The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutI. B. PARKS NEEDS ASSESSMENT 4.2.24PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Virginia Beach Parks System Needs Assessment & Strategy April 2, 2024 relates to F.A.P. Initiative #3.15 and #3.16 PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 AGENDA •Process •Parks system & standards •Equity-based needs analysis •Recommendations •Estimated costs •Funding options PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Process PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 AGENDAPROCESS INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENTS ANALYSIS STRATEGY REPORTING equity and LOS workshop existing plans and related studies peer city benchmarking demographics un-/under-developed park site evaluation planning document review stakeholder interviews 2017, 2021, & 2023 survey evaluation LOS evaluation recreation trends department background and history importance of parks and rec park assessments LOS/equity gap analysis mapping spending evaluation 10-20 year vision plan outline implementation plan and prioritization capital improvement plan final report and mapping executive summary final presentation PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PARKS THROUGH THE LENS OF EQUITY Environmental Equity Design Equity Economic Equity Access Equity PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Parks System & Standards PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PARKS INVENTORY PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PARKS CLASSIFICATION •Reclassify the current 16 park types to 5 categories. •Reclassification will aid in planning, management, and level of service evaluation PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PARKS CLASSIFICATION Park Development Levels •Proposed tiers of development. •Sets a standard for the quality and public expectations for VB parks. •All parks developed to at least an ‘Essential’ level. •Will aid in planning, budgeting, and consistency of service. •Flexible and customizable. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Equity-Based Needs Analysis PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 ACCESS EQUITY – POPULATION LOS Total Park Acreage Shortfalls Local Park Acreage Shortfalls City-Wide Park Acreage Shortfalls •Park land and amenities are unevenly distributed through the City. •Significant shortfall of City-Wide Park acreage, and City-Wide park amenities. •Shortfalls of nearly every amenity. •Gaps in amenity types offered compared to similar municipalities. Council Districts with Park Acreage Shortfalls *shaded = shortfall TYPE Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Amenities Basketball Shortfall -11 Sites Shortfall -17 Sites Basketball (half court)Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Boat Ramp Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Canoe/Kayak Launch Shortfall -6 Sites Shortfall -8 Sites Diamond Field Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Dog Park Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Field Hockey Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Fishing Piers Shortfall -5 Sites Shortfall -6 Sites Golf Course2 Meets Standard 2 Sites Meets Standard 2 Sites Outdoor Fitness Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Outdoor Stage Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Paved Trails (miles)Shortfall -47 Miles Shortfall -56 Miles Pickleball 3 Shortfall -23 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Playground Shortfall -17 Sites Shortfall -30 Sites Pump Track Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Rectangular Field Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (large)Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (small)Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -13 Sites Skate Park Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Skate Spot Shortfall -8 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Soccer4 Shortfall -24 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Soft Trails (miles)Shortfall -38 Miles Shortfall -42 Miles Tennis Meets Standard 1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Tennis/Pickleball dual striping Meets Standard 0 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Volleyball Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Nature Center Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Cricket Field Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Archery Range Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Community Gardens Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Outdoor Pools Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Splash Playground Shortfall -9 Sites Shortfall -10 Sites 2021 Standards Shortfall/ Surplus 2036 Standards (est. pop. 475,072) Shortfall/ Surplus PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 CDC – Social Vulnerability Index EQUITY MAPPING Access Equity: 10- Minute Walk Quality Equity: Conditions Assessment Economic Equity: Capital Spending per Capita PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 COMPOSITE EQUITY ASSESSMENT •SVI + Park Access + Park Funding + Park Condition Scoring •Districts 4, 7, and 10 stand out for large areas of High Need •Areas within each district with more need based on these factors are also shown. •Map is a tool for prioritization of resources PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Recommendations PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 RECOMMENDATIONS •Improvements to existing parks and facilities •Lifecyle replacement (10-year) •Amenity construction (15-year LOS) •Expand system to add new amenities •Invest in Under-Developed parks •Build out Undeveloped parks •New park land acquisition and development •Fund planned projects •(Virginia Beach Trail) PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS COST Recommendation Cost Existing facility improvements 18,440,000$ Lifecycle Replacement (10-year)227,810,000$ Amenity construction (15 year LOS)268,410,000$ Undeveloped Parks 57,310,000$ Underdeveloped Parks 14,130,000$ New park land acquisition and development 191,550,000$ Planned Project: Virginia Beach Trail 60,000,000$ Grand Total Cost of Recommendations 837,650,000$ Note: VB Trail project cost does not include $15M of federal grant money awarded in 2024 Virginia Beach Park Recommendations Estimate of Probable Cost PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZATION priority equity feasibility cost need City goals invest in ex. resources •Mapping •Level of service •Public survey results •Stakeholder input •Demographics •Cost assessments •Park standards PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PARKS AND NEW AMENITY CONSTRUCTION Recommendation Equity Score Feasibility Cost Total Priority Universally accessible amenities and design elements 38 5 2 45 Review and address ADA accessibility 37 5 3 45 Improve soft surface trail conditions and surfacing 35 5 5 45 Address safety hazards 36 5 1 42 Increase connectivity and access to parks and recreational facilities 34 3 4 41 Improve casual water access points with dedicated constructed facilities 34 3 4 41 Increase access to shade at all parks 29 5 3 37 Establish a Natural Resources Team that will develop a Natural Resources Management Plan for implementation at all park sites 29 3 5 37 Improve park perimeter landscapes 28 5 3 36 All Parks to meet standardized development levels 34 1 1 36 Track equipment age, schedule routine maintenance, and plan for equipment replacement 31 5 0 36 Construct stormwater management facilities and erosion control measures 31 3 1 35 Continue to add landscaping to casual sports fields 23 5 4 32 Update park entrance sign standard 14 5 5 24 Continue to replace park perimeter 2-rail fencing with 4x10 single-rail fencing throughout the park system 14 5 1 20 High PriorityModerate PrioritySome Priority PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED UN/UNDERDEVELOPED PARKS Underdeveloped Parks •Level Green Park* (CW*) •Oak Springs Park •Salem Village Park •Seatack North Park •Salem Woods Park (CW) •Marshview Park (CW) •Carolanne Farms (CW) * About to undergo a $4.5M renovation, and reclassification as City-Wide Undeveloped Parks •Margate Ave. Park •Amhurst Park •Thalia Trace Oaks Park •County Haven •Woodbridge Park (CW) Priority Local Parks Priority City-Wide Parks PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED PARK LAND ACQUISITION Local Parks •Estimated purchase need of 121 acres by 2036. •Districts 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 face shortfalls. City-Wide Parks •Estimated purchase need of 992 acres by 2036. •Districts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 face shortfalls. •Potential for District 3 to address shortfalls with current park land. Local Park Land Priority Areas City-Wide Park Land Priority Areas PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED WATER ACCESS POINTS Providing equitable water access is a priority, and relates to environmental and access equity. Underdeveloped parks •Salem Woods park •Oak Springs park •Lamplight Manor park •Rosemont Forest park Undeveloped parks •Margate Ave. park Priority Water Access Points PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATION COST Short-term •Safety and accessibility •Lifecycle replacement •High priority amenities •Priority local parks Mid-term •Park appearance •Lifecycle replacement •High and medium priority amenities •Invest in local and city-wide parks Long-Term •Mid-term actions continue •Park land acquisition Recommendation Short-Term (0-5 years) Mid-Term (6-10 years) Long-Term (11-15 years) Existing facility improvements 7,090,000$ 4,460,000$ 4,090,000$ Lifecycle Replacement (10-year)79,110,000$ 79,110,000$ 69,590,000$ Amenity construction (15 year LOS)11,410,000$ 44,530,000$ 72,180,000$ Undeveloped Parks 5,040,000$ 11,450,000$ 16,930,000$ Underdeveloped Parks 2,820,000$ 3,030,000$ 1,560,000$ New park land acquisition 14,230,000$ Planned Project: Virginia Beach Trail*10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 40,000,000$ Total Cost of Recommendations 115,470,000$ 152,580,000$ 218,580,000$ Grand Total Cost of Recommendations Virginia Beach Park Recommendations Estimate of Probable Cost - Phased Priorization 486,630,000$ *Note: VB Trail project cost does not include $15M of federal grant money awarded in 2024 PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 FUNDING STRATEGIES CURRENT FUNDING STRATEGIES •Dedicated funding •Referendum $0.03476 Real Estate Tax for rec centers only •Outdoor Initiative $0.0047 Real Estate Tax •Open Space Initiative $0.0044 Meal Tax •Special revenue fund •General fund •Charter Bonds •Grants •Developer Cash-in-Lieu •Land Leases/Concessions •User Fees (offsets operates expenses) •Donations •Sponsorships •Adopt-a-Programs •Advertising Revenue •Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation Foundation FUNDING STRATEGY OPPORTUNITIES •Tourism Investment Program •Receives dedicated revenue streams to fund tourism and other economic vitality related operating costs and capital projects •Request General Obligation Bond Referendum •For park and recreation facilities •Increase the percentage of Outdoor Incentive Real Estate Tax •For park facilities and improvements only PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 FUTURE P&R BOND REFENDUM – PUBLIC SURVEY Q24: If a P&R bond referendum were to pass, what percentage of the available funds would you allocate to each of the categories listed below? Current need is $52 million Current need is $104 million Current need is $72 million Current need is $50 million Current need is $22 million Current need is $105 million PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 FUTURE P&R BOND REFENDUM – PUBLIC SURVEY Q25: How supportive would you be of paying additional taxes for the facilities/amenities that you rated as the most important to you and your household in Q24? (without “not provided”) 46%32% PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 FUTURE P&R BOND REFENDUM – PUBLIC SURVEY Q26: If you answered “very supportive”, “somewhat supportive”, or “neutral” to Q25, what is the maximum amount of tax increase you would support? (without “not provided”) A 1.28 cent increase would result in $100M in bond funding A 1.63 cent increase would result in $150M in bond funding PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Questions? PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Additional Slides PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 ACCESS EQUITY – POPULATION LOS TYPE City Inventory School Inventory Other Inventory Total Inventory Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Parks Local Park 633.9 623.8 1,257.70 2.80 acres per 1,000 3.00 acres per 1,000 Shortfall -91 Acre(s)Shortfall -168 Acre(s) City Wide Park 1,001.9 1,001.90 2.23 acres per 1,000 5.00 acres per 1,000 Shorfall -1,246 Acre(s)Shortfall -1,373 Acre(s) Special Use 2,114.2 2,114.20 4.70 acres per 1,000 2.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard 1,215 Acre(s)Meets Standard 1,164 Acre(s) Natural Areas 2,021.9 21,769.0 23,790.90 84%40%Meets Standard 12,525 Acre(s)Meets Standard 12,525 Acre(s) *Natural Areas 5 (city owned only)2,021.9 2,021.90 35%40%Shorfall -287 Acre(s)Shortfall -287 Acre(s) Active Parkland Acreage (Local, City-Wide, Special Use)3,750.0 623.8 0.0 4,373.8 9.73 acres per 1,000 10.00 acres per 1,000 Shortfall -123 Acre(s)Shortfall -377 Acre(s) Total Parkland Acreage 5,771.9 623.8 21,769.0 28,164.7 62.64 acres per 1,000 Amenities Basketball 64 37.5 101.5 1 site per 4,430 1 site per 4,000 Shortfall -11 Sites Shortfall -17 Sites Basketball (half court)3 3 1 site per 149,882 1 site per 150,000 Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Boat Ramp 5 2 7 1 site per 64,235 1 site per 40,000 Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Canoe/Kayak Launch 13 3 16 1 site per 28,103 1 site per 20,000 Shortfall -6 Sites Shortfall -8 Sites Diamond Field 79 48 127 1 site per 3,541 1 site per 3,500 Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Dog Park 5 5 1 site per 89,929 1 site per 50,000 Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Field Hockey 2 2 1 site per 224,823 1 site per 225,000 Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Fishing Piers 4 2 6 1 site per 74,941 1 site per 40,000 Shortfall -5 Sites Shortfall -6 Sites Golf Course2 5 5 1 site per 89,929 1 site per 150,000 Meets Standard 2 Sites Meets Standard 2 Sites Outdoor Fitness 3 3 1 site per 149,882 1 site per 100,000 Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Outdoor Stage 4 4 1 site per 112,411 1 site per 120,000 Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Paved Trails (miles)20.8 81.6 102.4 1 mile per 4,391 1 mile per 3,000 Shortfall -47 Miles Shortfall -56 Miles Pickleball 3 6 0.5 6.5 1 site per 69,176 1 site per 15,000 Shortfall -23 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Playground 173 33.5 1 207.5 1 site per 2,167 1 site per 2,000 Shortfall -17 Sites Shortfall -30 Sites Pump Track 1 1 1 site per 449,645 1 site per 150,000 Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Rectangular Field 12 13 25 1 site per 17,986 1 site per 12,000 Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (large)37 1 38 1 site per 11,833 1 site per 9,000 Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (small)197 1 198 1 site per 2,271 1 site per 2,250 Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -13 Sites Skate Park 3 3 1 site per 149,882 1 site per 100,000 Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Skate Spot 1 1 1 site per 449,645 1 site per 50,000 Shortfall -8 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Soccer4 1 1 1 site per 449,645 1 site per 18,000 Shortfall -24 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Soft Trails (miles)10 27 37 1 mile per 12,153 1 mile per 6,000 Shortfall -38 Miles Shortfall -42 Miles Tennis 43 14 57 1 site per 7,889 1 site per 8,000 Meets Standard 1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Tennis/Pickleball dual striping 12 0.5 12.5 1 site per 35,972 1 site per 36,000 Meets Standard 0 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Volleyball 6 6 1 site per 74,941 1 site per 75,000 Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Nature Center 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 250,000 Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Cricket Field 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 500,000 Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Archery Range 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 200,000 Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Community Gardens 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 100,000 Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Outdoor Pools 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 200,000 Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Splash Playground 0 1 site per 0 1 site per 50,000 Shortfall -9 Sites Shortfall -10 Sites no standard 2021 Inventory1 Existing Service Levels 2021 Standards 2021 Service Levels (pop. 449,645)Proposed Standards Shortfall/ Surplus no standard of total city park acreage of total city park acreage of total park acreage of total park acreage 2036 Standards (est. pop. 475,072) Shortfall/ Surplus no standard PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 ACCESS EQUITY – POPULATION LOS TYPE Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Parks Local Park Shortfall -91 Acre(s)Shortfall -168 Acre(s) City Wide Park Shorfall -1,246 Acre(s)Shortfall -1,373 Acre(s) Special Use Meets Standard 1,215 Acre(s)Meets Standard 1,164 Acre(s) Natural Areas Meets Standard 12,525 Acre(s)Meets Standard 12,525 Acre(s) *Natural Areas 5 (city owned only)Shorfall -287 Acre(s)Shortfall -287 Acre(s) Active Parkland Acreage (Local, City-Wide, Special Use)Shortfall -123 Acre(s)Shortfall -377 Acre(s) Total Parkland Acreage 2021 Standards Shortfall/ Surplus no standard 2036 Standards (est. pop. 475,072) Shortfall/ Surplus no standard Total Park Acreage Shortfalls Local Park Acreage Shortfalls City-Wide Park Acreage Shortfalls •Slight shortfall of Local Park acreage across the City. •Significant shortfall of City- Wide Park acreage. •Special Use sites contribute significantly to the overall park LOS. Greater than half of developed VBPR land is Special Use. •80% of all park land in the City is Natural Area, exceeding the recommended 40%. Only 35% of city-owned land is natural area, creating a slight shortfall. •Park land is unevenly distributed through the City, with varying per capita LOS. Council Districts with Park Acreage Shortfalls *shaded = shortfall PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 POPULATION LOS TYPE Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Meets Standard/ Shortfall Exists Amenities Basketball Shortfall -11 Sites Shortfall -17 Sites Basketball (half court)Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Boat Ramp Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Canoe/Kayak Launch Shortfall -6 Sites Shortfall -8 Sites Diamond Field Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Dog Park Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Field Hockey Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Fishing Piers Shortfall -5 Sites Shortfall -6 Sites Golf Course2 Meets Standard 2 Sites Meets Standard 2 Sites Outdoor Fitness Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Outdoor Stage Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Paved Trails (miles)Shortfall -47 Miles Shortfall -56 Miles Pickleball 3 Shortfall -23 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Playground Shortfall -17 Sites Shortfall -30 Sites Pump Track Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Rectangular Field Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (large)Shortfall -12 Sites Shortfall -15 Sites Shelters (small)Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -13 Sites Skate Park Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Skate Spot Shortfall -8 Sites Shortfall -9 Sites Soccer4 Shortfall -24 Sites Shortfall -25 Sites Soft Trails (miles)Shortfall -38 Miles Shortfall -42 Miles Tennis Meets Standard 1 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Tennis/Pickleball dual striping Meets Standard 0 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Volleyball Meets Standard 0 Sites Meets Standard 0 Sites Nature Center Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Cricket Field Shortfall -1 Sites Shortfall -1 Sites Archery Range Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Community Gardens Shortfall -4 Sites Shortfall -5 Sites Outdoor Pools Shortfall -2 Sites Shortfall -2 Sites Splash Playground Shortfall -9 Sites Shortfall -10 Sites 2021 Standards Shortfall/ Surplus 2036 Standards (est. pop. 475,072) Shortfall/ Surplus•There is a current shortfall of most types of park amenities in the city overall. •There is a significant shortfall of paved trails, pickleball courts, playground, skat spots, soccer fields, soft trails, and splash playgrounds. •Additional facilities required as population grows. •Virginia Beach does not currently offer certain types of facilities that benchmarked peer cities do include. •Park amenities are unevenly distributed through the City, with varying District LOS. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 ACCESS EQUITY – GEOGRAPHIC •Local Parks: ½ mile access, 10- min walk •City Parks: 10-min drive •City Parks provide even coverage for most of Virginia Beach north of the Green Line. •Gaps in Local Park service are in pockets rather than broad regions PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 10-MINUTE WALK INITIATVE •2016 National Median: 67.7% •2016 Virginia Beach: 58% •2020 Virginia Beach: 62% •(including paved trails): 67% Goal: 80% •Walkability is concentrated in the more densely populated part of the City, north of the Green Line. •Many of the areas with parkland deficits are neighborhood originally constructed without integrated park lands. •Walkability varies by District. 83% in District 10, 56% in District 9. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 QUALITY EQUITY - CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT •Generally good condition with some sites needing improvements. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 ECONOMIC EQUITY - CAPITAL SPENDING PER CAPITA •Uneven investment in capital projects across the City. •Significant investment in parks in District 2 makes it an outlier. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX •The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed a Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) for every census tract in the U.S. •Based on 15 social factors in 4 themes. •Census Tracts with the highest vulnerability are in Districts 4, 10, and 6, with some medium areas in 2. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 PRIORITIZED AMENITY CONSTRUCTION Type of Amenity Equity Score Feasibility Cost Total Priority Playground 39 15 12 66 Canoe/Kayak Launch 35 15 15 65 Soft Trails (miles)35 15 15 65 Paved Trails (miles)34 15 12 61 Outdoor Fitness 33 15 12 60 Dog Park 31 15 12 58 Archery Range 30 10 15 55 Community Gardens 24 15 15 54 Shelters 27 15 12 54 Pickleball 30 10 12 52 Skate Spot 25 15 12 52 Basketball 25 10 15 50 Boat Ramp 33 10 6 49 Volleyball 21 10 15 46 Fishing Piers 35 10 0 45 Rectangular Field 23 10 9 42 Cricket Field 22 10 9 41 Soccer 22 10 9 41 Diamond Field 24 10 6 40 Pump Track 28 10 2 40 Splash Playground 27 10 2 39 Tennis 17 10 12 39 Outdoor Pools 30 5 1 36 Skate Park 23 10 3 36 Field Hockey 18 10 1 29 Nature Center 21 5 0 26 Outdoor Stage 14 5 1 20 High PriorityModerate PrioritySome Priority PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Facility Reccommendation Unit Area Unit Quantity Cost Total Quantity Total Quantity Total Quantity Total System-Wide 3,993,250$ 3,993,250$ -$ -$ Local AC.633.9 1,000$ 633,900$ 633.9 633,900$ -$ -$ City-Wide AC.1001.9 700$ 701,330$ 1001.9 701,330$ -$ -$ Special Use AC.3152.6 700$ 2,206,820$ 3152.6 2,206,820$ -$ -$ Natural AC.902.4 500$ 451,200$ 902.4 451,200$ -$ -$ System-Wide 1,238,350$ 1,238,350$ -$ -$ Local AC.316.95 400$ 126,780$ 316.95 126,780$ -$ -$ City-Wide AC.1001.9 300$ 300,570$ 1001.9 300,570$ -$ -$ Special Use AC.3152.6 200$ 630,520$ 3152.6 630,520$ -$ -$ Natural AC.902.4 200$ 180,480$ 902.4 180,480$ -$ -$ Increase quantity of universally accessible amenities and design elements System-Wide EA 1 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1 1,000,000$ -$ -$ Construct Appropriate Stormwater Management Facilities and Erosion Control Measures System-Wide EA 1 6,000,000$ 6,000,000$ -$ 0.5 3,000,000$ 0.5 3,000,000$ Track Equipment Age, Schedule Routine Maintenance, and Plan for Equipment Replacement (10 years)System-Wide EA -$ 227,806,266$ 79,108,761$ 79,108,761$ 69,588,746$ System-Wide 1,450,000$ 650,000$ 600,000$ 200,000$ Local EA 10 50,000$ 500,000$ 5 250,000$ 4 200,000$ 1 50,000$ City-Wide EA 19 50,000$ 950,000$ 8 400,000$ 8 400,000$ 3 150,000$ Special Use EA -$ -$ -$ -$ Natural EA -$ -$ -$ -$ System-Wide 225,000$ -$ 55,000$ 72,000$ Local EA 167 1,000$ 167,000$ -$ 40 40,000$ 40 40,000$ City-Wide EA 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Special Use EA 36 1,000$ 36,000$ -$ 15 15,000$ 21 21,000$ Natural EA 22 1,000$ 22,000$ -$ -$ 11 11,000$ Improve Soft Surface Trail Conditions and Surfacing Soft Surf. Trail LF 52800 7$ 369,600$ -$ 26400 184,800$ 26400 184,800$ Continue to replace park perimeter 2-rail fencing with 4x10 single-rail fencing throughout the park system Single-Rail Fence LF 30000 65$ 1,950,000$ -$ 5000 325,000$ 5000 325,000$ System-Wide 500,000$ 30,000$ 70,000$ 80,000$ Step Systems EA 10 10,000$ 100,000$ 3 30,000$ 7 70,000$ -$ 100 sf Overlook EA 10 40,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ 2 80,000$ Continue to add landscaping to casual sports fields System-Wide EA 32 10,000$ 320,000$ -$ 10 100,000$ 10 100,000$ System-Wide 725,000$ -$ 125,000$ 125,000$ Local EA 167 5,000$ 835,000$ -$ 10 50,000$ 10 50,000$ City-Wide EA 19 5,000$ 95,000$ -$ 5 25,000$ 5 25,000$ Special Use EA 36 5,000$ 180,000$ -$ 10 50,000$ 10 50,000$ Natural EA 22 5,000$ 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ Develop a City Arboriculture and Landscape Management Plan for implementation at all park sites System-Wide EA 1 175,000$ 175,000$ 1 175,000$ -$ -$ Existing Facility Improvement Total 18,441,200$ 7,086,600$ 4,459,800$ 4,086,800$ Lifecycle Replacement Total 227,806,266$ 79,108,761$ 79,108,761$ 69,588,746$ Grand Total 246,247,466$ 86,195,361$ 83,568,561$ 73,675,546$ Short-Term Phase (0-5 years) Mid-Term Phase (6-10 years) Long-Term Phase (11-15 years) Improve park perimeter landscapes Review and Address ADA Accessibility Virginia Beach Existing Facilities Improvement Estimate of Probable Cost Address Safety Hazards Improve casual water access points with dedicated constructed facilities Update Park Entrance Sign Standard Increase Access to Shade at all Parks PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Virginia Beach Capital Improvement for Amenities- Order of Magnitude Estimate of Probable Cost CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UNITUNIT COST2021 SERVICE LEVEL SHORTFALL 2021 SERVICE LEVEL COST 2036 ADD'L SERVICE LEVEL SHORTFALL 2036 SERVICE LEVELS COST 2036 TOTAL LOS SHORTFALL TOTAL 15-YEAR SERVICE LEVEL COST SHORT-TERM PHASE (0-5 YEARS) SHORT-TERM COST MID-TERM PHASE (6-10 YEARS) MID-TERM COST LONG-TERM PHASE (10-15 YEARS) LONG-TERM COST Parks Local Park Land Purchase acre $34,900 45 1,570,500$ 76 2,652,400$ 121 4,222,900$ -$ -$ 50 1,745,000$ Local Park Development 1 acre $70,000 91 6,370,000$ 77 5,390,000$ 168 11,760,000$ -$ -$ -$ City Wide Park Land Purchase2 acre $39,000 866 33,774,000$ 126 4,914,000$ 992 38,688,000$ -$ -$ 200 7,800,000$ City Wide Park Development1 acre $60,000 1246 74,760,000$ 127 7,620,000$ 1373 82,380,000$ -$ -$ -$ Natural Area Land Purchase acre $6,400 287 1,836,800$ 0 -$ 287 1,836,800$ -$ -$ 287 1,836,800$ Natural Area Development1 acre $50,000 287 14,350,000$ 0 -$ 287 14,350,000$ -$ -$ -$ Amenities Basketball (not lighted)site $60,000 11 660,000$ 6 360,000$ 17 1,020,000$ 3 180,000$ 3 180,000$ 3 180,000$ Boat Ramp site $600,000 4 2,400,000$ 1 600,000$ 5 3,000,000$ -$ 1 600,000$ 2 1,200,000$ Canoe/Kayak Launch site $75,000 6 450,000$ 2 150,000$ 8 600,000$ 2 150,000$ 2 150,000$ 2 150,000$ Diamond Field (lighted)site $650,000 1 650,000$ 8 5,200,000$ 9 5,850,000$ -$ -$ 4 2,600,000$ Dog Park site $250,000 4 1,000,000$ 1 250,000$ 5 1,250,000$ -$ 1 250,000$ 1 250,000$ Fishing Piers site $15,000,000 5 75,000,000$ 1 15,000,000$ 6 90,000,000$ -$ 1 15,000,000$ 1 15,000,000$ Outdoor Fitness site $150,000 1 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 2 300,000$ 1 150,000$ -$ -$ Paved Trails mile $264,000 47 12,408,000$ 9 2,376,000$ 56 14,784,000$ 5 1,320,000$ 5 1,320,000$ 10 2,640,000$ Pickleball 3 site $125,000 23 2,875,000$ 2 250,000$ 25 3,125,000$ 6 750,000$ 6 750,000$ 10 1,250,000$ Playground (avg. comm&neigh)site $300,000 17 5,100,000$ 13 3,900,000$ 30 9,000,000$ 6 1,800,000$ 6 1,800,000$ 6 1,800,000$ Pump Track site $1,000,000 2 2,000,000$ 0 -$ 2 2,000,000$ -$ -$ 1 1,000,000$ Rectangular Field (lighted)site $600,000 12 7,200,000$ 3 1,800,000$ 15 9,000,000$ -$ 2 1,200,000$ 5 3,000,000$ Shelters (large (>600sf)site $250,000 12 3,000,000$ 3 750,000$ 15 3,750,000$ 2 500,000$ 5 1,250,000$ 3 750,000$ Shelters (small)(<600sf)site $125,000 2 250,000$ 11 1,375,000$ 13 1,625,000$ 3 375,000$ 2 250,000$ 5 625,000$ Skate Park (in-ground conc.)site $2,500,000 1 2,500,000$ 1 2,500,000$ 2 5,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ Skate Spot (above ground)site $750,000 8 6,000,000$ 1 750,000$ 9 6,750,000$ -$ 4 3,000,000$ 2 1,500,000$ Soccer4 (not lighted grass)site $500,000 24 12,000,000$ 1 500,000$ 25 12,500,000$ -$ 10 5,000,000$ 10 5,000,000$ Soft Trails mile $60,000 38 2,280,000$ 4 240,000$ 42 2,520,000$ 5 300,000$ 10 600,000$ 15 900,000$ Nature Center5 site $10,000,000 2 20,000,000$ 0 -$ 2 20,000,000$ -$ -$ 1 10,000,000$ Cricket Field site $400,000 1 400,000$ 0 -$ 1 400,000$ -$ 1 400,000$ -$ Archery Range site $75,000 2 150,000$ 0 -$ 2 150,000$ -$ 1 75,000$ -$ Community Gardens site $100,000 4 400,000$ 1 100,000$ 5 500,000$ -$ 2 200,000$ 3 300,000$ Outdoor Pools site $4,800,000 2 9,600,000$ 0 -$ 2 9,600,000$ -$ -$ 1 4,800,000$ Splash Playground site $1,200,000 9 10,800,000$ 1 1,200,000$ 10 12,000,000$ 3 3,600,000$ 3 3,600,000$ 4 4,800,000$ Total Capital Cost for Parkland and Dev:132,661,300$ 20,576,400$ 153,237,700$ -$ -$ 11,381,800$ Contingency of 25%33,165,325$ 5,144,100$ 38,309,425$ -$ -$ 2,845,450$ Total Cost for Parkland and Dev:165,826,625$ 25,720,500$ 191,547,125$ -$ -$ 14,227,250$ Total Capital Cost for Amenities:177,273,000$ 37,451,000$ 214,724,000$ 9,125,000$ 35,625,000$ 57,745,000$ Contingency of 25%44,318,250$ 9,362,750$ 53,681,000$ 2,281,250$ 8,906,250$ 14,436,250$ Total Cost for Amenities:221,591,250$ 46,813,750$ 268,405,000$ 11,406,250$ 44,531,250$ 72,181,250$ Grand Total Cost 387,417,875$ 72,534,250$ 459,952,125$ 11,406,250$ 44,531,250$ 86,408,500$ PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 UNDERDEVEOPED PARKS OM COST Local Parks (15 Ac. or Less) COST TO STANDARDIZE CONTINGANCY COST (25%)TOTAL SHORT-TERM (0-5 years) MID-TERM (6-10 years) LONG-TERM (11-15 years) Level Green Park 624,400$ 156,100$ 780,500$ 780,500$ Oak Springs Park 182,000$ 45,500$ 227,500$ 227,500$ Salem Village Park 182,000$ 45,500$ 227,500$ 227,500$ Seatack North Park 645,400$ 161,350$ 806,750$ 806,750$ Local Park Total 1,261,750$ 1,261,750$ 780,500$ -$ City-Wide (Greater than 15 Ac.)TOTAL CONTINGANCY COST (25%)TOTAL SHORT-TERM (0-5 years) MID-TERM (6-10 years) LONG-TERM (11-15 years) Salem Woods Park 1,250,000$ 312,500$ 1,562,500$ 1,562,500$ Carolanne Farms Park 1,800,000$ 450,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ Marshview Park 1,250,000$ 312,500$ 1,562,500$ 1,562,500$ City-Wide Park Total 3,812,500$ 1,562,500$ 2,250,000$ 1,562,500$ Grand Total 5,074,250$ 2,824,250$ 3,030,500$ 1,562,500$ Virginia Beach Underdeveloped Parks (Priority) - Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate cost for development of parks includes amenities and features (furnishings, sidewalks) to bring site to minimum development standard. The park could be developed with more amenities, increasing the cost beyond the total identified in this chart. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 Virginia Beach Undeveloped Parks - Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Local Parks (15 Ac. or Less)ACREAGE COST/AC TOTAL (w/ min. $725,000 cost of dev.) CONTINGANCY COST (25%)TOTAL SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) MID-TERM (6-10 YEARS) LONG-TERM (11-15 YEARS) Country Haven parcel 2.87 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ 906,250$ Champion Oaks parcel 0.23 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ Holland Pines West parcel 3.73 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ Buffington/Whitehurst parcel 8.69 180,000$ 1,564,200$ 391,050$ 1,955,250$ Margate Avenue Park 0.3 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ 906,250$ Thalia Trace Oaks Park 1.28 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ 906,250$ Amhurst Park 2.61 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ 906,250$ Ocean Lakes North Park 2.06 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ Rudee Heights parcel 0.73 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ Strawbridge North Park 5.43 180,000$ 977,400$ 244,350$ 1,221,750$ Charlestown Lakes South Park 2.08 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ Saw Pen Point Park 2.11 180,000$ 725,000$ 181,250$ 906,250$ 906,250$ Local Park Total 12,239,500$ 1,812,500$ 1,812,500$ 906,250$ City-Wide (Greater than 15 Ac.)ACREAGE COST/AC TOTAL CONTINGANCY COST (25%)TOTAL SHORT-TERM (0-5 YEARS) MID-TERM (6-10 YEARS) LONG-TERM (11-15 YEARS) Three Oaks Park 40.26 160,000$ 6,441,600$ 1,610,400$ 8,052,000$ 4,026,000$ 4,026,000$ North Landing Park 1 (772.48 ac)80 160,000$ 12,800,000$ 3,200,000$ 16,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 12,000,000$ Matthews Green Park 17.29 160,000$ 2,766,400$ 691,600$ 3,458,000$ Prosperity Park 1 (131.91 ac)25 160,000$ 4,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Owl Creek Preservation Area 38.61 160,000$ 6,177,600$ 1,544,400$ 7,722,000$ Woodbridge Park 24.18 160,000$ 3,868,800$ 967,200$ 4,836,000$ 3,224,000$ 1,612,000$ City-Wide Park Total 45,068,000$ 3,224,000$ 9,638,000$ 16,026,000$ Grand Total 57,307,500$ 5,036,500$ 11,450,500$ 16,932,250$ cost for development of parks includes site prep, parking, sidewalks, furnishings, etc, to the minumum level required to meet Virginia Beach park standards. Additional or expanded amenities would be developed from the LOS amenity allotment. The actual cost to develop each park would then be higher than the total listed here, dependent on amenities included. PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 EXAMPLE EQUITY SCORING FOR AMENITES Prioritization Strategy for Development of New Park Amenities - Basketball Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 Facilities LOS Gap Does the project address a Facilities LOS need city- wide?0,3,5,7 Low, Medium, High, Very High 5 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 N/A 3 No Impact 3 Park Condition Would the project improve the condition of the park? 3 Yes 3 Achievement of Park Standard Does the project help improve the standardized level of development as identified in the park classification standards? 0,3,5 Premiere, Enhanced, Essential Amenity 3 Economic EquityPartnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships?0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 0 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources?0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 5 Total Score 25Access EquityEnvironmental Equity Quality EquityPrioritization Strategy for Development of New Park Amenities - Canoe/Kayak Launch Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Facilities LOS Gap Does the project address a Facilities LOS need city- wide? 0,3,5,7 Low, Medium, High, Very High 5 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 7 N/A 3 No Impact 3 Park Condition Would the project improve the condition of the park? 3 Yes 3 Achievement of Park Standard Does the project help improve the standardized level of development as identified in the park classification standards? 0,3,5 Premiere, Enhanced, Essential Amenity 3 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships? 0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 3 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources? 0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 3 Total Score 35Access EquityEnvironmental Equity Quality EquityEconomic Equity PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 EXAMPLE EQUITY SCORING FOR AMENITES Prioritization Strategy for Development of New Park Amenities - Outdoor Fitness Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Facilities LOS Gap Does the project address a Facilities LOS need city- wide? 0,3,5,7 Low, Medium, High, Very High 5 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 N/A 3 No Impact 3 Park Condition Would the project improve the condition of the park? 3 Yes 3 Achievement of Park Standard Does the project help improve the standardized level of development as identified in the park classification standards? 0,3,5 Premiere, Enhanced, Essential Amenity 3 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships? 0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 3 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources? 0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 5 Total Score 33Access EquityEnvironmental Equity Quality EquityEconomic EquityPrioritization Strategy for Development of New Park Amenities - Pickleball Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Facilities LOS Gap Does the project address a Facilities LOS need city- wide? 0,3,5,7 Low, Medium, High, Very High 7 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 N/A 3 No Impact 3 Park Condition Would the project improve the condition of the park? 3 Yes 3 Achievement of Park Standard Does the project help improve the standardized level of development as identified in the park classification standards? 0,3,5 Premiere, Enhanced, Essential Amenity 3 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships? 0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 3 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources? 0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 3 Total Score 30Access EquityEnvironmental Equity Quality EquityEconomic Equity PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 EXAMPLE EQUITY SCORING FOR EX. FACILITIES Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 7 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Water Quality What is the project’s potential impact on water quality?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Water Quantity What is the project’s potential impact on managing water quantity?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Tree Canopy What is the project’s impact to the tree canopy and urban heat island? 0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Health, Safety, Welfare Does the project address physical safety hazards of facilities or amenities that may fail and cause harm to the public? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 7 Facility Condition Does the project address a subject of significant disrepair or would be a capital improvements to preserve necessary operability? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships?0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 0 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources?0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 5 Total Score 36 Address Safety Hazards Access EquityQuality EquityEconomic EquityEnvironmental EquityPrioritization Strategy for Development of Existing Parks - Prioritization Strategy for Development of Existing Parks - Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Water Quality What is the project’s potential impact on water quality?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 5 Water Quantity What is the project’s potential impact on managing water quantity?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 5 Tree Canopy What is the project’s impact to the tree canopy and urban heat island? 0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 5 Health, Safety, Welfare Does the project address physical safety hazards of facilities or amenities that may fail and cause harm to the public? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 5 Facility Condition Does the project address a subject of significant disrepair or would be a capital improvements to preserve necessary operability? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 3 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships?0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 5 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources?0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 3 Total Score 31 Construct appropriate stormwater management facilities and erosion control measures:Access EquityEnvironmental EquityQuality EquityEconomic Equity PARKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY | City Council Presentation, 4/2/2024 EXAMPLE EQUITY SCORING FOR EX. FACILITIES Prioritization Strategy for Development of Existing Parks - Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Water Quality What is the project’s potential impact on water quality?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Water Quantity What is the project’s potential impact on managing water quantity?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Tree Canopy What is the project’s impact to the tree canopy and urban heat island? 0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Health, Safety, Welfare Does the project address physical safety hazards of facilities or amenities that may fail and cause harm to the public? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 0 Facility Condition Does the project address a subject of significant disrepair or would be a capital improvements to preserve necessary operability? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships?0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 0 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources?0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 5 Total Score 14Access EquityEnvironmental EquityQuality EquityEconomic EquityEntrance signPrioritization Strategy for Development of Existing Parks - Equity Type Criteria Criteria Description Points Metric Weight Accessibility Does the project present an opportunity to enhance universal accessibility? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 5 Priority Facility Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) facility need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Priority Program Need Does the project address a Statistically Valid Survey (SVS) Priority Investment Ranking (PIR) programmatic need? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 5 Water Quality What is the project’s potential impact on water quality?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 5 Water Quantity What is the project’s potential impact on managing water quantity?0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Tree Canopy What is the project’s impact to the tree canopy and urban heat island? 0,3,5 Negative Impact, No Impact, Positive Impact 3 Health, Safety, Welfare Does the project address physical safety hazards of facilities or amenities that may fail and cause harm to the public? 0,5,7 Low, Medium, High 5 Facility Condition Does the project address a subject of significant disrepair or would be a capital improvements to preserve necessary operability? 0,3,5 Low, Medium, High 0 Partnership Does the project provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships?0,3,5 No, Capital, Capital and O&M 0 Staffing and Financial Resources What is the project's impact to staffing and funding resources?0,3,5 High Impact, Medium, Minimal 3 Total Score 34Access EquityEnvironmental EquityQuality EquityEconomic EquityImprove casual water access points with dedicated constructed facilities