the cost of major repairs and rehabilitation. 3.4 Fees and Charges The Department performs a periodic review of fees and charges to compare the established fees to the cost of providing services and facilities. The current methodology for comparing costs and fees includes direct labor, equipment, supplies and other direct costs. 3.4.2 Amphitheater The Amphitheater revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $77,459 and the direct expenditures are projected to be $86,610 resulting in a deficit of $8,184.13. A fifty cent (50¢) per attendee fee increase would increase revenues to cover 100% of the direct costs. Larger increases in Amphitheater fees and charges would be required to recover 100% of the indirect and direct costs. 3.4.3 Fair The County Fair revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $448,169 and the direct expenditures are projected at $306,722. The Fair covers all of its direct costs. Fair revenues would need to increase by 14% to cover Department administrative costs based on the percent of Fair budget to total budget. Additional increases in revenues are needed to cover all costs including capital repair and renewal. The Fair has paid attendance of 20,312 for FYE 2007. 3.4.4 Horse Race The Horse Race revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $397,217 and the direct expenditures are projected to be $414,747, representing a recovery of approximately 96% of direct costs. With a total attendance of 5,501 for FYE 2007, PROS would anticipate that the Race activities have the capacity to generate 100% of all costs as the Race is a fee for admission activity. 3.4.5 Stable Operations The Stable Operations revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $91,500 and the direct expenditures are budgeted at $107,492 resulting in a direct cost recovery of 85%. The Stable Operations is an exclusive use service and is normally expected to recovery a minimum of 100% of direct costs. 3.4.6 Lessee Events The Lessee Event revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $108,600 and the direct expenditures are projected to be $91,327, a projected recovery of approximately 119% of direct costs. 47 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 3.4.7 Livestock Auction The Livestock Auction revenues for FYE 2008 are projected to be $84,600 and the direct expenditures are budgeted at $89,173. The Auction reviews have historically been approximately 100% of direct costs with the five year average at 103%. 3.5 Cost Recovery from Fees and Charges The average revenues from programs and services are approximately 75% of the average annual operating expenditures. With industry best practices between 40% and 60% based on PROS’ experience and industry knowledge, the Department is performing better than most park systems with respect to cost recovery from operating revenues. 3.6 Administrative and Indirect Costs The current budget format and structure makes it difficult to ascertain the true costs of CCPR specific facilities, programs, and services. This is predominantly true in the case of departmental indirect costs. Currently, there are fourteen (14) independent budgets, or accounts, in which CCPR tracks direct costs. Some of these accounts carry portions of the overall administrative costs of the agency, but those portions are not equally shared or distributed. Given the current budget structure, it is nearly impossible to accurately determine the quantity of departmental indirect costs that are recovered by any one specific facility, program, or event. Direct and indirect cost allocation to specific facilities, programs, and services can be greatly improved through a budget restructuring to assist the Department to more efficiently perform budget management and reporting. 3.7 PROS Observations on Cost Recovery The Department needs to continue efforts to improve activity costing to include maintenance, renewal and administrative costs to document the total costs of programs and services. The allocation of departmental indirect costs to programs and service will better demonstrate the revenue recovery and the amount of general fund contributions to each program and service. Routine review of fees and charges, as well as pricing practices in accordance with achieving County goals can be improved to recover more operating costs through earned revenues. Citizen understanding of Department operations is an important part of the cost recovery. General fund contribution levels are not well communicated to users and participants. Citizens will better appreciate the facilities and programs when they understand the County’s investment in these services. 48 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Section 4 - Policies to Shape Financial Strength 4.4 User Fee Policy A User Fee Policy has been written and adopted by the Department to guide the establishment of fees and charges. The Policy provides a philosophical framework for setting fees and charges and states that revenues “shall be used solely for the acquisition, maintenance, operation, or management of Coconino County Parks and Recreation.” Current pricing methodology for the Department includes direct labor, equipment and supplies. However, the departmental indirect costs of supporting programs, such as facility, overhead and administrative costs should also be considered in the establishment of fees and charges. Facility costs should be evaluated with respect to the degree of exclusiveness of equipment and facility use that a program requires. A program that requires exclusive use of a part of a facility would include a proportional part of the facilities costs. Allocation of departmental indirect costs to facilities and programs may not always be directly tracked through accounting or reporting systems. Frequently, cost allocations must be estimates of the amount of resources used by the related programs or facilities. For example, maintenance costs may be allocated by the number of square feet maintained or the number of times a facility is used during a period. Administrative costs may be allocated on a percent of the budgets of the various work groups. Other indirect costs such as utilities and janitorial supplies may be allocated on the size of facility or the number of attendees/participants. Department staff should set desired direct costs recovery goals for each major program area. However, the adopted user fee policy does not have specific cost recovery guidelines for indirect costs. Cost recovery guidelines are useful for the establishment of specific program fees. Recovery guides also help programmers in developing program content, and materials and supplies that may be included in the program fee. The following chart (Table 8) compares industry-wide cost recovery percentages to the Department's recreation programs, including direct and indirect costs. Typical Total Cost Recovery Rates Preliminary CCPR Direct Cost Recovery Rates Amphitheater 100% 89% Fair 100% 146% Horse Races 100% 96% Lessee Events 100% 119% Stable Operations 100% 85% Livestock Auction 100% 95% Program/Service Table 8 – Comparison of Recovery Rates 49 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 4.4.2 Guidelines for Development of Fees and Charges In addition to recovery of costs, there are other parameters to consider in developing fees and charges including:        Level of Exclusivity Pricing Age Segment Pricing Incentive Pricing Group Discounting and Packaging Primetime Non-primetime Organization type (profit / non-profit) Currently, the Department does not feature incentive pricing, group discounts, or primetime/non-primetime classifications as a component of its pricing and fee guidelines. Incentive pricing may be used for programs that provide significant social benefits or for new programs and services where program content and adequacy of the facilities needs testing. Any program subsidy should be communicated to the program participants to demonstrate the investment that the County is making to parks facilities and programs. 4.5 Policies for Sponsorship, Partnership, & Concession The Department has established policies for Sponsorships, Partnerships, and Concessions. These policies include general guidelines, participant responsibilities and risk management. In regards to the Concession policy, minimum commissions or fees are not established, to facilitate the bid process. Sponsorship and Partnership policies appear to be focused on the County Fair and Horse Race. There are opportunities for the Department to improve earned revenues by enhancing sponsorships and partnerships for all facilities, programs and smaller events. 4.5.2 Pricing Policy Elements Three objectives of pricing user fees are:    Equity Revenue production Efficiency Equity means that those who benefit from the service should pay for it; and those who benefit the most should pay the most. The type of service will directly determine the cost recovery strategy or pricing strategy to be used in pricing park and recreation services. Public agencies offer three kinds of services.  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 open use and unreserved facilities and programs. These services are not free to the public without exclusive use. Sitting in a park or walking a trail is a public use.  Merit services can be priced using either a partial overhead pricing strategy or a 50 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment variable cost pricing strategy. Partial overhead pricing strategies recover all direct operating costs and some determined portion of departmental indirect costs. The portion of fixed costs not covered by the price established represents the general fund subsidy. Whatever the level of general fund subsidy, the Department needs to effectively communicate the level of subsidy being provided by the County. Social and health related programs are example of merit services.  Private park and recreation services, where only the user benefits, are priced using a full cost recovery strategy by most park agencies. The price of this particular service is intended to recover all fixed and variable costs associated with the service. The Horse Races and Amphitheater are example of private services. Revenue production means that user fees from parks and recreation programs and activities contribute to the overall Park and Recreation budget. Revenue production gives the Department needed cash flow for projects not budgeted in that year’s budget. It gives flexibility in providing services not normally provided through tax dollars, such as promotional dollars for programs and services. Revenue production gives the Department in-kind dollars for grant matches and the ability to enhance facilities. Revenue production offsets tax dollars otherwise spent on a program that over time has lost enthusiasm by the public but would require additional tax dollars to continue. Horse racing is an example of a decrease in market demand that results in additional subsidy. Revenue dollars paid by individuals confirm the value of the experience that the individual obtains from the services provided by the Department. Efficiency is maintained when the Department relies on revenue dollars because expenditures are not made unless necessary revenues are available. Priorities in management of parklands, resources and activities are clearly defined and become priorities because direct user dollars are associated with the activities that the public wants. Cost tracking of dollars spent for each activity is documented. An effective pricing policy can achieve six (6) positive results:       Reduce congestion and overcrowding Indicate clientele demand and support Increase positive consumer attitudes Provide encouragement to the private sector (so it can compete with us, and we can reallocate our resources when necessary) Provide incentive to achieve community goals Ensures stronger accountability on agency staff and management 51 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment PROS Observations on Policies The Department can improve documentation of desired cost recovery goals for each facility, service and program. The results should be documented at the end of each year and communicated to the stakeholders. Exclusive use programs and leased facilities can be better managed for public benefit through review of established fees, charges, and contracting practices. Adjusted fees and charges will help the Department manage the total cost of service more equitably to the County. Seasonal and peak pricing can be more effectively utilized to enhance the revenue during peak periods and to increase to use of facilities during non-peak times. Additional sponsorships and partnerships for facilities and programs are possible with both the public and private sector to enhance the earned revenues of the Department. Section 5 - Readiness to Track Full Cost of Services 5.4 Cost of Service Readiness The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the Department’s current readiness, or capacity, to track the full cost of service delivery of programs and facilities for the public. The three primary best practices for why tracking full cost of services is important are:  Determination of the cost effectiveness of each program area including identifying subsidy levels and resource efficiencies  Analysis of operations associated with each program area to identify total costs and assist in the design of appropriate user fees  Confirmation of the achievement of pricing policies and recovery goals Cost of service analysis determines the total cost of providing services to individual customers, groups of customers, or an entire customer base. The total cost of service includes all direct and departmental indirect costs. Results of the analysis support decision making for determining what programs and services require additional operating capital or additional fees to be charged for specific services. Standard assumptions and methodology to prepare a cost of service analysis follow:  Direct costs include those costs incurred in the existing budget organizations such as salaries and benefits, store inventory, activities, uniforms, supplies, equipment rental, contractual services, printing, programming, and volunteer program.  All costs other than direct costs are considered indirect costs. Indirect costs are allocated to each department and/or program based upon an established formula.  Direct cost plus the indirect costs equal the total costs.  Total costs divided by the units of service were identified to determine the total costs per unit of service.  Results of the cost of service analysis do not necessarily mean that the County 52 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment should recover all of the costs of a service through user fees. Though the cost of service depicts the cost to provide a service, it should not be used as a cost recovery benchmark. The cost of service results reveal what is required in the way of operating capital and what rates should be set to meet the recovery goals of the pricing policy. When evaluating the pricing of services, organizations typically analyze their target market and the social and economic impact of the service, the characteristics of the product or service, and environmental influences. A cost of service analysis includes three levels of assessment:  Direct Cost - The most detailed analysis will be at the program level and will assess the cost and related recovery for each activity within the budget programs. This assessment will document the direct cost of each program area.  Indirect Cost - Second tier assessment will allocate the Departmental indirect costs to the program areas. The departmental indirect costs need to be more thoroughly reviewed in relationship to both the direct cost and potential extra administrative and/or facilities costs associated with each program offering. Departmental indirect costs include administrative labor and other costs (materials, supplies, etc), general maintenance, utilities, and services from organization units outside recreation such as accounting services, legal services, and external service charges and contractors.  Other Financial Impacts - Third tier assessment will allocate debt service, external costs, and external funds; such as grants, gifts or donations, to the program areas. The PROS Team provided a detailed data requirements list to the Department staff to gather available cost and work activity information. Work activity information, accounting and budget reports were reviewed for applicability for a cost of service analysis. The review performed by the PROS Team to evaluate Department readiness included:  The degree to which budget structure, policies, and practices support a total cost of services analysis  Ability to perform activity-based costing of maintenance functions  Cost recovery of programs Current fee methodology for the Department includes the costs of all direct labor, equipment and supplies. This approach includes a comparison of the direct costs with the current fees to document the achievement of the established policies. Full cost of service analysis may be achieved by adding the costs for administration, Department overhead, and cost of capital renewal and rehabilitation. 53 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 5.4.2 Budget Format to Facilitate Cost of Service Analysis The current budget format and structure makes it difficult to ascertain the true costs of CCPR providing specific facilities, programs, and services. This is predominantly true in the case of departmental indirect costs. Direct and indirect cost allocation to specific facilities, programs, and services can be greatly improved through a budget restructuring to assist the Department to efficiently perform budget management and reporting. Figure 6 below details the 14 existing budgets, or accounts, in which CCPR manages its annual operational funding. This diagram includes estimated expenses and revenues as projected for FY 2008. A fundamental finding of this analysis is that the allocation of departmental indirect costs including administrative labor and materials, departmental, and general maintenance and utilities is near impossible to track and allocate across each budget center. It is unclear what proportion of the expenses projected below includes any allocation of departmental indirect costs. Recommendations included within future phases of this Organizational Master Plan will address this issue and provide specific guidance for the operational budget format of the Department. County Fair Grant-Funded Thinning Projects EXP: $306,772 REV: $448,169 Dept. Admin. & Parks O&M EXP: $802,246 REV: $73,500 EXP: $43,800 REV: $43,800 CPOS Dedicated Labor Account Stables EXP: $107,492 REV: $ 91,500 EXP: $308,918 REV:$308,918 Indirect Cost Allocation? CPOS O&M Five (5) Park Accounts Livestock Auction EXP: $89,173 REV: $84,600 EXP: $97,639 REV: $97,639 Lessee Events Amphitheater EXP: $86,610 REV: $77,459 Racing EXP: $91,326 REV: $108,600 EXP: $414,747 REV: $397,217 Figure 6 – Existing CCPR Budget Structure 54 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 5.4.3 Implementing a Cost of Services Approach Based on the information collected and analyzed, the PROS Team believes that the Department has the basic information needed to complete a full cost of service analysis. Data maintained by the Department is notably better than most park and recreation agencies reviewed by the PROS Team. The PROS Team recommends that the Department establish cost recovery rates for each program category. The following steps are required for the Department to implement a full cost of service approach. Data Collection Data collection includes gathering the following operating data:    Documentation for the allocation of administrative and overhead costs Maintenance activities documentation Development of capital renewal and rehabilitation costs to allocate to the services and programs Cost Analysis Current cost methodology documents total direct costs for each program or service. Indirect costs are those which are not easily identifiable with a specific program, but which may be necessary to the operation of the program. These costs are shared among programs and, in some cases, among functions. Administrative costs also need to be identified such as purchasing, human resources, information services, general management and governance which should be charged as indirect costs. User Fee Design Analysis of each program area’s resource requirements documents the proper allocation of resources to achieve the Department’s desired quality and quantity of services and programs. Additionally, the analysis provides a method for documenting operational efficiency and determining subsidy levels. Based on the pricing policies and recovery goals, the Department will have the capability to revise existing and/or design new user fees. Update of Pricing Policies During the cost of service analysis is an opportune time to review and update the Department's pricing policies to maximize the results of the cost of service analysis and make adjustments to policies and cost recovery goals. 55 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment 5.5 PROS Observations on Implementing a Cost of Service Analysis Assistance from the County is needed by the CCPR to restructure the existing operating budget. This will enable the move toward a full cost of service approach to activity costing and subsequent pricing. The costs and associated revenues can then be reviewed annually. Maintenance costs can be better tracked by major facility to document support for major facilities and programs. Allocation estimates based on available information can be established for administrative and indirect costs. User information including participants, visitors, and attendees can be better linked to major programs and services to improve the documentation of costs. Section 6 - Financial Assessment Summary The County has implemented a major capital program for the acquisition and development of $33 million in new parks and facilities. The capital program is aggressive with respect to the implementation timetable and may be difficult to attain. Operating revenues for the Department is over 70% which is higher than expected from our experiences with similar agencies. As a result, over $13,000,000 in deferred maintenance has accumulated as a result of restricted operating budgets to address ongoing facility needs and repairs. The operating expenditures are increasing faster than the operating revenues. Written program assessments for the Department include cost recovery goals. These policies set a framework for fee development that reflect the desires and expectations of the County. The Department has a basic methodology for documenting direct cost of service for programs and facilities. Existing pricing does not allow tracking and recovery of departmental indirect costs through fees. The Department has established policies for user fees, sponsorships and partnerships. 56 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan APPENDIX A: Organizational Assessment Household Survey Report Coconino County Parks and Recreation Citizen Survey 2008 Fredric I. Solop, Ph.D. James I. Bowie, Ph.D. Director Associate Director Principal Investigator Co-Principal Investigator Kristi Hagen, M.A. Project Manager P.O. Box 15301 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5301 (928) 523-1515 www.socialresearchlab.com May 2008 57 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Coconino County Parks and Recreation Citizen Survey 2008 Table of Contents Page Number Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2 Report of Survey Results Awareness & Use of County Parks ......................................................................... 5 Non-visitors ............................................................................................................ 6 Condition of Parks .................................................................................................. 8 Non-County Park & Facility Use ............................................................................. 10 Recreation Needs & Preferences ........................................................................... 11 New Programs & Events......................................................................................... 13 Exploring Funding Options ..................................................................................... 15 Annotated Survey ................................................................................................................. 19 Demographics....................................................................................................................... 33 Demographic Crosstabulations ............................................................................................ 35 CATARACT LAKE RECREATION AREA 58 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Seventy-eight percent of Coconino County residents are aware of their Parks and Recreation department. Two-thirds (63%) have visited a county park in the last 12 months. Of the remaining one-third who did not visit within the last year, 28 percent have visited a county park in the past.  Respondents reported visiting Fort Tuthill the most, with 49 percent saying they have visited this park in the last 12 months. Nineteen percent visited Peaks View Park and 17 percent visited Sawmill Park.  County residents who have visited a county park within the last year rate the physical condition of the parks positively. Sixteen percent say the parks are in “excellent” condition and 43 percent rate them as “above average” condition.  When asked why they had never visited a county park, the most common reason given by non-visitors was that parks are too far from their home (31%). The second-most common explanation for not visiting was lack of time (26%).  Two-thirds (66%) of respondents say they use parks or recreation facilities not owned by the county, such as school gymnasiums, sports fields, national parks, campgrounds, city parks, and church or club facilities.  When asked to rank their interest in various types of parks, residents rated “natural areas and open spaces” highest, followed by “corridor trails.”  When asked to rank their interest in new recreation programs, residents strongly preferred “nature education” and “adventure camps.”  County residents were presented with four options regarding future funding for the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. When asked to rate (on a 1 to 5 scale) their interest in funding options, residents strongly prefer the County continue current general fund levels and identify additional revenue-generating methods (3.68 average rating). Residents’ second choice for funding is to have the County continue its current funding patterns with no change (3.08 average rating). 59 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Methodology Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department, in collaboration with PROS Consulting, is undertaking an organizational master plan. As part of this plan, PROS Consulting commissioned the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University to conduct a telephone survey of County residents. The survey focused on understanding perspectives residents have of county parks, experiences and use of county parks, and desired programs. The survey also explored support for various types of funding options. The survey was conducted between February 16 and February 24, 2008, with 603 randomly-selected Coconino County residents, 18 years of age and older. Social Research Laboratory and PROS Consulting personnel collaboratively developed the survey instrument. Once written, the survey instrument was thoroughly pre-tested before data collection was initiated. The survey utilized a random-digit dial (RDD) sampling technique to generate a representative sample of households living in Coconino County. RDD produces a more representative sample of the population than other sampling methods because all households with working telephones have an equal chance of being contacted. Listed and unlisted residential households have similar probabilities of being included in the RDD study. Potential respondents were screened for living within County boundaries and for considering the County to be their primary place of residence. Calling took place every day of the week, with morning, afternoon and evening shifts. The average length of the survey was approximately 12 minutes. Margin of Error The “sampling error” associated with an 603 person survey drawn from a population the size of Coconino County is +/- 3.97 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. “Sampling error” is a social science term that describes the probable difference between interviewing everyone in a given population and interviewing a sample drawn from that population. The percentages obtained in telephone surveys such as these are estimates of what the percentage would be if the entire population had been surveyed. Survey Implementation Once a phone contact was initiated, trained interviewers introduced the survey to potential respondents by identifying the name of the calling center and the purpose of the survey. Respondents were assured that nothing was being sold or solicited, and they were guaranteed confidentiality of responses. Respondents were asked for their consent to take the survey and told the survey would take approximately 10 to 12 minutes to complete. Every effort was made to obtain the highest possible completion rate. Several techniques were employed to achieve this goal. Survey fielding utilized an established pattern of callbacks to minimize non-sampling errors that occur from certain types of people not being available at 60 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 particular times of the day. Also, a refusal conversion process helped to maintain the integrity of the original sampling framework and minimize non-response bias in sampling. In the refusal conversion process, declined interviews were reattempted using a prescribed callback schedule. The first time a respondent declined to participate in the survey, the respondent was coded as a “soft-refusal.” The telephone number was returned to the sample database and called again by a skilled “refusal converter,” an interviewer specially trained to convert refusals into completed interviews. If a respondent refused a second time, they were coded as a “medium refusal” and re-contacted by a skilled interviewer in an attempt to complete the interview. If the respondent refused a third time, they were coded as a “hard refusal” and their number was removed from the sample database. Telephone numbers that were busy, rang without answer, or answered by an answering machine were called a minimum of ten times at different hours of different days before being removed from the sample database. Once “dead,” another phone number in the sample was substituted for the original number. This “call-back” procedure minimized the possibility of nonrandom bias from entering into the data. Quality Control The Social Research Laboratory utilized several quality checks in the collection of data. All interviewers were thoroughly trained in telephone surveying methodology prior to interviewing. After several general training sessions, interviewers received training specific to this project and remained in practice mode until maximum proficiency was reached. Once an interviewer was prepared to administer the survey, supervisors performed frequent and regular monitoring of calls and data collection. Supervisors trained to check on the accuracy and validity of data collection completed a “supervisor call-back” of randomly selected calls. Each calling shift held a pre-shift meeting that prepped interviewers on updates and changes in survey procedures. Interviewer meetings were held regularly and meetings with calling center staff were also held throughout the fielding of the survey to address questions that may have arisen. Study Limitations The goal of this study was to interview a representative sample of adults from households within Coconino County, Arizona. However, despite the use of rigorous scientific methodology, all telephone sample studies face certain challenges and limitations. Only households that contain a working telephone were capable of participating in the study. Other types of survey methodologies were not used to reach residents who may not have a working telephone in the home. Random-digit dial (RDD) telephone sampling generates telephone numbers that are both listed and unlisted. Since telephone companies’ boundaries for telephone exchange areas are not necessarily coterminous with geopolitical boundaries such as counties, telephone companies are not exact in assigning phone numbers within a defined geographical region. The survey was administered in English and Spanish, the two languages most commonly spoken languages in the county. In an effort to account for RDD telephone sampling, nonEnglish/Spanish speaking respondents, and other types of sampling error, ratio-estimation adjustments were made to the final dataset after fielding was completed. Survey data was 61 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 weighted by gender, race, age and residence (in Flagstaff / out of Flagstaff) to compensate for differential participation. To better understand weighting, it is important to first present what “unweighted” data is. The data collected from survey respondents are called raw, or “unweighted” data. Data users should be aware that population estimates derived from unweighted data, for all respondents and other subgroups represented by the survey, will be biased because some subgroups of the survey population are under- or over-represented in the respondent group. Statisticians use available information about the entire survey population (often US Census data) to develop weights for respondents. When the weights are applied correctly in data analyses, survey findings can be generalized to the entire survey population. When the data collected from survey respondents are adjusted to represent the population from which the sample was drawn, the resulting data are called weighted data. The weighting process involves computing and assigning a weight to each survey respondent. The weight indicates the number of respondents in the survey population the respondent represents. Information about demographic characteristics, such as gender, race, supervisory status, age, and agency size, are used to develop the weights. The weight does not change a respondent's answer; rather, it gives appropriate relative importance to the answer. Weighted data are essential in generalizing findings from survey respondents to the population covered by the survey. If weights are not used in data analyses, estimates for the agencies and subgroups covered by the survey will be biased because some population subgroups are underor over-represented in the respondent group. The study weights adjust for the differences between the survey population and respondent group. 62 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Report of Survey Results Figure 1: Awareness of County Parks & Recreation Department Awareness and Use of County Parks Most (78%) Coconino County residents are aware of the Parks and Recreation Department. TwentyAware Not two percent of residents were either not aware of P&R Aware (5%) or don’t know (17%) about this department Dept. 5% (see Figure 1). Flagstaff residents are more aware 78% Don't of this department (82%) than residents outside know of Flagstaff (75% - also referred to as “County” 17% residents. ) Awareness also varies by income levels, with those earning above $50,000 more knowledgeable (83% - 88%) about the department than those earning less than $25,000 (74%). Similarly, residents who identify themselves as “white” are more likely to be aware of the department (86%) than “non-whites” (70% average). Figure 2: County Park Visitation in Past Year Did Visit 63% No Visit 37% County residents were asked which county parks they had visited in the past year. Two-thirds (63%) of respondents have visited at least one park in that time period (Figure 2). The most-visited park was Fort Tuthill; 49 percent of residents stated they had visited the park in the last year (Figure 3). Peaks View Park is the next most visited park with nearly one-in-five residents visiting last year (19%), followed by Sawmill (17%), Pumphouse Greenway (11%), Cataract Lake (7%), and Raymond Park (5%). Figure 3: County Parks Visitation 2007 50% 49% 40% 30% 19% 20% 17% 11% 10% 7% 5% 0% Fort Tuthill Peaks View Sawmill Pump house Cataract Lake Raymond 63 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 While residents overall visit Fort Tuthill most, there are significant differences among population sub-groups. County residents were less than half (31%) as likely to visit Fort Tuthill as Flagstaff residents (68%). This may be due to proximity and access. Among racial groups, Fort Tuthill is the most visited park (53% for white and 44% for non-white) but non-whites are much more likely to spend time at Peaks View (25%) than white residents (16%). To better understand visitation patterns, park visitors were asked how often, on average, they visited county parks in the last 12 months. Over half of residents (50%) report visiting a “few times” last year and 25 percent visited “once.” However, many residents use county parks frequently with 15 percent visiting “monthly,” nine percent visiting “weekly,” and one percent visiting “daily” (see Figure 3a). Younger people (under age 35) and Flagstaff residents are most likely to visit weekly (12%, 10%). Older people (65 and over) and County residents are less likely to visit weekly (2%, 6%). Figure 3a: Average Annual County Parks Visitation 2007 60% 50% 50% 40% 25% 30% 15% 20% 9% 10% 1% 1% 0% Few Times per Year Once per Year Monthly Weekly Daily Don't Know Non-visitors Residents who said they had not visited any county park in the last year (n=221) were asked if they had ever visited any county park. Over one-quarter (28%) said they have visited a county park at some point in time. However, nearly two-thirds (61%) of this subgroup have never visited a county park. Eleven percent of residents “don’t know” if they have ever visited a county park or not (Figure 4). Non-white residents are more likely to have never visited a county park (68% of 2007 nonvisitors) than white residents (55% of 2007 nonvisitors). Figure 4: Have you EVER visited a County park? (only asked of recent non-visitors) Yes 28% Don't know 11% No, never 61% 64 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Since the Parks and Recreation department is interested in understanding both visitors and nonvisitors, respondents who had never visited a county park (n=135) were asked why they had not visited. Respondents could provide multiple reasons. The highest number of residents report that the parks are too far away (31%) or that they are too busy to visit a county park (26%). Fourteen percent say that they lack knowledge about the parks while eight percent shared they are not interested in parks or recreation. Six percent of non-visitors say they prefer non-county parks and six percent lack transportation to get to a park. Some residents don’t visit due to poor health or disability (3%) while a small number don’t feel safe at the parks (2%). Some residents don’t know why they haven’t visited (9%). See Figure 5. Figure 5: Reasons for Having Never Visited County Parks (multiple-response) 31% Distance / Too Far 26% No Time / Too Busy 14% Lack Information 8% No Interest Prefer Non-Cty Parks 6% No Transportation 6% Health/Disability Not Safe 3% 2% Too Crowded 1% No Facilities 1% Fees 1% Other 4% 9% Don't know 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Taking a closer look at this question, issues related to disability access, safety, crowding and lack of facilities were only voiced by women. Males and younger respondents (under 35) did not identify with these concerns. Other differences in non-visitation include issues of time and distance. Nearly twice as many males (38%) said their reason for never visiting a county park 65 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 was because they were too busy as compared to 14% of females. County residents reported lack of time (28%) as a factor slightly more than Flagstaff residents (20%). Distance is a major factor for County residents and was presented as a reason for not visiting by 40 percent of County respondents versus one percent of Flagstaff residents. This is confirmed by seven percent of County residents noting that they don’t have transportation to visit parks as compared to just one percent of Flagstaff residents. Condition of Parks Residents who have visited a county park within the last year were asked to rate the physical condition of the park(s) on a scale from one to five, with one being “poor,” three being “average,” and five being “excellent” condition. Forty-three percent of respondents reported that the parks were “above average” in condition, while 38 percent said they were in “average” condition (Figure 6). Nearly one-in-five rated the condition of parks as “excellent” (16%). A small percentage rated the condition of the parks as “below average” (4%) or “poor” (1%). Overall, recent visitors gave the county parks an average rating of 3.69, reflecting a slightly positive impression. Figure 6: Rating of County Parks' Physical Condition 5-Excellent 16% 4-Above Average 43% 3-Average 38% 2-Below Average 1-Poor 4% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Men and women gave similar average ratings for park conditions with women slightly more positive in their scoring than men (3.64 vs. 3.74, respectively). However, differences become more evident when comparing age groups and being inside/outside of Flagstaff. Younger park visitors (under 35) gave a lower average rating (3.62) than older visitors (65 or over: 4.01). Likewise, County residents rated park conditions with a 3.62 as compared to Flagstaff residents who gave an average rating of 3.74. 66 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 As a follow-up question, residents who had visited County parks in the past year were asked what, if any, concerns they have regarding Coconino County Parks. Respondents were allowed to mention multiple concerns. Over half (55%) report that they have no concerns or don’t know of any issues. Nineteen percent say a lack of facilities and attractions are an issue. Males, young people and County residents are more concerned with facilities than other sub-groups. Ten percent of respondents don’t feel safe in the parks. Safety was a much bigger concern for women (14%) than men (5%) and Flagstaff residents (12%) than County residents (7%). Lack of information about the parks, distance and time were concerns for a smaller number of residents (4%, 3% and 3%, respectively). Disability and poor health were listed by three percent of residents, and park fees by two percent. The least frequent responses to this question were “not interested in parks or recreation” and “crowded,” each of which were mentioned by one percent of 2007 park visitors (see Figure 7). Five percent responded that they had an “other” reason (i.e., not a listed concern). Figure 7: Visitors' Concerns about County Parks Lack of Facilities 19% Safety 10% Lack Information 4% Distance 3% No Time/Too Busy 3% Disability/Health 3% Fees 2% Too Crowded 1% No Interest 1% Other 5% None / Don't know 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 67 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Non-County Park & Facility Use All respondents were asked about their use of parks and recreation facilities that are not owned by Coconino County. These types of facilities include school gymnasiums, sports fields, national parks, campgrounds, city parks, facilities run by churches, clubs, etc. Figure 8: Do you use NonCounty Parks & Facilities? Two-thirds (66%) of respondents said that they used other parks or recreation facilities not owned by the county. One-third said they did not use non-county recreation facilities (Figure 8). Middle and upper income groups are more likely to use non-county parks (68% and 85% respectively) than lower income groups (58%). Flagstaff residents report using noncounty parks at a higher rate (70%) than County residents (62%). White residents (77%) use nonCounty facilities much more than non-white residents (50%). Yes 66% Don't know 2% No 32% When asked how often they used non-county facilities, most respondents said either monthly (30%) or a few times a year (41%). Only 15 percent said they used the facilities weekly, and even fewer said they used non-county facilities daily (5%), once a year (8%), or that they didn’t know (1%). Recreation Needs and Preferences Figure 9: Average Interest Ratings for Park Types Natural Areas/Open Spaces In order to explore the recreation and outdoor needs and priorities of county residents, respondents were asked to rank their interest in various types of parks, including active parks, natural areas and open spaces, special event facility parks, corridor trails, and destination parks. The types of parks were presented in random order and residents were asked to rate their interest in each on a scale from one to five where one means “not at all interested” and five means “very interested.” 4.15 Corridor Trails 3.85 Active Parks 3.72 Special Event Parks 3.66 Destination Parks 3.08 1 2 3 4 5 More than half (55%) of the respondents were “very interested” and only four percent 68 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 were “not interested at all” in natural areas and open spaces. The average overall rating of interest for natural areas and open spaces was 4.15, highest of all park types (Figure 9). This park type rated highly among resident groups. Corridor trails were of slightly less interest than natural areas. Forty-four percent of respondents indicated that they were “very interested” in this kind of park and only seven percent were “not at all interested.” The average overall rating of interest for corridor parks was 3.85. Older and upper income groups were more interested in this type of park. Regarding active parks, including parks used for camping, swimming, sledding, riding horses, skateboarding, biking, and riding off-road vehicles, over one-third (37%) of residents were “very interested;” nine percent said they were “not at all interested” in active parks. The average overall rating of interest for active parks was 3.72. Younger residents (18-34) expressed strong interest in this park type. The interest level of residents for special event facility parks was very similar to that of active parks: 32 percent were “very interested,” while seven percent had “no interest at all” in a special event facility park. The average overall rating of interest for special event facility parks was 3.66. Finally, destination parks, were, relatively speaking, of little interest to respondents. Only 19 percent were “very interested” and 18 percent had “no interest at all.” The average overall rating of interest for destination parks was 3.08, the lowest of all park types. The interest levels of residents was confirmed when they were asked to identify their two top preferences for park types (Figure 10). Over one-third (34%) of county residents surveyed indicated that natural areas and open spaces were their top choice. Corridor trails were next most popular park type. Twentytwo percent of respondents said that this park type was their favorite. Figure 10: 1st and 2nd Top Choices for Recreation Needs & Preferences Natural Areas/Open Space 34% 26% 22% 26% Corridor Trails 18% 18% Active Parks 12% Special Event Parks 21% 8% 8% Destination Parks 1st choice 2nd choice 7% Don't know 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 69 40% Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Destination parks were the least popular among respondents when asked to list their top choice. When listing their second choice, natural areas and open spaces and corridor trails again topped the list, with 26 percent each. Destination parks were, once again, the least popular park type (8% first and second choice). New Programs & Events As part of an organizational, long-term planning process, County Parks and Recreation wants to explore what new programs county residents may like to see in the future. Residents were presented with a series of recreation programs and events. Programs and events were presented randomly in order to eliminate order effects. E ach resident was asked to rate their own and their household’s interest in each of the different items on a scale from one to five, with one indicating “not at all interested” and five indicating “very interested.” Figure 11 presents the average interest ratings for each of the new programs and events. The top three were environmental/nature education, adventure camps and special events. After rating each program or event, residents were asked to identify which program would be their first and second priority/interest. Figure 11: Average Interest Ratings in New Programs & Events Environmental/Nature Education 3.71 Adventure Camps 3.62 Special Events 3.55 Outdoor Fitness/Wellness Programs 3.45 Outdoor Social / Cultural Events 3.37 Sports Programs 2.98 1 2 3 4 5 70 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 As indicated in Figure 11a, special events rated the highest among residents (20%) followed closely by environmental/nature education (19%). Outdoor social and cultural events are the top interest for 18 percent of residents with a nearly equal number of residents preferring outdoor fitness programs (15%). An equal percentage of residents selected adventure camps (12%) and sports programs (12%). Five percent of residents were unable to say which program or event they prefer. Comparing County and Flagstaff residents, we find that County residents gave higher average ratings to nature environment/education (3.73 vs. 3.69), adventure camps (3.69 vs. 3.55), outdoor fitness (3.59 vs. 3.30) and social/cultural events (3.51 vs. 3.22) than did Flagstaff residents. These differences are mirrored in the white and non-white average responses where non-white groups gave higher ratings that white respondents for nature education (4.00 vs. 3.52), adventure camps (3.85 vs. 3.48), outdoor fitness (3.99 vs. 3.07) and social/cultural events (3.94 vs. 2.95). Once residents had selected their top choices, they were queried as to their second preference. As reflected in Figure 11a, these are very similar to the first choice. Figure 11a:1st and 2nd Top Choices for New Programs/Events 20% 22% Special Events 19% Nature Education 17% Outdoor Social/Cultural Events 18% 21% 15% Outdoor Fitness 12% 12% Adventure Camps 17% 12% Sports Programs 8% First choice Second choice 5% Don't know 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 71 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Exploring Funding Options County residents were asked several questions regarding future funding for the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. In order to assess levels of support for different funding options, residents were presented with a number of possible scenarios and asked to rate their level of support on a scale from one to five, where one means “Don’t support at all,” and five means “Strongly support.” Before presenting the funding options in random order, residents were informed that: “Currently the County Parks and Recreation Department receives approximately 25 percent of its operations and maintenance funding from the County’s general tax fund and 75 percent of its funding from the net proceeds of the County Fair and County Horse Races. As the Department adds new parks and facilities additional funding will be needed to support operations and maintenance requirements.” A total of four different funding options were explored. Option A presented the following scenario: “The County Parks and Recreation Department should continue current county general fund levels and identify additional revenue-generating methods, for example, user fees, paid special events, or increased tourist attractions to meet future financial requirements.” When suggested that the current county general fund levels should be continued and additional revenue-generating methods should be identified to meet future financial requirements, 28 percent “strongly supported” this proposition. An additional 35 percent responded with a “somewhat support” and 21 percent indicated a “slight support”. Only 16 percent of respondents said that they didn’t support the proposition: eight percent were “not very supportive” and eight percent were “not at all supportive” (see Figure 12). Option B presented the following scenario: “The County should increase county taxes to meet its future parks and recreation department financial needs.” When it was suggested that the County should increase county taxes to meet its future parks and departmental financial needs 14 percent “strongly supported” this proposition and nearly one-third (30%) did “not support it at all.” Option C presented the following scenario: “The County Parks and Recreation Department should continue its current funding patterns with no change.” When it was suggested that the country parks and recreation department should continue its current funding patterns with no change, one-in-five (21%) “strongly supported” this option. Slightly less respondents did “not support at all” (17%). However, most respondents indicated weaker support levels with ratings of 4, 3, and 2 (18%, 26%, and 18%, respectively). Option D presented the following scenario: “The county parks and recreation department should create a new park district with taxing authority to develop, operate and maintain a 72 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 county park system.” Last, when it was suggested that the county parks and recreation department should create a new park district with taxing authority, only 14 percent “strongly supported” this proposition while a 21 percent did “not support it at all.” Remaining residents spread fairly evenly across the other rating levels with 18 percent at a “4” rating, 30 percent at a “3” rating and 17 percent at a “2” rating. Figure 12: Levels of Support for Funding Options Option A - Continue Current & Add Revenue 8% 8% Option B - Increase Taxes 21% 30% Option C - No Change 17% Option D - Create New Park District 21% 0% 35% 17% 18% 17% 25% 28% 24% 26% 18% 30% 50% 16% 14% 21% 18% 75% 14% 100% 1-Don't Support At All 2-Very Little Support 3-Slightly Support 4-Somewhat Support 5-Strongly Support 73 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Option A (Identify additional revenuegenerating methods) received the highest average rating (3.68) of all four funding options (Figure 13). The support for this option was substantially higher than support for any of the other three options. While there was very little difference between men and women in average levels of support for this option, younger residents (<35 = 3.78 average vs. 3.62 for 35+) and non-white residents (3.81) were more likely than white residents (3.64) to support Option A. Likewise, higher income residents ($75k+= 4.02, $50k$75k=3.99 indicate stronger support for this option than lower income residents (>$50k=3. 53). Figure 13: Funding Options Average Ratings A: Identify Additional Revenues C: No Change D: Create New Park District w/ Taxing Authority 3.68 3.08 2.87 Option C (No change to current funding B: Increase County patterns) received the second highest average 2.68 Taxes rating (3.08). Females are more likely to support (3.20 average rating) this option than males (2.95). Age and income show no 0 1 2 3 4 5 consistent pattern of support but race and residency does vary levels of support. Residents self-identifying as a race other than white (3.22) and residing in the County (3.18), are more likely to support than white residents (2.98) and Flagstaff residents (2.96). Option D (Create new park district with taxing authority) ranked third in the average ratings (2.87). This rating suggests less than neutral or slightly unwilling to support this option. When examining levels of support, gender and age show some differences. Males are more supportive on average (2.93) than females (2.80), and younger residents have higher average support ratings (3.22) than middle-aged residents (2.64). Residents at the lowest income range are more supportive of a new district (3.22 average) as compared to the middle (2.64) and highest income ranges (2.80). Whites are least likely to support this option (2.49) as compared to other racial groups (3.42). Option B (Increase county taxes) received the lowest average level of support (2.68). This rating suggests little to no support, with some respondents not supportive at all. Men are more likely to support an increase in county taxes (2.72 average rating) than women (2.65). There is some differences among age groups for this option (18-34=3.02, 35-64=2.47, 65+=2.54) but variation in support levels among income and racial groups. Income groups are split with the lowest income group presenting slightly lower average support (2.71) versus middle income (2.79) and highest income group (2.86). Non-white residents are much more likely to support increasing taxes (3.17 average) as compared to white residents (2.37). County residents also favor increasing county taxes to support parks (2.81 average rating) over Flagstaff residents (2.54). 74 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Annotated Survey Awareness & Use 1. To the best of your knowledge, does Coconino County have a Parks and Recreation Department? Frequency Percent Yes 470 78% No 28 5% Don't know 102 17% Total 600 100% 2. Now I would like to ask you about Coconino County’s parks. First, please let me know if you have visited any of these parks in the last 12 months, that is, since January 2007? (Presentation order of parks was randomized) Summary Table of County Park Visitation Park Percent Frequency Fort Tuthill Peaks View Sawmill Pumphouse Greenway Cataract Lake Raymond 292 117 104 67 39 33 Percent of Total Visits 49% 19% 17% 11% 7% 5% Total 45% 18% 16% 10% 6% 5% 100% a. Have you visited Cataract Lake County Park in Williams in the past year? (which includes picnic ramadas, campground, fishing) Frequency Percent Yes 39 7% No 560 93% 1 -- 600 100% Don't know Total 75 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 b. Have you visited Fort Tuthill County Park outside of Flagstaff in past year? (which includes Pine Mountain Amphitheater, picnic ramadas, playground, trails, campground, fair, horse races, concerts, rodeos) Frequency Percent Yes 292 49% No 305 51% 3 1% 600 101% Don't know Total c. Have you visited Peaks View County Park outside of Flagstaff in Doney Park in past year? (which includes soccer fields, picnic ramadas) Frequency Percent Yes 117 19% No 482 80% 2 -- 600 99% Don't know Total d. Have you visited Pumphouse Greenway in Kachina Village in past year? (which includes trails and wildlife viewing) Frequency Percent Yes 67 11% No 528 88% 6 1% 600 100% Don't know Total 76 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 e. Have you visited Raymond County Park in Kachina Village in past year? (which includes picnic ramadas, playground, basketball court) Frequency Percent Yes 33 5% No 564 94% 3 1% 600 100% Don't know Total f. Have you visited Sawmill County Park in past year? (next to the Police Department / Jail; which includes picnic ramadas, walking paths, exhibits, Willow Bend Environmental Education Center) Frequency Percent Yes 104 17% No 490 82% 6 1% 600 100% Don't know Total 3. [If “yes” to at least one park in visit question] On average, how often did you visit County parks in the last 12 months? [Read list] Frequency Daily/almost daily Percent 4 1% Weekly 32 9% Monthly 56 15% 189 50% 92 25% 2 1% 376 101% A few times Once Don't know Total 77 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Non-visitors 4. [If “no” to visiting any parks in visit questions], Have you ever visited any of the County parks? [If “yes”, skip to Q6] Frequency Percent Yes 61 28% No 135 61% 25 11% 221 100% Don't know Total 5. [If “no” to visiting any parks in visit questions], What are the reasons you have NEVER visited a County park? Please select all that apply. Frequency Percent Distance to park 51 28% Don't have enough time / too busy 42 23% Lack of knowledge about parks 23 13% Not interested in parks or recreation 13 7% Prefer non-county parks 10 5% Lack of transportation 9 5% Poor health / disability 5 3% Do not feel safe in parks 4 2% Lack of facilities or attractions at park 1 1% Lack of money for park fees 1 1% Parks too crowded 2 1% 14 8% 7 4% 182 100% Don't know / no reason Other reason Total 78 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Condition of Parks 6. Now I would like to ask you to think about the physical condition of the Coconino County Parks you have visited. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being poor, 3 being average and 5 being excellent, How would you rate the overall physical condition of the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department parks you have visited? (Read list, one answer) Frequency 1 - Poor Percent 2 1% 16 4% 3 - Average 163 38% 4 - Above average 185 43% 67 16% 434 101% 2 - Below average 5 - Excellent Total 7. What concerns do you and your household have regarding Coconino County parks? Please select all that apply. Frequency Lack of facilities or attractions at park Do not feel safe in parks Lack knowledge / information about park Distance to park Don't have enough time Poor health / disability Lack of money for park fees Parks too crowded Not interested in parks or recreation Lack of transportation Other reason Don't know / no reason Total Percent 89 19% 42 17 14 12 11 9 5 3 1 21 240 9% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% -5% 52% 465 101% 79 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 8. Do you use other parks or recreation facilities that are not owned by Coconino County? [Interviewer note: Examples of recreation facilities in Coconino County that are not operated by the County are school gymnasiums and sports fields; national parks and campgrounds; your City’s parks; or facilities run by churches, homeowners’ associations, clubs, YMCA and other private organizations. ] Frequency Percent Yes 393 66% No 193 32% 14 2% 600 100% Don't know Total 9. On average, how often do you use non-Coconino County facilities for recreation? Frequency Percent Daily/almost daily 21 5% Weekly 57 15% Monthly 118 30% A few times a year 162 41% Once a year 31 8% Don't know 3 1% 392 100% Total 80 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Recreation Needs & Preferences 10. Coconino County Parks and Recreation is exploring the recreation and outdoor needs and priorities of County residents. I’m going to read a list and description of different types of parks and recreation activities. Thinking about you and your household, please rate your interest in each of these different types of parks on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means, “not at all interested” and 5 means “very interested”. First, I’d like to describe: [presentation of options randomly rotated] a. ACTIVE PARKS – these are large, recreationally-diverse, heavily-used parks for uses like camping, ball sports, swimming, sledding, riding horses, skateboarding, biking, or riding offhighway vehicles. On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of park? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 51 9% Interest level 2 55 9% Interest level 3 121 20% Interest level 4 149 25% 5 - Very interested 218 37% Total 594 100% b. NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACES - these are lands specifically managed to preserve, and sometimes restore, natural environments. Open space land may be used for low-impact recreation purposes like picnics, walking nature trails, wildlife viewing, and outdoor education. On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of park? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 26 4% Interest level 2 30 5% Interest level 3 102 17% Interest level 4 112 19% 5 - Very interested 328 55% Total 599 100% 81 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 c. SPECIAL EVENT FACILITY PARKS – these are parks that host unique gatherings or celebrations such as concerts, dancing, music, plays, amusements, races, festivals or carnivals. On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of park? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 43 7% Interest level 2 59 10% Interest level 3 149 25% Interest level 4 157 26% 5 - Very interested 190 32% Total 598 100% d. CORRIDOR TRAILS – these are trails along streams, washes, mountain ridges, or through woodlands that link to trailheads or other parks. On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of park? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 44 7% Interest level 2 51 9% Interest level 3 116 19% Interest level 4 125 21% 5 - Very interested 260 44% Total 596 100% e. DESTINATION PARKS – these are parks that feature a variety of outdoor recreation facilities, including RV campsites that help support tourism. On a scale from 1 to 5, how would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of park? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 107 18% Interest level 2 100 17% Interest level 3 143 24% Interest level 4 128 22% 5 - Very interested 115 19% Total 594 100% 82 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 11. From the previous question, what would be your top two (2) preferred parks? a. First preferred park type Frequency Active parks Percent 109 18% 204 34% 70 12% 129 22% Destination parks 50 8% Don't know 39 7% 600 101% Natural areas/ Open spaces Special event parks Corridor trails Total b. Second preferred park type Frequency Active parks Natural areas/ Open spaces Special event parks Corridor trails Destination parks Don't know Total Percent 95 18% 138 26% 110 21% 139 26% 40 8% 5 1% 527 100% 83 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 New Programs 12. Now I’d like to explore you and your household’s interest in NEW Recreation Programs and Events. I’m going to read a list of recreation activities. Thinking about you and your household, please rate your interest in each of these different types of parks on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means, “not at all interested” and 5 means “very interested.” First, I’d like you to rate your interest in: [presentation of options randomly rotated] a. COMPETITIVE OR TEAM SPORTS PROGRAMS: How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency 1 - Not at all interested Percent 140 23% Interest level 2 90 15% Interest level 3 129 22% Interest level 4 124 21% 5 - Very interested 118 20% Total 600 101% b. OUTDOOR FITNESS AND WELLNESS CLASSES OR EVENTS: How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 68 11% Interest level 2 73 12% Interest level 3 138 23% Interest level 4 159 27% 5 - Very interested 160 27% Total 599 100% 84 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 c. OUTDOOR SOCIAL OR CULTURAL PROGRAMS LIKE DANCES, POW WOWS OR HERITAGE DAYS: How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 66 11% Interest level 2 84 14% Interest level 3 174 29% Interest level 4 112 19% 5 - Very interested 164 27% Total 600 100% d. SPECIAL EVENTS LIKE CONCERTS, COUNTY FAIR, OR RODEOS: How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 50 8% Interest level 2 64 11% Interest level 3 172 29% Interest level 4 135 23% 5 - Very interested 179 30% Total 600 101% 85 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 e. ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE EDUCATION: How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 49 8% Interest level 2 58 10% Interest level 3 129 22% Interest level 4 141 24% 5 - Very interested 222 37% Total 600 100% f. ADVENTURE CAMPS OR NATURE PROGRAMS THAT EXPLORE THE OUTDOORS How would you rate you and your household’s interest in this kind of activity? Frequency Percent 1 - Not at all interested 55 9% Interest level 2 72 12% Interest level 3 105 18% Interest level 4 177 30% 5 - Very interested 189 32% Total 600 101% 86 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 13. Of all these programs, what would be your top two new program priorities? a. First preferred program Frequency Sports programs Outdoor fitness/wellness classes Outdoor social/cultural programs Special events Environmental/nature education Adventure camps Don't know Total Percent 75 12% 90 15% 105 18% 119 20% 111 19% 72 12% 29 5% 600 100% 87 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 b. Second preferred program Frequency Sports programs Outdoor fitness/wellness classes Outdoor social/cultural programs Special events Environmental/nature education Adventure camps Don't know Total Percent 43 8% 66 12% 116 21% 120 22% 95 17% 93 17% 15 3% 548 100% 88 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Exploring Funding Options 14. Currently, the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department receives approximately 25% of its operations and maintenance funding from the County’s general tax fund and 75% of its funding from the net proceeds of the County Fair and County Horse Races. As the Department adds new parks and facilities additional funding will be needed to support operations and maintenance requirements. Now I’d like to read some statements regarding future funding for the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. After hearing each statement and based on your household’s needs, please rate your level of support for each one on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “Don’t support at all” and 5 means “Strongly support.” First, [Randomly rotate presentation of options] A. The county parks and recreation department should continue current county general fund levels and identify additional revenue-generating methods, for example, user fees, paid special events, or increased tourist attractions, to meet future financial requirements. How would you rate your level of support for this statement on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being “Don’t support at all” and 5 being “Strongly support? Frequency Percent 1 - Don't support at all 46 8% Support level 2 48 8% Support level 3 121 21% Support level 4 208 35% 5 - Strongly support 169 28% Total 593 100% B. The county should increase county taxes to meet its future parks and recreation department financial needs. Frequency 1 - Don't support at all Percent 175 30% Support level 2 98 17% Support level 3 140 24% Support level 4 95 16% 5 - Strongly support 83 14% 592 101% Total 89 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 C. The county parks and recreation department should continue its current funding patterns with no change. Frequency 1 - Don't support at all Percent 96 17% Support level 2 109 18% Support level 3 148 26% Support level 4 102 18% 5 - Strongly support 121 21% Total 576 101% D. The county parks and recreation department should create a new park district with taxing authority to develop, operate and maintain a county park system. Frequency Percent 1 - Don't support at all 120 21% Support level 2 100 17% Support level 3 172 30% Support level 4 103 18% 80 14% 575 100% 5 - Strongly support Total *Q15 was cut during data collection due to time limit constraints. 90 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 Demographics Now, I'd like to ask you some questions so we can classify your answers. 16. How many years have you lived in Coconino County? Frequency Percent Up to 1 year 1 yr up to 5 years 5 yrs up to 10 years 10 yrs up to 20 years 20 years or more 35 69 91 135 255 6% 12% 16% 23% 43% Total 587 100% 17. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Frequency Percent 1 person 2 to 5 people 6 to 10 people 11 to 20 people More than 20 people 85 434 62 13 3 14% 73% 10% 2% -- Total 597 99% 18. Which of the following categories best matches you? Frequency White, non-Hispanic Percent 325 56% 70 12% 160 28% Asian 4 1% Black 2 -- Other 17 3% Total 578 100% Hispanic Native American 91 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Citizen Survey 2008 19. Which of the following income groups includes your total family income in 2007 before taxes? Valid Percent Frequency Under $25k 100 19% $25-$50k 171 32% $50-$75k 127 24% $75-$100k 75 14% $100k+ 63 12% 535 101% Total 20. What is your age? Frequency Percent 18-24 74 12% 25-34 148 25% 35-44 88 15% 45-54 125 21% 55-64 92 16% 65-74 46 8% 75+ 22 4% Total 597 101% 21. What is your gender? Frequency Percent Male 294 49% Female 306 51% Total 600 100% 92 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Demographic Cross-tabulations Total Does Coconino County have a Parks & Rec department? Gender Age Male Female 18-34 35-64 Residence 65+ County Income Flagstaff Race < 50k- > 50k 75k 75k White Nonwhite Yes 78% 78% 79% 79% 79% 77% 75% 82% 74% 83% 88% 86% 70% No 5% 3% 6% 2% 6% 4% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3% 4% 6% 17% 19% 15% 19% 14% 19% 21% 13% 19% 14% 9% 11% 24% Fort Tuthill 49% 48% 50% 43% 53% 46% 31% 68% 43% 42% 66% 53% 44% Peaks View 19% 21% 18% 27% 16% 12% 19% 20% 15% 28% 22% 16% 25% Sawmill 17% 15% 19% 17% 16% 26% 10% 25% 14% 16% 28% 19% 16% Pumphouse Greenway 11% 12% 11% 14% 9% 11% 7% 16% 13% 13% 8% 11% 11% Cataract Lake 7% 7% 6% 3% 8% 13% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 9% 4% Raymond 5% 7% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 7% 8% 4% 3% 5% 5% Daily / almost daily 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Weekly 9% 11% 6% 12% 7% 2% 6% 10% 13% 8% 4% 7% 11% Monthly 15% 14% 16% 16% 15% 13% 12% 17% 17% 9% 18% 17% 13% A few times 50% 51% 50% 44% 54% 53% 42% 56% 50% 60% 41% 56% 41% Once 25% 21% 28% 28% 22% 24% 40% 14% 19% 23% 36% 18% 35% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% Yes 28% 25% 30% 22% 30% 34% 24% 37% 28% 17% 39% 31% 23% No 61% 69% 54% 66% 62% 46% 66% 47% 64% 62% 57% 55% 68% Don’t know 11% 6% 16% 12% 8% 20% 10% 16% 8% 22% 3% 13% 9% Don’t know Parks visited in 2007: How often did you visit County parks in the last year? [2007 visitors] Don’t know Have you ever visited any of the County parks? [2007 non-visitors] 93 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Total What are the reasons you have never visited a County park? [multipleresponse, asked of those who have never visited a County park] Gender Age Male Female Residence 1834 3564 65+ County Income Flagstaff < 50k 50k75k Race > 75k White Nonwhit e Distance to parks 31% 27% 35% 28% 34% 39% 40% 1% 25% 49% 32% 42% 21% Too busy 26% 38% 14% 36% 20% 7% 28% 20% 38% 8% 14% 8% 44% Lack of information 14% 13% 15% 20% 13% 3% 11% 25% 19% 8% 12% 15% 13% Not interested 8% 9% 8% 7% 7% 17% 7% 12% 6% 6% 24% 17% 0% Prefer non-County parks 6% 6% 5% 2% 10% 3% 5% 8% 5% 3% 11% 11% 0% No transportation 6% 11% 1% 14% 0% 3% 7% 1% 1% 23% 0% 1% 12% Health / disability 3% 0% 6% 0% 4% 10% 3% 3% 3% 6% 0% 4% 2% Parks are not safe 2% 0% 4% 0% 2% 0% 1% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 5% Parks too crowded 1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% Parks lack facilities/ attractions 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% 0% Fees too high 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Other reason 4% 2% 7% 3% 5% 9% 3% 9% 2% 1% 10% 5% 2% Don’t know 9% 3% 14% 6% 9% 15% 7% 15% 13% 0% 2% 5% 13% 94 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Total [multipleresponse, asked of 2007 visitors] Age Residence Income White 3.64 3.72 3.66 23% 21% 19% 20% 10% 10% 7% 10% 10% 1% 3% 0% 8% 2% 7% 5% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 0% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 5% 1% 0% 1% 5% 1% 4% 0% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 5% 6% 4% 6% 5% 4% 2% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% 4% 55% 54% 55% 47% 58% 67% 53% 56% 50% 60% 56% 58% 52% 3564 65+ County Flagstaff < 50k 50k75k Female 3.69 3.64 3.74 3.62 3.67 4.01 3.62 3.74 3.69 3.63 Parks lack facilities / attractions 19% 22% 16% 23% 19% 11% 21% 18% 18% Parks are not safe 10% 5% 14% 10% 9% 11% 7% 12% Lack of information 4% 7% 0% 5% 3% 1% 7% Distance to parks 3% 2% 4% 1% 5% 2% Too busy 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% Health / disability 3% 1% 4% 5% Fees too high 2% 2% 2% Parks too crowded 1% 1% Not interested 1% Other reason None / don’t know Race Nonwhit e 1834 Male Rating of physical condition of County parks you have visited: Scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) [2007 visitors] What concerns do you have regarding County parks? Gender > 75k 95 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Total Gender Age Male Female 18-34 35-64 Residence 65+ County Income Flagstaff Race < 50k- > 50k 75k 75k White Nonwhite Do you use non-County parks and rec facilities? Yes 66% 65% 66% 58% 71% 67% 62% 70% 55% 68% 85% 77% 50% No 32% 32% 32% 39% 27% 28% 37% 27% 44% 29% 12% 20% 48% Don’t know 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% How often do you use nonCounty facilities? Daily / almost daily 5% 5% 6% 2% 6% 12% 3% 8% 5% 3% 6% 6% 3% Weekly 15% 16% 14% 19% 13% 10% 10% 19% 11% 21% 13% 15% 13% Monthly 30% 36% 24% 32% 31% 20% 31% 29% 24% 32% 39% 31% 30% A few times 41% 39% 43% 41% 39% 51% 43% 40% 46% 40% 35% 42% 38% Once 8% 4% 12% 7% 10% 5% 13% 3% 14% 3% 7% 5% 15% Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 96 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Total Gender Male Age Female 18-34 35-64 Residence 65+ County Income Flagstaff Race < 50k- > 50k 75k 75k White Nonwhite Rate your interest in the following park types, on a scale of 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (very interested): Natural areas / open spaces 4.15 4.13 4.16 4.25 4.10 4.06 4.12 4.18 4.05 4.32 4.25 4.13 4.19 Corridor trails 3.85 3.97 3.73 3.96 3.83 3.53 3.75 3.96 3.71 3.87 4.13 3.83 3.86 Active parks 3.72 3.78 3.66 4.07 3.65 2.90 3.88 3.54 3.82 3.79 3.71 3.45 4.12 Special event parks 3.66 3.59 3.72 3.76 3.61 3.55 3.57 3.75 3.76 3.65 3.46 3.53 3.86 Destination parks 3.08 3.06 3.09 3.22 3.04 2.74 3.29 2.84 3.23 2.87 3.20 2.89 3.38 Natural areas 34% 35% 33% 31% 35% 39% 33% 35% 35% 35% 33% 37% 31% Corridor trails 22% 22% 21% 21% 22% 21% 23% 20% 20% 21% 28% 21% 23% Active parks 18% 20% 17% 20% 17% 14% 17% 20% 13% 23% 22% 20% 17% Special parks 12% 10% 14% 10% 13% 13% 7% 16% 11% 12% 8% 12% 9% Destination parks 8% 8% 9% 12% 7% 5% 11% 5% 13% 6% 3% 5% 13% Don’t know 7% 6% 7% 6% 5% 9% 9% 4% 7% 4% 6% 5% 8% Natural areas 26% 27% 26% 21% 29% 34% 26% 26% 24% 28% 29% 26% 28% Corridor trails 26% 29% 24% 22% 29% 29% 26% 27% 24% 23% 29% 29% 19% Special parks 21% 15% 26% 24% 19% 20% 24% 18% 23% 19% 21% 17% 26% Active parks 18% 21% 15% 28% 13% 8% 18% 18% 22% 19% 13% 16% 22% Destination parks 8% 6% 9% 5% 10% 8% 5% 10% 6% 10% 8% 11% 4% Don’t know 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% Most-preferred park type Second mostpreferred park type event event 97 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Organizational Assessment Total Gender Male Age Female 18-34 35-64 Residence 65+ County Income Flagstaff Race < 50k- > 50k 75k 75k White Nonwhite Rate your interest in the following program types, on a scale of 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (very interested): Environmental / Nature Education 3.71 3.70 3.73 3.80 3.68 3.56 3.73 3.69 3.74 3.80 3.75 3.52 4.00 Adventure Camps 3.62 3.63 3.61 3.70 3.64 3.32 3.69 3.55 3.86 3.55 3.44 3.48 3.85 Special Events 3.55 3.50 3.60 3.41 3.62 3.66 3.42 3.69 3.54 3.70 3.37 3.47 3.64 3.45 3.41 3.49 3.72 3.37 2.98 3.59 3.30 3.55 3.57 3.31 3.07 3.99 Outdoor Social / Cultural Events 3.37 3.33 3.41 3.57 3.27 3.20 3.51 3.22 3.51 3.45 3.07 2.95 3.94 Sports Programs 2.98 2.95 3.01 3.16 2.90 2.79 2.95 3.02 2.97 3.13 3.03 2.76 3.31 Mostpreferred program type Special Events 20% 18% 21% 11% 24% 25% 14% 26% 22% 16% 18% 25% 12% Env./Nature ed. 19% 16% 21% 19% 19% 16% 18% 19% 20% 23% 14% 22% 15% Outdoor Soc/Cult 18% 23% 12% 25% 14% 10% 20% 15% 16% 17% 18% 11% 26% Outdoor Fit/Well 15% 14% 16% 18% 13% 14% 17% 12% 15% 15% 16% 11% 20% Adventure Camps 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 15% 13% 10% 12% 12% 12% 13% 10% Sports Programs 12% 11% 14% 14% 13% 9% 13% 11% 14% 8% 15% 12% 13% 5% 5% 4% 1% 6% 11% 4% 5% 2% 7% 7% 6% 3% Special events 22% 25% 19% 21% 24% 16% 20% 25% 20% 25% 17% 23% 20% Outdoor Soc/Cult 21% 19% 23% 23% 17% 40% 26% 16% 22% 25% 22% 15% 30% Env./Nature ed. 17% 20% 15% 16% 18% 18% 14% 21% 14% 15% 24% 19% 15% Adventure Camps 17% 21% 13% 18% 17% 13% 17% 17% 21% 10% 18% 18% 16% Sports Programs 8% 9% 7% 9% 8% 2% 7% 8% 7% 14% 6% 7% 7% Don’t know 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% Outdoor Programs Fitness / Wellness Don’t know Second mostpreferred program type 98 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Total Organizational Assessment Gender Male Age Female 18-34 35-64 Residence 65+ County Income Flagstaff Race < 50k- > 50k 75k 75k White Nonwhite Rate your support for the following funding options, on a scale of 1 (don’t support at all) to 5 (strongly support): A: Identify additional generating methods revenue- 3.68 3.68 3.69 3.78 3.63 3.62 3.76 3.60 3.53 3.99 4.02 3.64 3.81 B: Increase County taxes 2.68 2.72 2.65 3.02 2.47 2.54 2.81 2.54 2.71 2.79 2.86 2.37 3.17 C: No change 3.08 2.95 3.20 3.15 3.08 2.90 3.18 2.96 3.05 3.11 3.16 2.98 3.22 D: Create new park district with taxing authority 2.87 2.93 2.80 3.22 2.64 2.80 3.02 2.69 3.01 2.87 2.82 2.49 3.42 99 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment APPENDIX B: Summary of Key Responses by Question Following are summarized responses to each question collected from the six (6) focus groups. 1. Have you used any of the Coconino County parks and recreation facilities, parks and programs? If so what parks, recreation facilities or programs have you used?  Fort Tuthill County Park  Dog run  Bike trails  Fairgrounds  Horse races, Horse shows  4-H Programs  Amphitheatre  Peaks View County Park  Hiking trails  Raymond County Park  Walking trails  Sawmill Nature County Park  Pumphouse Greenway 2. Have you used other recreation agencies including public, private or not-for-profit in the County? How do they compare with the County's facilities and/or programs?  San Diego County  Urban setting  More usage  More trail conflicts  Wilderness and beach parks  Lake Metroparks, Ohio -protecting and preserving natural areas for future use  Ingham County, Michigan  3 to 4 regional parks with dedicated staff – Coconino should have similar setup  National Parks  San Bernardino County  Coconino seems 40 years behind  State Parks  Basic difference are fees  Cater to camping and equestrian  Very well developed – larger population served  More staff and attention  Reardon State Park o Strong education programs – brown bags, heritage programs  Page – Lake Powell and Antelope Canyon  Page School District shares facilities with City  Indoor swimming  Golf  Building additional sports complex 100 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment 3. What are the strengths of the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department that we need to build on for this plan?  Open Space Program is working well for the future  Urban Trail System is working well  Strong partnership with City  Strong partnership with private operating company at amphitheatre  Allows County to achieve bigger initiatives  Beautiful, natural environment  Strong partnership with NAU School of Forestry  48,000 acre property  Internships supporting County  Combination/integration of Art at Saw Mill Park  Peaks View County Park  Picnics in the Park, Community gatherings  Educational resources  Interpretive signs  Fort Tuthill  Large event gathering places  Forward momentum established over the last decade  Build on momentum and keep going  Keep up with newly established design standards  Department is a strong, professional organization  Able to respond to changes quickly  Vested, passionate staff  Didn’t know that the County had a Parks and Recreation Department (comment from Page focus group) 4. What are the key issues facing Coconino County as a whole? County Parks and Recreation, specifically?  Funding  Not enough investment in basic maintenance  Current budgets and resources declining o Operational Capital improvements were stopped with the passage of CPOS Former $1m capital funding was eliminated o Limited ability to generate revenue  Inability to provide programs  Difficult to serve people  Need to finish projects that have been started  Easier to find funding for acquisition and construction over operations and maintenance  Communicating knowledge of the system into all of Northern Arizona o System is Flagstaff centric - Flagstaff does not recognize that residents and tourists are going beyond the City  Establishment, growth, and management of winter recreation  Clarification of mission and role of Parks and Recreation Department  Protection of open space for future use  Continued urbanization around current park sites 101 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan           Operational Assessment  Need for buffer zones and strong classifications and standards  Risk of losing heritage, habitat species - must be prepared to protect and preserve  Protection of land from harmful effects of infrastructure development  Vandalism a problem – need more enforcement Connectivity and loss of corridors for future trails  Should consider wildlife corridors Divided community  Gambling versus no gambling; Beer sales versus no beer sales  How do you be all to all? Health issues  Getting to a County Park is difficult for many o Accessibility discourages usage As Flagstaff grows, connecting County residents to City facilities  Examples of trail development provide tremendous opportunities Transportation of users to events and various locations Need for alternative and renewable power and conservation programs Multi-agency jurisdictions  Need better integration of fees, permits, etc. - County could be coordinator Quality of life has deteriorated due to increased population  Need controls and regulations  Price of homes and cost of living has increased Navajo Nation trying to get joint-use-agreement for 2 years Page pays a percentage of County sales tax for open space, however, no funding has been invested in or around Page 5. How would you describe the values of the residents in Coconino County as it applies to parks and recreation?  Working, living, and playing outdoors  Protecting scenic views  The reason people move to Flagstaff  Tremendous opportunities beyond Coconino County property  Physically active community  Need to provide services for handicapped and challenged persons  Smaller, rural type community feel  Want to know their neighbors – want community events  Enthusiasts - Higher frequency of use  Easy access to surrounding public properties  Affordability  Respect for diversity and differing cultures  Family-oriented  Provide recreational opportunities for families and children  Protection of spiritual and natural spaces 6. Coconino County has 6 parks with approximately 600 acres. Based on your understanding and experience, how balanced do you think the parks and recreation system is in terms of park types, facilities and programs?  Fort Tuthill operates much like a Flagstaff regional park 102 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan     Operational Assessment  Getting more difficult to balance use – events are scheduled on top of each other – various events, programs, self-directed use Need more parks set aside – Strongly Flagstaff centric  Get control of property now  Wildlife protection and connectivity  Need another CPOST initiative to move beyond Flagstaff centric system  County holds 10 sections on Babbit’s land o Cataract Lake is an opportunity  Need to be conscious of usage of land under the County’s ownership or operations  Need more sledding locations Not balanced  Difficult to provide services in remote locations of the County  Northern county communities need parks and facilities  Flagstaff area receives most benefits Diverse population to be served Tourists are a major market  Facilities and programs need to serve and support both to justify development and operations 7. What role should Coconino County serve in providing parks and recreation facilities and programs throughout?  Listen to the community and consider as much as possible  Consider the environment of Northern Arizona  Proactive planning to determine where it is important to have active use of open space as well as protection and preservation  Appropriate level of use  Maintain access to open space  Forest Service Travel Management Plan is reducing the amount of motorized vehicles on its property  Reservations may be a perfect opportunity for off-highway vehicle trails o Example – Cinder Hills  How to generate revenues to monitor and enforce regulations  How to educate and help create self-monitoring and regulations  County could help facilitate partners and volunteers to help develop trails in Forest Service  Sedona has a Friends of the Forest group that helps the Forest Service  Partner with local governments and non-profits for operations of remote County parks  Acquire land from Reservation or Federal Government  Blue Hills – Tourists use it for off-road vehicles  Support tourism 8. What are the parks and recreation facility needs for the County as it applies to both indoor and outdoor facilities?  City of Flagstaff needs fields for kids to play sports  Winter recreation sites  More open space, and hiking, rock climbing, and bouldering areas  More playgrounds for children 103 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan                  Operational Assessment Trails, connections Protection of landscape for wildlife and habitat Educational and interpretive facilities  Signage, centers  Cultural resources  Tourism support – Bring entire package together Need to look at joint ventures with outlying cities and communities Mountain biking trails with tiered levels Off-road vehicle use areas Off-leash dog parks Kiosks at Ft. Tuthill  Objective: Educational, Informational, and Promotional Tuthill needs to be a Signature park – Master Plan exists  Equestrian Facilities – need to replace with state of the art development  Campground Prime opportunities for County that has been a failure for the City is acquisition of open space  City Open Space Commission has $5m+  County has to step up Outdoor community swimming pools Transition some unprotected open space parks into urban parks Preventative maintenance and life-cycle management Develop Pastor reservoir into a man-made lake for water-based sports Outdoor amphitheatre in Page Visitors Center for the Navajo Nation Water and comfort stations 9. What are the recreation program needs you hear about that are needed in the County?  Educational and interpretive programs  County should help facilitate programs between school district, city and Forest Service  Environmental and nature programs  Guided tours  Active, structured programs for youth  Concessionaire opportunities  Programs that strengthen health, fitness, and wellness  Work with Health Department to improve access to these types of programs 10. Are there any operational or maintenance issues that need to be addressed in the plan?  Inability to maintain parks and facilities at the appropriate or expected level  Need to consider the funding sources for maintenance  Traffic control at Fort Tuthill  Need to complete what they started  Vandalism  Protecting facilities to limit impact  Improved enforcement 104 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan         Operational Assessment Protecting facilities from fires  Create buffer zones Need to invest in preventative maintenance and life-cycle maintenance Need to capitalize better on volunteer groups and interagency coordination  Cleanup, invasive controls, etc. Lines of communications  Layers of bureaucracy – can’t get things done, don’t know who to talk to get things done Need to support tourism Transportation support Forest Service Management Plan – County Parks could play into it  Ecological  Social  Economic Need an operations and programming plan for Tuba City Park 11. Currently, the major portion (75%+/-) of the Department’s O&M budget is funded from net profits from the County Fair and County Horse Race. This funding is consumed by existing service requirements.  What are your feelings regarding this approach?  Difficult to get away from this right now  Need to raise money through assessments or development fees  Consider creation of a Park District  Need to establish policies that don’t reduce general fund investment with the increase of other revenues  Lessee events and County-sponsored event revenues should go back into the facility developed  County needs to have a reality-check for increasing general fund to support current and future development  Are there other opportunities or approaches for funding and/or partnering in Coconino County for the development or delivery of recreation facilities or programs?  District development – people are starting to get to a point where they just don’t have the ability to fund everything o Good percentage would support it – rural areas might not support it as much  Volunteers  Gaming tribes should pay a percentage for parks and recreation directed to the County  Partnering o Program support by private vendors o Need policies, procedures and formal agreements o Partner with school community services and school districts for educational programs o Tie in the medical community into health aspects o Private companies (e.g. Gore) o CPOS renewal – 2 years prior to 2012 o Collaborate with tribes o National Park Service – National Heritage District 105 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan   Operational Assessment  Mormon Pioneer Trail  Little Colorado Heritage  Tourism – County needs a business plan to help guide people to facilities and programs o Many partners would line up  Public – State Parks and Tourism (grants available), Federal, Transit, etc.  Private entities o New special events to draw people in o Guided mountain biking and horseback rides  The City of Page/School District/College relationship is a model for County Should user fees cover all costs for participation in a program or use of a facility?  Difficulty in not overpricing  Subsidies for third party operators based on social, health, and/or educational benefit  County should have some parks and facilities that are free and open to the public  Need tiered levels of services and fee levels established accordingly Should user fees cover all costs for Department administration and maintenance operations?  Fees should be commensurate with the value and level of service 12. If you could change one thing in parks and recreation in Coconino County in the next 10 years what would it be?  County to complete acquisition and increase amount  Leverage partnerships and collaborations  Development, operations, programming and maintenance  Actively pursue partnerships  Communication needs to improve  All partnership types  Upgrade Fort Tuthill  Improve education opportunities  Get youth more involved – they are the future  Improve programs to increase school usage  Change the laws related to funding County Parks and Recreation  Finding ways to fund Parks and Recreation internally  More earned income – private partnerships, using resources  Increase trail development  Increase public education to inform residents on responsibilities and accountability to help with parks and recreation  Watch programs  If you use it, give back to it  County take on a planning and oversight role for tourism  Broader picture outlook  Consider all of the public properties – not just Flagstaff area o Start a partnership with all providers to develop master plans that are not specific to each entity  Identify land throughout the County for protection  Maintain a good sense of community need 106 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan          Operational Assessment  Develop services for all County residents  Assess needs of community and create a long term plan and vision for sustainability Create better managed winter recreation opportunities Keep exploring a Parks and Recreation District Create a new image/identity for the Parks and Recreation Department and move towards it Create a taxed based budget that includes capital improvements Go more green Develop a proactive approach to health and fitness Know that there is a plan and that Page is incorporated in it County needs to start a partnership with the City of Page and Navajo Nation  Leverage resources  County needs to understand and recognize that there are willing partners o City Council/Board of Supervisor joint meetings have been helpful o Page community representatives need to be invited to participate on County Boards or Commissions  County Public Information Officer should include Lake Powell Chronicle in its press releases  Need to get involved in Page Make the Rim Trail into a first class facility 107 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment APPENDIX C: Summary of Community Forums by Meeting Location Williams – Summary Findings Date: October 23, 2007 Key observations: Adequate funding required / Strong partnership focus / Pursue diverse development / Creative programs are important / Fill the gaps first 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  Fort Tuthill was the most visited Coconino County park, primarily for special events  Cataract Lake County Park was also highly visited  Majority were also active users of US Forest Service and National Park Service Parks  City of Williams parks and recreation facilities including the rodeo grounds; recreation center for youth  Indoor skate park; indoor aquatics facility; Buckskinner Park (day use, fishing). 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  Adequate funding for park development and maintenance was the most identified key issue  This was followed by the lack of County parks and recreation services outside of the Flagstaff area  Misuse and abuse of Cataract Lake park was noted  The absence of diversity of recreation facility types was also discussed at length with basic youth recreation amenities and a Dog Park being most noted  Smaller organizations have concerns about the high cost to rent Fort Tuthill facilities 3. What parks and facilities are needed? 4.  Kids in Tusayan needs indoor/outdoor recreation facilities and include adult and tourist needs. This should include a multi-purpose facility along with support infrastructure  Partnerships in development and operations should be pursued in all cases  Williams has a special interest group focused on a “people and pets” park  Many noted the need for a partnership between the City of Williams and the County to have more local involvement in Cataract Lake CP  Development opportunities exist at Cataract Lake Park including trail system (nonmotorized, unpaved) that connects Buckskin Park with other facilities as well as interpretive signage to teach about natural habitat and resources  Green construction should be promoted and implemented including composting toilets, low water use, heating so that costs over the life cycle of the facility are affordable  Need to identify outdoor winter recreation use and promote county facilities better as well as coordinate marketing of public recreation facilities throughout the region. What recreation programs are needed? 108 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  A number of recreation program opportunities include interpretative/educational programs including special interest topics and local expertise and increased messages about fire prevention  An interpretive center where these programs and displays can be developed should be considered - interpretive centers currently exist at Kaibab Lake and Dogtown Lake and Whitehorse Lake  The County could promote the quality of bicycling experience that is available here— coordination of routes and information about opportunities  County can play a coordinating role in delivery of parks and recreation services given the geographic and cultural diversity of the county; Basically, the County can fill in the gap in services/facilities.  Minimal standards should be achieved that includes environmentally conscious and long-term sustainability o Standards should be driven by reduction in long-term maintenance and increase in environmental sensitivity o Intergovernmental Agreements should include school districts and other local districts; partnering includes balance with local support/funding of, for instance, and maintenance needs 5. Funding and Partnership Opportunities  Continue pursuit of Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund for acquisition and development of parks  Overall, attendees did not think the current funding strategy will cover future needs  Need to consider the economic benefit of events that occur at county parks  User fees should be related to the private benefit of the activity while understanding the cost to deliver the facility and the public benefit in terms of health, fitness; social connectivity  Corporate sponsorships should be considered but careful of naming rights to ensure proper application and process  Corporate sponsorships depends on how much money is contributed and by whom— some sponsorships would not be appropriate; level of recognition must also be respectful of the facility and the community 6. Short / Long Term Priorities?   Short Term o Implement projects with existing support and volunteers o Tusayan – Getting basic playgrounds and play fields (places that have nothing need something) Long Term o More land set aside for natural open space 109 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment o Establish a comprehensive education program to advance understanding of the Sky Island ecosystem that Williams is located in o Coordinate closely with Williams P&Z o Continuation of the CPOS sales tax program o Fort Tuthill events need improved traffic and parking management o Develop an environmental ethos to the development and operations of county facilities and programs o Philosophically speaking, long range planning is essential and local involvement critical to successful plan development; o Tusayan is all about tourists—and has opportunities to improve tourist experience as well as local economy and residents’ needs for recreation 110 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Tuba City – Summary Findings Date: October 17, 2007 Key observations: Strong youth focus / Jurisdictional cooperation imperative / Health and wellness programs important / Strong need for County involvement 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  Flagstaff and NPS o  Camping and hiking Page o Sports complex  Special events at Flagstaff  Not meeting needs o Need sports fields – 4-plex, soccer o School facilities – Only open during school hours; requirements 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  Children could be positively benefited by parks  All open space available is owned or managed by others – too many restrictions or not  Diabetes – need to walk unobstructed o  Federal funds available Need dedicated maintenance and upkeep of parks o Once a park looks like a ghetto – it deteriorates quickly  Existing locations (Reservoir and Dodson)  Authorities need to work together to allow development of parks  Area behind Tuba City Community Center o  Need stronger planning and zoning o  Tribal Officials need to allow development Several agencies/jurisdictions County needs to be responsible for Parks and Rec in Tuba City area because Tribe is not strong enough to do it o They have leadership o Kids need it o County provides the stability and leadership 3. What parks and facilities are needed?  Series of parks o  Dodson Park – park for children Reservoir 111 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan o Inter-tribal participation o Passive  Need active sports complex  Improved indoor facility Operational Assessment 4. What recreation programs are needed?  Youth  Health and Wellness 5. Funding and Partnership Opportunities   County led o Youth programs o Boys & Girls Clubs o Sports leagues Need to convene group of leaders to present plan o Coconino County presence  Current department funding is not fair or adequate  Need to go out to the communities o Indian money is spent in Flagstaff and Page o Want money to be spent back in Tuba City o Need special events and tourism to help support development of parks and recreation 6. Short / Long Term Priorities?  Short Term Make sure proper funding for Tuba City Park operations, maintenance and programming Need a plan, educate about and follow-through Consider the local influence to ensure that the plan does not go out in 6 weeks; e.g. Wells Fargo Bank Chapter officials have to be empowered and involved as well as Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department  Long Term o System of parks o Distributed throughout Village and Tuba City o County be the foundation to ensure that it happens o County could play a role in organizing tourism business / clusters 112 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Page – Summary Findings Date: October 16, 2007 Key observations: Upgrade current parks important / County assistance workable / Specific project need / Strong need for trails and diverse programs 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  Camping  Hiking area trails  State park needs upkeep; kids would like a skate park; basketball court needs lights; security is an issue  Vermillion’s access is changing (BLM) 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  There’s a difference between local and county  Current parks are overused but lack facilities like restrooms 3. What parks and facilities are needed?  Support ecotourism and other tourist services  Protection of unique natural areas  Provide expertise in planning and park development; assist in grants applications; help leverage resources  The most good for the most people  Encourage quality growth  Leadership in partnerships 4. What recreation programs are needed?  Grandview Knoll—assist with protection and development of 100+ acres, including viewing area, riparian area, handicap access; trails; A signature view-shed for the region.  Equestrian area--trails  Hiking area at Horseshoe Bend and connections to the Rim Trail;  Commuter trail—3 miles—to Navajo Generating Station  OHV trails  Environmental education—water conservation, wildlife studies, reuse of resources;  Natural history and cultural history interpretation;  Outdoor workshops—science oriented educational experiences;  Adventure, especially water-based, programs; 5. Funding and Partnership Opportunities  How can these revenue streams keep up with either inflation or growth in the system?  Donations for access make sense. 113 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan  Operational Assessment The more education, the more public support; the more recreation, the more private support. Fee should be equal to the value received. Youth programs should be publicly supported. 6. Short / Long Term Priorities?   Short Term o Make Grandview Knoll accessible o Restrooms in central park Long Term o OHV trails o Grandview Knoll o Expansion of Rim Trail o Improved partnering between city and county 114 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Fredonia – Summary Findings Date: October 25, 2007 Key observations: Well-organized and attended / Strong need for economic growth / Critical of current proposal / Community programs important 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  City park that has a swimming pool open during summer used by 50 kids currently; swim team is successful and  Softball field and lawn, trees at city park—pavilion—that many families and religious groups use;  Old tennis facility non functional  Rodeo grounds will have a shooting range; has a paintball area  10-mile ATV trail starts at the Welcome Center and is attractive to tourists 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  School facilities not available—being used for school-sponsored athletics  Fredonia swim team travels further than any other team in the nation—top of the 30,000 mile club  Two paychecks were uranium mining and timber; these have closed  Average income 20 years ago was $40,000; now is between $20-30,000  63% of population is senior and retired  Proposed Kanab Trail would connect Kanab and Fredonia using a corridor along Kanab Creek o Sentiment is that the proposed trail is a waste of money; creek corridor is unstable and widening; currently working with NRCS to take out invasive olives, etc o Kane County Water Conservancy District is damming Kanab Creek o Kanab Trail alignment should be relocated closer to the highway for environmental and safety concerns; private landowners might be more willing to grant easements 3. What parks and facilities are needed? Swim facility for fitness, competition—25 meter/25 yard with 8 lanes $1m  Outdoor/indoor facilities to improve fitness  Horseshoe facilities  Rodeo grounds—facility needs cover  Renovate, landscape and put in new playground equipment; $80,000  Concession stand with commercial kitchen and new bathrooms—fields are used by Little League that prepares fields yearly; porta-potties currently  Multipurpose building to serve as a community center; big interest in animals and fair—building would offer a location for activities 115 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Court facilities for tennis & volleyball—scouts want to build a volleyball pit  Walking track—a loop trail around the park; developer has suggested that his 146residential development be connected to the envisioned loop trail  Water park with a spray play area (Kanab has one that folks like)  Outdoor amphitheatre (city has a lot of land in many locations)  Overnight camping (nothing available in the winter) Have six small RV facilities; need a place to put up a tent and a motor home  Signage needed in Kanab and at USFS that advertises Fredonia  Coordination with USFS to make wider use of ATV interest in trails  Kids want a skate park 4. What recreation programs are needed?  Senior ladies exercise in the pool currently  Community walkers use main street but it is dark; there is a commercial fitness center in Kanab  Senior center  Fredonia services surrounding hamlets and tourism market  Soccer was a need—league in Kanab closed; Kane County school district will return in spring 5. Funding and Partnership Opportunities  New school superintendent in his second year; enrollment K-12 is about 300 students  Swim pool fee is $2-2.50 per student; daily attendance fluctuates; parties rent the facility for $40/hr  Population estimate locally is 1234; Bureau of Census is different  Relationship with Kanab is good  Expect a Kanab grocier to build in Fredonia  We are people working hard to make a difference; need to be recognized by the county; if we had a facility with county on it, we would feel part of the county  What can Fredonia afford to contribute to a partnership? 20%? No local property tax; newly passed increase in sales tax. $105,000 annual tax revenue from 2% sales tax  Canyon Region Economic Development Association (Coconino, Mohave, Kane Counties)  Consider 501-c-3 nonprofit to receive donations, grants, earned income to dedicate to parks and recreation projects; town can serve as the fiscal agent  Kanab businesses do donate to parks and recreation fundraisers 116 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment 6. Short / Long Term Priorities?   Short Term o Playground needs to be refurbished soon so we can show progress with volunteers and supporters o Parks and recreation committee has drawn up a concept plan Long Term o Indoor swimming-pool o Year-round, indoor multi-purpose community center o Walking look trail 117 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Flagstaff – Summary Findings Date: October 23, 2007 Key observations: Major population center of County / Improved events needed / Improved facility conditions important / More marketing needed 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  Peaks View CP  Fort Tuthill CP  Thorpe City of Flagstaff  Lake Mary Road bike Path  FUTS trail system  Mountain View Park City of Flagstaff  Forest Service  NPS  Mountain View has limited capacity  Have to drive to access Thorpe  Fort Tuthill lacks grassy areas and a large multipurpose facility; needs better equestrian amenities; grassy areas not large enough for large-scale dog events  Fort Tuthill needs facilities infrastructure like restrooms 7. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  County needs more parks in county areas away from Flagstaff  Need for environmentally sustainable development of parks  Major events need better traffic management at FTCP  Need for different type of county park that can support large events - dog show  Event coordination at FTCP  Traffic safety and separation of bikes and walkers from vehicular traffic  Improve trail access from different parts of county  Important to have covered areas at FTCP to support various events  Protection of ecologically sensitive areas around Flagstaff and elsewhere  Ability of county to react to opportunities in a timely fashion such as land and easement acquisition  Improved infrastructure for overnight camping  Some county parks presence at the Peaks so that public accessibility is preserved  Protection of wildlife movement corridors  Maintenance of county parks is adequate= 50%; condition of buildings is funky; porta-potties, trip hazards on asphalt  Multiple uses at FTCP contributes to opportunities and diversity 8. What parks and facilities are needed? 118 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Trails that accommodate many uses—a system that supports hike/bike, equestrian  Large covered arena for use by dog and horse groups  Improved fair facility  Difficult to redevelop FTCP without slighting needs in other areas of the county  More community playgrounds that serve several neighborhoods  Is it the role of the county to develop traditional urban parks with active recreational facilities? o No; emphasis should be on wildlife corridors, wetland areas;  Doney Park CP is an urban park in a rural setting—it does serve multiple needs  Raymond CP has pond, field, and access to natural areas from the playground  Three kinds of county park—regional event venue; community urban park in a rural setting; and natural areas set aside for resource values  Fair is “charming” at FTCP—would be a shame to lose that; respect historical integrity but use new construction and an upgraded look 9. What recreation programs are needed?  Kids’ outdoor recreation/adventure program;  Dog training classes;  Family-oriented programs like adventure programs;  Sports programs at FTCP  Community garden program, although Arboretum at Flagstaff does have this program;  Wildlife watching tours for residents and tourists;  Programs that generate social exchange;  Need for reciprocity between city and county such that county provides for a spectrum of services without duplicating city services;  Support partner and volunteer programs in community outreach;  Kids’ programs that are decentralized and mobile meets intergenerational exchange and youth education 10. Funding and Partnership Opportunities  Donations from special interest groups; also lease arrangements  Increase utilization of facilities to cover costs  Should user pay full cost? o Increase marketing effort o If majority is using a facility, costs should be born by the public; price based on exclusivity of use suggests that user fee reflects level of private benefit o User groups and special events build a constituency for parks and recreation that advocates for these services o User fee should reflect level of community service provided by the event; 119 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Sales tax revenue is collected from the county at large and should cover maintenance and operations of county facilities  Nonprofit organizations should not be required to pay for use of county facilities  Take care of existing facilities before expanding  Special events at county park facilities generates economic benefits locally—should be recognized as decisions are made about future facilities and programs  Surcharge or assessment on use of facilities to generate additional revenue  Sell sponsorship of special events o Two-thirds support selling advertising  Half support use of naming rights for events and facilities—Purina’s support for animal-based events, e.g. Revenue-generating facilities should take advantage of the tourist market  Winter snow village—sleigh rides, booths and shops—to attract tourists; concern that residents will be priced out of such events  County should take care not to compete with privately-available services  Graduated fee structure for appropriate events and programs  Role of county parks system in tourism? o Provide facilities, coordinate regional efforts such as nature tours; o Downside to going after tourist dollars is that local programs suffer when tourists don’t come; o Equestrian groups in the Phoenix metro area  Partnered construction and operation of facilities between city and county  Existing inter-agency/private sector effort to identify new snow play facility 11. Short / Long Term Priorities?   Short Term o Improve existing revenue-generating facilities o Create a dog park o Better utilization of facilities o Improve existing facilities for dog-related activities o Analysis of environmental impact of new P&R development Long Term o Land acquisition for regional park facility for recreational development targeted toward future o Interconnected trails system developed and maintained o Develop multipurpose area o Dedicated capital fund from county general fund o Protection of natural resources o Access to FTCP for bicycles o Break gridlock with State Trust lands 120 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Sedona – Summary Findings Date: October 24, 2007 Key observations: Jurisdictional divide compounds issues / Diverse community interests/ Multi-jurisdictional and private partnerships possible 1. What parks and recreation facilities do you utilize?  Sedona Parks: Posse Ground Park; Sunset Park; 2 pocket parks; Jordan Historical Park  Community pool within a school facility, run by the city during the summer  Trails—160 miles within USFS; Sedona contributes $50,000 per year for upkeep  State parks—Slide Rock and Red Rock 2. What are the key issues facing the County as a whole as well as parks and recreation?  Traffic and parking on Oak Creek Canyon Road  Absence of diversity of recreation facilities, including indoor team sports, recreation fitness, a year-round aquatic facility  Absence of bike lanes and pedestrian paths  Attitude of local government that overlooks residents’ needs  Need a user survey that captures who is using what county facilities  Limited open space/natural areas  No public transportation into the Oak Creek Canyon area 3. What parks and facilities are needed?  Indoor wet /dry activity facility  Location for neighborhood park off SR179  Bike lanes and pedestrian pathways  Additional fields for outdoor recreation  Land for public recreation facilities  Natural open space for conservation purposes  Facilities for elderly recreation and fitness needs 4. What recreation programs are needed?  Existing programs for competitive, training and fitness related to swimming  Need recreational and intramural programming  What is the role of the county in providing needed facilities and programs? o Look to county to provide partnership leadership in developing facilities and services 5. Funding and Partnership Opportunities  City-County partnership to provide facilities; could include Yavapai County  Sedona has a history of partnering with US Forest Service and working with two counties within one municipality 121 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Issues that would arise in a three-way partnership include who would pay and how much  State heritage grant program is a source  User fees should offset a portion of the cost of operations and maintenance but not preclude participation—it is appropriate to publicly subsidize programs  Health-based benefits are an example of activities that deserve full public support  Volunteer support of programs is an active area of partnering here  Naming rights have been used to recognize philanthropic support  Naming rights for corporate sponsors should demonstrate public need/concern  Attracting private large donations  Use Friends of Coconino County Parks; (Numerous Friends groups raise funds locally as well as library and other facilities)  Perception that contributions from private and public sectors are imbalanced  Better promotion and communication of initiatives  Is a Parks District (a stand-alone entity with separate taxing authority) a viable funding mechanism? o  Possible concerns that the District would not serve the Yavapai portion of Sedona; Could a parks and open space initiative be supported beyond the current program? o Continuing population growth makes it likely 6. Short / Long Term Priorities?   Short Term o Bike lanes o Multiple pool aquatic facility for training, therapy, competitive and recreation o Subsidized shuttle service to trailheads o Signage to identify location of county and other parks facilities Long Term o Land acquisition for regional park facility for recreational development targeted toward future market needs o Consider changing demographics and cultural characteristics in identifying future needs o Lodging needs for incoming swimmers o Development of facilities will enhance tourists’ experiences; an example is bike lanes for the Sedona race 122 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment APPENDIX D: Facility Assessment Details by Park Fort Tuthill County Park Strengths and Opportunities  Main revenue generator for the Parks and Recreation Department; results in substantial subsidization of other Department operations  Consortium of focal destination assets – County Fairgrounds, Racetrack, Amphitheater, Horse Stables – provides great exposure for the County’s signature park  Amphitheater displays quality in development  Park is located within minutes of nearly half of the entire County population  Opportunity to increase park exposure and ease of access through the realignment of Highway 89A  Explore removing active recreational features near the administrative building – tennis courts, wall ball courts, and volleyball courts – and replace with a large group pavilion/ramada and shaded playground structure (ramada would replace the one lost to the 89A realignment)  Explore adopting special event traffic flow (one-way) as standard traffic configuration  Explore permanently sinking tent/structure anchor slots into the asphalt of the fairgrounds  Draft and implement standard partnership agreements (contracts) with all partners – both monetary and relational partnerships – setting specific guidelines and listing equitable contributions by both parties  Connection to multiple trails as well as the Citywide trail system (FUTS) allows for pedestrian access via hike/bike without having to access the roadways  Park appeared very clean and free of litter; perceived as a safe environment  Fairgrounds are listed on the national historic register Weaknesses and Constraints  Numerous facilities (destination and ancillary) need significant rehabilitation due to expired lifecycle and/or absence of preventative/routine maintenance  Current active recreation sport courts have expired; active sports recreation is in conflict with park classification; more suitable for a city sponsored community park  Current standard traffic configuration can lead to congestion  Current procedures/infrastructure lead to severe annual degradation of the asphalt surface of the fairgrounds  Historical lack of operational contracts has lead to many cases of entitlement throughout the park  As amphitheater matures parking could become an issue 123 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment General Observations  Possible rear exit for events and amphitheater use has an unimproved natural surface; if the rear exit is to become utilized on a regular basis it should be paved  On the eastern side of the roadway leading to the administrative offices is a large pavilion with 10-12 picnic tables associated with it; there are also 4 tennis courts, 1 softsurface volleyball courts (not sand); a parking area located directly to the east of the large pavilion; 6 horseshoe pits that are overgrown and in bad state of disrepair  Multiple trails travel through the park – the Flagstaff Urban Trail System, Soldier Trail, and Bridge Trail  County public works maintains all roads  Parks are relatively free of litter Highway 89A Realignment  For convenience reasons, the overpass/entrance ramp of exit 337 has evolved as the main park entrance  During the times of the active Air Force Base, the main entrance was located further north along Hwy 89A; this road is still in existence; secondary/AFB entrance road will soon be gated and the main entrance off of exit 337 will become the focal entrance point  With the realignment of 89A, approximately 600 feet of park land will be relinquished for Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way  Realignment of Highway 89A is planned to extend to the immediate western side of Soldiers Trail; it will then extend further east to the first picnic area approached when utilizing the main entrance.  Park and Recreation Department is exploring two options for the realignment – 1) Selling all land required for the realignment to Arizona DOT, and 2) Selling only the easement and retaining the remainder of the land so that the Department can control all development  Unimpeded development could create an eyesore of retail/commercial development at the park entrance  Reasoning for realignment is due to stacking, especially during events held in the park; stacking backs up traffic onto southbound 17 out of Flagstaff creating a safety hazard  Buffer policy should be adopted prior to the realignment/development of highway 89A/right-of-way  Currently, traffic flow and parking become an issue during the two large special events – the County Fair and the horse races; during these events traffic flow is one way in and one way out; traffic flow during all other events is a mix of standard two-way and oneway traffic 124 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  The amphitheater is currently in its second year of existence; it is expected to continue to grow in programming and attendance; this increased market share is also expected to place a strain on parking and traffic flow  Explore shifting to one-way traffic – one way in and out – for all park events and standard park use in order to assist in traffic flow and ease congestion  The Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of exploring a policy for off-site parking and shuttle service for events that draw above a certain number of attendees; utilization of the Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the City of Flagstaff transit systems have been discussed  With the realignment of Hwy 89A, shifting day parking areas should be explored  Pima pavilion/ramada on the north end of the passive use area will also be lost due to the Highway 89A realignment and the easement that Arizona DOT requires  Pima pavilion/ramada does have a large day parking lot, a natural surface volleyball court, one basketball court, two portable toilets, and one dumpster located at the day area; multiple picnic tables and built-in grills are located within the natural area/surroundings  Picnic area sign is going to be the newly adopted signage standard Maintenance Yard/Building and Structures  The maintenance yard is a joint venture with Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments; Public Works funded the facility  Two bays of the vehicle barn located on the western most portion of the barn are utilized by Public Works; the other three bays are utilized by Parks and Recreation  The cinder barn is now used by Public Works; cinder is stored year-round (used for snow removal)  Biggest issue in the maintenance yard has to do with the growth of the Department; more facilities and personnel require additional storage  A stand alone equipment barn is needed to house various pieces of equipment  The surfacing of the maintenance yard is an unimproved natural surface; due to heavy traffic and the compounding of intensity of use during inclement weather, the maintenance yard should be paved; drainage is currently an issue that needs to be addressed in the equipment area  Original plans had an equipment barn with improved surfacing; plans were amended due to funding reasons  Department has most of the required pieces of equipment needed to fulfill duties; only piece of equipment lacking is a forklift;  Lack of fleet vehicles is an issue; growth in Department personnel and land has placed a burden on current fleet and resulted in shortages 125 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Currently Parks and Recreation is utilizing three of the Public Works motor pool vehicles to assist in delivery of programs and services; office space is deficient due to the rapid growth that the Department has experienced over the past few years  Possible expansion could occur to the southwest of the current yard; all other boundaries are landlocked  Restroom is strictly one toilet, two sinks, and a shower; not adequately sized for growth of staff; could pose a problem with the hiring of female staff due to the lack of available restrooms  Tool bay is at capacity; addition of another mezzanine across the tool bay has been explored in order to shift the janitorial supplies over to the second story of the tool bay to make room for additional office space in the office area  Last bay on the eastern side is the metal working bay; it is also at capacity  There is a need for increased storage for equipment and fleet, as well as an increase in fleet vehicles for staff  Infrastructure for the maintenance yard is not adequate; sewer system is on a vault and water pressure severely lacking; electricity hookup is adequate; original system possibly came online in the 1930’s; the remainder of the park is on a septic system and leech field Horse Stables  Approximately 365 horse stalls located directly west of the maintenance yard  Five (5) dollar cleaning deposit is required for the stables  Stable manager has informed Parks and Recreation that it takes an average of 45 minutes to 1 hour to clean each stall  Once each stall is cleaned out, waste is moved to the newer pits at the end of the stables and then carted out of the park through various means; $5 cleaning deposit appears to be inadequate to recover necessary labor and materials cost; options should be explored  Intense equestrian event usage (average one per weekend) has led to the degradation of the stable area; it is the facility/program area within the park that is failing the quickest in terms of infrastructure  Much of the area needs repair as well as routine and preventative maintenance  New design plans for the stables completed approximately five years ago by the Department are 90% complete; current funding does not exist for the rehab  Destitute stable area/facilities does not seem to be a deterrent to the usage of the facility  Stable fees are $11.00 per night plus an additional $5.00 cleaning deposit; cleaning deposit is charged per event/stay, not individual night  All stable structures are charged an $11.00 fee, including the chain link, wood, and cinderblock structures 126 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  If a person wants to camp at the stables an additional $9.00 fee is charged; if hooking up to an electrical outlet the fee is $13.00 per night to camp  to the western end of the stables there is a horse jumping course  Shavings are sold on site for $4.00 per bag plus a $1.00 delivery charge (total $5.00 per bag)  Stable manager office is located on site; an apartment is located in the office  There are roughly 3-5 dedicated RV campsites on the western side of the stables, directly across from the stable manager’s office  Explore policy of requiring all trailers to park outside of the dedicated stable area on a hard surface (improved) lot; only foot traffic would be allowed into the stable areas after the initial unloading phase  Master plan for stables is needed to explore possibility of creating a cost efficient/revenue zone; waste services should also be explored; hauling off manure cost the Department $30,000 last fiscal year Sheriff’s Posse Arena and Horse Jumping Course  Small circular arena located at the northern end of the stables  Funding for routine and preventative maintenance on the arena is lacking  Explore manure fee  Arena has sufficient electrical infrastructure; the same water deficiencies exists at arena as other portions of the park  Roughly five acres to the east of the arena has been thinned out; space is utilized for camping associated with various roping events and renaissance festivals  Horse jumping course at the northern boundary of the park (north of Posse Arena) utilizes a portion of state land along the northwest boundary of the park as well as the park land  Horse jumping groups do not pay for use of land, nor do they pay a fee for any event; this is a result of a historical entitlement; staff has however began monitoring the area to prevent rogue horse jumps Grandstands Racetrack  52nd season was just completed at the racetrack; racetrack is located adjacent to the stables and maintenance yard  The rectangle arena on the infield of the racetrack is no longer in use due to poor footing; degradation of the surface; it has been estimated at roughly $40,000 to bring the surface back up to standard in order for events to take place in the arena  Retail/booths are set up in the breezeway beneath the grandstand  Horse races are only held once per year during the four days around the 4th of July (depending on when the 4th falls during the week) 127 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  All equestrian facilities at the track – arenas and the track – need to be resurfaced  The City of Flagstaff is exploring the possibility of placing a water well due east by 10 yards of the northern end of the rodeo arena; explore possibility of partnering with the City to increase infrastructure/flow to the maintenance shop and the remaining equestrian facilities in this portion of the park; at the time of the assessment, negotiation appeared to be one-sided in the City’s favor with the County receiving a $26,000 water meter  Demolition derby is also held on the easternmost portion of the racetrack  Financial policies will be analyzed to determine funding mandates and flow of funds from the general fund, special events fund, enterprise funds, and the inequity of covering maintenance and operations through special event funding; it is estimated that 12-15% of the Department operations are subsidized via the general fund with additional funding from Coconino Parks and Open Space Program (CPOS)  Concessions agreement at the horse race event last year from alcohol sales resulted in a 33% take of gross of alcohol sales and 21% take of gross food and non-alcoholic beverage sales Trails  Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) runs all the way through the city and along the western portions of the park  Very nice trail; natural surface dedicated to both hike and bike access  Soldiers trail also runs along the eastern portion of the park County Fairgrounds  Complex of facilities was used by the military reserve in the 1930’s &40’s (Complex was built in 1920’s and 30’s)  Old maintenance shop is currently being used to house inmate crews that assist with park maintenance; Parks and Recreation will soon acquire an additional inmate crew; due to the cultural differences (current inmate crews are Hopi Indian) potentially resulting from the new inmate crew, there is a possibility there will be need for a divider placed in the shop.  Currently in the process of building maintenance shed at the maintenance yard to house tools; new storage should reduce the likelihood of tool loss (all state programs using the same tools)  During the summer, larger equipment (bobcats, etc.) has to be removed from the cinder barn due to rentals; this results in large equipment being left out and subject to the environment; the Department must explore additional storage space to house equipment on a year-round basis  In the initial laying of the asphalt surface of the fairgrounds, the asphalt was laid directly over non-improved subsurface which lead to annual renovations/repairs; stakes used to anchor tents are driven directly into the asphalt which also leads to the subsurface degradation and repairs on an annual basis 128 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  None of the utilities have been improved in the fairgrounds area  Each structure is set up to house exhibits during the fair as depicted by the signage at the end of each structure  The fairground is on the national historical registry. A grant of $137,200 from Arizona State Parks in 2000 paid for renovations to the exterior of buildings that date to the days of the Fort. Funds from the County Parks and Open Space program will be used to match future grant applications. Work remaining includes above-ground improvements as well as development of new promenade and gathering areas on the east side of the Fairgrounds.  Sewer system is an issue; most areas within the park are on a septic system (maintenance yard is a vault system); Department has explored the possibility of tapping into the city’s sewer line which is about one mile Northwest; due to the cost of the easement and the materials required (pipe upsizing due to projected growth) tapping into the system was estimated at seven to ten million dollars; development of an onsite sewage treatment plant has been estimated between eight and ten million dollars; currently there is no funding available for either option  Upgrades to existing infrastructure prior to new development should be a priority; sewer, water, and electricity have been deemed the highest priority prior to all other improvements  Gems and Minerals building is utilized by the Gems and Minerals Club; there is no contract in place for the club usage; club does not pay for the usage of the space; this building is only open to the public during the county fair, during all other times during the year the Gems and Minerals Club does occupy the space for free of charge; there are a few other instances where this occurs  Building 3 - Model Railroad and the Train Club user group is also an example of a unique user that does not pay for the specialized use/area; there is no contract in place  Coconino Rural Environment Corps (CREC) is also housed on the premises, utilizing park buildings free of charge (CREC has moved off property and their old building now houses inmate work crew)  The lot located to the west of the county fair plot is referred to as the Carnival Plot; the Carnival Plot is rented out to carnivals as well as serving as overflow RV parking  Roughly $10,000 worth of equipment is rented for each of the occurrences of the county fair; this includes generators, light towers, and other infrastructure needs of the fair  Berms were put in place to help control the water run-off; unfortunately, the berms create run-off which rises above the building base resulting in building flooding  Adult probation group utilizes the woodworking shop and storage shed in between buildings 2 and 3; the group is also officed on the premises in a historical building (Adult Probation has moved out of historic building and has consolidated their operations out of the ‘Sportsmans’ building, which is between buildings 2 and 3. Adult Probation is 129 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment searching for a new location, off of park property to conduct their program – move is expected this spring)  Staff area and office equipment storage is extremely cramped; only one restroom is located within the facility in which staff is housed; staff have less than 25 square feet on average for individual office/personal space  Main entrance to fairgrounds is located between buildings 3 and 4 on the north side of the fairground plot area  The Commercial Building has an improved concrete surface; there is substantial cracking of the concrete surface; this is the only location in the county fair area with permanent men’s and women’s restrooms Archery Range  The archery range is another case where there is no contract in place and no precedent has been set to charge a fee; entitlement of the area has been passed down through the users  Archery range is approximately 25-30 acres  Only members of the archers’ organization are allowed to access the range  There is a 3D walking course as well as a target practice course  The archers group did pay capital improvement costs of a small pavilion in the archers’ area Forest Service  Forest Service land abutting the archery range has been discussed as a potential site for an RV campground  Forest Service has approached the County Parks and Recreation Department about possibly developing the RV campground in order to alleviate some of the pressure on the forest service; approximately 500-600 acres of land could be developed for the campground  A snow play/sled hill has also been explored further north of the potential RV campground site; due to low elevation snow play duration would be limited Campground  The campground was designed decades ago; not conducive for modern day RVs or high traffic/use  There are no restroom facilities; only portable toilets  Campground has a total capacity of 100 campsites; policy states that the maximum occupancy is 8 to10 persons per site; 8-10 person occupancy seems high for site capacity  It is difficult to delineate roadways from the other pathways; signage does exist but it is still difficult to tell where roadways exist and where they do not 130 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan  Operational Assessment Group camping is set up in four quadrants; each quadrant is sectioned off by a fence system, arranged in an “X”, with each groups’ back to one another; each group section has one large fire-pit Amphitheater  Amphitheater is less than two years old; the Amphitheater at Fort Tuthill County Park, was dedicated May 20, 2006, financed by the voters of Coconino County through the Coconino county parks and open spaces tax program, Coconino county board of supervisors, and Arizona heritage fund grants  Facility appears to be of the utmost quality; very well done  Amphitheater bookings are leading to ancillary usages among the campgrounds; possibility of developing the current campground into a special event campground has been explored if the campground with the Forest Service (adjacent to current Archery Range) comes to fruition  Parking located near amphitheater is used for VIP parking; premiums are placed on the price with all other parking routed to the fairground area; a hard surface, lighted trail leads from the parking lot to the amphitheater; another trail leads from the amphitheater to the Luke Air Force Base Recreation Area/County Fairground lot  Playground area (6-12 years of age) and one small pavilion/ramada is located north of amphitheater Sawmill County Park Strengths and Opportunities  Excellent partnership with Willow Bend Environmental Education Center; County would like to extend partnership to other parks  Design has allowed for diverse program offerings on a small plot of land  Located adjacent to City of Flagstaff open area and the City of Flagstaff citywide trail system (FUTS) Weaknesses and Constraints  Currently located adjacent to a County correctional facility  Will also soon be adjacent to a mixed use/new urbanism development that could possibly increase the frequency of use, as well as the intensity, requiring substantially higher number of preventative and routine maintenance General Observations  Neighborhood park with a special use element – Willow Bend Environmental Education Center; 5 uniquely themed gardens; parking lot for roughly ten cars, two spaces are handicap accessible; one water fountain; park is in the very early stages of the lifecycle – stage 1  The park was dedicated June 21, 2003, to the residents of Coconino County; it was established in recognition of the rich multicultural history of the south side and its 131 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment residents; funds were provided by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors and Arizona State Park Heritage Fund Grants, two Arizona Game and Fish Heritage Fund Grants, and the Arizona Commission of the Arts  Park aesthetics are excellent; nice shrubbery, garden, and natural habitat areas; three giant murals of tile on the concrete wall leading to the park that blocks view from the street to the playground  Various sculptures are located along the concrete route as it leads to the playground; there are a couple of non-covered sitting areas along the way; there are also a couple of permanent grills and trash cans located along the trail  Permanent restrooms are currently under development at the edge of the property adjacent to the parking lot  New Urbanism (commercial/retail/residential) development currently under construction directly across street will drastically change the type and intensity of usage that the park currently experiences  The park is bordered on the eastern side by the City of Flagstaff open space land; a large eastern trail system cuts through the ravine of the open space  The park does experience homeless issues; park is located adjacent to the County correctional facility; other safety issues may arise from increased traffic flow as a result of the development across the street  Explore possibility of shifting park to a city function instead of a county function; currently park operates as a community park but with the influx of the new urbanism development directly across the street, park will function as a neighborhood park Trails/Pedestrian Circulation  A concrete sidewalk, approximately 6 feet wide, leads to the Environmental Education Center; all other pedestrian circulation routes within the park are natural surface topped with flagstone.  The Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) runs directly adjacent to the park on the eastern side; trail runs through portion of City open space land which borders the eastern side of the park Garden Areas  Multiple benches/sitting areas are located throughout the park along paths; great interpretive signage is placed at each of the distinct gardens; signage depicts what is being grown in each garden; great interpretive signage extends past the unique garden areas to the shrubbery along the trails Willow Bend Environmental Education Center  A partnership exists between the County and the Environmental Education Center; County owns the land; the center was allowed to build and operate the structure on the county land in order to bring education to the school age children; there is a desire to expand this partnership to other sites 132 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Playground Area and Mural  A concrete wall with three giant tile murals on the street-side and a giant art mural showcasing public artwork on a rotational basis is located on the playground-side of the large wall (8 feet x 65 feet)  On the opposite side of the tile murals is a large turf area that can be used for small special events and picnicking  Playground zone is encompassed by a five foot concrete sidewalk; the playground is designed for use by 5-12 years of age; surfacing is wood chips filled all the way to the top and all the way to the concrete border; there was relatively little degradation of the surface during the assessment visit, even in high use areas there is limited rutting  Playground zone is free from graffiti and has little if any litter; playground appears to be in stage 1 of the lifecycle; ADA accessible, although the structure is not universally accessible (access onto the actual structure for all disabled persons)  A safety light is located inside the playground zone; one green bench is located within the playground area; bench does not utilize the same standard that is used along the pathways outside of the playground zone; outside of the fencing along the concrete sidewalk there are three benches that are similar in design/style/standard as the benches located along the pedestrian routes; one trashcan is located at the playground zone Peaks View County Park Strengths and Opportunities  Synthetic surface sport field allows for heavy usage of facility year-round  Hike and bike and equestrian trails bisect the park at the entrance  Partnership with the community complimented development  Second phase of development has been funded and scheduled for 2008; phase 3 is being planned  Buffer policy should be adopted while immediate neighboring development is limited Weaknesses and Constraints  High winds in the area increase the demand of preventative and routine maintenance  Vandalism has become an issue due to the vast openness and direct access off of the main road  Location of park places high demands on park staff operating out of park headquarters (Fort Tuthill) General Observations  Dedicated May 19, 2001; funded by Coconino County Board of Supervisors, Arizona State Park Heritage Fund Grant, and the Doney Park Community Association; located in a largely residential community 133 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Community park setting; features synthetic surface multipurpose field (non-lighted) capable of accommodating both soccer/football/lacrosse usage and diamond sport usage  The park has one large pavilion; Next to the field, there is a small pavilion which is a pavilion for 4 tables or less. There is also a small pavilion adjacent to the playground.  Asphalt driveway and parking lot is in need of repair/resurfacing; lighted lot  Humphrey’s Ramada (large pavilion/ramada); octagonal with permanent barbeque grills surrounding; a couple of picnic tables are adjacent as well located under the ramada; wired for electrical; ADA accessible  Freemont Ramada (small pavilion/ramada) is adjacent to the sport field; ADA accessible  At the time of the tour there were 4 portable toilets; permanent restroom structure has been burnt down due to excessive vandalism; (Portable toilets have been removed and restroom is now open. Within a month of opening, restroom experienced a 3rd act of vandalism - tagging on interior walls, lights, mirrors, stall dividers, etc. in both men’s and women’s sides.  Although there is a vandalism problem in the area, park is kept clean and free of litter  Second phase of the park development is scheduled to be completed by the end of summer 2008; parking lot will be resurfaced; landscaping will also be addressed; Parks and Recreation will attempt to reduce the wind and wind blown debris by placing berms on the southern end of the park (berms have been constructed and 17 spruce trees were planted on them to create a wind barrier for playground material. Playground woodchips were re-filled in December 2007 and a wind-fence will be installed on perimeter of playground to help prevent the woodchips from blowing out of the playground due to high winds)  With the second phase of development and new facilities coming online, it is of the utmost importance to address adequate staffing levels in order to maintain the projects and existing facilities to the adopted standard Sport Field  Sport field is conducive to both multipurpose and diamond sport usage; however, only one type of activity (game/tournament) may occur at one time; the southern corner of the field is designed for diamond field use; sport field is heavily used for soccer tournaments and various other multipurpose events; diamond field gets limited use  Player areas/dugouts have been severely overgrown with weeds; a water fountain is located behind the first base baseline  Balusters had to be placed in the dugouts to keep from having persons drive ATVs onto the sport field to plow/remove snow  Surface seems quite hard and heavily used, but is in good shape – 1st stage of the lifecycle; there are limited spectator areas – 4 sets of bleachers; 2 portable soccer goals and 2 trash receptacles were on the field at the time of the tour  Explore event policy dictating funding in regards to cost recovery 134 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Trails/Pedestrian Circulation  Two trails parallel to one another (10-20 yards apart); one trail supports equestrian usage, one is for hike and bike usage; equipped with a bench and trash receptacles near the intersection of the trails and the park entrance  Explore placing a loop trail throughout the park linking key features (pavilion/ramada, playground, and sport field) so that patrons do not have to access the sport field from the large pavilion/ramada via the parking lot (concrete sidewalks have been installed that link all 3 ramadas, playground, bathroom, and ball field) Playground Area  Large playground structure is surrounded by a wooden fence; although the playground is considered ADA accessible from a surfacing standpoint, the actual structure itself is not universally accessible (accessible to all persons with disabilities)  One playground is designed for children 5-12 years of age and a smaller play structure is designed for 2-5 year olds; 4 bucket swings and 6 belt swings located on opposite ends of the playground area from one another;  Wood chips make-up the surface of each playground structure; rubber mats are placed underneath bucket swings to reduce erosion of wood chips; high winds in the area ejects the material from the playground boundaries, leading to increased material and labor costs  Due to minimum staffing and remoteness of park to headquarters, portions of the park, including the playgrounds, are in need of increased routine maintenance Pumphouse Greenway Extension Strengths and Opportunities  Setting is very serene and could lend itself to an excellent loop trail with accompanying view sheds  Park area has the potential to be linked to the Pumphouse Greenway and Raymond Park Weaknesses and Constraints  Area is currently zoned for commercial development  Access into and out of area is limited to two lane roads; during heavy use at snow play area traffic congestion becomes a safety hazard General Observations  Extension of Pumphouse Greenway is located near the intersection of Pinion Trail and North Oraibi Ovi in Kachina Village, northwest of Raymond Park  Became Parks and Recreation property in 2001 with a donation; natural conservation area is approximately 15 acres; possibility of wetland preserve program in March 2008 if the Department receives necessary grant funding 135 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment  Area was developed in the early 1990’s as a stock tank or a fishing lake to benefit the adjacent neighbors  Department is currently exploring the possibility of developing a trail around the hillsides encompassing the wetland area; intent is to manage it as a wetland area; trail would be roughly ¾ to 1 mile in length around the wetland area; County Planning Department in conjunction with Parks and Recreation should recommend a zoning change to open space  Snow play area for the Kachina Village generates heavy use and creates extreme congestion; participants travel up Interstate 17 from the Valley strictly to snow sled; charter buses can add to the safety issues due to a lack of appropriate parking to handle such large crowds Raymond County Park and Pumphouse Greenway Strengths and Opportunities  Funding has been dedicated to the redevelopment of much of Raymond Park  Pumphouse Greenway has the potential to become the area attraction for wetland environmental education  Possible partnership with Willow Bend Environmental Education Center for the Pumphouse Greenway  Successful partnerships have allowed the Department to begin assembling the Pumphouse Greenway wetland area  Adequate trail opportunities should be placed throughout park to control access and potential degradation of the wetland area Weaknesses and Constraints  Currently, the main access point for Raymond Park is directly off of the access road of Interstate 17  Commercially zoned plot adjacent to Raymond Park could lead to an eyesore and lack of proper park buffer  Increased usage upon redevelopment of many park amenities may increase the potential for damage of the natural resources General Observations  Located directly adjacent to I-17; part of the Pumphouse Greenway; community park that serves the Kachina Village populace; park was named after community figure from the early 1900’s  Department should explore the acquisition of approximately 3 acres of commercially zoned land due south of the park; purchase would maintain integrity of park land and create a natural buffer between retail (convenience store) and heavy traffic intersection  Park is adjacent to the Pumphouse Greenway; 13.5 total acres featuring a basketball court, picnic tables, baseball field, playground, and youth climbing wall; parking area is 136 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment natural surface and can accommodate approximately 30-40 cars; 2 portable toilets (one handicap accessible); Dr. Raymond’s gravesite is on site and surrounded by wood fencing  The pond adjacent to the baseball field has been deliberately kept out of the conservation area to allow for park patrons to be able to get near and interact without the regulations/ramifications of a conservation area  Teen Works is an excellent example of utilizing partnerships; it is a system which utilizes a group of 8 teenagers aged 14-16 years that rehabs the general park area, including the woodchips, painting, and a sundry of other routine maintenance tasks; Teen Works is operated by the County Career Center (TeenWorks also does work at PVCP, SCP, and FTCP)  Raymond Park has received a grant for $766,000; the County will add an additional 1.5 million dollars of matching funds to develop a permanent restroom, small and large pavilion/ramada for all weather protection and year-round usage; the baseball field will also be rehabbed; an additional basketball court will be added and the volleyball court will be replaced; playground equipment for younger age groups will also be added to the site; a parking lot on the northern side of the park will be added for local usage; new site furnishings (barbeque pits, picnic tables, etc.) are also planned; all assets and amenities will be linked together for ADA accessibility  View sheds will be developed for dedicated wetland use with trail connections for heavy fall usage to discourage participants from migrating into the wetlands and disturbing the animals  Parks and Recreation Department is attempting to acquire one of the two parcels adjacent to I-17; a barn and additional structures as well as two ponds are located on the parcel  Acquisition of parcel will allow the Department to clone the successful partnership with Willow Bend Environmental Education Center; Center could theoretically be housed in the existing barn and all other structures would be removed; environmental education to take place in the wetlands area Active Areas  One full court basketball court (approximately 60 feet); steps leading up to playing surface form the parking lot creates a non-ADA accessible sport court; surface leading up to basketball court is woodchips  Two horseshoe pits located to the west of basketball courts, in good shape; couple of picnic tables placed around the park with a few of trash receptacles and a couple of permanent grills in the ground; one natural surface (decomposed granite) volleyball court  Playground is by Little Tykes; supports 5-12 year age segment; bordered with a concrete boundary to maintain integrity of the woodchip surface; playground surface appears to be near the end of the lifecycle 1 and beginning the 2nd of 3 lifecycles; playground structure is in relatively good shape and is free from graffiti; surface has been maintained well; structure is not universally accessible 137 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment Cataract Lake County Campground Strengths and Opportunities  Park area has direct access to the lake  Residential developments – new and existing – provide a built-in market for the park that few County parks can claim  Explore possible inner governmental agreement (IGA) with County Public Works for park maintenance Weaknesses and Constraints  Lack of historical buffer policy has lead to private development within 100 feet of the park boundaries  Lack of redevelopment funds has lead to an antiquated park with very few quality amenities  View sheds are polluted in most directions – development and/or County Public Works maintenance yard  Limited camp sites and lack of modern amenities reduce potential for healthy revenue generation through either volume (number of campsites) or up-selling (charging more for more desirable sites/amenities) General Observations  Located in Williams; decades old park is lacking modern design and amenities; no distinct separation between the campground area and day use area, must drive through the campground to reach day use  Fifteen acre campground featuring 25 camp sites; none of the campsites have electrical or water hookups; infrastructure to deliver water to the campground is non existent; very dry park; day use area is all concrete, in disrepair  Campground is adjacent to the County Public Works maintenance yard for the Williams’ area; maintenance yard is visible from the campsites; no barrier is in place currently  Restrooms are outdated and in need of repair; at the time of the assessment tour, the restroom structure smelled foul – pump truck was scheduled to come the same day  Relatively little access to the lakeside itself; natural path trails leading from restrooms to boat lot  Land directly adjacent to (northwest) the campsite is currently being developed as a residential neighborhood; new development is occurring within approximately 200 yards of the campsite’s boundaries  Existing private development is directly abutting the park system no more than 75 yards from the northwest boundary of the boat dock area; fencing creating the barrier between private property and park property is in a state of disrepair; currently on northwestern most side of the park 5 structures exist with the closest being 50-75 yards and furthest being no more than 200 yards; new development of the residential track should increase existing residential development by 20 fold; private residents are using the area of their property directly abutting the park property for storage of travel 138 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Operational Assessment trailers – two travel trailers are stored within 10 feet of the park fence line – creates an eyesore; Department should explore park buffer policy Active Areas  One horseshoe pit is located at the entry to the campground; 3 pavilions/ramadas (1 large, 2 medium) are located in the day use area  Each pavilion/ramada has permanent picnic tables with permanent grills directly adjacent; concrete slabs and metal stud construction  The lake water is pumped out of the lake to irrigate a golf course near the park entrance; Department should explore the ownership of the lake and the agreement for the pumping of the water; pump is owned by the City of Williams 139 COCONINO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATIONAL MASTER PLAN FACILITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS ANALYSIS September 15, 2008 Prepared by: Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................2 Vision and Mission Elements of CCPR .....................................................................................5 Organizational Best Practices Matrix ......................................................................................7 Summary Facility Assessment...............................................................................................10 Facility Needs Analysis .........................................................................................................12 Current Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 12 Level of Service Standards ......................................................................................................... 14 Applying Level of Service Standards .......................................................................................... 15 Upgrades and Improvements to Existing Facilities.................................................................... 17 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 18 Organizational Needs Analysis..............................................................................................20 Financial / Budgetary Management .......................................................................................... 21 Facility Management ................................................................................................................. 21 Strategic Growth........................................................................................................................ 22 Programs and Services............................................................................................................... 22 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix A: Recreation Trends Analysis ...............................................................................24 Appendix B: Demographics Analysis of Coconino County ......................................................41 Appendix C: Park Classification System .................................................................................48 i Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Executive Summary This report contains four primary components that are critical aspects of this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis: the Vision and Mission Elements, Organizational Best Practices Matrix, the Facility Needs Analysis, and the Organizational Needs Analysis. These components are the building blocks for the Facility Development Plan and Action Plan which are the final and major deliverables for this project – the Organizational Master Plan for Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR). Also included within this report are the Demographics Analysis, Recreation Trends Analysis, and the Park Classification System in order to provide solid background data upon which the recommendations are built. The recommendations of this report emerge from two simple realities: 1. One of the greatest priorities of Coconino County residents as gleaned from community input is the need to maintain and improve existing facilities. The majority of facilities with significant deferred maintenance and upgrade needs are located at Fort Tuthill and in the Flagstaff area. 2. Another great need drawn from the assessment analyses was to expand and enhance opportunities for increased earned revenue generation potential. The most promising opportunities for increased revenue potential exist within upgrades and redevelopments of aspects of Fort Tuthill. The Vision and Mission Elements are comprised of five components: County Strategic Priorities, Vision, Mission, Community Values, and Goals of CCPR, and they assimilate the public input findings gathered from key community leaders, stakeholders, users and the general public, and define the overall principles and values of the community related to the delivery of parks and recreation facilities and services. The community values are then used as the basis for developing or reaffirming the strategic objectives that are applied in the Organizational Best Practices Matrix. Contained within this strategy matrix are key industry best practices that address the predominant operating issues and circumstances of the CCPR system. The industry practices that apply to CCPR involve the pursuit of specific implementation strategies and organizational objectives within the following categories:       Community Mandates Consistent Standards Levels of Service Enhance Revenue Development Opportunities Appropriate Pricing Equitable Partnerships The Facility Needs Analysis and Organizational Needs Analysis are built upon these strategies that support the community values regarding County parks and recreation. These strategies drive the pursuit to achieve the desired vision and outcome for the Department. The assessment reveals the need to consider a different approach to the delivery of park and recreation facilities and services in Coconino County. The Facility Needs Analysis and Organizational Needs Analysis components outline priorities to support the strategic direction of the County parks and recreation system, and to position CCPR as an element of pride in the County. 2 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis The content of this report establishes the identified community needs and preferences for parks and recreation, the organizational needs and priorities of CCPR, and the facility needs and priorities to achieve a standard of excellence within the Coconino County Parks system. These needs, preferences and priorities have been identified and detailed within the body of this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis. Identified Community Needs and Preferences There were multiple methods used to assess community input including a random household survey, seven (7) focus groups, and six (6) public forums. From those exercises, detailed findings were provided in the Summary Assessment Report and the following were identified as key needs and preferences:  Natural areas, open spaces, and corridor trails are priority facilities; nature education, adventure camps, and special events are priority programs.  County parks can be more effectively utilized as a tourism resource.  Community communication can be greatly improved regarding park operational performance, services, and amenities available to the public.  Equitable and strategic partnerships are critical to improve the conditions of facilities, diversity of services available at existing parks, and to assist local communities to develop their own parks.  Maintaining current parks are equally or more important than building new ones.  Facilities and programs that target youth are needed to build stronger communities.  More adequate funding to support maintenance of park facilities needs to be addressed.  County parks have an inequitable distribution that can be corrected – there are more parks needed outside of Flagstaff and in the outlying areas of the County.  Park and recreation facilities and programs need to reflect the diversity of Coconino County residents.  Not all park and recreation needs are an appropriate responsibility of the County Parks and Recreation Department – this should be a shared responsibility with other levels of government. Identified Organizational Needs and Priorities Contained within this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis are select opportunities for improving and developing the capacity of CCPR to manage its daily operations, future planning, and organizational success as identified throughout the community input and assessment processes. These opportunities are described within this report in detail, and can be summarized as follows:  Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs, and sustainable program development.  It is critical to establish a tradition of excellence through the implementation of consistent standards for facility and program development, and design and maintenance of park and recreation facilities that provides equity, safety and cleanliness. 3 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis  Provide balance and consistency in the delivery of core recreation programs and services to the community and the region by meeting the needs of all ages and interests through new and fresh programs, incorporating a family and environmental ethic and accessible year-round facilities.  Manage recreation facilities and programs that generate revenue at established cost recovery goals to off-set operational costs while considering affordability, customer need and demand, value of services received and leveraging of resources.  Enhance the operational budget structure and cost tracking practices to improve cost of service accounting.  Develop a system of tiered pricing that is based on total costs of service, level of service, cost recovery goals, characteristics of the users and user groups, and a sustainable approach to managing programs and facilities.  Maximize resources through equitable partnerships to leverage facilities and open space development opportunities and achieve efficient and effective operations.  Implementation of an appropriate and relevant park classification system will improve the ability of CCPR to manage and measure performance within the Coconino County Park system. Identified Facility Needs and Priorities While the current system offers a wide range of park assets, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues and their partnerships. Future partnerships can be modeled after the success achieved with current partners like the Pine Mountain Amphitheater LLC, and Willow Bend Environmental Education Center. As the County Parks and Open Space Program is implemented, it will be just as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire new resources. From a tour of the county park system, substantial public input, and extensive interviews with Department and County staff the following key findings were developed:  Significant deferred maintenance has accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of the both facilities and the visitor experience.  Substantial upgrades and redevelopment of select amenities at Fort Tuthill, Raymond Park, and Pumphouse Greenway will provide opportunities to meet community expectations of high quality facilities, enhance and develop revenue generation potential of the County park system, and support the growth of balanced programming and services.  Need exists for park development in the communities of Williams, Page, Tusayan, and Fredonia, with particular focus on group and youth amenities.  Partnership opportunities with both the public and private sector will be sought to share the burden of capital and operational requirements supporting identified facility needs.  Encroachment and lack of buffer from development nearby to county parks is a growing issue.  Specific facility needs have been detailed and organized into a priority matrix that mirrors identified community values.  Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs. 4 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Vision and Mission Elements of CCPR Vision and mission elements are critical in public plans because they describe purpose and priorities for the system. For Coconino County, they offer a philosophy of parks to guide the County system for the next ten years. The vision and mission elements associated with this plan resulted from extensive research into the trends of the region’s park and recreation demands, a comprehensive process of community input, one-on-one interviews with the County Board of Supervisors, and a thorough assessment of the current CCPR Park System. The specific elements include the five major components detailed in the table below. Element Description County Strategic Priorities Vision These are the strategic priorities established by the Board of Supervisors that all aspects of County management should be aligned to Describes the vision for how CCPR desires to be positioned and viewed by both internal and external stakeholders Reflects the obligations and responsibilities of CCPR to the community of Coconino County Defines the community values pertaining to parks and recreation that is upheld by the facilities and services practiced of CCPR Outlines the organizational and performance goals of CCPR over a 10 year period Mission Community Values Goals Process Used to Develop and Vet Plan Elements To develop the proposed vision and mission elements, PROS Consulting LLC met with the Board of Supervisors in a work session (August 28, 2007) and individually (December 11); developed key findings from public involvement meetings; conducted an assessment of current conditions; and facilitated two work sessions with County staff (June 5, 2008) and the Parks & Recreation Commission (June 24, 2008). Finally, the process returned to the Board in work session for their further input (August 26, 2008) and review. The Vision and Mission Elements contained within this report are aligned with the County Strategic Priorities detailed below and reflect the input of County residents and leadership. County Strategic Priorities 1. Community Vitality – Facilitating connections and engaging individuals to enrich the quality of life in Coconino County communities. 2. Economic Development – Supporting the creation of a strong economy. 3. Cultural & Natural Resources – Protecting the magnificent cultural and environmental treasures of the Coconino Plateau. 4. Fiscal Health – Ensuring exceptional value for our residents through long-range fiscal planning and performance-based budgeting. 5. Organizational Health - Providing the highest quality of service by fostering a culture that supports innovation and an investment in our people. 6. Public Safety & Welfare - Ensuring safety and well being throughout Coconino County. 5 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis CCPR Vision Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation (CCPR) establishes a standard of excellence for engaging residents and visitors with Coconino County’s natural, recreational, and cultural environments to promote healthy lifestyles and communities. CCPR Mission Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation engages the public in (1) developing and delivering quality, sustainable parks, equitable community partnerships, accessible, diverse recreational and educational opportunities; and (2) protecting unique natural areas and open spaces. Coconino County Community Values Regarding Parks and Recreation Coconino County residents have a legacy of recreating in the outdoors that is important to individuals and communities. This legacy gives rise to shared values regarding County parks and recreation services. County residents believe in:         attracting and retaining knowledgeable parks and recreation professionals who demonstrate outstanding customer service; managing parks and open space responsibly and sustainably; recognizing and supporting the County’s unique natural landscapes, diverse communities, and cultural traditions; providing less-developed public recreation areas, and expanding protection for open spaces and wildlife corridors; using public and private sector partnerships to reach shared goals; striving for equitable access to parks and recreation experiences for urban and rural youth, seniors, and families; promoting volunteer stewardship as an integral part of park management; and balancing the funding and provision of services between public and private sectors. CCPR Goals Coconino County Parks and Recreation’s mission will be implemented through programs and policies focused on five core endeavors over the next 10 years. These are: 1. Develop and implement effective marketing and communications plans to better meet customer needs and interests. 2. Develop and maintain equitable and creative public and private-sector partnerships to reach shared goals. 3. Explore new ways to provide programs, facilities, and operations that engage more residents and promote accessible, equitable, and sustainable park services. 4. Develop a 10-year financial plan that analyzes the resources needed to accomplish the major components of the 10-year Organizational Master Plan, in particular resources necessary to: a. establish a capital repair and replacement program; b. dedicate a funding source for operations and maintenance; c. fund new park and open space facilities, and new outdoor education and recreation programs; d. develop existing facilities as enterprise zones to generate operating revenue. 5. Demonstrate environmental leadership and sustainability in practices and policies. 6 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Organizational Best Practices Matrix The Organizational Best Practices Matrix represents industry strategies that are derived from the detailed findings of the community input process associated with this Organizational Master Plan for Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. This strategy matrix will be applied to the realities surrounding the political environmental and funding climate in which the Department operates to create a realistic action plan for development. Additionally, these strategies can be used to validate the vision, goals and objectives of the Department. This matrix of strategies is provided below and on the following pages. Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Best Practice 1: Community Mandates Best Practice 2: Standards Upgrade, enhance and maintain park and recreation facilities that support the unique identities of residents within the County while maintaining strong connectivity to promote community interaction, healthy lifestyles, and enjoyment. Establish a high level of quality through the implementation of consistent standards for development, design and maintenance of park and recreation facilities that provides equity, safety and cleanliness. Upgrade existing park and recreation infrastructure to modern standards, including accessibility, and efficient and optimal use of all park properties and recreation facilities. Protect and manage open space and natural areas. Adopt customized park and recreation facility maintenance/management standards for the County. Create balance and accessibility for all types of parks and facilities across the County. Perform more thorough and consistent Implement and monitor maintenance maintenance of parks and recreation standards. facilities. Connect park system to the community through trails and effective and appropriate design of park and recreation facilities. Develop more special events that bring the community together through the parks and recreation system. Strategy Develop a recreation program for youth in the County. Strategy Enhance existing signature facilities that increase the image value and perception of Coconino County that will create a sense of pride. 7 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Best Practice 3: Programs Best Practice 4: Cost Recovery Provide balance and consistency in the delivery of core recreation programs and services to the community and the region by meeting the needs of all ages and interests through new and fresh programs, incorporating a family and environmental ethic and accessible yearround facilities. Manage recreation facilities and programs that generate revenue at established cost recovery goals to off-set operational costs while considering affordability, customer need and demand, value of services received and leveraging of resources. Strategy Develop and implement recreation program standards as it applies to core programs and services including health and wellness, environmental stewardship, and family ethic values. Create a revenue policy and philosophy that support users investing in facilities supporting their interests based on the level of exclusivity they receive above a general taxpayer. Strategy Create functional and productive yearround programs and facilities, including enhance facilities and services in the County targeting special events. Enhance recreation spaces to create value that users are willing to pay for sufficiently to off-set operating costs. Strategy Develop a youth services partnership plan for Coconino County with other providers in the area. Establish the true cost of services for programs and facilities, and create a cost recovery goal for each program. Strategy Develop an active recreation program plan for senior adults between the age of 55 and 85 for the next ten years. Design facilities to produce revenue to offset operating costs. Strategy Develop an appropriate recreation programs for people with disabilities. Appropriately promote and market programs and facilities to increase usage and participation that will enhance revenue capacity of the department. Strategy Increase the level of funding available for program development and facilitation. Establish a departmental cost recovery goal that represents an appropriate balance of public, private and merit services. Strategy Increase programs targeted towards family recreation services to increase families participating together. 8 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Best Practice 5: Pricing Best Practice 6: Partnerships Develop a system of tiered pricing that is based on total costs of service, level of service, cost recovery goals, characteristics of the users and user groups, and a sustainable approach to managing programs and facilities Maximize resources through equitable partnerships to leverage facilities and open space development opportunities and achieve efficient and effective operations. Strategy Enhance existing pricing and fee structures to address total costs of services and cost recovery goals specific to each program area and facility. Develop public/public, public/not-forprofit, and public/profit partnership policies, including partnerships with local communities for establishing park facilities and services. Strategy Enhance existing pricing and fee structures to address wear and tear of facilities as a result of users from out-ofcounty. Establish criteria to determine appropriate pricing and fees for nonprofit organizations conducting charity and community-based programming at Coconino County park facilities. Develop recreation programs that represent a tiered level of service with varied and appropriate pricing. Develop appropriate partnerships with youth service organizations and schools for youth programs, as long as the partnerships are equitable. Eliminate inconsistencies in partnership agreements with existing partners utilizing County Park facilities for private events. Maintain community access to recreation programs and facilities by keeping reasonable and diverse opportunities for free programs and facility use. Develop a sustainable partnership with an appropriate non-profit organization in Coconino County to leverage private sector funding supporting programs provided to under-served resident populations. Strategy Strategy Strategy Develop and action plan for transforming or disengaging from long-standing relationships that are inequitable to the County. The strategies detailed in the Organizational Best Practices Matrix will be further developed in subsequent elements of the project, including but not limited to those addressed in Facility Needs Analysis and Organizational Needs Analysis that follows within this report. 9 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Summary Facility Assessment The PROS team synthesized the findings from the community input, citizen survey results, demographics analysis, facilities assessment and the equity mapping into a quantified priority facility needs analysis. This includes a priority listing of parks, facilities, and amenities and provides guidance for both outdoor and indoor facilities. The PROS team identified deficiencies for existing Department recreation and sports facilities, as well as identified opportunities based on the community needs. This priority listing has been compared against gaps or surplus in parks, facilities and amenities identified in the Facility Assessment and Equity Mapping tasks to identify proposed improvements for each site. A summary of park amenities and features is provided in the table below: Amenity / Feature Quantity Total park units 7 Total park acreage 599 Playgrounds 8 Picnic areas (open-air) 6 Picnic shelters 10 Group pavilions 7 Public restrooms (unplumbed) 3 Public restrooms (plumbed) 6 Trail mileage (earthen) 19 Trail mileage (improved surface) 0.25 Diamond playing fields 2 Multipurpose rectangular fields 1 Basketball courts 4 Volleyball courts 7 Tennis courts 4 Racquetball courts 2 Stables 332 Equestrian area / racetrack 5 Amphitheater 1 Campsites 126 Skatepark 1 Enclosed space (buildings) 67,100 sq. ft. Parking lots 1,066,200 sq. ft. Roads 3 miles The following section provides a review of the facility assessment summary for each park located within Coconino County. The assessments are based upon collected data, the review of existing information, and tours of the park system. A detailed, bulleted list of items for each park is located in Appendix D of the Assessment Summary Report. 10 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis The parks reviewed and assessed in the Coconino Parks and Recreation System are detailed in the table below. Park Size Fort Tuthill 413 acres Peaks View 27 acres Cataract Lake 20 acres Raymond 14 acres Pumphouse Greenway 117 acres Sawmill 2 acres Louise Yellowman 6 acres Conclusions from Facility Assessment The general observations of the park system can be summarized into the following: 1. Absence of design standards results in substantial design-related maintenance issues, and an absence of a developed and recognizable brand for the Park and Recreation system. 2. Protect park resources by planning for and addressing encroachment by private development. Currently, no buffer policy exists for the park system and encroachment by private development is occurring at multiple locations. 3. An equitable distribution of parks assets and programs throughout the system will require new resources and/or new partnerships. 4. Significant deferred maintenance has accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of the both facilities and the visitor experience. 5. While the current system offers a wide range of park assets to the constituency, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues. 6. As the County Parks and Open Space Program is implemented, it will be equally as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire and develop new resources. 7. Facility design and site configuration issues are prevalent contributors to ongoing maintenance concerns. 8. There are current examples of high quality park and facility design in Coconino County Parks to build on. 9. Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs. 11 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Facility Needs Analysis This analysis of facility needs was performed following extensive assessment and review of existing county facilities, an inventory of sites and facilities of other public providers (State of Arizona, local municipalities, and federal lands), and a review of community needs as ascertained in the community input process of focus group meetings, public forums, and the household survey. Additionally, the final list of prioritized facility needs detailed in the conclusion are also derived from the research involving trends and preferences for parks and recreation both state-wide and for Northern Arizona. It is detailed in the following analyses the processes through which priority needs for Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department have been identified. Current Inventory The first aspect of reviewing the current inventory of park lands and park amenities utilizes the park classification system detailed herein, and applies that categorization of parks to the public lands within Coconino County. The table below details the total 2007/2008 inventory of parks within Coconino County for County parks, the State of Arizona parks and lands, federal parks and lands, and municipal providers. 2007/2008 Inventory Parks: Coconino County Inventory Community Parks (Acres) Regional Parks (Acres) Special Use Areas - (Acres)(1)(2) Natural Areas (Acres)(3) Other (Acres) Total Parks (Acres) State Parks/Lands Inventory Federal Parks/Lands Inventory Municipal Provider Inventory Total Combined Inventory 67.00 - - 115.28 182.28 357.32 - - 539.90 897.22 42.68 1,127,262.75 132.00 - - - 599.00 1,127,262.75 655,552.34 - 1,782,857.77 3,995,355.93 - 3,995,487.93 4,650,908.27 774.30 5,779,544.33 It is clear in the table above that Coconino County features a significant amount of state and federal special use areas and natural areas. These lands include Arizona State Trust lands, National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, National Recreation Areas, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. The table below and on the following page details the quantity of these lands and their classifications. Land Type State Trust BLM National Forest Indian Reservation Classification Special Use Area (State) Special Use Area (Federal) Natural Area (Federal) NOT COUNTED Acreage 1,127,262.75 615,095.69 3,255,857.99 4,555,305.60 12 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Land Type Military National Recreation Area National Park National Monument Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Classification NOT COUNTED Special Use Area (Federal) Natural Area (Federal) Natural Area (Federal) Acreage 25,925.80 40,486.65 697,220.64 42,277.31 While many of these lands are not managed for the predominant purpose of creating and maintaining public recreation, the consideration of this large inventory of state and federal land within the boundaries of Coconino County is necessary to understand the full inventory of public recreation opportunities available to residents and visitors. It was identified early in the project by the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Commission that this project should help to quantify and indentify the parks and recreation needs of the County in context to other providers in the region. It is clear from this inventory that there is a significant amount of land under federal management alone that features equitable and affordable access for public recreation to all residents of Coconino County. The next table outlines the current inventory of major park asset or amenities within Coconino County, and includes the major assets of the CCPR system. Currently, the exact trail mileage present on federal lands (particularly National Forests and BLM land) is unknown and unquantified in this analysis. Coconino County Inventory State Parks/Lands Inventory Municipal Provider Inventory Total Combined Inventory 2007/2008 Inventory Assets: Dog Parks Federal Parks/Lands Inventory - - - 2.00 2.00 Playgrounds 8.00 - - 24.00 32.00 Picnic Shelters (10-50 persons) 9.00 - - 20.00 29.00 Picnic Shelters/Pavilions (50+ persons or greater) 8.00 - - 6.00 14.00 23.50 - - 57.25 80.75 Diamond Fields (Baseball/Softball Field) 2.00 - - 24.00 26.00 Multipurpose/Rectangular Fields 1.00 - - 5.00 6.00 Basketball Courts 2.00 - - 19.00 21.00 Tennis Courts 4.00 - - 23.00 27.00 Volleyball Courts 2.00 - - 6.00 8.00 Trails - All Surfaces (Miles) 13 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Level of Service Standards Level of service standards detail the density, or frequency, to which parks and park amenities/assets are provided in relation to the total population of a given area. This analysis reviews park and recreation needs based upon population distribution and density. For example, different park types or park amenities will have an appropriate standard applied to every 1,000 residents in the service area that details the level of service these parks or assets provide to the community. The recommended level of service standards for CCPR provided in the report are not directly tied to traditional national standards. The methodology and process for applying level of service standards for Coconino County does reflect national best practices and an approach that is championed in the parks and recreation industry. The specific standards for Coconino County, however, are unique to this region and its distinguishing characteristics. Coconino County features many unique aspects that demand unique level of service standards. These include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Large geographic area Concentration of approximately 40% County population in one municipality Heavy dispersion of remaining 60% population throughout the County Large tracts of public land in the center of the County that cannot allow through-traffic Large presence of Native American Reservations within the County Wide socioeconomic, demographic, cultural, and ethnic diversity in the County Large demand from out-of-county visitation and traffic throughout the year The recommended level of service standards were developed follow intense study of the outcome of applying these standards to the current CCPR system. The outcomes were evaluated based upon the level of public investment required, the political climate and capabilities required to effectively pursue those outcomes, the financial capacity and restrictions of Coconino County, and the preferences and needs of County residents. Additionally, the PROS Team applied our expertise and working knowledge having experience with numerous county parks and recreation departments across the United States to ensure the use of industry best practices to this analysis. The tables below and on the following page detail both existing and recommended levels of service, or standards, for the inventory of parks based upon the attached park classification system and for park assets in the system. The standards below reflect the unique circumstances of CCPR, and the geographic and demographic profiles of Coconino County. 2007/2008 Standards Parks: Typical National Standards Current County Standards Recommended County Standards Community Parks (Acres) 1.42 Acres per 1,000 5.00 Acres Per 1,000 3.00 Acres per 1,000 Regional Parks (Acres) 6.97 Acres per 1,000 5.50 Acres Per 1,000 5.50 Acres per 1,000 Special Use Areas - (Acres)(1)(2) 0.33 Acres per 1,000 0.50 Acres per 1,000 Natural Areas (Acres)(3) 1.03 Acres per 1,000 1.50 Acres per 1,000 - Acres Per 1,000 0.00 Acres Per 1,000 9.75 Acres per 1,000 Other (Acres) Total Parks (Acres) 10.50 Acres Per 1,000 10.50 Acres per 14 1,000 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Current Standards Typical National Standards Recommended Standards 2007/2008 Standards Assets: Dog Parks 1.00 Site per 64,345.32 1.00 Site Per Playgrounds 1.00 Structure per 4,021.58 1.00 structure per 1,500 1.00 Structure per 5,000 Picnic Shelters (10-50 persons) 1.00 Structure per 4,437.61 1.00 structure per 5,000 1.00 Structure per 5,000 Picnic Shelters/Pavilions (50+ persons or greater) 1.00 Structure per 9,192.19 1.00 structure per 5,000 1.00 Structure per 7,500 Trails - All Surfaces (Miles) 0.63 Miles per 1,000 0.40 1,000 0.60 Miles per 1,000 Diamond Fields (Baseball/Softball Field) 1.00 Field per 64,345 1.00 structure per 5,000 1.00 Field per 12,000 Multipurpose/Rectangular Fields 1.00 Field per 128,691 1.00 structure per 5,000 1.00 Field per 12,000 Basketball Courts 1.00 Court per 64,345 1.00 court per 2,500 1.00 Court per 7,500 Tennis Courts 1.00 Court per 32,173 1.00 court per 5,000 1.00 Court per 9,000 Volleyball Courts 1.00 Court per 64,345 1.00 field per 5,000 1.00 Court per 12,000 miles per 50,000 1.00 Site per 50,000 Applying Level of Service Standards The level of service standards were developed based upon population projections provided by the Environmental Survey Research Institute (ESRI), and the U.S. Census Bureau. Applying the recommended level of service standards for Coconino County to the CCPR system produces a quantified “need” expressed as total acreage or number of park assets needed in the system to meet the standard. These needs are then overlaid onto the framework of findings from the extensive community input associated with this project and an understand of the political environmental in which CCPR operates. The result is a recommended prioritization of projects that involve both the development of new facilities and the upgrades to existing facilities to meet community expectations and needs. The current inventory includes select planned development projects pertaining to these specific amenities, but not the acreage and park acquisition projects associated with the Coconino Parks and Open Space (CPOS) initiative. Given that over 2,500 acres are planned to be acquired as a part of CPOS projects, it is the position of PROS Consulting that minimal acreage to meet all Coconino County open space needs through 2022 are being obtained. The needs outlined below are the result of establishing level of service standards that address greater equity and access to County parks throughout Coconino County. Parks: 2007/2008 Requirements 2012 Requirements 2017 Requirements 2022 Requirements Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority Community Parks (Acres) Need Exists 319 Acre(s) Need Exists 29 Acre(s) Need Exists 31 Acre(s) Need Exists 33 Acre(s) Regional Parks (Acres) Need Exists 350 Acre(s) Need Exists 53 Acre(s) Need Exists 57 Acre(s) Need Exists 61 Acre(s) Special Use Areas - (Acres)(1)(2) Need Exists 22 Acre(s) Need Exists 5 Acre(s) Need Exists 5 Acre(s) Need Exists 6 Acre(s) Natural Areas (Acres)(3) Need Exists 61 Acre(s) Need Exists 14 Acre(s) Need Exists 16 Acre(s) Need Exists 17 Acre(s) Total Parks (Acres) Need Exists 752 Acre(s) Need Exists 101 Acre(s) Need Exists 109 Acre(s) Need Exists 117 Acre(s) Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed Meet Standard/ Need Exists Additonal Facilities/ Amenities Needed Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority 15 Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed 2007/2008 Requirements Assets: Dog Parks Not County Parks Priority Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed Meet Standard/ Need Exists Meet Standard/ Need Exists/ Not County Parks Priority Additonal Facilities/ Amenities Needed 2012 Requirements - Site(s) Not County Parks Priority - Site(s) Additonal Parks/ Assets Needed 2022 Requirements Not County Parks Priority - Site(s) Not County Parks Priority - Site(s) Playgrounds Meets Standard - Structure(s) Meets Standard - Structure(s) Meets Standard - Structure(s) Meets Standard - Structure(s) Picnic Shelters (10-50 persons) Meets Standard - Structure(s) Meets Standard - Structure(s) Need Exists 1 Structure(s) Need Exists 3 Structure(s) Need Exists 3 Structure(s) Need Exists 4 Structure(s) Need Exists 6 Structure(s) Need Exists - Mile(s) Need Exists 2 Mile(s) Need Exists 8 Mile(s) Need Exists Picnic Shelters/Pavilions (50+ persons or greater) Trails - All Surfaces (Miles) Meets Standard 7 Structure(s) 15 Mile(s) Diamond Fields (Baseball/Softball Field) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Multipurpose/Rectangular Fields Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Not County Parks Priority - Fields(s) Basketball Courts Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Tennis Courts Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Volleyball Courts Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Not County Parks Priority - Court(s) Based upon level of service standards aligned with total population and the community preferences for more equitable distribution of County parks, the PROS team would summarize current needs for 2007/2008 park assets in the table below. The recommended locations are derived from community input associated with this project. Park Classification Regional Parks Community Parks Special Use Areas Natural Areas Minimum Assets Needed 350 acres 319 acres 22 61 Recommended Location(s) Williams; Page Tusayan; Fredonia Tusayan; Page Flagstaff Based upon level of service standards aligned with total population and the community preferences for specific amenities at County parks, the PROS team would summarize current needs for 2007/2008 park assets in the table below. The recommended locations are derived from community input associated with this project. Park Assets Playgrounds Picnic shelters (50+ persons)  Minimum Assets Needed 1 3 Recommended Location(s) Tusayan Williams; Tusayan; Page Additional Regional Parks, Special Use and Natural Areas are only recommended to be incorporated within the planned CPOS acquisitions and development projects in order to meet needs. Likewise, some Special Use and Natural Areas may be designated to be a part of Regional and Community Park development plans. 16 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Upgrades and Improvements to Existing Facilities As identified in the facility assessments and community input associated with this project, there are numerous facilities within the CCPR system that are deteriorating at a rate faster than the current maintenance team can stay ahead of. It is clear from community input received per this project that the protection and improvement of existing facilities is equally or more important than the acquisition of new sites or facilities. The upgrades and improvements detailed in the table on the following page have been identified as priorities of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. These upgrades are identified because of either deteriorated existing conditions, prime revenue generating opportunities, or both. Park Assets Campgrounds Recommended Location(s) Fort Tuthill Stables Fort Tuthill Grandstands Racetrack Fort Tuthill County Fairgrounds Fort Tuthill Picnic area Fort Tuthill Visitor Center Fort Tuthill Miscellaneous assets Fort Tuthill Recommended upgrades Upgrade campground with improved configuration, improved privacy among camping spaces, improved water and electric sites, improved signage, and upgraded access roads. Support facilities including enclosed recreation hall with game tables, laundry machines, and Wi-Fi connections supporting the campground should be considered. General facility upgrades including structural repairs and design modifications, site work to address drainage issues, improved parking and access roads, and improved signage. Improved asphalt surfacing, improved support and concession buildings, repair and replacement of all wood trimmings and fixtures under the racetrack, upgraded water and wastewater system supporting the restrooms, upgraded jockey area to accommodate male and female athletes, and resurfacing of the track and inner arenas. Improved design and site configuration, repairs and renovations to mess hall buildings used for vendors and themed exhibits, improved asphalt surfacing, renovations to the exterior and interior of the commercial building for use in leased events with an increased value, improved signage, parking and access roads. Improvements to the picnic area and its amenities are needed. Improved tables and grills/fire circles, with possible shelters is highly recommended. This county park lacks a sense of arrival that orients the visitor to the multiple amenities and opportunities within the park. Revenue generation and more consistent seasonal use of park assets may improve substantially with a centralized visitor center that is visible and easily accessible to the park entrance. This also would lend possible retail operated either directly by the Department or by a selected concessionaire that supports use of the park and attractions of Coconino County. The tennis courts, racquetball courts, and many support structures within the park are in need of repair, renovation, or removal. It is recommended that an updated master plan for Fort Tuthill be developed to assess the necessity and intended use of these assets. 17 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Campgrounds Cataract Lake Picnic area Cataract Lake Ball field Raymond Park Environmental / Natural Science Center Pumphouse Greenway Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Upgrade campground with improved configuration, improved water and electric sites, improved signage, and upgraded access roads. Support facilities including enclosed recreation hall with game tables, laundry machines, and Wi-Fi connections supporting the campground should be considered. Improvements to the picnic area and its amenities are needed. Improved tables and grills/fire circles, with possible shelters is highly recommended. This ball field needs repair and upgrading for more reliable and consistent usage. A partnership similar to that at Sawmill County Park should be considered for an Environmental Learning or Natural Science Center at Pumphouse Greenway. Conclusion In summary, the facilities and assets detailed in the table on the following page combine all recommended facility improvements, upgrades, and new developments in a prioritized format. This prioritized facility needs represent the preliminary recommendations that will be further explored and detailed in the Development Plan phase of this project. Within the context of that final element to the CCPR Organizational Master Plan, specific development opportunities will be addressed including suggested funding requirements and mechanisms through which Coconino County can leverage its resources with both the private and public sectors to better meet the park and recreation needs of County residents and visitors. The prioritized facility needs identified in the table on the following page are the result of intensive review of facilities both objectively and collectively with CCPR staff, multiple methods of community input to identify community values and needs, and equity analyses utilized to locate geographic gaps in service. It is recommended in the prioritized needs analysis that the upgrades and redevelopment of major assets of Fort Tuthill County Park be among the highest priorities of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. These recommendations emerge from two simple realities: 1. One of the greatest priorities of Coconino County residents as gleaned from community input is the need to maintain and improve existing facilities. The majority of facilities with significant deferred maintenance and upgrade needs are located at Fort Tuthill and in the Flagstaff area. 2. Another great need drawn from the assessment analyses was to expand and enhance opportunities for increased earned revenue generation potential. The most promising opportunities for increased revenue potential exist within upgrades and redevelopments of aspects of Fort Tuthill. Secondly, the recommendations detailed as a “secondary” priority represent assets and opportunities aligned with both the values and needs identified in the community input associated with this project, as well as the findings of the 2007 SCORP report. As noted previously in this report, there are multiple acquisitions and developments planned with the County Parks and Open Space (CPOS) initiative that address all natural area and special use area needs. Additionally, CPOS initiatives include multiple trail projects and facility 18 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis upgrades that can defer select items detailed in this report. Later aspects of this Organizational Master Plan including the Development Plan will provide greater detail and support for these facility needs. Facility Need Campgrounds Stables Recommended Location Fort Tuthill Fort Tuthill Recommended assets Priority Grandstands Racetrack Fort Tuthill County Fairgrounds Fort Tuthill Picnic area Fort Tuthill Upgrades for sites, support, & access Upgrades for structures, site issues, & access Upgrades for structures, support, infrastructure, & access Upgrades for structures, site issues, support, infrastructure, & access Upgrades for structures and access Primary Primary Miscellaneous assets Fort Tuthill Design considerations and repairs Primary Campgrounds Cataract Lake Upgrades for sites, support, & access Primary Picnic area Cataract Lake Upgrades for structures and access Primary Ball field Raymond Park Repairs and renovations Primary Open Space Acquisition Various Primary Community Park Tusayan Regional Park Page Visitor Center Fort Tuthill Environmental / Natural Science Center Community Park Pumphouse Greenway Fredonia Trails Various Buffer zones to protect park assets and for trail-way linkages between parks Youth facilities, playground, group pavilions, possible revenue generating amenities supporting Grand Canyon visitors Youth facilities, multi-use trails, playground, group pavilions, possible revenue generating amenities supporting Glen Canyon and Lake Powell visitors Centralized and accessible visitor center to improve use and subsequent revenue generation at Fort Tuthill, and improved administration space Develop partnership similar to Sawmill County Park Playground, group pavilions, and possible sport facilities supporting community Additional trails surround park sites and popular natural amenities will be needed by 2012 in outlying areas beyond Flagstaff and Williams Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary 19 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Organizational Needs Analysis Complimentary to the Facility Needs Analysis contained within this report, this Organizational Needs Analysis summarizes the operational practices and non-facility priorities for CCPR for the upcoming 10 years. These needs are derived from the findings from extensive community input, interviews with CCPR staff and the County Manager’s office, and interviews with the Coconino County Board of Supervisors associated with this project. The priorities detailed in this Organizational Needs Analysis were identified specifically from the Organizational Best Practices Matrix described earlier within this report, and are organized into the following four (4) categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. Financial / Budgetary Management Facility Management Strategic Growth Programs and Services Additionally, these priority elements are directly aligned with the County Strategic Priorities established by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors as a framework for all aspects of County government functions. To illustrate this, the table below links the alignment of the four (4) categories of priority elements recommended for CCPR with the County Strategic Priorities. CCPR Organizational Priority Elements Coconino County Strategic Priorities Financial / Budgetary Management Fiscal Health Organizational Health Facility Management Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Economic Development Fiscal Health Public Safety and Welfare Strategic Growth Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Economic Development Fiscal Health Organizational Health Public Safety and Welfare Programs and Services Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Fiscal Health Organizational Health Public Safety and Welfare The sections that follow describe the individual priority elements within each of the above categories. 20 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Financial / Budgetary Management There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to financial and budgetary management practices of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Financial / Budgetary Priorities 1. Create a revenue policy and philosophy that support users investing in facilities supporting their interests based on the level of exclusivity they receive above a general taxpayer. 2. Redesign CCPR operational budget to support cost-based accounting and better expense tracking capabilities. 3. Design facilities to produce revenue to offset operating costs. 4. Establish a departmental cost recovery goal that represents an appropriate balance of public, private and merit services. 5. Enhance existing pricing and fee structures to address total costs of services and cost recovery goals specific to each program area and facility, tiered levels of service, wear and tear of facilities as a result of users from out-of-county, and appropriate pricing for nonprofit organizations conducting charity and community-based programming at Coconino County park facilities. Facility Management There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to facility management practices of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Facility Priorities 1. Upgrade existing park and recreation infrastructure to established standards that reflect modern and unique uses, including accessibility, and efficient and optimal use of all park properties and recreation facilities. 2. Protect and manage open space and natural areas. 3. Perform more thorough and consistent maintenance of parks and recreation facilities to established standards that are routinely monitored and evaluated. 4. Connect park system to the community through trails and effective and appropriate design of park and recreation facilities. 5. Enhance existing signature facilities that increase the image value and perception of Coconino County that will create a sense of pride. 6. Create balance and accessibility for all types of parks and facilities across the County. 7. Design and manage facilities to produce revenue to offset operating costs. 21 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Strategic Growth There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to strategic growth opportunities of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Strategic Growth Priorities 1. Appropriately promote and market programs and facilities to increase usage and participation that will enhance revenue capacity of the department. 2. Increase the level of funding available for facility management requirements, program development, and program delivery, including for staff and labor resources. 3. Create functional and productive year-round programs and facilities, including enhance facilities and services in the County targeting special events. 4. Develop public/public, public/not-for-profit, and public/profit partnership policies, including partnerships with local communities for establishing park facilities, programs, and services that address eliminating inconsistencies, inequities, and transformational strategies for undesirable partnerships already in existence. 5. Develop appropriate partnerships with youth service organizations and schools for youth programs, as long as the partnerships are equitable. 6. Develop a sustainable partnership with an appropriate non-profit organization in Coconino County to leverage private sector funding supporting programs provided to under-served resident populations. Programs and Services There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to programs and services of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Programs and Services Priorities 1. Develop and implement recreation program standards as it applies to core programs and services including health and wellness, environmental stewardship, and family ethic values. 2. Create functional and productive year-round programs and facilities, including enhance facilities and services in the County targeting special events. 3. Develop an active recreation program plan for youth services, senior adults between the age of 55 and 85, and people with disabilities, including partnership plans in each major program area. 4. Increase the level of funding available for program development and facilitation. 5. Increase programs targeted towards family recreation services to increase families participating together. 22 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Conclusion In summary, these organizational priorities are provided to enhance the operational practices and non-facility priorities for CCPR in the upcoming 10 years. These needs are derived from the findings from extensive community input, interviews with CCPR staff and the County Manager’s office, and interviews with the Coconino County Board of Supervisors associated with this project. Additionally, these priority elements are directly aligned with the County Strategic Priorities established by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors as a framework for all aspects of County government functions. The desired outcomes of the implementing these organizational priorities include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Improved performance of CCPR, including financial performance, park visitation, and program participation. 2. Improved partnerships with private user groups and stakeholders, as well as other public agencies in the provision and management of CCPR facilities, programs and services. 3. Improved advocacy for County parks and recreation needs by the community and County Leadership 4. CCPR is recognized regionally, statewide, and nationally for featuring high-quality parks and recreation amenities and services. 5. CCPR strongly contributes to enhanced quality of life, economic development, and social infrastructure measures of success for Coconino County. The forthcoming Development Plan is the final deliverable associated with this project and will be built upon the identified needs and priorities established within this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis. In that report, specific strategies, timelines, and resource recommendations will be provided in order to pursue and achieve the goals and objectives established by residents and County leadership for CCPR over the next 10 years. 23 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Appendix A: Recreation Trends Analysis Introduction The American Southwest is undergoing some of the greatest population transformation in the country. Rapid population growth, dramatic demographic shifts, and urbanization have changed the social and economic landscape of western and southwestern states that were once America’s frontier. Arizona reflects many of these trends both demographically and recreationally. These changes impact many of the recreation and tourism preferences exhibited by residents. This report provides an overview of the larger context of recreation trends in America as a whole, as well as an analysis of localized recreation trends in the State of Arizona and Coconino County. Recreation in America Our understanding of outdoor recreation trends in America has evolved significantly over the past four decades since the first national survey was conducted in 1960 by the congressionally created Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). Since that time, a long series of statistics have been gathered through seven reiterations of the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) that identify notable trends in participation and the evolution of new forms of recreation activities enjoyed by Americans. The most recent of these updated reports was from the NSRE conducted in 2003-2004. Participation in 37 outdoor recreation activities were evaluated in this study. Those activities with the greatest relevance to Coconino County are presented in the tables below and on the following page. Participation is measured in millions of people and percentage of total U.S. population.1 Participation (millions) Percentage of Population View / photograph natural scenery 151.2 70.6 Visit nature centers 135.9 63.5 Driving for pleasure 130.9 61.2 View / photograph wildlife 124.6 58.2 View / photograph wildflowers, trees, etc. 122.0 57.0 Visit historic sites 113.6 53.1 Picnicking 112.1 52.4 View / photograph birds 85.2 39.8 Day hiking 81.3 38.0 Bicycling 80.5 37.6 Activity 1 United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. National Survey of Recreation and the Environment. 2003-2004. 24 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Participation (millions) Percentage of Population Visit a wilderness or primitive area 71.9 33.6 Developed camping 66.5 31.1 Snow/ice activities 62.4 29.2 Drive off-road 48.1 22.5 Mountain biking 42.5 19.8 Primitive camping 33.1 15.5 Backpacking 25.8 12.1 Horseback riding (general) 19.1 8.9 Horseback riding on trails 15.2 7.1 Cross country skiing 5.7 2.7 Activity The majority of all outdoor recreation participants take part in outdoor activities 11 to 30 times per year; 49% of all persons 6 and older who participate in outdoor activities take part in 30 or fewer outings per year (Figure 8). Only 26% participate two or more times per week.2 Outdoor Outing Frequency Outings per Year 208+ Outings 156-207 Outings 104-155 Outings 52-103 Outings 31-51 Outings 11-30 Outings 4-10 Outings 1-3 Outings 0.0% Source: Outdoor IndustryFoundation 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Percent of Americans 6 and Older; Among Outdoor Participants FIGURE 8 – OUTDOOR OUTINGS FREQUENCY 2 Outdoor Industry Foundation. Outdoor Recreation Participation Study: 2006, Eighth Edition. Boulder, Colorado, June 2007. 25 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis The mainstays of outdoor recreation – hiking, biking, camping, fishing, and paddling – comprise the greatest number of users. The greatest growth in participation has occurred in activities that have low barriers to entry, can be undertaken within close proximity to home, and can be completed in a limited amount of time. The Outdoor Industry Association identifies two major generational categories in the U.S.: Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and Millennials (born between 1978 and 2003). – These two generational cohorts have distinct differences in their preferences for an active lifestyle. Baby boomers have shed the image of the relaxed, sedentary lifestyle of generations past pursue a more active form of “retirement”. Many boomers continue the active and healthy lifestyle they converted to in midlife, as evidenced by the increasing number of seniors who participate in the fitness industry.3 Scott Parmelee, publisher of Outside magazine, describes a boomer as a “hybrid person” who enjoys “less strenuous” activities while still connecting with nature and the outdoors.4 While many boomers use outdoor experiences for personal growth, the Millennials seek the thrill. Millennials pioneered adventure and extreme sports and have been most responsible for the decline in the traditional “bat and ball” sports leagues targeting young adults. They elect less structured activities such as skateboarding, rock climbing, and mountain biking in place of organized youth activities like baseball, football, and soccer.5 Recreation Trends by Age In recent years, the Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF), a 501(c)3 organization chartered to research trends and support growth of the outdoor industry, has produced annual reports of the state of the industry and outdoor recreation participation. In early 2007, OIF surveyed 60,169 households from a representative sample that reflects the demographic and socio-economic composition of the United States to determine the highlights of current outdoor recreation trends in America. Results from this survey were published as The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006 by the OIF in late 2007. This report finds that participation in outdoor activities at least once per year drops off dramatically with age. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of respondents aged 6 – 12 years reported participating at least once in one of the 35 outdoor recreation activities polled6, while only 34% of respondents aged 65 years and older reported the same level of participation. Specific results by age group are detailed in Figure 9 on the following page.7 3 Outdoor Industry Association. State of Industry Report: 2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2006. 4 Outdoor Industry Association. State of Industry Report: 2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2006. 5 Outdoor Industry Association. State of Industry Report: 2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2006. 6 These activities are listed in Appendix A of this report. 7 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2007. 26 FIGURE 2: U.S. OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION BY AGE GROUP Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Participation in Outdoor Recreation At Least Once Per Year 80% 70% 60% 50% Percent of Population 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 79% 72% 60% 6-12 years 13-17 years 18-24 years 53% 52% 25-34 years 35-44 years 46% 45-54 years 41% 55-64 years 34% 65+ years Age Group FIGURE 9 – RECREATION TRENDS BY AGE GROUP Americans are exposed to and participate in outdoor recreation activities considerably more when they are younger8, and therefore it is critical to understand the preferences of our young recreationists to stay aligned with evolving trends. The top five outdoor recreation activities for all Americans are so greatly influenced by the massive participation of people ages 6 to 24 years, that the preferences of these age groups prevailed for all cohorts. The top five outdoor recreation activities by number of outings in 2006 were: 1. Bicycling 2. Running/jogging/trail running 3. Skateboarding 4. Fishing 5. Wildlife viewing The tables below detail the participation in these top five outdoor recreation activities in 2006 by respondents aged 6 to 17 years and aged 18 to 24 years. Total Outings in 2006 Average Outings per Participant in 2006 Bicycling 1.47 billion 78 Running/Jogging/Trail Running 1.17 billion 94 Skateboarding 581 million 66 Fishing 314 million 20 Wildlife viewing 112 million 25 Activity FIGURE 10 – TOP FIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES AGES 6 TO 17 YEARS (2006) 8 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2007. 27 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Total Outings in 2006 Average Outings per Participant in 2006 Running/Jogging/Trail Running 654 million 86 Bicycling 227 million 73 Skateboarding 130 million 28 Fishing 73 million 75 Wildlife viewing 49 million 33 Activity FIGURE 11 – TOP FIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES AGES 18 TO 24 YEARS (2006) On the other end of the age spectrum, active retirees are one of the largest emerging markets for the recreation and tourism industry. Retirees sixty-five and older remain active in many activities well into their senior years. Just under thirty-five million Americans, or about one of every eight persons (12.4%), were sixty-five years or older at the time of the 2000 Census. Over ninety percent of these older Americans are retired; almost all are retired by age seventy-five. For purposes of this study, retirees were divided into three age groups, sixty-five to seventyfour, seventy-five to eighty-four, and eighty-five and above. Data was gathered from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Across all the activities surveyed, with the only exception being gardening or landscaping for pleasure, the percentage of retirees who participate in an activity is less for persons aged 65 and older than for those under age sixty-five. With a few exceptions among activities, participation percentage falls from age sixtyfive to age eighty-five and above. For the more passive activities, such as walking, family gatherings outdoors, sightseeing and viewing/photographing wildlife and flowers, the decrease with age is gradual. With the more physically demanding activities, such as swimming, hiking and mountain biking, the decrease in percentage participating sharply increases with age. However, a small percentage of even the oldest of retirees participate across most activities, regardless of how physically demanding they are. Although age does play a role in the ability to participate in all activities, eleven activities surveyed by NSRE remain popular among aging Americans9:          9 Walking for pleasure Family gatherings Gardening and landscaping for pleasure View/photograph natural scenery Visit nature centers, etc. Driving for pleasure Picnicking Sightseeing Visit historic sites United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. National Survey of Recreation and the Environment. 2003-2004 28 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan   Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis View/photograph other wildlife View/photograph wildflowers, trees, etc. As the retiree population grows in future years, accessible opportunities for these popular activities should be accommodated. Recreation Trends by Ethnicity or Race It has long been noted by park and recreation practitioners that participation by Caucasians in outdoor recreation activities is far greater than that of the major ethnic groups, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. While no explanation is widely accepted among scholars, there are trends noted in the research literature that can assist park and recreation planners in understanding facility and program priorities that better engage minorities in the outdoors. The studies cited here to better understand recreation trends by ethnicity or race are those of the Outdoor Industry Foundation and the State of California Resources Agency. According the Outdoor Industry Foundation, “Engaging the ethnic youth population will increase overall outdoor participation in the future.”10 The survey results reported in The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006 showed participation results that tracked those of Caucasians: participation in outdoor recreation activities for younger populations are substantially higher than those of older populations. These results are shown in Figure 10 .11 Outdoor Recreation Participation At Least Once Per Year % Pop. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Caucasion Hispanic African-American 6-12 years 13-17 years 18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65+ years Age Group FIGURE 10: U.S. OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION BY ETHNICITY Park and Recreation Trends in California – 2005 reports specific usage trends by Hispanic populations that would also be relevant to understanding ethnic recreation preferences in Coconino County. This report found that, “Hispanic outdoor recreation participants:  often prefer to recreate in larger groups and prefer forested sites with water features and amenities to support a day-long, extended family social outing with extensive onsite meal preparation; 10 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2007. 11 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Next Generation of Outdoor Participants – 2005/2006. Boulder, Colorado. 2007. 29 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis  are interested in an outdoor experience with a strong social recreation component, such as facilities and programs that involve families, programs for children and youth, and family oriented entertainment events and festivals;  identify stress relief and having a good family experience as the most important features of a satisfying outdoor recreation excursion;  enjoy picnicking, day hiking, camping, and large family gatherings in outdoor settings; and  respond to interpersonal communication from multilingual and culturally diverse staff.”12 There is little research to indicate outdoor recreation preferences of African-Americans.. Typically, it is argued that lower participation in outdoor recreation activities by AfricanAmericans is explained by inadequate accessibility for the centralized urban populations that dominate African-American population distribution patterns. There is an alternative explanation, however. A recent analysis conducted by a Ph.D. student of Clark University found an interesting phenomenon: the representation of outdoor recreation by mainstream media does not include African-Americans at play. For example, for a ten year period between 1991 and 2001, Outside Magazine featured a total of 6,980 pictures. Of the 4,602 photographs of people, only 103 included African-Americans.13 In summary, increasing minority participation in outdoor recreation requires focusing on two critical planning tenets: 1. Facilities and programs should be designed in accordance with outdoor recreation preferences of all users, including minorities. 2. Communication, imagery and representation of outdoor recreation experiences and opportunities should reflect a multilingual and culturally diverse approach. Recreation Trends by Traditional Sports Traditional sport assets are not a core program offering of the County, but are provided in certain parks. To better understand the potential user tendencies, participation data for selected activities were chosen and analyzed. Superstudy of Sports Participation published by American Sports Data, Inc. evaluates national trends. The Superstudy is based on a national consumer mail survey of 30,000 adults and children. It compares changes in participation during the past one (1), five (5), seven (7), and eighteen (18) years. This report uses the Superstudy analysis of long term participation changes. 12 State of California Resources Agency. Park and Recreation Trends in California – 2005. Sacramento, California. 2005. 13 Carolyn Finney. Black Faces, White Places: African-Americans and the Great Outdoors. Graduate School of Geography, Clark University: Worcester, Massachusetts. 2005. 30 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Traditional sports, referred to as the social glue that bonds the country, play an important role in American society. By teaching values like teamwork, discipline, and physical fitness, sports have many Americans build a healthy lifestyle. The sport that evokes more nostalgia among Americans than any other is baseball. So many people play the game as children and grow to become devout followers of the professional game that it has become known as "the national pastime.” However, based on participation, baseball has experienced a seventeen percent decrease in the participation base between 1998 and 2005. Basketball, a game originating in the U.S., has the highest participation rate among the traditional “bat and ball” sports, with nearly 32 million estimated participants. This popularity is attributed to the ability to compete with a small number of participants, the limited equipment necessary to participate, and the limited space required to play. In fact, basketball is the only traditional sport that can be played at the majority of American dwellings.14 Tradition not withstanding, the five and seven year trend data show that all sports except lacrosse and tennis have experienced declines. The decline for most sports is a double digit percentage decrease in participation. Although traditional “bat and ball” sports have seen a steady decrease in annual participation over the past few years, the sheer numbers of total participants make these activities vital for most communities. Total participation among the “bat and ball” activities, accumulated nearly one hundred forty-one million (140,935,000) participation days in 2005.15 Recreation Trends by New Sports Extreme sports burst onto the scene in 1995 with the first airing of the Extreme Games, now simply known as the X Games, by ESPN. National broadcasts of the summer and winter X Games have introduced freestyle BMX, freestyle motorcross, surfing, skiing, snowboarding, and, of course, skateboarding to the general public, instantly creating new markets. Of all of the extreme sports, skateboarding has the youngest average age (14.2) making it an entry sport for the extreme sports segment. Eighty-two percent (82%) of skateboarding participants are under 18 years of age. Of all of the skating sports, skateboarding has the highest average number of participatory days per year, nearly double that of all other skating activities with an average number of participatory days of 42. This could be explained by the relative ease of participation – neither requires a team or organization, as does roller hockey, and both have relatively inexpensive entry requirements. Of the skating sports, only skateboarding and roller hockey experienced short term growth from 2004 to 2005; all have seen declines in participation since 2000 – in-line skating has experienced the largest decrease in participation to a tune of more than 12 million persons.16 BMX biking has transitioned from a predominantly youth activity to an activity that boasts an average participant age of nearly twenty-six years; a surprising 36% of participants are 25 or older. However, BMX experienced a decrease of one and a half million participants from 2000 to 2005. Thirty-seven percent of participants took part in BMX activities at least twenty-five 14 American Sports Data Inc. Superstudy of Sports Participation (Vol. 2). Courtland Manor, NY. 2005. 15 American Sports Data Inc. Superstudy of Sports Participation (Vol. 2). Courtland Manor, NY. 2005. 16 American Sports Data Inc. Superstudy of Sports Participation (Vol. 3). Courtland Manor, NY. 2005. 31 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis times in the last twelve months, with the average number of days of participation of fifty-two (52.0). The average number of years for BMX participation is eight (7.9), with twenty-one percent (20.9%) of all participants having participated for more then ten years.17 Often new outdoor extreme sports – mountain biking, climbing, trail running, canoeing, kayaking, and rafting – have a more mature audience. As with most sports, the level of participatory risk determines the extreme element. Canoeing and kayaking are two of the least risky of the outdoor extreme sports, due to the lack of favorable waterways needed for the element of risk. Artificial wall climbing, inspired by mountain/rock climbing but geared more towards the non-extremist, is the only extreme “outdoor” sport with an average age of participant below twenty (artificial wall climbing’s average age is 17.7). These new sports do have some of the best growth rates among recreational and sporting activities. Four of the six activities listed in the paragraph above have experienced five year growth rates of better seventeen percent (17%). However, since many of the outdoor sports require specialized equipment and non-urban settings to participate they feature lower average participation days than other sports and recreation activities. Participation trends include:    Only trail running (average 33.2 participation days per year), mountain biking (average 17.5 participation days per year), and kayaking (average 12.8 participation days per year) have averages of more than ten days per year of participation. Artificial wall climbing has lower participation rates coupled with a large increasing trend. Participation averaged 2.8 and 3.0% for those that have participated in the activity for 10 or more years The recent boom in participation is based on a seven year comparison with participation increasing nearly ninety percent (88.9% growth from 1998 to 2005). This trend is supported by the practice of placing climbing walls into municipal recreation centers, college campuses, and shopping malls across the U.S. in recent years. Canoeing has the highest average number of years of participation and the highest percent of participants with ten or more years of participation (9.8 average number of participation years; 37.1% have participated 10 or more years).18 Recreation in Arizona Blessed with a vast physiographic canvas, Arizonans’ recreational opportunities are nearly limitless. Mountains, deserts, large metropolitan areas, and small towns all offer the prospect of recreation. With a large inventory of park lands and other venues, the market for outdoor recreation reaches beyond local residents and state borders. According to the Outdoor Industry Foundation outdoor recreation in Arizona supports 82,000 jobs statewide, generates nearly $350 million in annual state tax revenues, and produces almost $5 billion in annual retail sales and services.19 17 American Sports Data Inc. Superstudy of Sports Participation (Vol. 3). Courtland Manor, NY. 2005. 18 American Sports Data Inc. Superstudy of Sports Participation (Vols. 2-3). Courtland Manor, NY. 2005. 19 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. Boulder, Colorado. Fall 2006. 32 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Of the major active outdoor recreation activities surveyed by the Outdoor Industry Foundation within Arizona, activities with the highest participation rates were bicycling, trail activities, camping, and wildlife viewing as seen in the table below.20 Arizonan Participation in Active Outdoor Recreation Activities Number of Percent of Participants Population Trails: Backpacking, hiking, rock climbing, and running 1,164,256 27% Bicycling: paved road and off-road 1,151,671 27% Camping: RV, tent, and rustic lodging 1,067,921 25% Wildlife viewing: Birding, etc. 1,098,000 24% Fishing: Fly and non-fly 339,417 7% Paddling: Canoeing, kayaking and rafting 320,680 7% Snow sports: Skiing, snowboarding, and snowshoeing 284,229 7% Hunting: Firearms and bow 116,977 3% The 2008 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) completed by Arizona State Parks identified priority outdoor recreation issues based upon extensive public input and study of recent trends in the state. This plan is a five-year update that serves as the state’s outdoor recreation policy guide. The 2008 SCORP outlines nine priority issues to drive recreation and open space policy in Arizona over the next five years: 1. Secure sustainable funding for planning, land acquisition, construction, maintenance, operations and staffing to meet the recreation needs of Arizona’s residents and visitors; 2. Plan for population growth and secure open space to meet increasing demand for recreational opportunities and preservation of appropriate open space; 3. Resolve conflicts that develop among recreationists and other user groups, as well as manage the impacts of recreation on the natural resources of the state; 4. Improve collaborative planning and partnerships to reduce confusion and inconsistencies that frequently hamper recreation opportunities with multijurisdictional regulatory requirements; 5. Respond to the needs of special populations and changing state demographics; 6. Fill in the gaps between the increasing demand for recreational opportunities and the supply of those opportunities by local communities and the state; 20 Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. Boulder, Colorado. Fall 2006.  Non-wildlife participation based upon persons aged 18 and above  Wildlife participation based upon persons aged 16 and above 33 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis 7. Secure access to public lands and across State Trust Lands while providing appropriate public education regarding land stewardship, environmental ethics and responsible use; 8. Protect Arizona’s natural and cultural resources that are being threatened by increased human activity, including recreation, as well as natural events that are amplified by human influences such as wildfires, flooding, erosion and pollution; and 9. Improve communication with and education of the public about recreation areas, access points, recreation opportunities, Arizona’s unique environments, and responsible recreational behavior.21 The 2008 SCORP utilized a statewide survey to determine prevailing recreation trends among Arizonians. Among other findings, this survey identified the ten most popular outdoor recreation activities defined by the largest mean number of days Arizonians spent engaged in these activities over the last twelve months.22 These top ten activities are detailed in the table below, alongside their corresponding mean participation days per year. Mean annual participation days Activity Mean annual participation days Play a sport: baseball, football, soccer 34.25 Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve 12.25 Hiking, backpacking, jogging 27.68 Attending a outdoor event 11.13 Driving for pleasure / sightseeing 22.90 Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse 17.62 Off-road driving: ATV, dirt bike, 4-wheeling 8.93 12.65 Canoeing, kayaking, swimming in a natural setting 7.26 Activity Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area Picnicking 9.49 Additionally, this survey asked respondents to identify which activities they believed they would participate most in over the next five years. The results from these responses yielded a ranking of activities that represent the future demand for specific outdoor recreation activities.23 The table on the following page details the top ten activities based upon the percentage of respondents who stated they would participate more in that activity over the next five years. 21 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). xiv – xv pp. 22 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 157 p. 23 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 160 p. 34 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Activity Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Percentage of respondents Activity Percentage of respondents Attending an outdoor event 48.6% Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse 36.5% Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area 47.9% Driving for pleasure / sightseeing 34.1% Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve 47.4% Studying nature or doing an educational activity 34.0% 40.6% Play a sport: baseball, football, soccer 33.7% Picnicking Hiking, backpacking, jogging 38.4% Fishing 33.3% Recreation in Northern Arizona (Coconino County Region) The 2008 SCORP study explored potential regional distinctions in opinion about outdoor recreation and perceived public need. Survey respondents were distinguished by their places of residence within regions identified as Council of Government (COG) regions. Coconino County is part of the Northern Arizona Council of Government (NACOG) Region that includes Coconino, Apache, Navajo and Yavapai Counties. NACOG has a total estimated population (2005) of 519,395, representing 8.59% of the total state population (6,044,985).24 The area encompassed by NACOG totals 30,674,683 acres, representing 42% of the total land area of Arizona. Coconino County is the largest of the counties within the NACOC region. Descriptive statistics for Coconino County are provided in the table below.25 Total population (2005 estimate) 130,530 Percent population growth since 2000 12.2% Total land area 18,661 square miles Percent of total state land area 16.36% Unique characteristic 5 Indian reservations comprise 44% of county area 24 Arizona Department of Economic Security, Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) profile. 25 Arizona Department of Economic Security, County Profile: Coconino County. 35 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Within the bounds of Coconino County are some of the most treasured recreation resources not only in Arizona, but also in the United States. Coconino County includes Grand Canyon National Park, one of the nation’s premier national parks, and Lake Powell / Glen Canyon Dam, a heavily visited regional asset.. The 2008 SCORP describes Coconino County’s physical attributes as, The county is characterized by rugged mountains, deep canyons and thick pine forests. The San Francisco Peaks contain the state’s highest mountain, Humphrey’s Peak at an elevation of 12,633 feet; there are six peaks over 11,000 feet. The county has several notable attractions, including Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Powell/Glen Canyon Dam, Lee’s Ferry, Sunset Crater National Monument, Wupatki National Monument, Walnut Canyon National Monument, Snow Bowl Ski Area,…Oak Creek Canyon, Riordan Mansion State Park, Slide Rock State Park. There are numerous forested lakes and streams.26 Given the breadth and beauty of the Coconino County landscape, there are numerous recreational opportunities and interests that are clearly identified among residents and visitors to the area. Survey results from the 2008 SCORP report consolidate Coconino County into a common data set with the other counties within the NACOG region. Nonetheless, intriguing distinctions from the statewide results summarized previously are easy to find. The tables below and on the following page details the outdoor recreation activities in the NACOG region with the largest mean number of days spent engaged in these activities by residents over the last twelve months in comparison to the statewide results.27 NACOG Region Popularity Rank Activity Arizona Statewide Annual Mean Participation Days Activity Annual Mean Participation Days 1 Hiking, backpacking, jogging 34.7 Playing a sport: baseball, football, soccer 34.25 2 Driving for pleasure / sightseeing 34.01 Hiking, backpacking, jogging 27.68 3 Playing a sport: baseball, football, soccer 26.43 Driving for pleasure / sightseeing 22.90 4 Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve 20.92 Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse 17.62 5 Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse 18.28 Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area 12.65 6 Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area 16.35 Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve 12.25 26 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 124 pp 27 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 172 p. 36 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis NACOG Region Popularity Rank Activity Arizona Statewide Annual Mean Participation Days 7 Off-road driving: ATV, dirt bike, 4-wheeling 15.21 8 Attending an outdoor event 14.13 9 10 Picnicking Participating in winter activities Activity Attending an outdoor event Picnicking Annual Mean Participation Days 11.13 9.49 10.47 Off-road driving: ATV, dirt bike, 4-wheeling 8.93 9.52 Canoeing, kayaking, swimming in a natural setting 7.26 There are notable differences between the recreational preferences of residents in the NACOG region from those that are identified as statewide trends. The first point of distinction is that the residents surveyed in Northern Arizona are spending an average of an additional 3.586 days per year participating in the top 10 outdoor recreation activities than are their statewide counterparts. Additionally, there are specific activities among the top 10 recreation activities in which mean participation day differences are as much as a week per year. The specific outdoor recreation activities in which there are participation differences of three days or more between NACOG and statewide residents are detailed in the table below.28 NACOG Participation Days Arizona Participation Days Difference Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve 20.92 12.25 8.67 Hiking, backpacking, jogging 34.7 27.68 7.02 Off-road driving: ATV, dirt bike, 4-wheeling 15.21 8.93 6.28 Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area 16.35 12.65 3.7 Attending an outdoor event 14.13 11.13 3 Playing a sport: baseball, football, soccer 26.43 34.25 -7.82 Activity These differences can assist Coconino County policy makers and staff of Coconino Parks and Recreation Department to better understand what distinguishes the recreation preferences of their residents from those exhibited by residents statewide. It is clear that Northern Arizonians 28 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 157; 172 pp. 37 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis spent significantly more time visiting wilderness areas and nature preserves, hiking, backpacking, jogging, enjoying off-road driving, and significantly less time participating in organized sports than their statewide counterparts. Public investment and resource development specifically in the NACOG region should work to appropriately reflect these differences in preferences based upon the survey results associated with the 2008 SCORP report, as well as the survey of Coconino County residents specifically performed as part of this project. As previously mentioned in this report, in the surveys associated with the 2008 SCORP respondents were asked to characterize which activities they believed they would participate in most over the next five years. These responses were also organized regionally and yielded a ranking of potential demand for specific outdoor recreation activities.29 The table below compares the top ten activities and the corresponding percentage of respondents in the NACOG region to the statewide results detailing activities with the highest percentages of projected participation over the next five years.30 NACOG Region Arizona Statewide Popularity Rank Activity Percentage of respondents Activity Percentage of respondents 1 Attend an outdoor event 45.5% Attend an outdoor event 48.6% 2 Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area Canoeing, kayaking, swimming in a natural setting Participating in winter activities Picnicking 3 4 5 6 9 Hiking, backpacking, jogging Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse Tent camping 10 Fishing 7 8 42.3% 42.3% Visiting a park, natural area, or cultural area Visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve Picnicking 36.0% 35.8% 34.6% 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.0% 47.9% 47.4% 40.6% Hiking, backpacking, jogging Riding a bicycle, mountain bike or horse Driving for pleasure / sightseeing Studying nature or doing an educational activity Playing a sport: baseball, football, soccer Fishing 38.4% 36.5% 34.1% 34.0% 33.7% 33.3% 29 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 160 p. 30 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 173 p. 38 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis The most notable result of this comparison is the consistency between residents statewide and NACOG region residents on the top three outdoor recreation activities that are projected to experience the highest rate of growth in the next five years. Attending an outdoor event; visiting a wilderness area or nature preserve; and visiting park, natural area or cultural area were consistently identified as outdoor activities in which greater than 42% of the population plan to increase their participation in the upcoming five years. Unlike their statewide counterparts, NACOG residents did not include participating in organized sports such as baseball, football or soccer in their top ten activities they expect to increase participation in over the next five years. It is notable that on the whole a smaller number of respondents in the NACOG region expect to participate more in these top 10 outdoor recreation activities in the next five years than their statewide counterparts. However, the differences between these projections are not substantial. NACOG residents already participate in outdoor recreation activities considerably more than residents statewide. It could be noted that the trend of NACOG residents to be more consistent participants in outdoor recreation currently is catching on statewide. Conclusion – Translating Trends into Development Priorities This report of outdoor recreation examines national, state and regional trends to clarify public perceptions and preferences regarding outdoor recreation participation. These trends are evolving as noted throughout this report, and it is the challenge of policy makers and park and recreation professionals to stay abreast and responsive to the expressed needs of the public whom we serve. The 2008 SCORP also identified the relative preference for recreation settings both statewide and regionally. A comparison of statewide results from the 2003 and the 2008 SCORP reports can be seen in the table below, in addition to the more localized results from the 2008 SCORP for the NACOG region. These results are expressed as mean scores from a semantic differential rating the importance of recreational settings from “least important” (score of 1) to “extremely important” (score of 5).31 2003 statewide mean 2008 statewide mean 2008 NACOG mean Large, nature-oriented with few buildings primarily used for hiking, picnicking or camping 3.97 4.27 4.23 Open spaces in natural settings with very little development 4.02 4.25 4.45 Large, developed parks with many facilities and uses 2.92 3.87 3.59 Small neighborhood parks that have only a few facilities 3.12 3.61 3.57 Recreational setting 31 Arizona State Parks. 2007. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 134 p. 39 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis As seen in these survey results, there was a general increase in the sense of importance among respondents of all these recreational settings between 2003 and 2008. NACOG residents exhibited an extremely high mean score representing perceived importance of a recreational setting (4.45 mean score out of a possible 5.0) of open spaces in natural settings with very little development. This was true of NACOG respondents in both 2003 and 2008. The 2008 SCORP report acknowledges that one of the recreating public’s biggest complaints is the absence of easily accessible information about recreation areas, access points and opportunities. SCORP does not report a growing trend in consumer research among Americans that is relevant here. Numerous consumer reports indicate the public is increasingly dependent on the internet as a source of information not only for traditional consumer decision making, but also for vacation travel and for quick reference research on appealing day visit locations. Parks and facilities position themselves to better serve customers if they provide amenities such as internet connectivity on-site, and use their websites to communicate about facilities, events, and programs with maps, guides, and on-line reservation services . Based on the results of this trends analysis, PROS recommends that policy makers and parks and recreation staff in Coconino County adopt five development and operational priorities: 1. All recreational settings are very important both statewide and to Northern Arizona residents, but the settings with the highest perceived importance are open spaces and large, nature-oriented parks. 2. Develop and maintain high quality parks, cultural areas, outdoor event venues, wilderness areas, and nature preserves because it aligns with public interest and expressed need. 3. Modernize parks facilities, to integrate computer technology into amenities and services and improve the quality of communication through the internet. 4. Design facilities and programs to appeal to the outdoor recreation preferences of all users, including minorities. 5. Develop communications, imagery and representations of outdoor recreation opportunities that reflect a multilingual and culturally diverse approach. 40 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Appendix B: Demographics Analysis of Coconino County Demographic Anaylsis This demographic analysis provides an understanding of the population characteristics of Coconino County, Arizona, and subsequently the potential Coconino County Parks and Recreation participatory base. The analysis that follows demonstrates multiple demographic characteristics of interest for this project including:  Overall size of the total county population by specific age segment and gender  Race and ethnicity composition of the county population  Economic status and spending power of the county residents demonstrated by household income statistics  Detailed profiles of the fastest growing segments of county population  Influence of demographic trends on recreation participation  Macro-characteristics of the Arizona statewide population that affect Coconino County Methodology and Reference Sources Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in November 2007 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2000 Census and demographic projections for 2007 and 2012 as estimated by ESRI. Straight-line linear regression was utilized for projected 2017 and 2022 demographics. Overview Formed more than a century ago, the County is home to five Indian tribes, the Grand Canyon and countless other national treasures. Coconino County is the second largest county in the forty-eight (48) contiguous United States and is diverse physiographically as well as demographically. The County is a sparcely populated area with a mere 6.24 persons per square mile in 2000 (116,320 persons divided by 18,617.42 square miles), or one person per 101 acres (116,320 persons divided by 11,915,000 acres). The County’s population density is roughly one eighth (13%) of the total Arizona average of 54 persons per square mile. Coconino County has grown at a steady annual rate of 2.2% since Figure 1 – Coconino County, Arizona 2000. From 2000 to 2007, the County increased by an estimated 17,564 persons resulting in an estimated total population of 133,884 persons today. This correlates to an estimated population of density in 2007 of 7.19 persons per square mile, or one person per 99 acres. During much of this same period (2000 to 2006) the State of Arizona‘s population growth has been estimated at 20.2% - an increase of 1,035,686 persons from 2000 (estimated population of 41 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis 5,130,632) to 2006 (estimated population of 6,166,318). Much of this growth can be attributed to the rapidly expanding Phoenix metropolitan area. Coconino County Population by Age Coconino County, AZ; Population by Major Age Segment Coconino County has a relatively young population – 56.0%, or 74,975 persons, of the total estimated population is 34 years of age or younger. Only 24.3%, or 32,534 persons, are aged 50 or older in 2000 (Figure 2). It is anticipated based upon recent trend data there are two population age segments that will grow more substantially than the others: young adults aged 18 – 34, and older adults over 55 years. This is possibly explained as two age groups who find the climate, landscapes and lifestyle of Northern Arizona attractive and appealing to their personal interests. 100% 16,581 90% 23,028 28,339 34,407 40,287 35,881 34,731 36,117 36,868 80% 70% 33,228 60% 55+ 35-54 50% 33,086 40% 40,165 18-34 43,752 49,666 54,999 35,229 36,291 37,193 20% 33,425 34,810 10% 0% 2000 Census 2007 Estimate 2012 Projection 2017 Projection 2022 Projection The gender distribution of Coconino County appears to be split equally amongst males and females, a composition that is expected to stay relatively constant throughout the study period (Figure 3). Analyzing the population by gender reveals that as the population increases in age the female share of the population also increases. For 2007, the under-25 population is comprised of 50.6% male and 49.4% female. As the population ages, the male composition decreases resulting in a female majority. Males comprise only 48.2% of the 50+ population while females account for 51.8% of the 50+ population. The gender disparity widens when analyzing those aged 65+ – the gap widens by 16.3% – 41.8% male as compared to 58.2% female. Similar trends are anticipated in the future. Coconino County, AZ; Total Population (by Gender) 175,000 150,000 84,876 125,000 78,358 66,808 71,097 - Male 58,061 - Female 75,000 50,000 58,259 67,076 70,954 78,124 84,472 25,000 2000 Census 2007 Estimate Source: ESRI Figure 2 - Population by Major Age Segment Gender Distribution of Coconino County 100,000 <18 30% 2012 2017 2022 Projection Projection Projection Source: ESRI Figure 3 – Gender Distribution of Coconino County 42 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis RACE AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION The service area is primarily made up of persons Coconino County, AZ; Population By Race (2007) classified as white (61.3%; 82,031 total persons) and American Indian (29%; 38,826 total persons) White as seen in Figure 4; persons of Hispanic or Latino 61.3% origin account for only 13% (17,673 total persons) Black/African American of the total population. The white alone populace is roughly twice as large as the next ethnic group, American Indian Alone American Indian. Persons classified as American Asian or Pacific Indian are currently estimated at 29.0% of the Islander Alone County population, or an estimated 38,826 total Some Other Race 1.1% persons. This populace is primarily made up of the 2.6% five Indian nations which are located within 29.0% Two or More Races Coconino County – the Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, 1.0% 5.0% Navajo, and Paiute. The remainder of the racial Source: ESRI categorization (roughly 10%) is split amongst all other races. The current racial/ethnic compostion Figure 4 – Ethnic Composition of Coconino County is projected to remain constant during the remainder of the study period, as illustrated in Figures 5a and 5b. Coconino County, AZ; Population by Race/Ethinicity 1,047 1,339 1,163 100% 1,873 1,634 1,513 2,131 1,648 2,116 1,896 90% 80% 33,151 38,826 41,607 49,770 45,869 70% 60% 50% 40% 73,398 82,031 85,230 91,745 97,409 30% Asian/Pacific Islander Black American Indian White 20% 10% Persons of any race in combination with being classified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin account for nearly fifteen percent of the population (13.2%; 17,673 persons). Future projections do indicate a slight decrease in the white population; however, the basic compilation of the racial/ethnic structure is projected to remain relatively unchanged. 0% 2000 Census 2007 Estimate 2012 Projection 2017 Projection 2022 Projection Source: ESRI Figures 5a and 5b – Ethnic Population Projections of Coconino County Population by Race; Coconino County, Arizona 2000 Census White 73,398 Black/African American 1,163 American Indian Alone 33,151 Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 1,047 Some Other Race 2,792 Two or More Races 2,792 Total Population 114,343 Hispanic or Latino Origin 12,679 Source: ESRI 2007 Estimate 82,031 1,513 38,826 1,339 6,694 3,481 133,884 17,673 2012 Projection 85,230 1,648 41,607 1,634 8,026 3,906 142,051 21,166 2017 Projection 91,745 1,896 45,869 1,873 10,670 4,428 156,482 24,948 2022 Projection 97,409 2,116 49,770 2,131 12,992 4,929 169,347 28,698 43 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME Currently, there are an estimated 45,500 households in Coconino County with an average household size of 2.73 persons. In comparison, the State of Arizona has a similar average household size of 2.72 while the average household size for the entire U.S. is 2.61. Coconino County, AZ; Income Characteristics compared to U.S. and Arizona Averages $75,000 $65,238 $50,358 $66,570 $64,021 47,265 48,451 The County has similar income characteristics to both the state and national averages. The $50,000 estimated 2007 median household income in the County is $50,358 as seen in Figure 6, which represents the earnings of all persons age 16 years or older living together in a housing unit. This median household income is $25,000 up an astounding 31% from $38,382 reported in the 2000 Census. This significant increase implies that substantial business development or relocation has occurred within the service area during this period. This projection is $0 provided by the Environmental Services Coconino County, Arizona, U.S. Average, Resources Institute (ESRI) proprietary Est. 2007 Est. 2007 Est. 2006 Source: U.S. Census database, and is based upon preliminary Median HH Income Average HH Income &ESRI estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau through 2006. While it is probable that actual Figure 6 – Median Household Income of Coconino County growth in median household income may not Compared State and National Averages reach these levels, this data is the only data currently available for median household income growth projections for Coconino County, Arizona. Average household income has also experienced a rather large increase over the reported 2000 Census – rising from $48,723 to an estimated $65,238 as seen in Figure 7. Analyzing the households by income range reveals that 50% of all households earn more than $50,000 per year and 30% earn more than $75,000 per year. A healthy household income signifies the presence of disposable income, all Household Income; Coconino County, Arizona 2000 2007 2012 income available after taxes, and Income Range Census Estimate Projection therefore the ability to fund various Less than $15,000 7,123 5,752 5,163 entertainment, recreation, and leisure $15,000 to $24,999 5,670 4,843 3,927 $25,000 to $34,999 5,542 5,017 4,681 activities. $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or More Average HH Income Median HH Income Per Capita Income $ $ $ 7,018 7,661 3,950 2,349 555 518 48,723 38,382 17,139 $ $ $ 6,966 9,216 5,390 5,683 1,424 1,208 65,238 50,358 23,497 $ $ $ 6,535 8,769 6,779 7,714 3,025 2,237 81,159 60,373 29,459 Source: U.S. Census and ESRI Current median household income for the County is estimated at $50,358, slightly greater than both the national and state averages. U.S. median household income for 2006 was estimated at $48,451 and the State of Arizona reported median household Figure 7 –Household Income Statistics of Coconino County 44 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis incomes of $47,265. Household incomes reported within the County have been steadily increasing over the last few decades. The 1990 Census reported a median household income of $26,112 and a 2000 median household income of $38,382. Nationwide, median household income has risen in the past years ,while total individual income has dropped because multiple occupantsfrom an increasing number of households participate in the work force. Population Growth Steady growth is expected to continue for the County over the next five years. Although the growth rate is not expected to reach that which was experienced from 2000 to 2007 (annual growth rate of 2.16%), an annual growth rate of 1.22% is expected between 2007 and 2012 resulting in a total projected population for the County of 142,051 persons by 2012. While most of the population segments are expected to grow in number in the next five years, it is projected that the County’s largest increases will be among the mature adult segments. The five age segments with the largest percentage growth from 2007 to 2012 are projected in descending order to be: 1. 60 – 64 years of age; 29.2% five year increase (5,221 to 6,747 persons) 2. 55 – 59 years of age; 25.0% five year increase (7,497 to 9,375 persons) 3. 85+ yeas of age; 20.2% five year increase (1,004 to 1,207 persons) 4. 65 – 74 years of age; 19.6% five year increase (6,293 to 7,529 persons) 5. 75 – 84 years of age; 15.5% five year increase (3,012 to 3,480 persons) The top five ranked age segments in terms of percent growth from 2007 to 2012 (60-64, 55-59, 85+, 65-74, and 75-84) contribute to the 55+ age segment experiencing the greatest growth in both percent and total persons (2.8% growth; 5,311 total persons). Although the service area will begin to age, 73.5% of the population is still projected to be under the age of 50 in 2012. Influence of Gender on Recreation Participation Although the current gender distribution of the County is nearly equal and this distribution is projected to remain constant throughout the next fifteen years, analyzing this breakdown along with the propensity of the Arizonans to participate in outdoor recreational trends and cultural arts indicates a potential growth market geared toward the mature females may exist. Men continue to outpace women in regards to participatory trends although the gap has begun to decrease – 63.7% of women participate in an activity at least once per year as compared to 64.2% of men. Men and women share a desire for many of the same activities; six of the top ten recreational activities (basketball, biking, golf, jogging, walking, and lifting weights) are the same for both men and women. However, men claim to participate in their favorite activities more often than women in any ninety-day span. With more women participating in recreational activities further into adulthood, a relatively new market has appeared over the last two decades. This mature female demographic is opting for less team oriented activities which dominate the female youth recreational environment, instead shifting more towards a diverse selection of individual participant activities, as evident in the top six recreational activities mentioned above. 45 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Influence of Race and Ethnicity on Recreation Participation Coconino County is predominantly comprised of persons classified as white (60% of the total population), it is noted that minority groups will continue to grow in the region. Ethnic minority groups in the United States are strongly regionalized and urbanized, with the exception of Native Americans, and these trends are projected to continue. Different ethnic groups have different needs when it comes to recreational activities. Ethnic minority groups, along with Generations X and Y, are coming in ever-greater contact with white middle-class baby-boomers with different recreational habits and preferences. This can be a sensitive subject since many baby-boomers are the last demographic to have graduated high school in segregated environments, and the generational gap magnifies numerous ideals and values differences which many baby-boomers find unfamiliar. This trend is projected to increase as more babyboomers begin to retire and both the minority and youth populations continue to increase. Conclusion Demographic and social trends in the state of Arizona and Coconino County influence both tourism and recreation. The Arizona Hospitality Research and Resource Center at Northern Arizona University provided a summary report to the Arizona Office of Tourism in 2007 that summarized many indicators of emerging public preferences and needs.32 Nine highlights from this report are combined with findings from the referenced previous studies to summarize the demographic and social context of providing future public parks and recreation services in Coconino County: 32  In 2006, Arizona surpassed Nevada as the fastest growing state in the union.33  Arizona state population is projected to grow 108% from 2000 to 2030.34  Arizona currently ranks second in the union for highest in-state mobility.35  By 2036, 20% of Arizona population will be 65 years or older, compared to 12% currently.36  In 2000, a language other than English was spoken in 25.6% of Arizona households compared to 17.9% nationally.37  The two fastest growing age segments of Coconino County are people aged 55+, and people aged 18-34, with 70% of Coconino County residents are projected to be under the age of 50 in 2012. Cheryl Cothran, Ph.D. Arizona’s Tourism Future: Effects of Population and Demographic Change. Arizona Hospitality Research and Resource Center, Northern Arizona Univeristy: Flagstaff, Arizona. 2007. 33 U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. 34 Marshall Vest, Forecast for Arizona in 2036Forecast for Arizona in 2036, University of Arizona, 9/1/2006. US Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract. 2006. 35 36 Marshall Vest, Forecast for Arizona in 2036Forecast for Arizona in 2036, University of Arizona, 9/1/2006. 37 US Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract. 2006. 46 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis  The gender balance is Coconino County is projected to remain stable, but women nationally are trending to lead more independent and active lifestyles making them a growing market for recreation and tourism.  Residents of Coconino County currently maintain and are projected to sustain higher average household incomes than both the state and national average.  The ethnic composition of Coconino County is projected to remain fairly constant, but does include a sizeable component of minorities dominated by American Indians which will have implications on preferred recreation settings and amenities. As Arizona’s population becomes more dynamic and mobile, Coconino County’s natural resources will continue to be highly coveted by residents both within the County as well as statewide for the recreational experiences they will yield. This creates both pressure and opportunity for Coconino Parks and Recreation Department and its policy makers set a deliberate course for the County’s recreation development and operational priorities in the upcoming years. 47 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Appendix C: Park Classification System The Conconino County Parks and Recreaton system is comprised of seven sites and approximately 544 acres of land. To manage this park system and its development effectively requires many elements including, but not limited to a responsive park maintenance program and a modernized park classifciation system that reflects the diversity of values that different types of sites managed by Coconino Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR) provide to protect and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the County on behalf of its citizens. Coconino County Park Classifications A park classification system must incorporate key characteristics or descriptive factors of each site including the intent and/or mission of sites, predominant types of site usage, geographic location in relation to major population centers, and appropriate performance measures unique to each category of park classification. Proper integration of a robust park classification system that utilize these criteria to organize and distringuish the diverse purposes served by county parks will help to guide CCPRD in the years to come as a key component of this Organizational Master Plan. These classifications are used to determine equity of distribution of parks and facilities throughout the County supporting accessibility by residents. In addition, these standards can support the definition of a high quality park system by addressing current and emerging recreation trends and public need. The following factors are utilized to distinguish county parks and recreation sites: 1. Park Size – defines the relative size of the park in acres, including ratio of land to per capita population. 2. Geographic Location – details whether the park is located in an urban or rural location, and relative proximity to major population centers. 3. Accessibility – details the previaling mode of accessibility to the park or site. 4. Service Area – details the service area of the park as defined by its size and amenities. 5. Maintenance standard - details the required / expected standard of maintenance required at the park dependent upon usage levels and degree of facility development. 6. Natural / Cultural Significance – details whether naturally and/or historically significant resources are present on site that impact public use and management of the park. 7. Amenities – Describes the level of facility and/or amenity development that is present. 8. Performance – Establishes performance expectations of the park as reflected in annual operational cost recovery (revenue generation), and annaul occupancy of major facilities within the park. 48 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Using these criteria, the Coconino County system has been classified into the four categories described below. Each of these park area categories provides a different type of environment and public use, and also has distinctive maintenance and habitat management goals and requirements. 1. Regional Parks 2. Community Parks 3. Natural Areas 4. Special Use Areas a. Cultural/Educational b. Historic c. Enterprise Zone Trails are also addressed in this classification system. The trail classifications described herein provide guidelines for design, development, maintenance, and operations. The descriptions that follow provide greater detail in distringuishing qualities of each of the three major park classifications listed above, as well as trail classiciations and management zone descriptions. These points of distinction are reflective of industry best-practices and adopted to improve the organization and management of parks with diverse amenities, aspects and performance measures. The tables featured on the following pages provide a detailed description of the four park classifications defined above. This information is pertinent when addressed in the facility needs discussed in the later sections of this report.  These areas, or zones, may be located within parks of a different classification type. For instance, Fort Tuthill County park is a Regional Park, but contains areas designated as Special Use Areas. 49 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Regional Parks A regional park serves a large area of several communities, residents within a city or county, or across multiple counties. Depending on activities with a regional park, users may travel as many as 120 miles or 2 hours for a visit. Regional parks include recreational opportunities such as golf, boating, camping, conservation-wildlife viewing and fishing. Although regional parks usually have a combination of passive areas and active facilities, they are likely to be predominantly natural resource based parks. Regional parks range in size from 100 to 1,000 acres in local mumicpality based systems and up to 5,000 acres and greater for county and state park systems. Although a reginal park could include assets and features commonly found in a community park, a regional park’s core attraction is focused on activities and natural features not included in most types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational opportunity. Regional parks usually feature compartmentalized zones that offer specialized features such as an substantial sport facilities or complex, art and cultural center, amphitheater, boating facility and water resources, golf course, or natural area with interpretive trails. Regional parks can and should promote tourism and economic development by enhancing the economic vitality and identity of the entire region. Factor Park Size Description Coconino Park Examples 100 to 1,000 acres Geographic Large parcel suitable for a blended use of developed and Location/Description natural areas Accessibility Accessible from major highways and roads; potentiall connected to regional trail system via major trailhead(s) Service Area County-wide and region; up to 120 miles or 2-hour drive Maintenance Standard Level 2: (High-level maintenance) Associated with welldeveloped public areas, malls, government grounds, college/university campuses, or well-developed park areas with reasonably high visitation. Fort Tuthill Natural / Cultural Signature natural and/or cultural features that feature Significance access and enhanced use of the site, while protecting against harmful human impact Development Substantial sports facilities or complex, picnic areas or ramadas, playgrounds or areas, walking paths and/or trails, event facilities, preserved greenways and wildlife corridors Performance Level 2 maintenance standard; significant planned revenue generation from facilities and programs Length of Stay Four hours to multiple day experience 50 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Amenities 8 to 12 amenities to create a signature facility (e.g. lake, camping, outdoor recreation/extreme sports amenities in place, golf course, sports complexes, regional playground, 3+ reservable picnic shelters (100+ persons per), recreation center, pool, gardens, trails, zoo, specialty facilities); public restrooms, concessions, restaurant, ample parking, special event site Programming More than two; park designed to produce revenue to assist in off-setting operational costs Land usage Generally 50 percent active recreation programming / 50 percent passive recreation through facilities Programming Four core programs provided in the park; at least two recreational experiences per age segment Signage Strong signage throughout the park including entrance, active zone indentificaton, wayfinding, and interpetive Landscaping Strong focal entrances and landscaping throughout the parks active area zones; only flora native to the site should be considered Parking Sufficient for all amenities; capable of supporting a special event with a reginal draw (2 hour drive) Access One primary access point should be established as the focal point; one secondary access point should be located nearest to the largest population density furthest from the primary access point. Secondary access point should be of sustainable design that limits the impact on the environment and allows for all forms of access, including equestrian trailers Lighting Acceptable (safety and asset/amenity) Naming Named based on historical historical/cultural figure or theme Other Active zone safety design should meet Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) safety standards – designs should support pedestrian activity and provide natural surveillance of spaces from key locations inside and next to buildings and structures; integrated color scheme throughout the park; linked to major trails systems, concessions, food and retail sales available, dedicated site managers on duty figure or local 51 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Community Parks Community Parks are intended to be accessible to multiple neighborhoods and should focus on meeting community-based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. Community Parks are generally larger in scale than neighborhood parks, but smaller than regional parks and are designed typically for residents who live within a three mile radius. When possible, the park may be developed adjacent to a school. Community Parks, which provide recreational opportunities for the entire family, often contain facilities for specific recreational purposes: athletic fields, swimming pool, tennis courts, recreation center, loop trails, picnic areas, reservable picnic shelters, sports courts, permanent restrooms, large turfed and landscaped areas and a playground or spray ground. Passive outdoor recreation activities such as meditation, quiet reflection, and wildlife watching also take place at community parks. Community parks have strong appeal to surrounding neighborhoods; integrated color scheme throughout the park; partnerships developed with nearby schools or other organizations; loop trail connectivity; and safety design meets established standards (CPTED) Sports complexes at Community Parks are usually developed for youth soccer, softball, baseball and adult sports complexes in softball. The complexes are usually 4 to 6 fields maximum in one setting and include a portion or all the fields with appropriate level of lighting to maximize the value and productivity of the complex. Athletic design standards include appropriate field distances for individual governing body sports for soccer, baseball, softball, football, Lacrosse, and other sports along with appropriate levels of support amenities designed to produce revenue to offset operational costs. Factor Park Size Description 10 to 60 acres; typically 3 acres per 1,000 residents Geographic Urban or suburban; centrally located to population centers Location/Description Accessibility Accessible from surrounding neighborhoods and community by major roads and/or interconnected trails Service Area 5-mile radius Maintenance Standard Level 2: (High-level maintenance) Associated with welldeveloped public areas, malls, government grounds, college/university campuses, or well-developed park areas with reasonably high visitation. Sports facilities, picnic areas, walking paths and/or trails Peaks View Raymond Park Natural / Cultural Limited: no natural or cultural features that require severe Significance limitation to access or use of the site Amenities Coconino Park Examples Louise Yellowman Cataract Lake playgrounds or areas, 52 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Performance Level 2 maintenance standard; limited planned revenue generation from facilities or programs Length of Stay Two to three hour experience Amenities Four signature facilities at a minimum: (e.g., trails, sports fields, large shelters/pavilions, community playground for ages 2-5 and 5-12 with some shaded elements, recreation center, pool or family aquatic center, sports courts, water feature); public restrooms, ample parking, security lighting, ball field lighting are support features Programming 65% percent active and 35% percent passive Land usage Four to five essential program services can be provided (e.g. sports, day camps, aquatics) Signage Strong signage throughout the park Landscaping Strong landscaping throughout the park Parking Sufficient to support the amenities; occupies no more than 10 percent of the park Lighting Acceptable (sports and safety) Naming Named to a specific large neighborhood area 53 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Natural Areas Natural areas are zones in which naturally significant resources require more intense management to protect against human impact. These areas can be independent parks or management zones within other parks for purposes including, but not limited to conservaiton, habitate protection, watershed protection, endangered species. These areas can include diverse recreational opportunities that are managed by the County such as multi-use trails (pedestrian, mountain biking, equestrian), rock climbing venues, or fishing areas along creeks or rivers. Dependent upon the quality and availability of aquatic resources, limited and unmanned swimming areas can also be a part of natural areas. Traditionally, natural areas serve both a conservation and interpretive purpose for habitat preservation and responsible recreation. Factor Park Size Description Coconino Park Examples Varies dependent upon size of natural resource Geographic Provides connections within regional trail system; Location/Description significant natural resource and scenic areas Accessibility Accessible from multiple points; integrated with regional trail system Service Area Community and county-wide; up to 30 miles or 30minute drive Maintenance Standard Level 3: (Moderate maintenance) Associated with limited developed public areas with variable visitation. Natural / Cultural Signature natural resources that restricted access Significance and use of the site, while protecting against harmful human impact Development Limited to none; limited trailhead development Performance Level 3 maintenance standard; XXXX visitation; No planned revenue generation from facilities and programs Length of Stay Up to two hour experience Amenities Multi-use trails, appropriate adventure recreation venues dependent on the relevant natural features Programming Limited to none Land usage Maximum of 50 percent active recreation programming / 50 percent passive recreation through facilities; can be as little as 10 percent active/90 percent passive Pumphouse Greenway Zones within: Fort Tuthill 54 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Signage Strong signage throughout including entrance, regulatory, and wayfinding/directional Landscaping Limited landscaping at entrances and only native flora should be considered Parking Limited; capable of supporting use of the site and connected trail system Access Multiple access points can be established to integrate with a regional trail system; or limited access through a single control point Lighting Limited to none (safety and asset/amenity) Naming Named based on historical/cultural location or special use theme Special Use Areas Cultural/Educational Park or Management Zone Cultural/Educational parks or management zones are managed to provide access to cultural and educational experiences and programs to the general public. These facilities generally include cultural and educational resources, amenities, and displays. The performance venues can be managed by Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department, or private concessionaire for purposes of organizing and facilitating usage of the amenities of the site. Factor Park Size Description Coconino Park Examples Varies dependent upon cultural resource or purpose Geographic Urban or suburban; centrally located to population Location/Description centers Accessibility Accessible from surrounding neighborhoods and community by major roads or highways Service Area Varies Maintenance Standard Level 2: (High-level maintenance) Associated with well-developed public areas, malls, government grounds, college/university campuses, or welldeveloped park areas with reasonably high visitation. Sawmill Zones within: Fort Tuthill (Amphitheater) Natural / Cultural Cultural resources that feature controlled access or Significance use of the site Amenities Amphitheater, event facilities, public art 55 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Performance Level 2 maintenance standard; significant planned revenue generation from facilities or programs Length of Stay Up to two hour experience Amenities Amphitheater, event facilities, public art displays Signage Strong signage throughout including entrance, regulatory, and wayfinding/directional Landscaping Substantial landscpaing at entrances; only native flora native should be considered Parking Developed to capacity of the performance venues Access Multiple access points should be established to integrate with the surrounding park or neighborhoods Lighting Appropriate lighting for safe access and egress at night and for night performances Naming Named based on cultural location, special use theme, or major donors supporting capital and/or operating costs Historical Park or Management Zone Historical parks or management zones are established and managed to provide controlled access to historic and/archeological significant resources through events and programs for the general public. These facilities generally include varying styles of interpretive displays or signage, pedestrian trails, historic structures, and can sometimes include an amphitheater or other event facilities. The historic park or management zone can be managed by Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department, or private concessionaire for purposes of organizing and facilitating usage of the amenities of the site. Factor Park Size Description Coconino Park Examples Varies dependent upon expanse of historic or archeological resource Geographic Varies dependent upon location of historic or Location/Description archeologiucal resource Zones wthin: Accessibility Varies; can be inaccessible to the public dependent upon the sensitivity of the historic or archeological resources Fort Tuthill (Fairgrounds) Service Area Varies - county-wide or regional 56 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Maintenance Standard Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Level 2: (High-level maintenance) Associated with well-developed public areas, malls, government grounds, college/university campuses, or welldeveloped park areas with reasonably high visitation. Natural / Cultural Historic resources that feature controlled access or Significance use of the site Amenities Interpretive displays and signage, walking/hiking trails, historic structures Performance Level 2 maintenance standard; imited planned revenue generation from facilities or programs Length of Stay Two hours up to full-day experience Amenities Interpretive displays and signage, pedestrian trails, historic structures, possible amphitheater and other event facilities Signage Strong signage throughout including entrance, interporetive, regulatory, and wayfinding/directional Landscaping Limited landscpaing at entrances; only native flora native should be considered Parking Developed to capacity of specific venues within the site Access Multiple access points should be established to integrate with the surrounding park; limited or no access for sites or zones with extremely sensitive historic or archeoligical resources Lighting Appropriate lighting for safe access and egress at night and for night use Naming Named based on historical/cultural location or special use theme Enterprise Zone Enterprise zones are established and managed to provide access and use of county property and/or facilities for purposes of providing public recreation experience and substantial economic development. The specific amenities are typically managed by a private concessionaire for purposes of organizing and facilitating usage of the facilities of the site in accordance with use regulations established in the appropriate operating agreement(s). 57 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Factor Park Size Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis Description Coconino Park Examples Varies dependent upon amenities and enterprise zone purpose Geographic Urban or suburban; centrally located to population Location/Description centers Accessibility Accessible from surrounding neighborhoods and community by major roads or highways Service Area Varies – county-wide or regional Maintenance Standard Level 2: (High-level maintenance) Associated with well-developed public areas, malls, government grounds, college/university campuses, or welldeveloped park areas with reasonably high visitation. Natural / Cultural Limited to no historic or cultural features that Significance require access or use limitations Amenities Varies dependent upon amenities and enterprise zone purpose Performance Level 2 maintenance standard; Significant planned revenue generation from facilities or programs Length of Stay Two hour up to full day experience Amenities Varies Signage Strong signage throughout including entrance, regulatory, and wayfinding/directional Landscaping Substantial landscpaing at entrances; only native flora native should be considered Parking Developed to capacity of the facilities and venues Access Multiple access points should be established to integrate with the surrounding park or neighborhoods Lighting Appropriate lighting for safe access and egress at night and for night use Naming Named based on historical/cultural location, special use theme, or major donors supporting capital and/or operating costs Fort Tuthill (Equestrian facilities, and Campground)) 58 COCONINO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATIONAL MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ACTION PLAN September 30, 2009 Prepared by: Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 Vision and Mission Elements of CCPR....................................................................................... 7 Summary of Needs Analyses .................................................................................................... 9 Organizational Action Plan ..................................................................................................... 15 Identified Community Needs ..................................................................................................... 16 CCPR Constraints to Success ...................................................................................................... 17 Best Yielding Business Functions ............................................................................................... 17 Strategies and Tactics ................................................................................................................ 19 Key Best Management Practices ............................................................................................... 32 Funding Requirements and Options .......................................................................................... 33 Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 38 Operational Requirements ........................................................................................................ 41 CCPR Phased Capital Project Action Plan ................................................................................ 44 Balancing Competing Interests .................................................................................................. 45 Evaluating Projects for Implementation Sequencing ................................................................ 45 Recommended Implementation Schedule ................................................................................ 48 Strategic Development Principles and Guidelines ..................................................................... 48 Short Term Implementation Projects ........................................................................................ 53 Mid Term Implementation Projects .......................................................................................... 57 Long Term Implementation Projects ......................................................................................... 60 Conclusion…….. .................................................................................................................... 67 i Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Executive Summary The Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR) seeks to develop and maintain a system of parks that reflects the unique natural and cultural landscape of the region, the park and recreation trends and needs of Coconino County residents, and the capacity of the County to balance the resources necessary to manage a high quality park system. This Development and Action Plan unifies many components of the organizational master plan by applying the priorities of the County through a phased approach to development and strategic decisions over the next 10 years. This Development and Action Plan includes the individual elements listed below: • • • • Vision and Mission of CCPR Summary of Needs Analyses Strategic Development Principles and Guidelines Action Plan The recommendations of this report emerge from three basic tenets: 1. One of the greatest priorities of Coconino County residents as gleaned from community input is to maintain and improve existing facilities. The majority of facilities with significant deferred maintenance and upgrade needs are located at Fort Tuthill and in the Flagstaff area. 2. The equitable distribution of Coconino County Parks needs to be improved by the strategic development of additional county parks in local communities. This priority was established based upon extensive community input conducted in association with this project and the expressed intent of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to ensure quality of life opportunities provided by the county are more accessible to all residents. 3. A priority drawn from the assessment analyses was to expand and enhance opportunities for increased earned revenue. The most promising opportunities for increased revenue exist within upgrades and redevelopments of aspects of Fort Tuthill County Park. The content of this report establishes the identified community needs and preferences for parks and recreation, the organizational needs and priorities of CCPR, and the facility priorities to achieve a standard of excellence within the Coconino County Parks system. Identified Community Needs and Preferences There were multiple methods used to gather community input including a random household survey, seven (7) focus groups, and six (6) public forums. From those exercises, detailed findings were provided in the Summary Assessment Report and the following were identified as key needs and preferences: • Natural areas, open spaces, and corridor trails are priority facilities; nature education, adventure camps, and special events are priority programs. • County parks can be more effectively utilized as a tourism resource. • Community communication can be greatly improved regarding park operational performance, services, and amenities available to the public. 2 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan • Equitable and strategic partnerships are critical to improve the conditions of facilities, diversity of services available at existing parks, and to assist local communities to develop their own parks. • Maintaining current parks is equally or more important than building new ones. • Facilities and programs that target youth are needed to build stronger communities. • More adequate funding to support maintenance of park facilities needs to be addressed. • County parks have an inequitable distribution that can be corrected – there are more parks needed outside of Flagstaff and in the outlying areas of the County. • Park and recreation facilities and programs need to reflect the diversity of Coconino County residents. • Not all park and recreation needs are an appropriate responsibility of the County Parks and Recreation Department – this should be a shared responsibility with other levels of government. Identified Organizational Needs and Priorities Contained within this Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis are opportunities for improving and developing the capacity of CCPR to manage its daily operations, planning, and organizational success as identified through the community input and assessment processes. These opportunities are described within this report in detail, and can be summarized as follows: • Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs, and sustainable program development. • It is critical to establish a tradition of excellence through the implementation of consistent standards for facility and program development, and design and maintenance of park and recreation facilities that provides equity, safety and cleanliness. • Provide balance and consistency in the delivery of core recreation programs and services to the community and the region by meeting the needs of all ages and interests through new and fresh programs, incorporating a family and environmental ethic and accessible year‐round facilities. • Manage recreation facilities and programs that generate revenue at established cost recovery goals to off‐set operational costs while considering affordability, customer need and demand, value of services received and leveraging of resources. • Enhance the operational budget structure and cost tracking practices to improve cost of service accounting. • Develop a system of tiered pricing that is based on total costs of service, level of service, cost recovery goals, characteristics of the users and user groups, and a sustainable approach to managing programs and facilities. • Maximize resources through equitable partnerships to leverage facilities and open space development opportunities and achieve efficient and effective operations. 3 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan • Development and Action Plan Implementation of an appropriate and relevant park classification system will improve the ability of CCPR to manage and measure performance within the Coconino County Park system. Identified Facility Needs and Priorities While the current system offers a wide range of park assets, the Department needs substantial capital improvements to maintain special event venues and their partnerships. Future partnerships can be modeled after the success achieved with current partners like the Pine Mountain Amphitheater LLC, and Willow Bend Environmental Education Center. As the County Parks and Open Space Program is implemented, it will be just as important to protect the integrity of the existing assets as it will be to acquire new resources. From a tour of the county park system, substantial public input, and extensive interviews with Department and County staff the following key findings were developed: • Significant deferred maintenance has accumulated that is threatening the overall quality of the both facilities and the visitor experience. • Substantial upgrades and redevelopment of select amenities at Fort Tuthill, Raymond Park, and Pumphouse Greenway will provide opportunities to meet community expectations of high quality facilities, enhance and develop revenue generation potential of the County park system, and support the growth of balanced programming and services. • Need exists for park development in the communities of Williams, Page, Tusayan, and Fredonia, with particular focus on group and youth amenities. • Partnership opportunities with both the public and private sector will be sought to share the burden of capital and operational requirements supporting identified facility needs. • Encroachment and lack of buffer from development near county parks is a growing issue. • Specific facility needs have been detailed and organized into a priority matrix that mirrors identified community values. • Current labor resources are insufficient for managing existing and future facility needs. Key Organizational Recommendations There are a number of key policies and practices recommended for the Department in accordance with predominant findings from the research and analysis associated with developing the Organizational Master Plan. Contained within this report is a detailed discussion of the process and logic that yielded these recommendations, as well as the suggested action plan for implementing them. The key organizational recommendations are detailed in the table on the following page. 4 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Organizational Recommendations CCPR Function Enhanced funding for maintenance of facilities Facility Management Increased usage of key facilities Programs and Services Diversified programs and events Programs and Services Improved marketing and communications Programs and Services Consistent and formalized partnerships Facility Management / Programs and Services Improved operational budget structure Financial / Budgetary Management Distinguish “public” versus “private” services Financial /Budgetary Management Research on residents and users Strategic Growth Improved positioning as a community asset Strategic Growth Improved customer fulfillment efforts Strategic Growth Key Development Recommendations Aligned with the needs and priorities revealed throughout the process of developing the Organizational Master Plan, this Development and Action Plan provides prioritized recommendations for the development and growth of CCPR over the next 10 years. These recommendations are discussed in more detailed throughout the remainder of this report and are summarized in the table below. Development Recommendations Recommended Implementation Fort Tuthill utilities and infrastructure Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Stable Repair and Enhancements Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill campground repair and enhancements Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill picnic areas and general recreational amenities Short Term Schedule Page/LeChee Regional Park Mid Term Schedule Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park Mid Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Visitor Center Mid Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Grandstand Racetrack Long Term Schedule Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park Long Term Schedule Redevelop Cataract Lake County Park Long Term Schedule Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Long Term Schedule Sedona Creek Walk Long Term Schedule Open space acquisitions Long Term Schedule Trails and connectivity Long Term Schedule 5 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Recommended Implementation Process The following flow diagram illustrates the recommended implementation order of all recommendations contained within this Development and Action Plan, and which reflects concurrent pursuit of both the organizational and facility needs and priorities. Contained within this report are numerous recommendations directed at the organizational / operational aspects of the Department, as well as strategic facility improvements and developments over the next 10 years. As represented in the flow diagram above, the PROS Team strongly believes that these two areas of focus can be addressed concurrently and do not necessarily mesh into a seamless and singular sequence. It is critical that County and Department leadership retain the latitude to be responsive to opportunity and changing circumstances, while also have a guide and framework from which to make strategic decisions. Stemming from the professional management experience of PROS Team members in public parks and recreation departments in the past, the recommendations of this Organizational Master Plan are that the many of the elements addressed within this plan can begin implementation immediately upon approval of this plan and build incrementally as demand and resources grow. In a similar fashion, the facility recommendations will be implemented as funding mechanisms are established and secured. The critical finding related to this is the realization that there will not likely be a seamless meshing of the implementation of the organizational and facility recommendations. Rather, these two related areas of focus should be addressed starting immediately after approval the plan and reflect a flexibility to adapt to the evolving needs and circumstances of Coconino County. 6 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Vision and Mission Elements of CCPR Vision and mission elements are critical in public plans because they describe purpose and priorities for the system. For Coconino County, they offer a philosophy of parks to guide the County system for the next ten years. The vision and mission elements associated with this plan resulted from extensive research into the trends of the region’s park and recreation demands, a comprehensive process of community input, one‐on‐one interviews with the County Board of Supervisors, and a thorough assessment of the current CCPR Park System. The specific elements of this portion of the plan include the five major components detailed in the table below. Element Description County Strategic Priorities Vision Strategic priorities established by the Board of Supervisors that all aspects of County management should be aligned to Describes the vision for how CCPR desires to be positioned and viewed by both internal and external stakeholders Reflects the obligations and responsibilities of CCPR to the community of Coconino County Defines the community values pertaining to parks and recreation that are upheld by the facilities, services, and practices of CCPR Outlines the organizational and performance goals of CCPR over a 10‐year period Mission Community Values Goals Process Used to Develop and Vet Plan Elements To develop the proposed vision and mission elements, PROS Consulting LLC met with the Board of Supervisors in a work session (August 28, 2007) and individually (December 11); developed key findings from public involvement meetings; conducted an assessment of current conditions; and facilitated two work sessions with County staff (June 5, 2008) and the Parks & Recreation Commission (June 24, 2008). Finally, the process returned to the Board in work session for their further input (August 26, 2008) and review. The Vision and Mission Elements contained within this report are aligned with the County Strategic Priorities detailed below and reflect the input of County residents and leadership. County Strategic Priorities 1. Community Vitality – Facilitating connections and engaging individuals to enrich the quality of life in Coconino County communities. 2. Economic Development – Supporting the creation of a strong economy. 3. Cultural & Natural Resources – Protecting the magnificent cultural and environmental treasures of the Coconino Plateau. 4. Fiscal Health – Ensuring exceptional value for our residents through long‐range fiscal planning and performance‐based budgeting. 5. Organizational Health ‐ Providing the highest quality of service by fostering a culture that supports innovation and an investment in our people. 6. Public Safety & Welfare ‐ Ensuring safety and well being throughout Coconino County. 7 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan CCPR Vision Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation (CCPR) establishes a standard of excellence for engaging residents and visitors with Coconino County’s natural, recreational, and cultural environments to promote healthy lifestyles and communities. CCPR Mission Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation engages the public in developing and delivering quality, sustainable parks; equitable community partnerships; accessible, diverse recreational and educational opportunities; and protecting unique natural areas and open spaces. Coconino County Community Values Regarding Parks and Recreation Coconino County residents have a legacy of recreating in the outdoors that is important to individuals and communities. This legacy gives rise to shared values regarding County parks and recreation services. County residents believe in: • • • • • • • • • attracting and retaining knowledgeable parks and recreation professionals who demonstrate outstanding customer service; managing parks and open space responsibly and sustainably; recognizing and supporting the County’s unique natural landscapes, diverse communities, and cultural traditions; providing passive public recreation areas and expanding protection for open spaces and wildlife corridors; using public and private sector partnerships to reach shared goals; striving for equitable access to parks and recreation experiences for urban and rural youth, seniors, and families; promoting volunteer stewardship as an integral part of park management; balancing the funding and provision of services between public and private sectors; and demonstrating environmental leadership through policies, practices, and programs. Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Goals Coconino County Parks and Recreation’s (CCPR) mission will be implemented through programs and policies focused on five core endeavors over the next 10 years. These primary goals were developed from the multifaceted aspects of the master plan process, including numerous public meetings, extensive interviews and focus groups with community leaders and CCPR stakeholders, and the Consultant Team assessments of the existing CCPR system. These goals are: 1. Develop and implement effective marketing and communications plans to better meet customer needs and interests. 2. Develop and maintain equitable and creative public and private‐sector partnerships to reach shared goals. 3. Explore new ways to provide programs, facilities, and operations that engage more residents and promote accessible, equitable, and sustainable park services. 4. Develop a 10‐year financial plan that analyzes and identifies the resources needed to accomplish the major components of the Organizational Master Plan. 5. Demonstrate environmental leadership and sustainability in practices and policies. 8 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Summary of Needs Analyses This Development and Action Plan is built upon the findings of two analyses performed earlier in this project: 1. Facility Needs Analysis 2. Organizational Needs Analysis These analyses were performed following extensive assessment and review of existing county facilities, an inventory of sites and facilities of other public providers (State of Arizona, local municipalities, and federal lands), and a review of community needs as ascertained in the community input process of focus group meetings, public forums, and the household survey. Additionally, this project incorporated research involving trends and preferences for parks and recreation both state‐wide and for Northern Arizona. The results of these analyses included a list of prioritized facility needs, as well as priority organizational elements detailed in the Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis of this project. This section of the Development and Action Plan provides a summary of these analyses as a framework for the recommendations detailed herein. Summary of Facility Needs Analysis The facilities and assets detailed in the table on the following page combine all recommended facility improvements, upgrades, and new development needs into a prioritized format. These prioritized facility needs represent the preliminary recommendations that have been further explored and detailed in this Development and Action Plan phase of the CCPR Organizational Master Plan project. The prioritized facility needs identified in the table on the following page are the result of intensive review of facilities both independently by the Consultant Team from an objective perspective, as well as collectively with CCPR staff, through multiple methods of community input to identify community values and needs, and through equity analyses utilized to locate geographic and programmatic gaps in service. These recommendations emerge from three basic tenets: 1. One of the greatest needs of Coconino County residents as gleaned from community input is to maintain and improve existing facilities. The majority of facilities with significant deferred maintenance and upgrade needs are located at Fort Tuthill and in the Flagstaff area. 2. The equitable distribution of Coconino County Parks needs to be improved by the strategic development of additional county parks in local communities. This priority was established based upon extensive community input conducted in association with this project and the expressed intent of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to ensure quality of life opportunities provided by the county are more accessible to all residents. 3. A priority drawn from the assessment analyses was to expand and enhance opportunities for increased earned revenue. The most promising opportunities for increased revenue exist within upgrades and redevelopments of aspects of Fort Tuthill County Park. 9 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan The recommendations detailed as “secondary” needs represent assets and opportunities aligned with both the values and needs identified in the community input associated with this project, as well as the findings of the 2007 SCORP report. There are multiple acquisitions and developments planned with the County Parks and Open Space (CPOS) initiative that address most natural area and special use area needs. Additionally, CPOS initiatives include multiple trail projects and facility upgrades that can defer select items detailed in this report. Facility Need Campgrounds Stables Recommended Location Fort Tuthill Fort Tuthill Grandstands Racetrack Fort Tuthill County Fairgrounds Fort Tuthill Picnic area Fort Tuthill Miscellaneous assets Campgrounds Picnic area Ball field Open Space Acquisition Fort Tuthill Cataract Lake Cataract Lake Raymond Park Various Community Park Tusayan Regional Park Page Visitor Center Fort Tuthill Environmental / Natural Science Center Community Park Pumphouse Greenway Fredonia Trails Various Recommended assets Need Upgrades for sites, support, & access Upgrades for structures, site issues, & access Upgrades for structures, support, infrastructure, & access Upgrades for structures, site issues, support, infrastructure, & access Upgrades for structures and access Primary Primary Design considerations and repairs Upgrades for sites, support, & access Upgrades for structures and access Repairs and renovations Buffer zones to protect park assets and for trail‐way linkages between parks Youth facilities, playground, group pavilions, possible revenue generating amenities supporting Grand Canyon visitors Youth facilities, multi‐use trails, playground, group pavilions, possible revenue generating amenities supporting Glen Canyon and Lake Powell visitors Centralized and accessible visitor center to improve use and subsequent revenue generation at Fort Tuthill, and improved administration space Develop partnership similar to Sawmill County Park Playground, group pavilions, and possible sport facilities supporting community Additional trails surround park sites and popular natural amenities will be needed by 2012 in outlying areas beyond Flagstaff and Williams Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary 10 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Summary of Organizational Needs Analysis Complimentary to the Facility Needs Analysis, the Organizational Needs Analysis summarizes the operational practices and non‐facility priorities for CCPR for the upcoming 10 years. These needs are derived from the findings from extensive community input, interviews with CCPR staff and the County Manager’s office, and interviews with the Coconino County Board of Supervisors associated with this project. The priorities detailed in this Organizational Needs Analysis were identified specifically from the Organizational Best Practices Matrix described within the previously completed Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis report, and are organized into the following four (4) categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. Financial / Budgetary Management Facility Management Strategic Growth Programs and Services Additionally, these priority elements are directly aligned with the County Strategic Priorities established by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors as a framework for all aspects of County government functions. To illustrate this, the table below links the alignment of the four (4) categories of priority elements recommended for CCPR with the County Strategic Priorities. CCPR Organizational Priority Elements Coconino County Strategic Priorities Financial / Budgetary Management Fiscal Health Organizational Health Facility Management Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Economic Development Fiscal Health Public Safety and Welfare Strategic Growth Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Economic Development Fiscal Health Organizational Health Public Safety and Welfare Programs and Services Community Vitality Cultural and Natural Resources Fiscal Health Organizational Health Public Safety and Welfare The sections that follow describe the individual priority elements in greater detail, featuring specific recommended tactics within each. 11 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Financial / Budgetary Management There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to financial and budgetary management practices of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Financial / Budgetary Priorities 1. Create a revenue policy and philosophy that support users investing in facilities supporting their interests based on the level of exclusivity they receive above that provided to a general taxpayer. 2. Redesign CCPR operational budget to support cost‐based accounting and better expense tracking capabilities. 3. Design facilities to produce revenue to offset operating costs. 4. Establish a departmental cost recovery goal that represents an appropriate balance of public, private and merit services. 5. Enhance existing pricing and fee structures to address total costs of services and cost recovery goals specific to each program area and facility, tiered levels of service, wear and tear of facilities as a result of users from out‐of‐county, and appropriate pricing for non‐ profit organizations conducting charity and community‐based programming at Coconino County park facilities. Facility Management There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to facility management practices of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Facility Priorities 1. Upgrade existing park and recreation infrastructure to established standards that reflect modern and unique uses, including accessibility, and efficient and optimal use of all park properties and recreation facilities. 2. Protect and manage open space and natural areas. 3. Perform more thorough and consistent maintenance of parks and recreation facilities to established standards that are routinely monitored and evaluated. 4. Connect park system to the community through trails and effective and appropriate design of park and recreation facilities. 5. Enhance existing signature facilities that increase the image value and perception of Coconino County that will create a sense of pride. 6. Create balance and accessibility for all types of parks and facilities across the County. 7. Design and manage facilities to produce revenue to offset operating costs. 12 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Strategic Growth There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to strategic growth opportunities of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Strategic Growth Priorities 1. Appropriately promote and market programs and facilities to increase usage and participation that will enhance revenue capacity of the department. 2. Increase the level of funding available for facility management requirements, program development, and program delivery, including for staff and labor resources. 3. Create functional and productive year‐round programs and facilities, including enhance facilities and services in the County targeting special events. 4. Develop public/public, public/not‐for‐profit, and public/profit partnership policies, including partnerships with local communities for establishing park facilities, programs, and services that eliminate inconsistencies and inequities, and provide transformational strategies for undesirable partnerships already in existence. 5. Develop appropriate partnerships with youth service organizations and schools for youth programs, as long as the partnerships are equitable. 6. Develop a sustainable partnership with an appropriate non‐profit organization in Coconino County to leverage private sector funding supporting programs provided to under‐served resident populations. Programs and Services There are numerous items identified within the Organizational Best Practices Matrix pertaining to programs and services of CCPR that can be addressed. The following list of priorities details these items. CCPR Programs and Services Priorities 1. Develop and implement recreation program standards as applies to core programs and services including health and wellness, environmental stewardship, and families recreating together. 2. Create functional and productive year‐round programs and facilities, including enhance facilities and services in the County targeting special events. 3. Develop an active recreation program plan for youth services, senior adults between the age of 55 and 85, and people with disabilities, including partnership plans in each major program area. 4. Increase the level of funding available for program development and facilitation. 5. Increase programs targeted towards family recreation services. 6. Increase programs focused around environmental stewardship and leadership. 13 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan In summary, these organizational priorities are provided to enhance the operational practices and non‐facility priorities for CCPR in the upcoming 10 years. These needs are derived from extensive community input, interviews with CCPR staff and the County Manager’s office, and interviews with the Coconino County Board of Supervisors associated with this project. Additionally, these priority elements are directly aligned with the County Strategic Priorities established by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors as a framework for all aspects of County government functions. The desired outcomes of implementing these organizational priorities include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Improved performance of CCPR, including financial performance, park visitation, and program participation. 2. Improved partnerships with private user groups and stakeholders, as well as other public agencies in the provision and management of CCPR facilities, programs and services. 3. Improved advocacy for County parks and recreation needs by the community and County Leadership 4. CCPR is recognized regionally, statewide, and nationally for featuring high‐quality parks and recreation amenities and services. 5. CCPR strongly contributes to enhanced quality of life, economic development, and social infrastructure measures of success for Coconino County. This Development and Action Plan is the final deliverable associated with this project and is built upon the identified needs and priorities established within the previously completed Facility and Organizational Needs Analysis. In this report, specific strategies, timelines, and resource recommendations are provided to pursue and achieve the goals and objectives established by residents and County leadership for CCPR over the next 10 years. These recommendations are organized into two sub‐reports contained herein: 1. Organizational Action Plan – details the recommended organizational, policy, and procedural actions required to support the desired outcomes detailed within this Organizational Master Plan. 2. Phased Capital Project Action Plan – details the recommended capital projects that align with these outcomes. 14 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Organizational Action Plan This Organizational Action Plan details the recommended course of action necessary for Coconino County and CCPR to meet the needs and priorities that have been identified as critical for the upcoming 10 years. These recommendations and strategies are built upon the numerous assessments and analyses that have been performed to date in association with this project. The PROS Team believes that CCPR has the capacity to implement these recommendations concurrently with the recommended policy changes and facility development priorities provided in this Development and Action Plan. The key organizational recommendations are listed in the table below, and linked to the relevant organizational priority element(s) discussed in the preceding section of this report. Organizational Recommendations CCPR Organizational Priority Elements Enhanced funding for maintenance of facilities Facility Management Increased usage of key facilities Programs and Services Diversified programs and events Programs and Services Improved marketing and communications Programs and Services Consistent and formalized partnerships Facility Management / Programs and Services Improved operational budget structure Financial / Budgetary Management Distinguish “public” versus “private” services Financial /Budgetary Management Research on residents and users Strategic Growth Improved positioning as a community asset Strategic Growth Improved customer fulfillment efforts Strategic Growth The building blocks of these recommendations were assembled in earlier phases of this project and are briefly described below. Comprehensive Assessments The PROS Team has performed extensive assessments of the existing conditions and operating parameters of CCPR in the Organizational Master Plan. This process produced a reference point from which preliminary and final recommendations were made. The assessments included reviews: • • • • • Programs and Services Operations and Finance Organization and Management Facilities Stakeholder Input The detailed findings of these assessments are provided in the Comprehensive Assessment report provided to CCPR prior to the completion of this Development and Action Plan. Similarly, these findings were coupled with multiple layers of analysis including demographics and trends 15 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan analysis, industry best practices, and customized strategies unique to Coconino County to determine the priorities and needs of CCPR for the upcoming 10 years. Facility and Organizational Analysis The detailed results of the aforementioned assessments can be found in the Comprehensive Assessment report provided to CCPR in May 2008. Essentially, the analysis and reports presented herein translate the specific findings from the various assessments performed into detailed operational and capital priorities. The formulation of these priorities began with addressing the following fundamental questions: 1. What are the community needs of Coconino County? 2. What are the constraints to success for CCPR? 3. What are the best yielding business functions of CCPR? 4. What are the strategies and tactics best employed to enhance these functions? 5. What are the key best management practices needed for achieving the success of CCPR’s long range goals? This report contains a review of the findings associated with these priorities as determined from the assessments, the industry experience and expertise of the consulting team, and the review of market conditions surrounding the environment in which CCPR operates. Realistic Opportunities for Growth and Development This Development and Action Plan was developed on the understanding gained from intensive interaction with park and agency staff, key stakeholders, and members of the public on the spectrum of opportunities that are realistic and obtainable. No recommendations or analysis in this report suggest opportunities that are not within the realm of possibilities for Coconino County. These findings have taken into account the local, regional and state political climates; available funding possibilities and limitations; strategies that represent a reasonable probability of operational success; the capabilities of the stakeholder organizations; and the support of the local population. In summary, this report lists well researched and tested strategies and tactics for the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. Identified Community Needs There were multiple methods used to assess community input including a random household survey, seven (7) focus groups, and six (6) public forums. From those exercises, detailed findings were provided in the Comprehensive Assessment report, and the following were identified as key needs and preferences: • Natural areas, open spaces, and corridor trails are priority facilities; nature education, adventure camps, and special events are priority programs. • County parks can be more effectively utilized as a tourism resource. • Community communication can be greatly improved regarding park operational performance, services, and amenities available to the public. 16 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan • Equitable and strategic partnerships are critical to improve the conditions of facilities, diversity of services available at existing parks, and to assist local communities to develop their own parks. • Maintaining current parks are equally or more important than building new ones. • Facilities and programs that target youth are needed to build stronger communities. • Adequate funding to support maintenance of park facilities needs to be addressed. • County parks have an inequitable distribution that can be corrected – there are more parks needed outside of Flagstaff and in the outlying areas of the County. • Park and recreation facilities and programs need to reflect the diversity of Coconino County residents. • Not all park and recreation needs are an appropriate responsibility of the County Parks and Recreation Department – this should be a shared responsibility with other levels of government. CCPR Constraints to Success Throughout the course of collecting community input, assessing facilities and services, and interaction with County leadership, the PROS Team has identified the predominant constraints to success that CCPR faces. These constraints present daily challenges to CCPR in being able to meet all of its strategic goals and objectives, and to meet the community needs and expectations regarding the County parks and recreation system. The leading constraints to success for CCPR are: 1. Limited operational funding available to support ongoing facility needs and programmatic development opportunities. 2. Limited capacity of Coconino County to raise additional funds to support capital and operational requirements of CCPR. 3. Strained public funding and finance at the state level that causes funding reductions at the county level. 4. Limited collaboration from other public agencies at both the state and local level. 5. Aging facilities that are in high demand. This Development and Action Plan details recommendations to pursue and support the vision and strategic direction necessary to strengthen the position of CCPR as a community asset in the upcoming 10 years, while addressing the major constraints to success. Best Yielding Business Functions CCPR features a tremendous diversity of facilities available to visitors. While this diversity provides a rich blend of experiences to customers and guests, there exists a programmatic imbalance due to a lack of traditional programming that serves the general public with recreational opportunities. Based upon the data provided from the last several operating years and interviews with staff and stakeholders, the highest potential yielding business functions in the future for CCPR are facility usage from large scale events, expanded use of overnight camping facilities, and concessionaire opportunities yet to be explored. 17 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Facility Usage for Large Events The traditional and predominant source of earned revenues at CCPR is through using or renting facilities for large events. These events and the facilities utilized are detailed in the table below. Events Facilities County Fair County Fairgrounds (Fort Tuthill) Horse Races Grandstands Racetrack (Fort Tuthill) Lessee Events Various (Fort Tuthill) Outdoor performances Pine Mountain Amphitheater (Fort Tuthill) There are six distinct facilities within the county park system that are utilized to host large events. These are: • • • • • • County Fairgrounds Grandstands Racetrack Pine Mountain Amphitheater Sherriff’s Posse Arena Commercial Building LYCP Pavilion Utilization of these facilities accounts for approximately 50% of total estimated annual visitation to the county park system, and produces nearly 75% of total annual earned revenues. Facility usage for large events is undoubtedly the best yielding business function of CCPR. The sustainability of CCPR is largely dependent on the success of County leadership to secure sufficient funding to properly maintain these facilities. It is strongly recommended that the continual maintenance and upgrade of these remain a priority of CCPR and Coconino County in order to protect the integrity of these assets and their revenue generating potential into the future. Expanded Use of Overnight Camping Facilities Coconino County is uniquely positioned to feature high performing camping facilities due to the volume of out‐of‐county visitors and tourists traveling to some of the nation’s most successful park and tourism destinations located within the County’s boundaries. The nature and character of these destinations (i.e. Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Powell, Sedona) are such that many of the visitors are seeking outdoor recreation experiences. These factors create a reliable environment in which well‐developed, high quality camping facilities are in high demand. CCPR currently features camping facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park near Flagstaff, and Cataract Lake County Park in Williams. These facilities are generally deteriorated and offer limited services to campers. The capacity of the campground at Fort Tuthill County Park is extensive and is heavily used in direct association with major events at the park. Upgrading these facilities to increase the level of service will enable market‐rate fees to be charged for overnight stay. These upgrades accompanied with a concerted and strategic communications and marketing strategy will lead to expanded use and enhanced revenue generation from this facility. 18 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Likewise, the facilities at Cataract Lake County Park are deteriorated and offer limited services. Williams, Arizona, is well positioned at the crossroads of the predominant access to the South Rim Visitor Center of Grand Canyon National Park. The campgrounds of Grand Canyon National Park are experience high demand and limited availability. An upgraded camping facility in Williams that include targeted marketing and promotions would be expected to generate substantial revenues compared to the existing facilities at Cataract Lake. Concessionaire Opportunities Throughout the process of reviewing facilities and services of CCPR and conducting interviews with CCPR staff, it became evident there are multiple opportunities to explore expanded concessionaire operations of CCPR facilities and programs. There are two existing concessionaire relationships that reflect best practices that can be potentially replicated: Pine Mountain Amphitheater at Fort Tuthill County Park and Willow Bend Environmental Education Center at Sawmill Multicultural Art and Nature Park. The primary and secondary opportunities to explore for concessionaire management of existing facilities are detailed in the table below. Primary Opportunities Secondary Opportunities Stables (Fort Tuthill) Sherriff’s Posse Arena (Fort Tuthill) Campground (Fort Tuthill) Grandstands Racetrack (Fort Tuthill) Campground (Cataract Lake) Strategies and Tactics There are strategies and tactics to improve the positive impact of CCPR’s best yielding business functions and enhance revenue generation while preserving the mission and vision of CCPR. The economic and social performance of CCPR can be improved through 10 primary strategies: 1. Enhanced maintenance of existing County park facilities 2. Increased usage (volume) of key facilities at County parks 3. More equitable distribution of County parks 4. Diversified facilities, programs, and events available from CCPR 5. Strategic communications and marketing plan focused on facilities, programs, services, and events sponsored / facilitated by CCPR 6. Consistent and formalized partnerships with other public agencies and municipalities, as well as private for‐profit and private non‐profit organizations for capital development, facility management, and program delivery 7. Consistent research on resident and user interests and preferences regarding County parks, programs, services, and events 8. Improved budget structure for cost‐based accounting of expenses and tracking of revenues 19 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan 9. Improved positioning as an asset for community and economic development throughout Coconino County for purposes of increasing funds and resources available from both public and private sources to support capital and operating expenses 10. Customer fulfillment The PROS Team has consensus that the prevailing attraction to County parks will remain the unique programs provided by the parks and on‐site partners, concerted and collaborative marketing strategies, superb customer service, and the amenities and surroundings of the parks. The Development and Action Plan has been developed to pursue the vision and mission of CCPR through the strategies and tactics described in more detail below. Enhanced Maintenance of Facilities It is an industry best practice that parks and/or park systems allocate annual funding equal to between four to six percent (4%‐6%) of the total value of capital assets, not including land value, for the dedicated purpose of facility and asset maintenance. The facilities of CCPR are rapidly deteriorating from inadequate funding available for maintenance requirements. The hypothetical example below was an estimate of the total value of CCPR facilities and capital assets, not including land value, to be $35,000,000. An actual estimate could be based on either an independently performed appraisal, or a capital replacement cost, or a hybrid of both. This example demonstrates the practice of allocating four percent (4%) of total asset value annually for maintenance of facilities. Estimated Asset Value Method of Estimation % Allocation Annual Maintenance Allocation $35,000,000 Appraised value 4% $1,400,000 The methodology and process illustrated in the example on the preceding page establishes a standardized approach to allocating funding necessary to maintain the integrity, value, and operating capacity of public facilities. This methodology for establishing minimum funding standards for public facility maintenance is embraced as an industry best practice and has been found to result in both improved facility conditions, and fulfillment of community expectations. It is not unreasonable to annually expend four percent (4%) of the total value of a capital asset for the sole purpose of preserving the integrity of that asset into the future. This annual reinvestment is the recommended funding support to maintain high quality facilities over time, not to address deferred maintenance issues. While this funding support may be utilized to nominally reduce limited deferred maintenance issues, it should not be regarded as sufficient to address both current and deferred maintenance items in their entirety. Increased Usage of Key Facilities While there is a multitude of facilities within the CCPR system that are heavily used, the recommendation of this Development and Action Plan is to focus on the increased usage of select facilities – overnight camping areas. As indicated earlier in this report, the expanded use of overnight camping facilities can have an immediate and dramatic impact on revenue generation for CCPR. This recommendation is based on the following factors: 20 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan 1. Within the peak operating season (April – October), the camping facilities have the greatest capacity to expand usage. 2. Increased overnight camping traffic can produce a larger “per use margin” than use of other facilities. Specifically, the nightly per camper fee or rental fee per campsite can produce greater and more reliable revenues than can be generated through increased usage of other facilities (i.e. amphitheater, commercial building, equestrian arenas, etc.). In order to increase revenue generation through expanded use of overnight camping facilities, the PROS Team strongly recommends the following actions: 1. Improved and enhanced facilities to include paving of campsites and/or sidewalks, full hook‐up sites, clear site delineation, dedicated picnic tables and fire rings for each site, lantern post for each site, sufficient ancillary and support facilities to serve the camping area (restrooms, showers, recreation room, laundry, etc.). 2. Consistent and strategic marketing and promotion of CCPR camping areas in proven media and outlets known to resonate with out‐of‐county visitors. 3. Tiered pricing to reflect market value for overnight stay at high quality camping facilities. 4. Consistent facility maintenance and cleaning in accordance with volume of usage. Equitable Distribution of County Parks While conducting the community input process associated with this project there was noted a predominant perception of the public that CCPR assets were not equitably distributed throughout the county. There is a frequent perception that CCPR facilities and programs were Flagstaff‐centric and did not adequately extend into the more far reaching areas including Page, Fredonia, and Tusayan. It is the recommendation of the PROS Team that a key strategy of CCPR over the next 10 years be to respond to this perception through the development of park facilities and assets in these communities specifically, and to use these opportunities to further examples of high quality parks throughout Coconino County that are responsive to community interests. Supporting the prioritization of needs in order to correct the existing inequity in county park distribution, CCPR staff with assistance from the PROS team performed an analysis that established an index score for each community within Coconino County by comparing two major factors: 1. Local community population indexed with distance to the major population center of the County (Flagstaff) 2. Local community population indexed with distance to the nearest county park By scoring each local community within the county through this indexing method, further validation was provided for the recommendations for new parks contained within this report. The tables that demonstrate this are seen on the following page. 21 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan 197 1,110 1,036 219 Indexing community need based upon distance to nearest county park Miles to nearest County park Population 2005 Population 2000 (DxP)/1000 135 1,110 1,036 150 81 1,472 119 60 1,472 88 Willia ms C it y a 136 7,110 6,809 967 28 3,100 2,963 87 79 8,225 75 7,110 6,809 533 25 3,100 2,963 78 0 8,225 Tuba Sedo n Miles to Flagstaff Population 2005 Population 2000 (DxP)/1000 Page Indexing community need based upon distance to population center of county Gran d Ca nyon Fred onia Coconino County Distance by Population Index - Incorporated Communities 32 3,145 2,842 101 650 0 3,145 2,842 0 0 Need Determination High Index = >500 Medium Index = >100 Low Index = <100 10 547 63 978 54 625 69 5,525 55 1,113 11 55 45 30 0 10 547 30 978 44 625 19 5,525 0 1,113 11 72 0 80 1,607 217 970 53 901 72 75 55 0 1,607 121 970 53 901 0 5 1,014 20 1,250 15 1,137 5 25 17 0 1,014 15 1,250 15 1,137 0 19 17 15 100 75 562 678 24 1,889 28 929 93 5 5 20 678 3 1,889 9 929 19 Need Determination High Index = >500 Medium Index = >100 Low Index = <100 22 42 55 562 31 Wino na yan lea Fern wood Timb erline lake 35 Red Park s state s We st 650 55 Mund s Pa rk 0 2,664 135 Mou ntain aire 45 1,607 650 Moen kopi 13 Leup p 201 e 5 2,664 LeCh e 125 1,607 Kaib ab E ge 10 a Villa Valle y Fort rk Done y Pa Sprin gs Cow 110 Tusa Miles to nearest County park Population 2005 Population 2000 (DxP)/1000 55 Tona Indexing community need based upon distance to nearest county park 115 Kach in Miles to Flagstaff Population 2005 Population 2000 (DxP)/1000 Kabit o Indexing community need based upon distance to population center of county Cam eron Bitte r Spri ngs Coconino County Distance by Population Index - Unincorporated Communities 15 865 13 15 865 13 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Diversified Facilities, Programs, and Events CCPR should be commended for the addition of diverse facilities within the system over recent years, including the Pine Mountain Amphitheater, Willow Bend Environmental Education Center, and the facilities of Louise Yellowman Park in Tuba City. It is important to continue this trend by considering further diverse facilities that address community interests and needs for active lifestyles. As learned from the household survey conducted in association with this project, the following five facility types are the most preferred by residents of Coconino County: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Natural areas / open space Corridor trails Special event parks Active parks Destination parks Specific examples of the types of facilities that could be provided include, but not be limited to: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Snow play areas and cross‐country ski trails Wildlife viewing areas and amenities Nature photography trails Community amphitheater Equestrian center Adventure sports park Native American cultural park and amenities Unmanned bouldering walls / Manned climbing walls BMX park Orienteering course / geo caching areas Amateur observatory ATV / OHV safety and training center RV resort park and campground In addition to facilities, diverse programs and events can support increased usage of facilities as well as increased community engagement in outdoor activities. Gleaned from the results of the household survey, the five activities most preferred by Coconino County residents include: • • • • • • Environmental / nature education Adventure camps Special Events Outdoor fitness / wellness programs Outdoor social / cultural events Sports programs Examples of programs and events that could be provided include, but are not limited to: • Nature / interpretive programs o Animal presentations o Wildlife and flora identification and demonstration programs o Astronomy programs 23 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan • • • Development and Action Plan Adventure sport exhibitions / competitions / instructional programs o BMX / Skateboarding o Climbing o Mountain biking o Trail running o Snowboarding / cross‐country skiing Outdoor recreation programs o Fishing o Hiking / backpacking o Primitive camping o Canoeing / kayaking o R.O.G.A.I.N.E. (Rugged Outdoor Group Activity Involving Navigation and Endurance) events o Summer adventure camps for older youth o Field sport (archery, rifle, and shotgun) instructional and safety programs Art and cultural programs o Native American art and culture o Nature photography o Landscape painting o Natural material sculpting / wood carving o Multiple, themed festivals It is recommended that core programs and services be developed from this, or an expanded list, in which to provide a framework for seasonal and annual programs and events provided by CCPR and its partners. A menu of programs should be developed for each season that accommodates user availability, interests, skill levels, pricing, and climate. A seasonal approach to program development and delivery helps to maintain a sense of “freshness” for residents so that interest in any single program does not fade too quickly. Marketing and Communications The existing operating functions of CCPR do not include substantial marketing and promotions to support the programs, services and facilities of the parks or its partners. The target market groups for CCPR and its programs are perpetually bombarded with messaging regarding the opportunities for them to spend disposable time and money for recreation, leisure, and entertainment. There needs to be consistent and prudent staffing and methodology for staying informed of the nuances and demands of the target markets for use in program planning and promotion. A responsible and strategic blend of marketing and promotion activities that support the core programs and services of the Department and its partners will have a noticeable effect on park use. Specific recommendations on improved marketing and communications for facilities, programs, and events include, but are not limited to: • Local, regional and statewide publicity campaigns supporting programs and events • Collaborative marketing with partners and sponsors of facilities, programs, and events 24 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan • Collaborative marketing with lodging partners (hotels, motels, and B&B’s) throughout the county • Collaborative marketing with youth service organizations (YMCA, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc.) • Consistent information provided to neighborhood newsletters and publications • Regular column in major newspapers of Coconino County regarding park events, programs, natural history interest stories, or environmental stewardship techniques • Familiarization programs for representatives from local, regional and statewide media • Collaborative marketing with regional tourism and visitor bureaus Frequently, marketing is mistaken for advertising. As noted by its absence from the list above, advertising can be the least effective promotional communication for park and recreation facilities and services. Generally, successful park and recreation enterprises report that the greatest gains from promotional communication are made through strategic publicity that results from innovative partnerships, programs, and/or events. A second recommendation for improved communication by CCPR with the community is to more clearly share the highlights and lowlights of maintaining quality parks and recreation facilities and programs with stakeholders. It is generally taken for granted by the public the level of effort and required funding necessary to maintain a high quality park system. Communication through an annual report, and/or occasional “From the Director” newsletters that celebrate the successes of the Department while also outlining its challenges can greatly support the needs of the Department to maintain sufficient public support and funding for its ongoing operations. Consistent and Formalized Partnerships CCPR currently participates in a number of relationships, or “partnerships,” with organizations and user groups for purposes of facility and program management. Examples of this include the agreements involving the Willow Bend Environmental Education Center, Pine Mountain Amphitheater, the archery range at Fort Tuthill, and user groups of the equestrian facilities at Fort Tuthill. The terms of these agreements are not consistent and sometimes appear to take advantage of public resources for private, exclusive use of facilities. It is recommended that all relationships be formalized to the level it is appropriate and include consistent terms that manage the sharing of responsibilities and benefits between the County and partner entities. The operating relationships with partner organizations should be formalized into agreements that have standardized parameters and a consistent structure of terms to protect the County and the partner organizations. These agreements should be developed and sustained under guidelines similar to those suggested in the tables on the following page. 25 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan S TANDARDIZED P ARAMETERS Parameter Description Performance Performance goals for partner organizations in program development and facilitation, and/or services supporting the business and operating goals of CCPR. Fees Established fees and payments to CCPR including base rent for administrative/storage space, percentage of gross earned revenues, and rental rates of additional facilities for programs. Indemnity and Mutual indemnity for all parties to be held harmless from gross negligence or Insurance circumstantial liability as a result of operations and CCPR properties, and minimum insurance requirements. Partner Investment Tiers of required financial and/or labor investment to support specified administrative functions including, but not limited to program development, marketing, and customer support. S TRUCTURE OF T ERMS Terms Description Performance Programs Performance goals for the partner organization in program development and facilitation supporting the business and operating goals of CCPR, including potential target annual overnight camping nights from multi‐day programs. Failure to meet these goals can result in increased fees paid to the managing entity for the next year. Performance Services Performance goals for the partner organization in the provision of services supporting the business operating goals of CCPR. Failure to meet these goals can result in increased fees paid to the CCPR for the next year. Fees Facility Use Established fees and payments to CCPR for base rent for administrative and storage space, percentage of gross earned revenues, and rental of facilities for programs. Annual partner fees will be paid regularly, either monthly or quarterly, and incorporate a reduction schedule based upon volume. For example, meeting or exceeding annual performance goals as described above could result in reduced fees for the remaining payment periods until the end of the year, as well as continuation of reduced fees for the next year. Partner financial and/or labor investment in general administration, marketing, facility management, or capital development can also impact fees. Duration Established tiers of duration based upon level of investment by partner organization ranging from one (1) year, not to exceed 50 years. Fees will potentially fluctuate annually based upon partner performance, but will be within an established range for the term of the agreement. 26 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Distinguish “Public” Versus “Private” Services There are a multitude of traditional services provided by CCPR to select user groups that utilize CCPR facilities for private, or exclusive purposes. These services emerged from relationships that developed when CCPR was established as the County Fair Department with a limited purpose of managing the Coconino County Fair and the Horse Races. Today, CCPR manages extensive facilities located predominately at Fort Tuthill County Park that require substantial public funding for maintenance and upkeep, yet are only used through lease or use agreements that are exclusive to the parties of the lease. While these facilities are open to the public, their use is reserved for select user groups as defined within the agreements. These services are defined as “private” services, or those where the benefits are generally enjoyed by the private groups or individuals who pay for exclusive use of select facilities. In order to fully reposition CCPR as a community asset and partner in community development throughout Coconino County, it is recommended that CCPR develop more programming that is targeted at open access for all members of the public and serves the “general good” of the citizens. While these “public” programs and services may still be fee‐based, there is no exclusivity or restrictions for participation. In other words, the general public has equitable access to fully participate in the services and enjoy the subsequent benefits instead of only having access to observe the program as with many “private” services. The clear distinction between “public” and “private” services can assist CCPR to organize and prioritize how funding for capital repair, replacement, and additional development can be sought. Funding for services that are clearly “public” in nature should be allocated from traditional public sources, while funding to support the needs of facilities and services that are more “private” should be a shared burden between the public sector and the private users. The graphic below attempts to illustrate the continuum between public and private services, and the corresponding balance of funding responsibilities that are recommended. 27 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Research on Residents and Users There are limited ongoing research efforts targeted at staying abreast of trends, interests and needs of residents and users of County park facilities. It is recommended that consistent methodologies be employed to learn and understand the evolving needs and interests of users of park programs and facilities, point‐of‐origin for out‐of‐county visitors to large events, and demographic characteristics to better shape programs, event, and communication efforts. Suggested methodologies include, but are not limited to the following: • Visitor intercept surveys / visitor post‐hoc surveys • Public planning meeting(s) for major events • Random survey insert into local newspapers or utility bills • Advisory committees for specialized user groups or events A single member of the CCPR staff should be responsible for oversight of all research methods and efforts. This ensures consistency and reliability of data collection and analysis. Improved Budget Structure The current budget format and structure makes it difficult to ascertain the true costs of CCPR providing specific facilities, programs, and services. This is predominantly true in the case of departmental indirect costs. Direct and indirect cost allocation to specific facilities, programs, and services can be greatly improved through a budget restructuring to assist the Department to efficiently perform budget management and reporting. There are currently 14 existing budgets, or accounts, in which CCPR manages its annual operational funding. A fundamental finding of analysis associated with this project is that the allocation of departmental indirect costs including administrative labor and materials, departmental, and general maintenance and utilities is near impossible to track and allocate across each budget center. It is unclear what proportion of the expenses projected for each budget includes any allocation of departmental indirect costs. It is recommended that the improved budget structure contain the following key components described below. Budget Areas Major budget areas should include, but not be limited to: • • • • General Administration Facility Management Planning and Development Programs and Services These major budget areas separate the finances of the predominant functions of the Department. The General Administration sub‐budget should only include management labor and administrative costs that cannot be coded in direct accordance to another sub‐budget or function of CCPR. These expenses should be well documented in order to be understood and defensible in the process of preparing an annual budget request. The allocation of general administrative costs can therefore either be distributed across all sub‐budgets by a standard proportion, or can remain as a stand‐alone cost center 28 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Sub‐budgets Sub‐budgets for specific operational components of the Department will provide detail that can address the direct and indirect operating costs and earned revenues of individual parks, programs and services. Sub‐budgets should include, but not be limited to: • • • Each individual park Each program area Unique functions Accounts Accounts for types of operational expense (excluding minor or major capital) should include, but not limited to the list below. Each of these accounts should have a standard tracking number which is utilized for purposes of coding time, revenues, and/or expenses. Accounts should include, but not be limited to: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Earned revenues Grants Sponsorships / partnership revenues Labor Overtime Materials and supplies Contracted services Contract labor Utilities Communications Fees and permits Memberships Marketing and advertising Printing and postage Travel Miscellaneous These accounts can be used to organize revenues and expenses within each sub‐budget of CCPR. Improved Positioning as an Community and Economic Development Asset The benefits provided by parks and recreation facilities and programs are generally undervalued as community and economic development assets across the nation. Where they are well positioned, these departments tend to exhibit exceptional performance and high quality facilities. This is result of parks and recreation being embraced as a critical piece of a much larger context – community vitality and quality of life. Through more formalized positioning with local and county economic development initiatives CCPR can begin to expand the horizons of resources available from both public and private sources for capital development and operations. Examples of this include, but are not limited to the opportunities described below. E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT A DMINISTRATION (EDA), U.S. D EPARTMENT OF C OMMERCE EDA supports economic development initiatives is in traditionally impoverished areas or areas that have suffered from substantial economic set‐backs in recent times. EDA provides matching grants up to several million dollars for capital projects, including parks and recreation. Eligibility 29 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan criteria for EDA funding include job creation, tax base growth, and strengthening of local economies from out‐of‐area visitor spending. C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT B LOCK G RANTS (CDBG) CDBG funds can be pursued as matching grant opportunities supporting capital projects that have a community development component. Typically, eligibility for CDBG funds is calculated solely on job creation, equating to $10,000 for every job created as a result of the funded project and maintained for an established period of time. USDA R URAL B USINESS E NTERPRISE G RANTS (RBEG) The RBEG program of USDA is a matching grant program supporting the development of rural business in local economies. These funds can be used for either capital or minor capital projects, including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Generally, RBEG grants are between $10,000 and $150,000, but can go up to $250,000 with exceptional circumstances. Eligibility for RBEG funding requires a complex relationship between the grant applicant and the end user of the funds, grant applicants cannot use the funds but must channel them to a rural business or enterprise. It is common that the applicant be a local government or other public entity, and the end user be a small for‐profit or non‐profit entity. C ONCERTED C OORDINATION WITH L OCAL , S TATE AND F EDERAL L EADERSHIP There are critical components required to successfully position the Department as a community and economic development tool,and pursue public funding beyond Coconino County resources. A concerted effort of all layers of public leadership in Coconino County is necessary. Success will likely require the following: 1. Identify and prepare succinct reports of the community and economic benefits of CCPR priorities, needs, and projects. 2. Engage County and local leadership in advocating CCPR priorities and needs and community and economic development initiatives. 3. Leverage County and local leader relationships with State of Arizona elected officials and cabinet leadership to recognize and support the benefits of CCPR being closely tied to community and economic development opportunities. 4. Leverage County, local, and State leader relationships with the appropriate members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate from Arizona to open a dialogue with federal funding sources. 5. Establish a working relationship with key contacts at federal funding sources by presenting clear projects, their anticipated benefits, and their funding requirements in alignment with CCPR vision and mission, and the strategic priorities of Coconino County. 6. Maintain dialogue and communication with local liaisons of U.S. elected officials to keep their offices engaged in pressuring federal funding sources to prioritize CCPR projects for potential support. These suggested components have proven to be successful for local initiatives to receive substantial federal funding. 30 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan P RIVATE P HILANTHROPY S UPPORTING C OMMUNITY ‐B ASED P ROGRAMS It has been proven in select cases that private philanthropy supporting community‐based programming can be hugely successful. To achieve sustainable private support for programming generally requires the following five critical elements: 1. Innovative programs the enrich the lives of those served 2. Engage typically underserved populations (i.e. disadvantaged youth, single mothers, elderly, etc). 3. Programs are consistent and standardized, and provided by CCPR 4. Program partners are the source of participants 5. Philanthropic partner to promote giving, receive funds, and release funds to CCPR for program delivery Success will hinge on the partnership between CCPR, program partners, and the philanthropic partner to pursue grant opportunities, private donations, and corporate sponsorships. Programs should have annual goals that are realistic and obtainable, with direct funding requirements that are clearly detailed and defensible. Funders should be able to understand the benefits of giving, as well as have the opportunity to feel involved in the programs at an appropriate level. P RIVATE S ECTOR I NVESTMENT O PPORTUNITIES Private sector investment opportunities can be pursued for purposes of generating capital resources for strategic development projects. These investments can be pursued from a variety of private sector organizations including both for‐profit and non‐profit entities. Examples include but are not limited to capital development and operational partnerships, sponsorships, and select advertising agreements. These opportunities will require careful positioning of CCPR parks, assets, and programs as viable community investment initiatives. Customer Fulfillment Finally, there has been significant research and practical demonstrations of the relationship between customer satisfaction and profitability / return on investment. For purposes of this report this issue will be addressed as customer fulfillment. Increased marketing and promotional activities will greatly increase general customer expectations about the programs and facilities of CCPR. Consistent and courteous customer service will shape the expectations to which the actual experiences will be compared upon arrival. It is critical that park and partner personnel responsible for customer interface inform prospective visitors of the benefits of CCPR facilities and programs. Training and development opportunities need to be provided for all staff of partner organizations involved with service delivery. This will enable the development and enforcement of customer service standards. Subsequently, following the provision of the customer experience, an equally important aspect to customer satisfaction is staying in contact with visitors through cost effective emails or limited direct mailings. True to the axiom that old customers are cheaper to keep than new customers are to obtain, CCPR and/or its partners should engage former customers through simple promotional correspondence that both fosters nostalgia from their visit and provides incentive for making future reservations. 31 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Key Best Management Practices There are numerous best management practices currently utilized at CCPR both by staff and the existing partners. While continuation of these practices is critical, there were three areas in which improvement could dramatically impact operational performance: consistency, coordination, and communication. Consistency Throughout this report the PROS Team will refer to consistent practices as a critical element for the success of achieving the CCPR vision and mission. This consistency is needed in program delivery; handling customer inquiries, requests and complaints; messaging and branding; and administrative practices. Standards in these areas that are developed jointly by the park and its partners can improve the overall quality of experiences provided to CCPR stakeholders, while also strengthening the relationships of service providers both on and off‐site. Coordination There are two areas of coordination identified that should be a priority for CCPR and its partners: facilities and programs. As observed through multiple site visits and stakeholder interviews, there is frequently a perceived disconnect between users and CCPR staff on the realities and required protocol for addressing facility maintenance needs. While park staff are frequently complimented on their resourcefulness, it seems generally unclear to stakeholders the challenges the staff faces to address facility needs in a timely manner. Regular focus group meetings between the Department and its major user groups discussing facility needs could greatly improve the management of CCPR facilities, potentially improve the engagement of stakeholders in “work days” and volunteerism supporting facility needs, and improve the communication to stakeholders regarding true constraints to addressing facility needs in the expected time frame. Secondly, program planning and packaging will improve dramatically with regularly scheduled meetings between CCPR facility management, program staff, and potential partners within the community. Planning sessions that develop clearly stated outcomes for programs needed to generate traffic to CCPR facilities and events are necessary to coordinate staff efforts and the expectations of existing partners. It is recommended these meetings occur monthly initially, and possibly evolve to quarterly based upon the success of keeping all program providers engaged in the planning process. Communication Communication is a best practice that can be improved predominantly in two areas: internal, bi‐ directional communication between Department management and partners; and external informational and promotional communication with existing and prospective customers and stakeholders. There are currently increased efforts to address to the former and only recognition of the issue regarding the latter. While internal communication requires time and effort, external communication will require dedicated staff and financial investment. 32 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Funding Requirements and Options The pursuit of the capital repair, replacement, and new development projects outlined within this Development and Action Plan will require substantial additional funding available to CCPR to support the identified priorities and needs. It is clearly understood that there will be little opportunity to expand funding available to CCPR from the Coconino County General Fund, as this account of public funds has already reached its full capacity and runs the risk of being over extended. The success of CCPR to achieve the priorities and needs detailed herein will therefore depend upon new and alternative forms of funding support. There are three predominant areas that will require additional funding support: 1. Capital repair and replacement of existing facilities and infrastructure, including upgrades that expand capacity and/or revenue generation opportunities of CCPR. 2. New capital development projects including the development of additional parks in communities throughout the Coconino County. 3. Expanded operational requirements necessary to support the additional facility and program needs of CCPR as per the recommendations of this report. The PROS Team acknowledges there are limited funding options available to CCPR per restrictions placed on counties in Arizona regarding the use of public monies. It is anticipated there can potentially be between $75,000,000 and $100,000,000 in total required capital funds over the next 10 years to achieve the priorities identified for capital repair, replacement, and new development as discussed above. Within this range, the PROS Team estimates the short term potential capital investment requirements of CCPR to be between $22,000,000 and $33,000,000 to complete the projects detailed herein as priorities within the upcoming five years. The options detailed in this section of the report seem to feature the greatest likelihood of success. These options are categorized as being either a part of a holistic approach for funding, or part of an incremental approach as defined below. Holistic Approach for Obtaining Necessary Funding Coconino County can pursue dramatic action to obtain all or most of the necessary funding to address the operational and capital recommendations contained within this report. This holistic approach is dependent on the success of one or more of the following three initiatives: 1. Create new statute for a Park and Open Space Special District – funding and governance may be separated from County governance into a new special district 2. Amend County Sales Tax statute to provide dedicated funding for parks and open space projects and activities 3. Amend Community Park Maintenance District statute to create a dedicated funding source Parks and Open Space Special District Special districts have been extremely successful throughout the United States for local political jurisdictions to generate additional revenues from property taxes to support select public functions including parks. The PROS Team recommends that Coconino County collaborate with other large, local governmental jurisdictions within the State of Arizona to push the state 33 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan legislature to pass enabling legislation that would allow for the formation of special park districts at the discretion of local government. With enabling legislation in place, Coconino County can establish a Parks and Open Space Special District that can levy a recommended ¼ cent on the dollar property tax for purposes of funding ongoing operational and maintenance requirements to sustain CCPR as a high quality parks and recreation system. Amendments to Local Statutes There are two potential options for amending local statutes that will create opportunities for sustainable revenue generation to support County parks and recreation needs. These two options are included in the holistic approach for obtaining necessary funding in many of the projects detailed within this plan. The two options include: 1. Amend the County Sales Tax statute to provide funding for parks and open space activities and projects. This should be established as a dedicated funding source with governance of the use of funds for designated purposes remaining a County function. 2. Amend the Community Park Maintenance District statute to provide funding for parks and open space activities and projects. This should also be established as a dedicated funding source with governance of the use of funds for designated purposes remaining a County function. Incremental Approach for Obtaining Necessary Funding An incremental approach for fund raising to support the operational and capital recommendations within this report could be successful if a blended funding strategy of the options discussed within this section of the Development and Action Plan was executed. This includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Renewed CPOS Initiative General Obligation Bonds Local Partner Funding Funding Authorized per ARS 11‐041 Grant Funding Internal Revenue Loans Certificates of Participation Grant Funding Renewed CPOS Initiative The current CPOS initiative is a 1/8 cent sales tax levied by the County until total funds raised reach $33,000,000. This initiative was approved in a referendum where the voters approved both the tax increaseand the specific projects to be pursued with the funding. This project has worked extremely well for Coconino County, as $19,000,000 will be raised for the acquisition of park land and open space, and $14,000,000 will be raised to address facility and infrastructure repair and upgrades. It is anticipated the original CPOS initiative will mature by 2013, at such time a new CPOS initiative can be pursued. It is recommended that a new CPOS funding proposal be prepared to address the following specific projects identified in this Development and Action Plan: 34 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Development and Action Plan Page – LeChee Regional Park ∇ Improvement of Fort Tuthill amenities Fredonia Community Park∇ Fort Tuthill Visitor Center / Pumphouse Greenway Nature Center Tusayan – Grand Canyon Community Park∇ Sedona Creek Walk General Obligation Bond Package The PROS Team recommends that Coconino County assemble a general obligation bond package for voter approval to address the known capital repair, replacement, and upgrade of infrastructure at Fort Tuthill County Park. It is proposed this package be assembled utilizing a ½ cent sales tax to service the debt. The existing conditions of infrastructure at Fort Tuthill are severely deteriorated and will soon require significant capital investment in order to sustain select facilities in service to the public. It is likely that the consequences of inaction for the repair, replacement, or upgrade of infrastructure at Fort Tuthill will be substantial loss of revenues from the closure of facilities until improvements are made. Local Partner Fundraising As noted with the projects recommended for funding through a renewed CPOS initiative, the PROS Team recommends that select projects require funding matches from local communities, organizations, and/or stakeholders to support development costs. New park initiatives for community parks and regional parks would require a 50% funding match from a local partner. The specific projects in which this is recommended are the acquisition and development of the Page‐LeChee Regional Park, Fredonia Community Park, and Tusayan‐Grand Canyon Community Park. In these cases, it is recommended that local partners be required to raise a minimum of 50% of the estimated development costs, as well as commit to support a proportion of costs for ongoing operations of these parks through funding or in‐kind contributions. Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) – Authorized County Park Funds It is authorized by state law in Arizona that counties can develop and maintain a County Parks Operation and Enhancement Fund, as well as a County Parks Publication and Souvenir revolving fund to support the operational; capital repair, replacement, and development requirements; and marketing, promotional, and retail functions of county park systems. As stated in ARS 11‐ 941 (2007) of the Arizona State Legislature: A. A county through its board of supervisors or through a duly authorized and established parks and recreation department pursuant to section 11‐934 may establish a county parks operation and enhancement fund for the purpose of operating and enhancing facilities and services at existing county parks or acquiring real estate for additional county parks or expansion of existing county parks. The fund consists of monies budgeted for that purpose by the board of supervisors, grants, unconditional gifts and donations specifically designated for the fund, all monies derived from county park user fees, concession contract fees, excess fees ∇ It is recommended that these projects utilize a sales tax initiative to support the funding requirements for development, but is also recommended that these projects require local partner matching funds to support the total development costs. 35 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan generated from the county parks publication and souvenir revolving fund in subsection D of this section and other revenue generating activities. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 23‐504, a county through its board of supervisors or through a duly authorized and established parks and recreation department pursuant to section 11‐934 may establish a county parks publication and souvenir revolving fund consisting of monies received from the sale of county parks oriented services, souvenirs, sundry items or informational publications that are uniquely prepared for use in county parks by the public. Notwithstanding section 11‐492, the monies in the fund shall be used exclusively to produce, purchase and distribute county parks publications and information and operate concessions selling publications, souvenirs, services and sundry items and provide services for sale by the county or the county parks and recreation department. A county may sell at retail, on at least a cost recovery basis, only those publications, souvenirs, sundry items and services that are not provided at the county park with equivalent convenience to the public by private concessionaires or by concessionaires having a contract with the county at a county park to provide those publications, souvenirs, sundry items or services. If, after the county begins selling publications, souvenirs, sundry items and services not provided at the park by a private concessionaire, a qualified private concessionaire wishes to provide such publications, souvenirs, sundry items and services in a manner that is consistent with the county's development plan for the park, the county shall request competitive proposals from private concessionaires to provide all or a portion of publications, souvenirs, sundry items and services instead of the county at the option of the bidder. Existing concession facilities shall be made available as part of the concession contract. C. The monies in the county parks enhancement fund and the county parks publication and souvenir revolving fund shall be invested pursuant to title 35, chapter 2, article 2.1, and monies earned from investment shall be credited to each fund separately. D. At the end of each fiscal year all monies in the county parks publication and souvenir revolving fund in excess of twenty‐five thousand dollars shall be transferred to the county parks enhancement fund and held for the specific use of the operation and enhancement of county parks pursuant to subsection A of this section. The PROS Team recommends that Coconino County establish such a fund. Internal Revenue Loans Discussions with management staff of CCPR and leadership of the Coconino County Parks and Recreation Commission have yielded the possibility of utilizing an internal “borrowing” system within the County’s financial resources to fund select CCPR capital projects if specified criteria are met. The PROS Team acknowledges this could be a useful tool for strengthening the requests for funding supporting capital projects made by CCPR to the County Manager’s Office and County Board of Supervisors. These “internal revenue loans” could be structured as funding packages with the requirement that subsequent operating revenues resulting from the designated project be dedicated to repayment of the capital investment made by the County. Projects must be adequately planned and found to likely produce operational revenues 36 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan significant enough that it meets the criteria for review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The County will need to be prepared financially in the case that operating revenues are lower than expected for either short or long term periods, creating potential shortfalls in other areas of County government. Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation (COPs) can be sold under Arizona and federal law to lease‐ purchasers as a form of financing large, public capital projects. CCPR could selectively utilize this strategy to finance new construction, renovation and improvement projects. The COPs are recommended to be sold with a “AAA” rating based on obtaining bond insurance for the issue, provided that such an approach will result in the lowest net borrowing costs. The true interest cost for the COPs should be critically evaluated. With the issuance of these bonds, the County debt ratios should not exceed what is allowable by Arizona State law. As permitted by IRS regulations, interest could be paid to the certificate holders during construction and for up to three years from the date of the financing, and be capitalized as part of the financing. This approach provides a funding mechanism for making interest payments on the COPs until the project become operational and begins earning revenues. Grant Funding The PROS Team recommends that Coconino County pursue grant funding from federal and state agencies, as well as private funding organizations to support park development as a sustainable initiative towards community and economic development in traditionally impoverished rural areas of the county. Through the suggested means provided earlier in this Development and Action Plan, CCPR could potentially obtain between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000 in grant funding from various sources to support county park development. The success of these efforts, however, will fully depend on the ability of CCPR and county leadership to establish and maintain productive dialogue with elected officials at the state and federal level regarding the importance of park development as a form of community development in Coconino County. Requires change in internal (local) practices Requires change in internal (local) policies Requires change in state policies Requires local public vote Requires availability of willing & capable partner Requires competitive pursuit for grants Total Rating Score 2 2 2 0 2 2 10 G R en ew ed C PO S In en iti at e Pa ra iv e ck l O b ag l i e ga tio Lo n ca B on R lP ai a d si rtn ng e rF un Pa d rk Sp s a n ec d ia O l D pe is n A tr Sp riz ic t ac on e a R ev is ed In St te at rn ut al es R ev en ue C Lo er tif an Pa ic s a rt te ic s ip o at f io A n m en St d at me ut n es ts to Lo G ra ca nt l Fu nd in g The matrix below was prepared to rate each of the potential funding options detailed within this report on their relative ease of pursuit by the County. 1 1 2 0 2 2 8 1 1 2 2 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 9 0 0 2 2 1 2 7 1 1 2 2 1 2 9 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 1 2 2 2 1 0 8 Projected Rating Shading Point Value Limited or no change / action required 2 Moderate change / action required 1 Significant change / action required 0 37 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Policy Recommendations There are a number of policy actions that are required to successful support the recommendations of this Development and Action Plan. These policy recommendations are separated into two categories: 1. County Board of Supervisor Focus – those primarily related to funding policy that must be accepted and ratified by the County Board of Supervisors to expand the resources available to CCPR to achieve the strategic vision established per this project. 2. County Staff Focus – those that are recommended policy and procedural changes made within the County Manager or by CCPR related to daily best practices. The policy implications recommended for consideration within each of these categories are detailed below. County Board of Supervisor Focus The policy recommendations described below require consideration and action by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, and primarily relate to the funding policies for the Department. Renewed CPOS Initiative It is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors approve the assembly of a renewed CPOS initiative to be approved by the voters. This initiative would be targeted at developing new county parks or new aspects to existing county parks in the Page, Fredonia, Sedona, Williams, and Tusayan communities. General Obligation Bond Package It is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors approve the development of a general obligation bond package that can support the repair, replacement, and upgrade of utilities and infrastructure at Fort Tuthill County Park. This could include additional structures and facilities as needed and aligned with the recommendations of this plan. Enabling Legislation for Special Park Districts It is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors pursue enabling legislation, in cooperation with other counties in the State of Arizona, that will allow for the formation of special park districts at the discretion of local political jurisdictions. Formation of a Parks and Open Space Special District Dependent on the success of the above stated enabling legislation, it is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors establish a Parks and Open Space Special District throughout Coconino County that has the authority to levy a tax for the purposes of supporting the ongoing operational and maintenance requirements of CCPR. Entrepreneurial Incentive It is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors guarantee funding to support 50% of annual CCPR operating expenses, also providing no less than 4% of the value ∇ of CCPR capital ∇ Value can be established either as appraised value, capital replacement value, or a combination of both methods. 38 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan assets (not including land value) annually as a capital maintenance reinvestment. This annual reinvestment is the recommended funding support to maintain high quality facilities over time, not to address deferred maintenance issues. While this funding support may be utilized to nominally reduce limited deferred maintenance issues, it should not be regarded as sufficient to address both current and deferred maintenance items in their entirety. This policy would also dedicate earned revenues of CCPR exceeding 50% of operational expenses back to CCPR for use in supporting expanded operations. CCPR Operational Budget Restructuring It is recommended that the County Board of Supervisors continue to support the re‐organization of the CCPR operational budget to establish sub‐budgets that recognize individual parks, major events and programs, categories of smaller events and programs, individual grants, and general administration. In addition, it is recommended the Board of Supervisors authorize direct cost‐ tracking of new accounts for maintenance and minor repairs, marketing and communications, and utilities in addition to existing accounts. Optimal Cost Recovery Performance Goals Specific programs, services, and functions of CCPR should have established optimal cost recovery goals associated with the operational performance measures of the Department. Cost recovery goals should be established unique to each function, and should vary dependent upon where the service falls on the continuum of “public” versus “private” services, as detailed previously in this report. Activities that can be classified as more “private” than “public” should have higher cost recovery goals, and policies and practices that support obtaining these objectives. Contrastingly, programs more “public” in nature should be more heavily subsidized by CCPR funding. Capital Partnership Policies It is recommended that policies be developed that require local cost sharing with the County in CCPR capital projects that meet select criteria. These projects should include development of major CCPR assets or sites in a local community that provide more equitable access to county parks and recreation resources. Legitimate cost sharing should be enforced as actual capital funds provided supporting the project, provision of land, in‐kind resources, or other support that is deemed substantially proportional to the County’s financial commitment to the project. Staff Focus The policy recommendations described below require consideration and action by Coconino County staff, including but not limited to executive management of the County, leadership of other departments within Coconino County government, and leadership of CCPR. 10‐Year Financial Plan Develop a 10‐year financial plan that analyzes and identifies the resources needed to accomplish the major components of the Organizational Master Plan. Specifically this plan must: o establish a capital repair and replacement program; o dedicate a funding source for operations and maintenance; o fund new park and open space facilities, and new outdoor education and recreation programs; o develop existing facilities as enterprise zones to generate operating revenue. 39 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Department Cost Recovery Goal Establish a CCPR cost recovery goal that represents an appropriate balance of “public” and “private” services, including distinguishing the differences of these types of services. Facility Design and Management Manage and design recreation facilities and programs that generate revenue at established cost recovery goals to off‐set operational costs while considering affordability, customer need and demand, value of services received and leveraging of resources. Revenue Policy Create a revenue policy and philosophy that support users investing in facilities supporting their interests based on the level of exclusivity they receive above that provided to a general taxpayer. Pricing Enhance existing pricing and fee structures to a tiered structure that addresses total costs of services and cost recovery goals specific to each program area and facility, tiered levels of service, wear and tear of facilities as a result of users from out‐of‐county, and appropriate pricing for non‐profit organizations conducting charity and community‐based programming at Coconino County park facilities. Park Classifications Implement an appropriate and relevant park classification system to improve the ability of CCPR to manage and measure performance within the Coconino County Park system. Partnership Policies Develop public/public, public/not‐for‐profit, and public/profit partnership policies, including partnerships with local communities for establishing park facilities, programs, and services that eliminate inconsistencies and inequities, and provide transformational strategies for undesirable partnerships already in existence. Partnership Practices Develop and maintain equitable and creative public and private‐sector partnerships to reach shared goals and to share the burden of capital and operational requirements supporting identified facility needs. Youth Service Programs Develop appropriate partnerships with youth service organizations and schools for youth programs, as long as the partnerships are equitable. Programs for Underserved Populations Develop a sustainable partnership with an appropriate non‐profit organization in Coconino County to leverage private sector funding supporting programs provided to under‐served resident populations. Programmatic Imbalance Correct the programmatic imbalance as seen in a lack of traditional programming that serves the general public with recreational opportunities. 40 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Operational Requirements The strategies and tactics discussed earlier in this Development and Action Plan address a multitude of operational priorities recommended for CCPR over the next 10 years. To implement these recommendations, the following operational modifications are necessary to support the strategic vision of CCPR and the Organizational Master Plan. Core Programs and Services Currently, the predominant programs and services of CCPR reflect the history of the Department as the County Fair Department. The annual horse races, the County Fair, and the supporting events surrounding these two annual programs constitute the majority of focus for CCPR each year. Within recent years the addition of Pine Mountain Amphitheater and the new outdoor education programs have diversified the programs and services provided by CCPR both directly and through contracted concessionaire agreements. This Development and Action Plan recommends further diversification of the core programs and services of CCPR to support the renewed vision and mission of the Department derived from the planning associated with this project. These recommendations are detailed below. Outdoor Adventures It was evident in the multiple forms of community input conducted in association with this project that outdoor adventure programming was an area of key interest to residents of Coconino County. Outdoor adventure programs and services can include any or all of the following: • Facilities that allow for self‐guided outdoor recreation experiences (trails, campgrounds, skate parks, BMX parks, bouldering/climbing facilities, etc.) • Weekend skill clinics in outdoor and adventure recreation facilitated for youth, adults, and families in both a single day and overnight format • Summer camp programs for youth in both a day camp and multi‐day camp format • Limited equipment rental services for qualifying individuals or groups from a controlled inventory utilized by CCPR for skill clinics and summer camps • Festival / exposition events that feature a multitude of adventure sports in both an interactive and competitive format The outdoor adventure programs can be planned and facilitated to occur at different parks and facilities throughout the CCPR system, as well as during different seasons of the year. Fort Tuthill Events and Services There are a number of traditional events and services managed by CCPR that are a mainstay of the Department’s current sources of earned revenues. These events and services include: • Coconino County Fair and related events • Annual Horse Races It is recommended that these events and services (facilities) be managed as a single area of CCPR’s core programs and services. This will prevent the traditional events occurring at Fort 41 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Tuthill County Park from dominating the focus of CCPR in providing services to the entire county. Arts and Culture Coconino County is rich in diverse culture and residents with strong interest in the arts. The Pine Mountain Amphitheater at Fort Tuthill County Park can be the centerpiece of arts and culture programming of CCPR, leveraging its current success as a premier outdoor performance venue in the county. Other art and culture programs and services can include: • Weekend workshops in various art and culture disciplines that are facilitated for youth, adults, and families in both a single‐day and multi‐day format • Festivals and events that feature a multitude of adventure sports in both an performance and exposition format While Pine Mountain Amphitheater can be the centerpiece facility, arts and culture programs of CCPR can be planned and facilitated for different parks and facilities throughout the CCPR system. Environmental Stewardship A key element of the renewed vision of CCPR is to be more proactive in providing programs and services that promote environmental leadership and stewardship among the residents of Coconino County. These programs can include: • Weekend workshops featuring various environmental education topics, and environmental stewardship best practices or innovative techniques that are facilitated for youth, adults, and families in both a single‐day and multi‐day format • Work days organized in the spring, summer, and fall that provide volunteer work opportunities to individuals and groups focused on improving conditions of CCPR trails and facilities • Seasonal workshops provided to county residents on select household and/or range management opportunities that reflect enhanced environmental leadership and stewardship practices. Environmental stewardship programs and services can be planned and facilitated at various parks and facilities throughout the CCPR system, and during different seasons of the year. Community Partnerships The PROS Team recommends that CCPR seek to establish relationships with both public entities and private organizations throughout Coconino County to support the planning and facilitation demands of these core programs and services. These “community partnerships” can be in the form of assisted planning and facilitation efforts, funding support, in‐kind contributions, and promotional assistance. By engaging the community in the development and implementation of CCPR’s core programs and services, the Department proactively works to engage all segments of the community and encourage optimal participation in programs. Recommended Staffing and Organization In the course of conducting this Organizational Master Plan, the PROS Team was not contracted to perform an analysis of the staffing or organizational efficiency of CCPR in the status quo. This Development and Action Plan, however, does provide staffing and organizational 42 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan recommendations that support the strategies, tactics, and core programs and services contained herein. The primary recommendation within this area of focus is that CCPR staff should be organized around the core programs and services, and the major functions of the Department. Specifically, the following key areas of focus are recommended to be reflected in the organization of CCPR staff and resources: • • • • General Administration o Senior Management o Budget and Finance o Marketing and Communications o Administrative Support Facility Management o Site and Grounds o Infrastructure o Facilities Facility Planning and Development o Acquisition and Planning o Facility and Site Development Programs and Services o Outdoor Adventures o Fort Tuthill Events and Services o Arts and Culture o Environmental Stewardship The PROS Team does not recommend that each of these areas of focus have independent and dedicated staff assigned to them. In select cases this is appropriate to the degree that multiple staff may be assigned to these responsibilities. In some cases, especially in the development phase, specific core programs and services can have staff that are responsible for more than one area. As these programs grow, however, it is recommended that CCPR staffing grow to reflect the a dedication to quality and consistency in designing and delivering high quality programs. The PROS Team does recommend that additional staff are necessary to meet the renewed objectives of CCPR, as well as to achieve the standard of excellence expected by Coconino County residents for the county parks and recreation department. Specifically, PROS recommends that staff be incrementally added in the following areas: • • • Facility maintenance Programs and services Marketing / communications 43 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan CCPR Phased Capital Project Action Plan The prioritized facility needs identified in the table on the following page are the result of intensive review of facilities both independently by the Consultant Team from an objective perspective, as well as collectively with CCPR staff, through multiple methods of community input to identify community values and needs, and through equity analyses utilized to locate geographic and programmatic gaps in service. These recommendations emerge from three basic tenets: 1. One of the greatest priorities of Coconino County residents as gleaned from community input is the need to maintain and improve existing facilities. The majority of facilities with significant deferred maintenance and upgrade needs are located at Fort Tuthill and in the Flagstaff area. 2. The equitable distribution of Coconino County Parks needs to be improved by the strategic development of additional county parks in local communities. This priority was established based upon extensive community input conducted in association with this project, and the expressed intent of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to ensure quality of life opportunities provided by the county are more accessible to all residents. 3. A priority drawn from the assessment analyses was to expand and enhance opportunities for increased earned revenue generation potential. The most promising opportunities for increased revenue potential exist within upgrades and redevelopments of aspects of Fort Tuthill County Park. It is recommended that “short‐term” prioritized needs are primarily the upgrades and redevelopment of major assets of Fort Tuthill County Park because of the high number of heavily deteriorated facilities and infrastructure that must be addressed at that site. The recommendations detailed on a “mid‐term” schedule represent assets and opportunities aligned with both the values and needs identified in the community input associated with this project, as well as the findings of the 2007 SCORP report. Finally, “long‐term” projects are those that likely will be initiated at least in the planning phases early in the implementation schedule, but are recommended to be stretched over the entire 10‐year horizon of the Organizational Master Plan for completion. As noted previously in this report, there are multiple acquisitions and developments planned with the County Parks and Open Space (CPOS) initiative that address all natural area and special use area needs. Additionally, CPOS initiatives include multiple trail projects and facility upgrades that can defer select items detailed in this report. This phased action plan provides further detail to the recommended priorities and ultimately defines a recommended timeline on which these priorities should be pursued. Projects that are currently scheduled to be addressed within the existing CPOS initiative are not included. These recommendations are discussed in more detail throughout the remainder of this report and are summarized in the tables in the following pages. 44 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Projects have been bundled into the “short‐term”, “mid‐term”, and “long‐term” groups based upon creating a balance of the following variables known to be priorities and needs of the residents of Coconino County: 1. Repair, replacement, and upgrade of existing facilities and infrastructure 2. Outlying rural area parks versus the traditional Flagstaff‐centric approach 3. Increased equity and access to CCPR facilities and services 4. Realistic approach to available resources Each group has unique funding options recommended both in the action plans that follow as well as preceding sections of this Development and Action Plan. It is additionally recommended that the broad range of capital cost estimates associated with each of these project “bundles” be reassessed by a professional cost estimator in association with design services focused on each project. Balancing Competing Interests Each of the projects recommended in this Development and Action Plan have a constituency of users. These user groups range from being either loosely or well organized, and differ on how well they can advocate for their priorities in the public debate for funding to support specific capital projects. The proposed implementation schedule in which these recommendations have been organized reflects the findings from the extensive community input associated with this project and provides the County a “road map” for creating a more balanced park and recreation system that meets the needs of more citizens than it does currently. The recommended sequencing of these projects also reflects the limited resources of Coconino County, the magnitude of required investment for certain projects to be completed correctly, and the real time it takes to develop new and sufficient resources necessary to provide a long‐ term and appropriate solution for the facility issues identified. Evaluating Projects for Implementation Sequencing In order to provide the transition from the identified logic for “bundling” recommended projects to the proposed implementation sequencing, the PROS Team has prepared a comparative matrix that rates recommended projects on 16 evaluation criteria. Proposed projects are rated to have one of three potential impacts on the CCPR system within each of the evaluation criteria: (1) marginal or no impact; (2) moderate potential impact; or (3) significant potential impact. The evaluation criteria utilized included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Optimizes use of a key facility Optimizes usage of other key facilities Distributes County parks more equitably Improves balance in facility/park types Supports program/event diversification Demand is high/increasing per research Distance x Population Needs Index Score > 100 Potentially improves cost recovery of CCPR Protects/manages open space 45 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Development and Action Plan Improves park connectivity to communities Partner available Land available Targets underserved population Improves current operations Consistent with Citizen Survey findings Repairs or improves existing facility A point value of 0, 1, or 2 was applied to each rating to create a cumulative score for each recommended project. While the recommended implementation schedule does not reflect a perfect descending order of the scores, it does strive to “bundle” projects in such a way that a balanced approach to repairing and improving existing facilities, and creating more equity and accessibility in the system is achieved. In addition, the bundles reflect an awareness of available resources and the pre‐implementation time requirements in many cases that are necessary for the County to be able to pursue developing the resources necessary to complete the projects properly. The matrix on the following page illustrates the results of scoring the recommended projects across the 16 evaluation criteria. Notably, the proposed projects to develop new parks in communities throughout Coconino County score the highest. As previously stated, the recommended project “bundles” were devised to balance the expressed needs for repairing / improving existing facilities, and expanding the County parks and recreation system in context of the projected effort required of the County to develop additional resources to meet these needs. Specifically, projects like the stables repair and enhancements, and the Grandstands Racetrack (both at Fort Tuthill County Park) are recommended to be either mid‐term or long term projects because of the required time the County will likely need to develop sufficient resources to implement these projects properly. Additionally, projects such as open space acquisitions and trails are listed as long term projects because they are proposed to be an ongoing priority of the County that is not likely to be completed within a short term timeframe. 46 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Optimizes usage of a key facility Optimizes usage of other key facilities Distributes County parks more equitably Improves balance in facility/park types Supports program/event diversification Demand is high/increasing per research Distance x Population Need Index score >100 Potentially improves cost recovery of CCPR Protects/manages open space Improves park connectivity to community Partner available Land available Targets underserved population Improves current operations Consistent with Citizen Survey findings Repairs or improves existing facility Total Rating Score Projected Rating Marginal or no potential impact Moderate potential impact Significant potential impact 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 18 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 13 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 20 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 15 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 23 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 23 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 12 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 13 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 23 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 19 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 19 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 18 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 16 Trails and Connectivity Open Space Acquisitions Sedona Creek Walk Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Redevelop Cataract Lake County Park Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park Ft. Tuthill Grandstands Racetrack Ft. Tuthill Visitor Center Tusayan / Grand Canyon Community Park Page/LeChee Regional Park Ft. Tuthill Picnic Areas & General Recreation Facilities Ft. Tuthill Campground Ft. Tuthill Stable Repair and Enhancements Ft. Tuthill Utility and Infrastructure Upgrades Proposed Capital Project Evaluation Matrix This evaluation matrix should only be utilized as a comparative analysis of the proposed capital projects across standard criteria, and not as a tool for solely determining priority or project sequencing. 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 20 Shading Point Value 0 1 2 47 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Recommended Implementation Schedule It is understood and acknowledged that unforeseen political and economic circumstances will arise that can cause these priorities to become re‐ordered or even redefined. This Development Plan is presented as a living document for which future adjustments can be made without losing the integrity of the logic and findings contained herein. Development Recommendations Recommended Implementation Fort Tuthill utilities and infrastructure Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Stable Repair and Enhancements Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill campground repair and enhancements Short Term Schedule Fort Tuthill picnic areas and general recreational amenities Short Term Schedule Page/LeChee Regional Park Mid Term Schedule Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park Mid Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Visitor Center Mid Term Schedule Fort Tuthill Grandstand Racetrack Long Term Schedule Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park Long Term Schedule Redevelop Cataract Lake County Park Long Term Schedule Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Long Term Schedule Sedona Creek Walk Long Term Schedule Open space acquisitions Long Term Schedule Trails and connectivity Long Term Schedule Strategic Development Principles and Guidelines In developing design principles for parks it is important that each park be programmed, planned, and designed to meet the needs of its service area and classification within the overall parks and recreation system. The term programming when used in the context of planning and developing parkland refers to intended uses and subsequent facilities, and does not always include instructor‐led recreation programs. The program for a site can include such elements as ball fields, nature centers, arenas, spray parks, shelters, restrooms, game courts, trails, natural resource stewardship, open meadows, nature preserves, or interpretive areas. These types of amenities are categorized as lead or support components. The needs of the population of the park it is intended to serve should be considered and accommodated at each type of park. Every park regardless of type must have an established set of outcomes that includes operational and maintenance costs associated with the design outcomes. 48 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Established program and expectations for each park leads to the development of themes under which the park system is operated. These themes exhibit the priorities and needs of the community, the values of the Department, and responsible use of public resources for parks and recreation. Additionally, the thematic approach to park design and operation provides a sense of identity and character to the parks, facilities, programs, and services. This identity becomes the brand of Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department. Coconino County Parks and Recreation Operational Themes Following extensive assessment of the existing conditions of CCPR, detailed study of community preferences and needs, and the operating potential of each park the PROS Team recommends three predominant operational themes under which parks can be maintained and managed. These themes are not to be confused with park classifications as detailed in earlier analyses of this Organizational Master Plan, but rather are a guideline for the development and design of programs and facilities that reflect the unique attributes of each site. These themes can also provide the framework for developing key messages and promoting the experiences and opportunities available throughout the CCPR System in an organized and appealing manner. The operational themes recommended are detailed in the sections below. Destinations CCPR feature destinations that provide a wide array of recreational opportunities and services. These parks include overnight accommodations that range in level of service, and diverse park amenities that create opportunities for visitors to enjoy quality outdoor recreation in a natural setting. Parks that are recommended to be managed as destinations include: 1. Fort Tuthill County Park 2. Cataract Lake County Park Outdoor Recreation There are a multitude of parks within the Coconino County System that feature high quality outdoor recreation amenities and opportunities. Parks that are recommended to be managed as outdoor recreation parks include: 1. Louise Yellowman County Park 2. Peaks View County Park 3. Raymond County Park Preservation, Conservation, and Education It is a priority of both Coconino County residents and the Department to utilize the CCPR to foster preservation, conservation, and education about the unique natural resources of Central Arizona. Specific sites within the System feature prime opportunities to limit development for purposes of protecting and preserving the natural setting and ecological significance of the Coconino County area. Parks recommended to be managed as preservation, conservation, and education parks are: 1. Pumphouse Greenway 2. Sawmill Multicultural Art and Nature County Park 3. Parts of Fort Tuthill County Park 49 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Park Priority Mandates Throughout the process of intense community input and interaction with Coconino County leadership associated with this process it has been identified there are five predominant mandates that will also drive the strategic direction of each site. These priority mandates are derived from the identified community values and goals of the Department, support the operational themes discussed above, and are the foundation of the phasing for capital projects. There are five priority mandates that are present throughout the Coconino County Park System, but they may be ordered differently for each site to reflect its unique characteristics, existing conditions, and strategic opportunities. The mandates are not mutually exclusive, but all may exist in differing capacities at each site and represent the tiered priorities under which park development can be considered and pursued. These five mandates are: 1. Preserve the natural setting and environmental aspects of the park by heavily restricted use and limited public access. 2. Strategically develop facilities that increase the revenue generation capacity of the park and park system. 3. Acquire additional property to create a buffer from encroaching external development. 4. Pursue limited development to enhance the quality and diversity of recreational opportunities. 5. Devote resources to the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure. The Consultant Team assigned a prioritization of these mandates to each site to reflect the findings from community input, interaction with Department staff, and interviews with Coconino County leadership. These priorities subsequently are combined with the operational themes discussed above and the prioritized facility rankings discussed later in this report to produce the phased approach for capital projects over a 10‐year period for each park. Age Segment Appeal Among the greatest areas for improvement for many park systems, including Coconino County, is providing facilities and services that appeal to a broader age segment of the population. Frequently, park amenities are biased towards visitors ages 25 to 45, and miss opportunities to appeal to children and older adults. Given the demographic shifts both nationally and locally, park systems that provide facilities and services that appeal and attract families with children, young adults, and older adults are proving to have more reliable visitation, revenue generation, and community approval. The features and facilities in the park must be designed for the number of age segments the park is intended to serve, the desired length of stay deemed appropriate, and the uses aligned with the operational themes assigned. Recreation needs and services required differ based on the age segments that make up the community. A varying number of age segments will be accommodated within the park programs depending on the classification of the park. Typical age segments that drive facilities and services are: • • • Ages 2 Ages 9 Ages 18 • • • Ages 35‐54 Ages 55‐64 Ages 65+ 50 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Destination Amenities For a destination to truly be successful, it must have a unique compilation of physiographic, historical or cultural perspective, and entertainment and events. The physiographic, or general environment and climate, activates the sensory recognition which helps to form the experience. A cultural or historical perspective elicits the historical precedence that lends itself to the intellectual appreciation one might have for the destination. Entertainment, including special events, provides the foundation for achieving greater self actualization and emotional satisfaction. To achieve these essential elements in creating a destination, development principles must be adopted and implemented. Standards of excellence in recreation based development are based on four concepts: • • • • Quality and Reliability of the Resource Design Driven by Visitor Experience Blend of Passive and Active Recreation Multiple Attractions The quality and reliability of the resource is unique to CCPR. The vast size and variety of resources within the inventory affords the Department the opportunity to provide nearly limitless recreational opportunities. Archaeological areas, mountains, desert regions, and water resources all provide for unique endeavors. Design driven to create an enriched visitor experience includes ease of use. This pertains to the ingress and egress as well as the circulation once the destination has been reached and participation has commenced. Three principles associated with the visitor experience can be summarized as follows: • • • Sense of Arrival o Highway Signage o Gateway o Landscaping o View Shed Aesthetic and Functional Signage o Directional o Visitor Guides o Safety and Management Architecture and Use o Design with Natural Surroundings o Customer Flow o Mixed Use o Generates Satisfaction and Revenue Most activities associated with recreation are designed around a desired length of experience. A blend of passive and active recreational opportunities extends the length of experience and increases the frequency of participation. This offering necessitates that the core resources and attractions be in sync with the demand of the market. Recreational opportunities may be defined as a very broad range of activity – socializing with friends and family and shopping are two of the top four entertainment, recreation, and leisure activities most participated in since 1990. Other popular activities include: 51 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan • • Development and Action Plan Typical Recreational Opportunities o Camping (primitive to full‐service) o Multi‐use trails (recreational and interpretive) o Beach / waterfront access o Equestrian facilities o Climbing walls / bouldering areas o Orienteering / geo‐caching o Play areas o Pavilions and picnic areas Additional Recreational Opportunities o Cabins o Skateboard / BMX parks o Wildlife viewing blinds o Vending o Interpretive gardens o Sport equipment rental o Visual and performing arts Multiple attractions can be viewed as a subsidiary of the blend of passive and active opportunities. Strategically placed venues dictated by market demand provide for several zones or areas to host various programs. Multiple attractions also lend themselves to programming across the entire array of age segments. 52 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Short Term Implementation Projects The following priority projects are identified from community input and detailed assessments of facilities, programs, and CCPR finances to be the first tier of focus for facility enhancement and development over the next 10 years. FORT TUTHILL INFRASTRUCTURE ENHANCEMENTS Project Description Fort Tuthill Infrastructure Enhancements Recommended Planning Timeline 1 year Recommended CnstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Replace and upgrade utilities and infrastructure at Fort Tuthill County Park to improve performance and capacity of water, electric, wastewater, and roads to and within the park. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : The existing infrastructure of Fort Tuthill County Park is aged, severely deteriorated, and frequently has demands beyond current capacity. There are ongoing discussions with the City of Flagstaff and other private stakeholders that have options to collaboratively improve the infrastructure that is available to Fort Tuthill County Park. CCPR and Coconino County should assertively pursue the finalization of these arrangements to off‐set the potential capital costs associated with Coconino County attempting to perform these upgrades alone. The collaborative solutions can represent substantial cost avoidance to all involved parties, and make provide opportunities for the limited resources of the County to be utilized for improved distribution and utility systems within the boundaries of the park. POTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for upgrades to the Fort Tuthill infrastructure are prevalent with both the City of Flagstaff, as well as private stakeholders who can assist to off‐set the costs of bringing improved utilities to the boundaries of the park and developing enhanced utilities on site. 53 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan FORT TUTHILL STABLE REPAIR AND ENHANCEMENTS Project Description Fort Tuthill Stable Repair and Enhancements Recommended Planning Timeline 1 year Recommended ConstructionTimeline 1 year P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : General facility upgrades including structural repairs or potential demolition, design modifications, site work to address drainage issues, improved parking and access roads, and improved signage. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently operates 332 stalls at Fort Tuthill County Park, largely in support of equestrian events at the park. These facilities feature inappropriate design features to address the environment, climate, and topography of the site that has predominantly led to their generally deteriorated conditions. These upgrades accompanied with an innovative operating strategy will lead to expanded use and potential enhanced revenue generation from this facility. POTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for upgrades to the Fort Tuthill stables will be limited. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Federal assistance may be limited to economic development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises if pursued for the operations of the stables. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 54 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan FORT TUTHILL CAMPGROUND ENHANCEMENTS Project Description Fort Tuthill Campground Enhancements Recommended Planning Timeline 1 year Recommended ConstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Upgrade campground with improved configuration, improved privacy among camping spaces, improved water and electric hook‐ups, improved signage, and upgraded access roads. Support facilities including enclosed recreation hall with game tables, laundry machines, and Wi‐Fi connections supporting the campground should be considered. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently features camping facilities at Fort Tuthill County Park near Flagstaff, and Cataract Lake County Park in Williams. These facilities are generally deteriorated and offer limited services to campers. The capacity of the campground at Fort Tuthill County Park is extensive and heavily used in direct association with major events at the park. Upgrading these facilities to increase the level of service will enable market‐rate fees to be charged for overnight stay. These upgrades accompanied with a concerted and strategic communications and marketing strategy will lead to expanded use and enhanced revenue generation from this facility. It is critical that sufficient funding be dedicated to support an appropriate marketing initiative targeting optimal use of the campgrounds. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for upgrades to the Fort Tuthill campground will be limited. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Federal assistance may be limited to economic development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises if pursued for the operations of the campground. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 55 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan FORT TUTHILL PICNIC AREAS AND GENERAL RECREATION AMENITIES Project Description Fort Tuthill Picnic Areas and General Recreation Amenities Recommended Planning Timeline 2 years Recommended ConstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Improvements to the picnic area and its amenities are needed. Improved tables and grills/fire circles, with possible shelters are highly recommended. In addition, the tennis courts, racquetball courts, and many support structures within the park are in need of repair, renovation, or removal. It is recommended that an updated master plan for Fort Tuthill be developed to assess the necessity and intended use of these assets. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently operates picnic areas, and numerous support assets providing recreational benefits and/or usage support at Fort Tuthill County Park. These facilities are generally in a state of disrepair and will benefit from improved picnic area layouts, access trails, landscaping, tables, and grills. Assets should be evaluated as to their alignment with CCPR strategic goals and Coconino County Fairgrounds plans, and classified as either essential, support, or marginal facilities. Many asset repairs or replacements are required to address deterioration due to environmental conditions, age, and usage. These upgrades accompanied with sufficient maintenance funding will lead to improved use and sustainable maintenance of the facilities. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Private, non‐profit partnerships may be possible with organizations supporting restoration of historic and/or cultural facilities, or community development / philanthropic organizations with a shared vision for the facility. 56 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Mid Term Implementation Projects The following priority projects are identified from community input and detailed assessments of facilities, programs, and CCPR finances to be the second tier of focus for facility enhancement and development over the next 10 years. PAGE / LECHEE REGIONAL PARK Project Description Page / LeChee Regional Park Recommended Planning Timeline 2 years Recommended Construction Timeline 3 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop a Page/LeChee Regional Park that includes youth facilities, multi‐use trails, playground, group pavilions, and possible revenue generating amenities supporting Glen Canyon and Lake Powell visitors. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : Page/LeChee Regional Park should be operated for purposes of serving local community needs, as well as to generate substantial revenue by providing complimentary park and recreation amenities to Glan Canyon and Lake Powell recreation areas for residents and visitors to the area. It is recommended to consider operating Page/LeChee Regional Park in partnership with other public entities, as well as non‐profit organizations. Page/LeChee Regional Park should be designed and operated to generate sufficient revenue for CCPR to cover the cost recovery goal that has been established for this project. It is recommended that select areas within the park feature controlled access by the operating entity and consider entrance fees for usage. Entrance fees, equipment rental, instruction, event management, and concessions can become the predominant modes of revenue generation for the park and its operating partners. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Page Regional Park can be substantial within both public and private sectors. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level, but can be well‐ positioned as rural economic and community development to expand potential funding partners. Federal assistance can include land usage agreements, and potentially economic and community development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises if pursued for operations of aspects of the park. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 57 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan TUSAYAN /GRAND CANYON COMMUNITY PARK Project Description Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park Recommended Planning Timeline 4 years Recommended Construction Timeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop a Tusayan/ Grand Canyon Community Park that includes youth facilities, playground, group pavilions, and multiple revenue generating amenities supporting Grand Canyon visitors. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park should be operated for purposes of serving local community needs, as well as to generate substantial revenue by providing complimentary park and recreation amenities to Grand Canyon National Park for residents and visitors to the area. For example, the Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park could feature many amenities that serve local residents, as well as potentially offer limited space on which a concessionaire that operates in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service to provided guided programs on federal land. It is recommended that Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park be developed and operated in partnership with other public entities, as well as non‐profit organizations. Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park should be designed and operated to generate sufficient revenue for CCPR to cover the cost recovery goal that has been established for this project. It is recommended that select areas within the park feature controlled access by the operating entity and consider entrance fees for usage. Entrance fees, equipment rental, instruction, event management, and concessions can become the predominant modes of revenue generation for the park and its operating partners. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Tusayan/Grand Canyon Community Park can be substantial within both public and private opportunities. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level, but can be well‐positioned as rural economic and community development to expand potential funding partners. Federal assistance can include land usage agreements, and potentially economic and community development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises for operations of aspects of the park. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 58 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan FORT TUTHILL VISITOR CENTER Project Description Fort Tuthill Visitor Center Recommended Planning Timeline 2 years Recommended ConstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop a Visitor Center at Fort Tuthill County Park that is centralized and easily accessible improve use and subsequent revenue generation at Fort Tuthill, and provide improved administration space. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : A Visitor Center at Fort Tuthill County Park can provide multiple benefits to the use and management of the park, as well as the CCPR system. This facility should include a variety of usage areas including visitor reception, limited exhibits and displays, limited retail/concession area, meeting room, and administrative space for management and administrative CCPR staff. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Fort Tuthill Visitor Center will be limited. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Private sector partnerships should be limited to philanthropic giving or sponsorship, and operational partners potentially for the retail / concession area. 59 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Long Term Implementation Projects The following priority projects are identified from community input and detailed assessments of facilities, programs, and CCPR finances to be the third tier of focus for facility enhancement and development over the next 10 years. FORT TUTHILL GRANDSTAND RACETRACK Project Description Fort Tuthill Grandstands Racetrack Recommended Planning Timeline 2 years Recommended Construction Timeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Improved asphalt surfacing, improved support and concession buildings, repair and replacement of all wood trimmings and fixtures within the grandstands, upgraded water and wastewater system supporting the restrooms, upgraded jockey area to accommodate male and female athletes, and resurfacing of the track and inner arenas. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently operates the Grandstand Racetrack complex at Fort Tuhill County Park, solely for equestrian events at the park. The facilities have been developed over several decades, and are in differing states of repair. Many facility repairs are required to address deterioration from environmental conditions, age, and usage. There are multiple instances of limiting facility design that should be addressed through facility enhancements. These upgrades accompanied with an innovative operating strategy will lead to expanded use and potential enhanced revenue generation from this facility. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Federal assistance may be limited to economic development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises if pursued for the operations of the complex. Private, non‐profit partnerships may be possible with organizations supporting restoration of equestrian facilities, or community development / philanthropic organizations with a shared vision for the facility. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 60 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan FREDONIA / KAIBAB PAIUTE COMMUNITY PARK Project Description Fredonia Community Park Recommended Planning Timeline 2 years Recommended ConstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop a Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park that includes a playground, group pavilions, and possible sport facilities supporting community needs. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : Fredonia / Kaibab Paiute Community Park should be operated for purposes of serving local community needs, particularly given the relatively remote location of Fredonia in relation to CCPR assets. Fredonia Community Park should be designed and operated to satisfy community needs and generate limited revenue from leased facilities for events or special circumstances. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Fredonia Community Park will likely be limited within both public and private sectors. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Federal assistance can include land usage agreements, and potentially economic and community development funding. Private sector partnerships should be limited to philanthropic giving or sponsorship, and operational partners. 61 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan REDEVELOP CATARACT LAKE COUNTY PARK Project Description Redevelop Cataract Lake County Park Recommended Planning Timeline 3 years Recommended Construction Timeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Redesign the park to upgrade or replace campground with improved configuration, improved privacy among camping spaces, improved water and electric hook‐ups, improved signage, and upgraded access roads. Support facilities including enclosed recreation hall with game tables, laundry machines, and Wi‐Fi connections supporting the campground should be considered. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently features camping facilities at Cataract Lake County Park in Williams. These facilities are generally deteriorated and offer limited services to campers. The capacity of the campground at Cataract Lake County Park is limited due to surrounding private development. Leveraging the current site and facilities of Cataract Lake County Park in collaboration with the City of Williams and the U.S. Forest Service to redesign the park and adjacent Forest Service facilities to increase the level of service would enable market‐rate fees to be charged for overnight stay. These upgrades accompanied with a concerted and strategic communications and marketing strategy will lead to expanded use and enhanced revenue generation from this facility. It is critical that sufficient funding be dedicated to support an appropriate marketing initiative targeting optimal use of the campgrounds. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for upgrades to the Cataract Lake campground will be substantial with both the City of Williams and the U.S. Forest Service. Federal assistance may be limited to economic development funding to support the growth of small business enterprises if pursued for the operations of the campground. Private sector partnerships should be limited to investment partners willing to provide a minimum of 50% of the development costs of specific aspects of the park as a risk for a financially sustainable and possibly profitable business structured within an agreement with Coconino County. 62 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan PUMPHOUSE GREENWAY NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER Project Description Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Recommended Planning Timeline 3 years Recommended ConstructionTimeline 2 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop a Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center at Pumphouse Greenway County Park that is similar to the partnership with Willow Bend Environmental Education Center at Sawmill County Park. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : A Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center Visitor can provide multiple benefits to the use and management of the park, as seen with Willow Bend Environmental Education Center at Sawmill County Park. This facility should include a variety of usage areas including visitor reception, limited exhibits and displays, limited retail/concession area, meeting room, and administrative space for management and administrative staff. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Pumphouse Greenway Natural Science Center can be substantial within both public and private opportunities. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level, but this project can be well‐positioned as rural economic and community development to expand potential funding partners. Federal assistance can include potential conservation and resource protection and natural science education funding. Private sector partnerships should be limited to philanthropic giving or sponsorship, and operational partners. 63 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan SEDONA CREEK WALK Project Description Sedona Creek Walk Recommended Planning Timeline 4 years Recommended Implementation Timeline 8 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop an urban trail along Oak Creek in the Coconino County portion of Sedona anchored on its northern terminus by a small community park accessed by a footbridge over the creek. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : The Sedona Creek Walk Project should be pursued to address local community needs, as well as promoting the reputation of quality of life attributes in Coconino County. This trail should be either a multi‐purpose or restricted trail, feature either natural or improved surfacing based upon community preference and available funding, and provide a meaningful connection between a small community park and the community. Trail maintenance can be supported by user groups and friends groups, as well as a possible private, non‐profit organization that can be formed for the purpose of raising funds, awareness, and human capital to support the development and maintenance of trails within Coconino County. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the Sedona Creek Walk can be substantial within both public and private sectors. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level, but can be well‐ positioned as rural economic and community development to expand potential funding partners. Federal assistance can include land usage agreements, and potentially economic and community development funding. Private sector partnerships should be limited to philanthropic giving or sponsorship, and operational partners. 64 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan OPEN SPACE ACQIUSITIONS Project Description Open Space Acquisitions Recommended Planning Timeline 4 years Recommended Implementation Timeline 9 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Buffer zones to protect park assets and for trail‐way linkages between parks and the communities. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : CCPR currently manages county parks sites that are surrounded by encroaching development to the degree that without mitigation it potentially threatens the integrity of the park. Similarly, there are potential opportunities to link county parks with other parks or community assets through trail ways that are acquired as open space initiatives. These opportunities accompanied with sufficient maintenance funding will lead to improved and diversified use of CCPR sites, as well as address expressed community needs. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level. Federal assistance may be limited to open space, greenway, environmental, or conservation funding. Private, non‐profit partnerships may be possible with organizations supporting environmental, conservation or recreation projects, or community development / philanthropic organizations with a shared vision for CCPR. Private, for‐profit partnerships may be possible with sponsorships. 65 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY Project Description Trails and Connectivity Recommended Planning Timeline 4 years Recommended Implementation Timeline 11 years P ROJECT E LEMENT D ESCRIPTION : Develop an interconnected CCPR trail system that includes multi‐purpose trails contained within county parks, connects county parks with other parks, and connects county parks with other significant community features. O PERATIONAL M ANDATES : The CCPR Trails and Connectivity Project should be pursued to address local community needs, as well as promoting the reputation of quality of life attributes in Coconino County. CCPR trails should be a mixture of multi‐purpose and restricted trails, natural and improved surface and provide meaningful connections with other parks or significant community features. Trail maintenance can be supported by user groups and friends groups, as well as a possible private, non‐profit organization that can be formed for the purpose of raising funds, awareness, and human capital to support the development and maintenance of trails within Coconino County. P OTENTIAL D EVELOPMENT P ARTNERSHIPS : Potential development partnerships for the CCPR Trails can be substantial within both public and private sectors. Potential public partnerships will be largely challenged by current public sector financial circumstances from the state level to the local level, but can be well‐positioned as rural economic and community development to expand potential funding partners. Federal assistance can include land usage agreements, and potentially economic and community development funding. Private sector partnerships should be limited to philanthropic giving or sponsorship, and operational partners. An innovative partnership strategy that can be further explored as a part of this project is to develop sustainable “recreation easements” on private land that is administered through formal agreements with Coconino County, and provides tax incentives and liability immunity to land owners. 66 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Conclusion The recommendations contained within this Development and Action Plan reflect a process that endured for over 12 months, collecting public input through multiple means including over 30 public meetings, an extensive review of the existing conditions of facilities and services of CCPR, and a comparison of industry best practices and emerging trends. The specific recommendations in both the Organizational Action Plan and the Phased Capital Project Action Plan were developed from: 1. Identifying community needs and priorities 2. Identifying organizational needs and priorities 3. Identifying facility needs and priorities The desired outcome of this Organizational Master Plan is for Coconino Parks and Recreation Department to evolve over the next 10 years into a high‐quality park system that provides equitable and accessible experiences to residents, is a community and economic development asset, and is a proactive and reliable department within Coconino County government. To achieve this outcome will require perseverance by the staff of Coconino County, the County Board of Supervisors, and the community as a whole to adhere to this ambitious, but realistic action plan. In conclusion, the primary measure of success will be how well the implementation of this plan can guide CCPR in meeting its renewed vision and mission, while remaining committed to the community’s values. The CCPR vision and mission statements, the community’s values regarding parks and recreation, and the goals of the Department are provided below as a reminder to the importance of maintaining a strategic course over the next 10 years. CCPR Vision Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation (CCPR) establishes a standard of excellence for engaging residents and visitors with Coconino County’s natural, recreational, and cultural environments to promote healthy lifestyles and communities. CCPR Mission Statement Coconino County Parks and Recreation engages the public in developing and delivering quality, sustainable parks; equitable community partnerships; accessible, diverse recreational and educational opportunities; and protecting unique natural areas and open spaces. 67 Coconino County Parks and Recreation Organizational Master Plan Development and Action Plan Coconino County Community Values Regarding Parks and Recreation Coconino County residents have a legacy of recreating in the outdoors that is important to individuals and communities. This legacy gives rise to shared values regarding County parks and recreation services. County residents believe in: • • • • • • • • • attracting and retaining knowledgeable parks and recreation professionals who demonstrate outstanding customer service; managing parks and open space responsibly and sustainably; recognizing and supporting the County’s unique natural landscapes, diverse communities, and cultural traditions; providing passive public recreation areas and expanding protection for open spaces and wildlife corridors; using public and private sector partnerships to reach shared goals; striving for equitable access to parks and recreation experiences for urban and rural youth, seniors, and families; promoting volunteer stewardship as an integral part of park management; balancing the funding and provision of services between public and private sectors; and demonstrating environmental leadership through policies, practices, and programs. Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department Goals Coconino County Parks and Recreation’s (CCPR) mission will be implemented through programs and policies focused on five core endeavors over the next 10 years. These primary goals were developed from the multifaceted aspects of the master plan process, including numerous public meetings, extensive interviews and focus groups with community leaders and CCPR stakeholders, and the Consultant Team assessments of the existing CCPR system. These goals are: 1. Develop and implement effective marketing and communications plans to better meet customer needs and interests. 2. Develop and maintain equitable and creative public and private‐sector partnerships to reach shared goals. 3. Explore new ways to provide programs, facilities, and operations that engage more residents and promote accessible, equitable, and sustainable park services. 4. Develop a 10‐year financial plan that analyzes and identifies the resources needed to accomplish the major components of the Organizational Master Plan. 5. Demonstrate environmental leadership and sustainability in practices and policies. 68