[0:00] I will call me in order. Welcome to the discussion session for March 22nd. We will begin the meeting with management bills or viewing agenda items.

[0:13] Thank you, Mr. President. It's nice regular meeting. We have the consideration of our three statements of our investment policy statement for the amount of pension plans. These are changes to the existing investment policy statement, including changes to asset allocations further defining alternative.

[0:29] investments and add a definition of real assets. We have our appointments and

[0:36] reappointments to our municipal boards. We have the consideration to purchase 27

[0:41] fees or smart weapons. We will be replacements. We have a consideration to purchase two vehicles.

[0:48] We have the consideration of fees for the annual street sweeping program and the consideration

[0:54] for the award of the 2022 Rick Street repair program.

[1:01] Awesome.

[1:02] All right.

[1:02] Next up on the agenda is the Parks Master Plan and the Recreation Center Feasibility Study.

[1:06] We have a system planery and the means and careling egg of environmental planning designs who are presenting final on what has been a long and very good project.

[1:17] Thank you very much for having us.

[1:19] and thank you two missionaries for your continued support of the project as we've gone through it

[1:25] more or less over the past year without the our peer on this time last year and the project really

[1:32] started in around June of last year and now we're here at the end of the first quarter of 2022 to

[1:39] present the final reports. So just as an overview will kind of run through the structure of the project

[1:47] is a whole the report itself is broken down into three primary sections. There are system-wide

[1:53] recommendations, there are site specific recommendations, and then there's the recreation center feasibility

[1:59] study portion of the report, and then we'll conclude by talking about some next steps and where we go.

[2:05] So the core project team that was put together, and there are many, many people to thank as we work

[2:12] through the process. Our commission project champions, which was Commissioner Ranning,

[2:17] Commissioner Silverman. Commissioner Flynn also attended some meetings both as Commissioner

[2:22] and as sort of a liaison to the Environmental Sustainability Board. We had representatives from the

[2:27] Parks Advisory Board and Sports Advisory Board that were very helpful throughout the process.

[2:32] Municipal staff members for the Support Public Works Director, David and Eleanor Recreation Director

[2:37] their filibolio, our park facilities coordinator,

[2:40] a variety of community members who participated

[2:42] throughout the process.

[2:44] We had three different public surveys

[2:46] that we put out, and in total,

[2:48] I believe had over 3,000 total responses

[2:50] to all those public surveys.

[2:52] So the community was routinely involved

[2:54] throughout the process,

[2:55] and then our consultants from environmental planning

[2:57] and design, which Carolyn Yagelis here with us,

[3:00] the sports facilities group, Susie Fisher.

[3:05] Thank you.

[3:05] We'll be joining us a little bit later, be a Zoom to help with some of the presentation as well, along with Madison Borsos from E.P.D., and I'm going to ask your office team as a whole.

[3:18] Yes, yes, they've all been great to work with and helped us through the process tremendously.

[3:24] It wasn't actually shot, I don't know.

[3:26] So that was during one of our parks tours.

[3:29] first. It looks like Peter Argentine.

[3:39] So yeah, this was from one of our parks tours that

[3:44] we did last summer. So that leads us into the next slide, which is kind of a walk through

[3:49] the process that we went through for all the input. So like I said, there was three public

[3:53] surveys. The first one focused on what does the community want in the parks. The second one

[3:58] focused on sort of drilling down into some of those and getting some additional details on what

[4:03] the community wants. And then as we took all that information combined with some of the open-ended

[4:09] comments that we received on the surveys, you know, feedback from attendants and community events,

[4:15] the site visits, which we just mentioned, as well as some, you know, market studies and data

[4:21] and demographic inputs, as well as some focus group meetings. We had a joint meeting of the

[4:26] the parks advisory and sports advisory board

[4:28] towards the beginning of the process as well as

[4:30] continued meetings of the project team

[4:32] kind of all fed into a set of considerations.

[4:36] And then we took those considerations back

[4:38] to the parks and sports board to the commission

[4:41] and to the public for the third survey

[4:42] to get some feedback on those kind of,

[4:44] make sure we were on the right track

[4:46] before we kind of formalized those considerations

[4:48] into recommendations.

[4:50] We presented the sort of first draft of recommendations

[4:53] to the commission in January of this year and now have developed them into the final draft report of the plan.

[5:01] The first draft report, there was an opportunity for review as well by the commission, the parks advisory board, the sports advisory board, and municipal staff.

[5:10] So we did get some good feedbacks through that process as well.

[5:13] So we are, as you can see, by our bright or tarot here at pretty much the end of the process.

[5:18] So this is the presentation on the final plan.

[5:22] Any other final tweaks to what we have will be done over the next few weeks.

[5:26] The final plan will be issued by the end of the month.

[5:29] And then the commission can formally adopt it by resolution in April.

[5:34] I'm getting ahead of myself that to the next step slide.

[5:39] Okay,

[5:41] so do I do zero?

[5:49] One of the things we looked at was kind of ownership of who owns the parks, right?

[5:53] So there are 12 parks that are both owned by and located in Mount Lebanon.

[5:59] There's one park, Twin Hills Park, that is owned by Mount Lebanon, but located in Scott

[6:03] County.

[6:03] That's the one up here.

[6:05] There are two that are owned by other entities, but operated by Mount Lebanon.

[6:09] That's better crop park and church place park, and then one that is owned and operated by

[6:14] the borough of Dormont, but located in Mount Leibnett, which is big snider park over here. So this map

[6:20] here on the side contains in green the municipal parks and then the dots are the public school

[6:26] facilities within Mount Leibnett that also have kind of recreational assets, whether that be

[6:32] tracks or fields or anything like that, just kind of given order playgrounds, just to kind of give a

[6:37] sense for, you know, a radius of how much of the community is actually within a decent walking

[6:43] distance of some kind of recreational asset. And it is, as you can see, almost the entire

[6:48] community. So the brighter than yellow, the more there is the opportunity for someone to

[6:54] get there quickly. Yes.

[6:58] Of these 16 municipal park areas that we kind of studied, five contained

[7:05] forest areas, nine contained courts and four contained fields. So that's kind of an important

[7:10] and distribution to keep in mind as we work through.

[7:12] There are also shows that we have a very good distribution

[7:15] of assets throughout our parks

[7:17] that we have different offerings

[7:19] for different people of different ages

[7:20] and different ability levels.

[7:23] So one key definition as we work through this

[7:26] is programming versus pickup play.

[7:28] So programming is kind of a set of organized events

[7:32] and opportunities sometimes requiring a fee

[7:34] versus pickup play is more spontaneous.

[7:36] So if you want to think about it in terms of tennis,

[7:38] The Tennis Center has program because you can pay for lessons, you can pay for events there, you can pay to just use the facilities, verses,

[7:49] Metacross Park, Williamsburg Park, some of our other parks that just have kind of pick up play tennis courts there, you don't have to pay to use those, you can just walk up and start playing.

[7:57] So just a key definition to kind of keep in mind as we start talking about you know programed areas versus pickup play areas and what we're looking at is kind of that definition of the programming is something specific kind of to that structure versus pickup.

[8:16] Okay, now I will turn it over to Carolyn.

[8:21] So the first set of recommendations is going to be looking at this system-wide type of consideration.

[8:31] And the way in which we have evolved from some of the people's questions and replies over the course of the fall.

[8:39] And then the considerations for I believe the appendix of this is ultimately over a thousand pages of information.

[8:48] from your different departments that we reviewed and tried in the ways to evaluate sort of relationships between things that are happening.

[8:58] And so being able to get that information ultimately organized in a way, whether that's in the database,

[9:05] so that it's sort of cross department accessible is something as a glimpse when we're looking at something beyond the sites themselves.

[9:15] because in order for the success of the sites to exist, the system of parks, recreation, and all this care needs to be sort of on that equal field, right?

[9:29] So the way in which the system-wide recommendations have been established and we started this kind of introduction and language at the end of 2021.

[9:41] When we were thinking about different priorities, they are generally having a draw toward one of six areas, community, safety, amenity, efficiency, connectivity, and identity.

[9:55] Now, is there some relationship between some of these topics and that could cover one recommendation? Yes, there is. However, there is a general way in which each recommendation has an emphasis.

[10:09] So that is how, as we go through the report, these are organized.

[10:15] So I think if we keep moving, then, what we have done since our discussions of the end

[10:22] of January, we introduce the concept of how do we take all the possibilities of recommendations

[10:31] of where there are over 180 in total.

[10:35] And think about that as it relates to what a system might,

[10:40] and then again, what is facility specific.

[10:43] Here we have the ones that are system might, right?

[10:47] And then they fall into some categories.

[10:52] They also then incorporate where there is a relationship

[10:55] with those specifics.

[10:56] So you can see them enumerated.

[10:58] So the community ones, which is looking broadly,

[11:00] there are 10, safety, there are 50, amenity, there are shy of 60, efficiency with

[11:07] got a dozen, connectivity of 33, some lucky number in Westmoreland County as

[11:13] opposed, and then identity with got several up to 30 there. Now, so the way in

[11:21] which we considered how these recommendations relate to one or another is

[11:28] What is a time commitment that each recommendation is like anticipated to take?

[11:37] That does not mean in the continuum of 2022 starting point all the way to a decade out.

[11:44] It means once the recommendation is generally initiated, how long is there anticipated to be some sort of commitment to see that through?

[11:54] So that is sort of our target time plane at the top.

[11:58] So we have from zero to one year, one to three years,

[12:01] then we move into a three to five and over five.

[12:05] When we cross that with the relationship of costs,

[12:10] there is a consideration, and then we are almost midpoint

[12:14] in our diagram, is looking at that other access

[12:18] this of the potential for the range of potential investment

[12:25] for these recommendations.

[12:28] So going up the side of the Nexus,

[12:31] that we have a zero to 10,000 category, the 10 to 100,000.

[12:36] And then once we move above the dark line,

[12:39] we start to move into a different kind of discussion potentially

[12:43] in terms of how either funding has the ability

[12:47] to either be pursued or then kinds of targets for the types of funding to pursue or the timing

[12:54] and the level of commitment that kind of funding would have. So we go then from the 100 to the

[13:00] 500,000 and then half a million and two a million and then we start moving up about that. So

[13:07] from a standpoint of trying to organize this information so that we can think about what has the

[13:15] opportunity to have the short term commitment and a relatively short frame or short type of funding allocation.

[13:29] And then as we move up and to the right of those kind of time frames down those general cost increases within the report there is a set of things that are all numbered.

[13:41] So it looks a little bit magical from that perspective so that anyone ultimately using this is going to be able to understand what these are.

[13:50] Thank you so much.

[13:53] All right, so as we go through each of these and we will want to make sure that we have the time of ultimately handed off for the park specific recommendations back to Ian, we consider what these system want items are.

[14:06] So from a standpoint of the community and these 10th, we're looking really at what happens

[14:15] as part of programming, building upon and enhancing what is done today.

[14:19] So the cross-section of to whom programs reach and the opportunities to participate is

[14:27] far in line.

[14:28] The effectiveness and efficiencies of those types of things, it has the ability to be a focus

[14:34] is here, and furthering that, and also in the potential to even bring in other types

[14:41] of partners, or expanding those partners, such as the educational programs, right? And

[14:45] ultimately, as we've seen in the last couple of years, then for one reason or another general

[14:52] or a recreation program in sort of Nationwide.

[14:55] People seeking recreation that is not always a

[15:00] Any, an athletic pursuit. So those passive types of opportunities for the one, the one time type of programming opportunity where they're not needed to commit week after week, same time slot after team time slot when there's a lot to ultimately have those choices. What is sort of the one opportunity where maybe I can get something that has not been offered in the community recently.

[15:29] or maybe they're bringing it back because they want a different level of that, but more

[15:34] of a broader education for a dabble of chup, I'll call it, into the water of something

[15:39] to try different kinds of things out.

[15:42] So our curiosities are heightened for different reasons, and so being able to convey that and

[15:47] offer that into recreation programming is an opportunity here in that level and furthering

[15:53] what we have.

[15:53] So the other aspect of this is looking sort of at that element of when programs are provided

[15:59] and to whom, gaining the different age practice.

[16:02] You do offer different things at different times.

[16:05] As those kinds of things we cross over

[16:08] what is potentially for the educational programming

[16:12] to when that is and to the body,

[16:14] you start to see some relationships here.

[16:17] So while there are 10 recommendations again,

[16:19] there is a consideration for how these relate to one another.

[16:23] The other aspect of this is both a communications element

[16:28] of programming and then translating that back in to from what people may have an interest

[16:35] almost looking at what the municipality seek out or with whom they could partner for

[16:44] other kinds of things that may not have been yet done here in the municipality, but maybe

[16:48] there's a growing interest.

[16:50] So being able to every now and then time frames to be decided of course that there is a reach

[16:56] out to the residents to sort of serving but getting input on what may be of interest and then

[17:04] determining what the feasibility of that is whether it's offered completely as a municipal effort

[17:09] or it's a joint type of thing. And so then how does that information get conveyed and how does

[17:15] it get into almost an incorporation of the overall website and other kinds of communication that are

[17:22] happy. So really, that's what we could look at that as almost efficiency and

[17:27] effective at element. We have looked at this as a community benefit. So here

[17:32] highlighting the kinds of things as it relates to publicizing the programming

[17:36] and thinking about the access of that information. One other thing else is good.

[17:42] I just had a question before you move to the next slide because this is a lot of

[17:47] what you're talking about in the slide is actually a smartphone for recreation

[17:50] to do an assessment of a program for offering, see which demographics we're serving and to focus on programming.

[18:00] There's a note in here about producing a quarterly recreation report.

[18:05] The recreation department currently produces a monthly report.

[18:09] Are you looking for something specific related to programming?

[18:13] I think when we were evaluating the information and some of that background information that we were looking and provided as they almost on annual report side was sort of our target when we were thinking about quarterly.

[18:28] So the types of information that ultimately have been sort of through the through time in the annual report.

[18:35] There is the opportunity maybe to blend some of that in the monthly elements because I think when you look at almost seasons right monthly is helpful from a standpoint of okay, here's the work that's been done, here's the kind of activity that we have from a standpoint of quarterly I think there's the we think there's a greater opportunity to make it look at some trends as it may relate to either different seasons of the year.

[19:01] or other things that are going on with other groups

[19:06] are providing at the same time.

[19:08] And you were going to likely be able to get

[19:11] that kind of information from other providers,

[19:14] whether it's in the private sector, at a different scale.

[19:17] So that's how we were thinking about,

[19:19] maybe those monthly reports are beneficial.

[19:23] And ultimately, I think, from the publication

[19:26] and that evaluation that you're talking about

[19:29] of how do we how do people participate if people think about not necessarily what they're doing

[19:35] if they're asked questions what you're doing specifically in February but what are you doing

[19:40] in the winter time right so being able to look sort of at a broader time period from the resident

[19:46] standpoint they're able to consider all right what is our house we're doing over the course of the

[19:51] winter season and so it will be able to tie some of that information together what could be surveyed

[19:55] as well as then what ends up happening as part of the test.

[19:59] It would sound cool, and one of the other things I've suggested to our recreation directors,

[20:03] we might may want to develop sort of a very short post-participant survey.

[20:08] Yes. So after you've been through a program, just a very brief set of questions about,

[20:13] you know, was it good, what recommendations, but you made future programs,

[20:17] it's something different that you would like to have that we don't have.

[20:20] or on the scale of x, y, would you like to repeat that? I mean, do this again, or would you like

[20:27] the next level of potentially one is offered completely? And if it's no more than five questions,

[20:33] I mean, I think they get to three where they've got, you know, the 45 seconds almost before they

[20:39] put their coat on, chat with their friends and those kinds of things and you can shove it in the box

[20:44] or do it right there. There's a code saying after it and say thank you very much. Yeah, that would be

[20:49] something that you could then pull into. Again, looking at that quarter of, all right, of all the things that we offer, what was the most popular in the winter?

[21:00] Or, you know, what's the likelihood of us thinking about doing that again? Or what will we hone about it so that we people could have an interest in participating?

[21:09] Thank you.

[21:09] Yes. Thanks.

[21:10] I'm just filling up with Mr. McGill's comment to some of these recommendations here are also

[21:16] sort of in line with initiatives that are currently underway. So some of the

[21:20] items about communications or information on the website, like we're currently going through a massive

[21:25] website renovation project. So these recommendations are also in line with some of those other

[21:30] additional initiatives. The Sports Advisory Board right now is going through an assessment of the

[21:34] use of all the sports fields and courts. So you know that it's in line with those as well.

[21:39] And I think we did have the great benefit of having outreach in the summer and in the early fall because then we were able to think about some of these things and that was coming out as sort of some of the mid report.

[21:54] Meeting discussion and then you all being able to incorporate that at a deeper level for this year and coming out this fantastic so well underway.

[22:03] Here we go. So safety hits about a dozen I believe. And there is an element to this that is both the

[22:15] physical interaction with some things. And it's also a consideration for what is actually

[22:22] happening on the land itself in terms of some of the management of that landscape. So this is both

[22:30] a safety of a person and safety of property. And I think as part of any

[22:38] parks and recreation sort of pursued at this level, there are some things here

[22:43] where then I believe you also have the opportunity as a municipality to

[22:48] consider how they cross over with storm water management efforts that you're

[22:53] doing. At what point in time do we want to ensure that those types of policies

[22:59] these are then going to also be able to be fulfilled within the park specific improvements.

[23:06] So if the policies about, I'll just think I'm sorry, I wanted to say, because you guys

[23:12] are also interested of considering what is happening for our picture here on the right.

[23:23] And what does that mean if there were going to be potential improvements to a facility

[23:30] that may be in this type of location?

[23:32] When this was constructed, rules are also different.

[23:35] And what do we need to consider now, or the way in which some of the event just run off?

[23:41] It has a different pattern from when some of these other facilities were originally constructed.

[23:46] There are elements of thinking about fencing, I think, over time when we look at both the

[23:53] court areas or field areas where the student needs was highlighting those parts exist.

[23:58] That is something that is an ongoing consideration and a cost that is incurred.

[24:08] But there is a life cycle to fence and people playing on some of these fields interact with

[24:15] it directly.

[24:15] So being able to consider some of the system-wide recommendations and how they fit into general

[24:22] capital improvement cycles I think is another element of this report that was a consideration

[24:28] and how we were trying to evaluate and offer out some considerations for potential priorities

[24:35] for you all.

[24:36] There is a specific set of discussion that occurs on a month by month basis when it came to

[24:44] looking at sort of the forestry and a base of species management components of this as well as

[24:50] then wildlife management and then trail management and restoration plants so without over using the

[24:56] word management as it relates to safety we have recognized is significant element and this is going

[25:03] to entail an important set of discussions that happen on a reoccurring basis between both the

[25:13] public worst department and the recreation department because I think the way in which there are

[25:20] different roles for in cases of public works as a primary provider or a leader in some of these

[25:28] recommendations. At points in time, the recreation department is going to have a fold into some of

[25:35] these discussions. That may be different than in the past but I think again to get out of each of

[25:41] these issues. So having a robust discussion at those points in time is important about each

[25:46] of these and how that affects both departments and the municipalities.

[25:51] Okay.

[25:56] This one is easy one. I think for the general population to think about in terms

[26:01] of when they think about parks and recreation, they think about the actual physical and

[26:05] critical amenities themselves. So from a standpoint of again looking at where there are each

[26:12] each of these facilities and I'll let Ian get into the specifics of those from a higher level

[26:19] of is there's an opportunity to expand some things, again, grow from what exists and then thinking

[26:28] about the inclusivity of what is being offered, both from an age aspect as well as in that

[26:38] abilities aspect. And that then also translates into some general elements of comfort. As it is

[26:46] surprising to some and not surprising to many, a lot of discussions about comfort come up in

[26:53] terms of parks and recreation and a viadak. We could just talk about restrooms for the rest of the

[26:59] evening. But in the in light of the many other things that we have going on, there are some elements where

[27:06] There are some considerations for other kinds of facilities.

[27:11] And there is definitely been, as going through this process, a consideration of what the

[27:16] scale of that improvement is, what the cost of that potential, capital improvement is,

[27:21] and probably most significantly, what the long-term maintenance costs and time of actually

[27:29] caring for these improvements is.

[27:31] So that, I think, is important to think about.

[27:36] I have a question.

[27:37] What, of course, amenities?

[27:39] What, what does that mean?

[27:41] As part of that site's consideration,

[27:45] there were an incident on highlight of a few items from some

[27:48] and later that's from, from that, but it's something where

[27:51] that had a number of different kinds of things

[27:55] from routes to structures and some renovations.

[27:59] So

[28:01] if we go in to the next aspect, and we'll quickly think about efficiency and some

[28:08] efficient standpoint, we've hit on a couple of these things. We talked about the database.

[28:14] We've talked about some of the things in terms of also as items reach the end of their lives.

[28:22] Is there a language, a design language almost that starts to have the opportunity to emerge

[28:32] as things get replaced. Meaning, at points in time over the years, understandably,

[28:38] sometimes when something gets replaced at one park, if there is a useful life of something that's sort of, but it's reaching towards its end,

[28:47] it may have gone to a different park just to live out its glass in that space.

[28:53] right? Well, and from a standpoint of when it comes time to do some of those

[28:57] replacements, is it something where the design of the park is almost starting to

[29:02] emerge as something that is cohesive? What is the Mount Levenin characteristic of its

[29:07] parks? We'll take a very easy one, such as Ventures. There have been one park,

[29:13] there were three different styles of Ventures. Now, from a standpoint of why is it on efficiency,

[29:19] It's actually trying to look at almost the consideration for sometimes things can be evaluated and then purchased at a volume when they have a language to them rather than trying to seek something out that maybe a different style and then to get the next one in have we missed an opportunity or something like that so there is both an evaluation of design and then sort of the cost to some things.

[29:48] If there is the opportunity and being able to expand to a first

[29:53] of those, incorporate all of this data that does exist into

[30:00] Some elements of standards. Then that also has the ability at a deeper level than what you have presently. But from this accessible database, then being able to tie that to the operations, kind of, a routine, going out into the field and then identified, when is it time to do something? And having that database be a tool that really then becomes available to all of the crews that may be involved in that kind of

[30:29] And from a standpoint of public works, both Rudy and Phil, being able to communicate

[30:36] one another, I think that that is something that is a real gem, right, as we've witnessed

[30:41] throughout this process, and then being able to build in the next layer of knowledge for

[30:48] the other members of the crew so they have that ownership and being able to work within

[30:53] and that system I think is something that has some tools already in its box and then being

[31:01] able to adapt them specifically into the next level for person recreation. So this isn't going

[31:07] out and seeking something new. This is building upon some of the fact that you already have

[31:11] and you use in one way and then being able to expand it specifically into person recreation.

[31:18] A volunteer involvement, that is a critical element to the success of the system.

[31:26] And being able, then, again, both from a communication side and a call out almost right for

[31:33] understanding how those types of opportunities exist and how people can get involved, being

[31:39] able to look at that almost as an extension of the workflow, right, and the way in which

[31:45] and information is conveyed and collected and managed.

[31:50] Field usage and the data that has begun to be collected

[31:55] as part of 2021 efforts is something that we have the

[32:00] opportunity just to look at some basics and think about

[32:03] what are some other possibilities as the sports advisory board

[32:08] deals with that on a season by season type of basis

[32:11] So that you all can then as a municipality as a whole understand if there are trends that emerge from either a programming standpoint or from a participation standpoint if it's provided by others.

[32:26] where there start to be some ebbs and, you know, that flow there. And consider at any point in time, not just in 2022, but let's just say we're in 2030.

[32:39] Have participation rates for different types of opportunities increased at a rate that was sort of unexpected.

[32:50] Does that then entail the consideration

[32:53] for maybe a potential transformation

[32:55] of either program space or pickup kind of space?

[32:59] And so being able to have a little bit more figure

[33:03] on the pulse with that kind of data and understanding

[33:06] is gonna be truly helpful for actually the last one.

[33:11] And then we'll make sure.

[33:12] Second, I'll hit on connectivity.

[33:14] It gets at actually quite a number of things

[33:17] where people were thinking about how do we get to the parts and then being able to build

[33:25] almost on that language of what does it mean and being able to navigate getting to the parts.

[33:32] People who lived here for a very long time can do it probably.

[33:37] For close to it, right? And other people who may be new, do they know where everything is?

[33:42] do they have the ability to get to some of these places where there is universal accessibility on the main roots, being able to label areas where that may not exist so that there can be that accommodation.

[33:58] And then where it is also looking at the potential for expanding some formality associated with bikes because people bike sickle, as we can see, to the parks.

[34:09] And sometimes they're not using the racks and we had a very fun day when a group of barriers he has to use were just ready to throw the bikes on the lawn out by the parking lot because they were ready to play.

[34:22] But you know, and so thinking about how do you accommodate the different areas of interest and that then leads to the last one.

[34:33] Let's not face sort of what is the identity of the park system as it was evolved over time that language that graphic language a graphical sort of

[34:43] conveys of what is happening within the parks. What is happening within the neighborhoods and then directing people to the parks?

[34:52] What is happening on some of it within some of the rights of way where there are parks that are

[34:59] serving those well beyond who live here and being able to have people navigate to them with a sense

[35:07] of purpose and a sense of pride in the community. So being able to transform and build upon the language

[35:14] that you have at your gateways now with some of your signage and then being able to incorporate, I believe,

[35:22] actually the very specific set of the historic language that you have developed as a science system and then being able to make that we've been to how does that expand to adapt into the parking recreation system.

[35:40] So again, there are things well in play and well as the vocabularity of municipality and being able to tie them together.

[35:49] just to clarify for our large studio, I am swatching it home. The historic preservation board

[35:55] last year went through a process, had a consultant work with the board to develop historic district

[36:01] signage for the community and the recommendation here is to have take that signage type, the historic

[36:08] preservation board has already signed off on and sort of mirror it with the mark signage. So you have

[36:14] the design language, you have quite a number of all of those specifics are ready.

[36:22] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So in the interest of time, I'm not going to go through every single

[36:28] of the 16 parks in the park specific recommendations, but if anyone has specific questions,

[36:34] um, the commission was probably with the four court, they're all in there or I can answer questions.

[36:39] So one of the items in the report is the, do we talk about this in previous discussions?

[36:45] session was kind of categorizing our 16 parks within broader definitions and being community

[36:51] parks, neighborhood parks, conservation natural areas, and especially facilities.

[36:55] And then, so as you can see, here's the list of how we categorize those parks within, you know,

[37:03] main park being our community park, Rafferton Country Club, Williamsburg, Rockswood,

[37:07] Highland Terrace, New York City, neighborhood parks, Bird Park, McKinley, Hoodridge,

[37:11] from college when hell is being a conservation natural areas and then the church place metaprofacial

[37:16] of course.

[37:20] So the idea of doing that then is that we can then define kind of what are the

[37:26] what are the assets we want to have in those parks and then when a new idea comes up for something

[37:32] if it's

[37:37] you know so what type of activity is that and then what type of park would that best fit in

[37:43] so that that kind of enables us to make those decisions of okay well maybe we don't want

[37:48] that in a conservation natural area maybe that's better fitted better suited in our community park or in our neighborhood park or something like that.

[37:56] And this also gets back to the definition of pick up first programming.

[38:00] If it's, you know, if you're going to have standardized pickle wall courts that have programming on the people are going to pay for.

[38:06] To use maybe the best places somewhere near or within the current tennis center footprint, or if you're just going to have kind of pick up areas maybe your neighborhood parks are better because the neighborhood parks tend to be more focused towards those pickup time activities.

[38:18] you know, where you have just kind of open basketball courts are open.

[38:24] This chart is kind of a useful guide, and it's reflected in the broader report too, for decision-making in the future.

[38:33] So, before we get into the recreation center, please, Billy, say it up.

[38:36] The other compliment to these categories is also thinking about from the practicality of maintenance.

[38:47] The maintenance standards is potentially associated with the community park compared to a neighborhood park.

[38:54] May have some variation that does not mean that they have, you know, enormous shifts in time.

[39:01] It's a matter of what is the level of maintenance and the frequency of that kind of maintenance that may happen in a conservation and natural area versus one that is in a neighborhood park.

[39:13] So there is some real internal possibility in thinking about sort of the system.

[39:20] This is where that blend of system-wide thinking and specific.

[39:24] Thank you.

[39:25] Thank you.

[39:26] Thank you.

[39:27] Commissioner Annie had asked about what were the specific recommendations for the golf course.

[39:32] And so I can just run through those establishing a formalized entrance,

[39:36] developing the forestry management plan and basic species plan for some of the

[39:40] wooded areas, enhanced signs and way-finding, improved pedestrian connections,

[39:45] especially with more accessibility towards the community garden plots,

[39:50] developing pedestrian connections and sidewalks, building an on-course

[39:54] restroom, constructing a centrally located pavilion, renovating the

[39:58] clubhouse, formalizing the ends with the community garden areas, addressing some

[40:05] some other improvements in the community gardens,

[40:07] consideration of fencing improvements

[40:09] in the community gardens.

[40:11] So those were broadly the Gold Court's recommendations.

[40:13] Spanning all of those previously identified categories

[40:17] that disabled mention.

[40:19] So within the report, you'll notice

[40:24] usually happens with my presentations

[40:26] and you need a great job of mirroring this

[40:30] that the symbology colors are consistent

[40:33] throughout the report that they aren't throughout our.

[40:38] So the, you know, symbolism that was used with the squares and the circles and the stars

[40:42] and trying

[40:46] to what things for.

[40:48] I think that is, while a very subtle formatting thing that it took some time, but actually

[40:56] the purpose of that is if there is a particular year where there is a focus with the commission

[41:03] that wants to have an emphasis, I'll just pick on identity, right?

[41:08] being able to navigate through this report, things are identified from that

[41:13] identity aspect, but they cross over into multiple facilities and or sort of

[41:19] that system-wide component. So there is an element and livability of this plan

[41:26] from both at the department level, from an official level and staff level that

[41:34] But you're all able now to sort of look at this as one type of language and be able

[41:40] to navigate.

[41:41] So, that's something we thought was important for the long-lasting,

[41:48] well-being on this evening

[41:49] next month.

[41:52] Moving to the Recreation Center of Feasibility Study portion of the report, Susie Fisher

[41:57] from the Sports Facilities Advisory Group is also on the call and she will be handling most

[42:03] of this with this angle, so I'll hand it off to them.

[42:05] Thank you so much.

[42:06] Susie, I'll just do an introduction and then we're going to be able to get into the different

[42:12] components of the analysis and we'll spend maybe about 10 minutes or so and then Ian,

[42:20] you've got some other thoughts and then you back into some things.

[42:23] So what we have had the opportunity to do is think about sort of what this analysis has

[42:32] of consideration both within the municipality and the broader region because ultimately when it

[42:40] comes to a next level discussion about what the opportunities are or what the goals to whom

[42:48] the services and the facilities are being provided the kinds of benefits that you would be

[42:55] up wanting to offer those participants mean in terms of how they're fulfilled through recreation

[43:00] and as an expansion, again, of generally the water-oriented both frozen and the frozen elements that you have at the current Recreation Center for some of the supporting spaces.

[43:12] This is borne from technical analysis that is looking at data throughout the region and then that the melting of what we heard as part of those 3000 plus participants of this process

[43:28] and some of the considerations that they brought to the table.

[43:31] So, are you able to dive in now?

[43:34] I am, and I do apologize.

[43:36] I have an unstable connection where I am, so my video may go in and out.

[43:40] But just the slide that we're on, so we actually work on what's called a funnel model.

[43:45] We start with the definitions of success or the objectives for the project,

[43:50] dig down deep into the data, the demographics and socioeconomics,

[43:54] then the participation trends for particular sports.

[43:57] Finally, the regional competition and what that looks like at regional events to lead into the recommendations for the Recreation Center in the various locations that we did make those recommendations for.

[44:09] So really a database model that incorporates the survey recommendations, the recommendations from everyone in the group to really get you some recommendations, final recommendations.

[44:20] So what were those definitions of success or objectives first and foremost to develop a first class sports recreation and fitness facility that offers programs that contribute to enhance and directly impact.

[44:31] The physical socio emotional and development of the citizens of Mount Lebanon and the surrounding areas second to feature diverse and flexible programming spaces and capabilities sports.

[44:43] its community center at civic activities, school activities that would serve the widest variety

[44:49] of partners and stakeholders. And finally, how do you improve access and connectivity

[44:55] to premium fitness and local recreation spaces to meet the demand? But also in

[45:00] This is a enhanced liquidity of life provides for-a-tacess where they may not currently exist or they're limited. So those are the items that we looked at as we dove into the feasibility for the Recreation Center.

[45:18] If we can jump to demographics, okay. So we start with demographics. This is actually just a center, pin point in Mount Lebanon. We look at 10, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 240. We don't look at mileage, we look at actual drive times.

[45:32] So the population range anywhere from 114,000 up to 18 million, you say why on earth are we looking at 240 so for regional tournaments, the 90 and 240 minute is the timeframe that we consider tournament providers to seek participants from that actually helps with your overnight travel and your heads and beds.

[45:58] Next, we looked at growth projections and then median age.

[46:02] So the US median age is 38.5 within your center, 10 minutes, your local population or your

[46:08] local users, 10, 15, 30 minutes, 47 to 42, and then your population again, the 60, 90

[46:15] goes out.

[46:16] So your population is slightly older than what the regional or the US median average is.

[46:23] Older population typically means older participants.

[46:26] younger population when you get closer to that 38.5 typically means more children and more participants. Your household median income well above what the US median is at 67,521.

[46:39] We do adjust that.

[46:41] The last category we look at really is like a disposable income, but it is specific to recreation spending.

[46:46] So this is the amount that individuals in your region are willing to spend to learn and participate in an introductory level sport, whether that's lessons, a learn to play program or even just individual training to acquire the skills to play a program.

[47:04] So these are the demographics for your region that we look at and when we plan the recreation center and did the feasibility for that.

[47:11] The programs really are correlated to the population and also to coordinate with what was requested from your community.

[47:22] What's the immediate, what's the US average for the income of adjusted costs or just the, you know, 21%.

[47:30] So the US median household income is that 67 so we adjust that you are 21% your 10-minute

[47:38] is 21% over what the US median household income is so you're well above the household

[47:44] US household median income.

[47:47] Yes, so then we look at what potential participants may be within your market and so this is actually

[47:53] derived from the National Sporting of Association and Sports Fitness Association.

[47:58] It takes into consideration purchases whether it's lead related or fitness equipment related to determine what sports individuals are actually participating in on a regular basis.

[48:11] So the individual who buys one basketball, not necessarily considered in this, but an individual who buys multiple tennis balls.

[48:19] it's really a survey type. So soccer, basketball, baseball, volleyball, softball, gymnastics, you can see those participation rates. The highest is basketball 6.08% within your local market, your 10 minute market, about 7,000 potential participants in just basketball 15 minutes up to 14,000 almost double within that 30 minute, 53 potential, 1000 participants to take place with basketball.

[48:46] So core-based higher than some of your outdoor, your turf-based sport, soccer-based

[48:52] well, but basketball and volleyball key to look at with core-based sports and what that potential is.

[48:59] It's important to think when you think potential participants for year-round sports versus seasonal sports.

[49:04] And so basketball is one of those sports that can take place 12 months out of the year.

[49:11] And so the key insights if we can jump to that one.

[49:18] Perfect. Okay. So your socioeconomic factors in the sub-regional and local market are

[49:27] very positive for the development and operation of a new tournament class sports facility.

[49:32] The opportunity to create that local sports and events program, they increase with the asset types,

[49:37] they can accommodate the variety of activities. So a very diverse, very flexible space definitely increases

[49:45] is the opportunity. The most successful facilities have to drive that tourism, they have

[49:51] to drive the participants for your local group. It has to be an excellent mix, but it has

[49:56] to be something that differentiates themselves. So as we look at the facilities, you'll see we

[50:01] added elements that would differentiate each one of them from each other and from things in your

[50:06] local market that discurrently don't exist. And then again indoor spaces, you're in a winter-based

[50:12] to market. You have limited season, so a sports-based facility that's indoor creates the greatest potential

[50:18] to accommodate the most number of participants year-round. Climate is a challenge with you,

[50:24] and so I would consider that as an essential item for an indoor facility.

[50:30] And so if we can go to

[50:32] the next slide, it really just gives you an indicator of what your local providers are and where they're

[50:39] located within your region.

[50:44] So there are 100 plus facilities within the local. So that's within

[50:49] that 30, 10, 15, 30, 60 minute market. That's everything from indoor court facilities to sports

[50:56] performance, rock climbing, turf and fitness. Just to give you an idea of where those are. We did

[51:03] provide a full list of those.

[51:07] Interestingly,

[51:12] there really aren't any rock climbing. I noticed that

[51:15] there weren't really any rock climbing,

[51:20] no more than when I was kind of doing it.

[51:21] I think you're free on the sales side now.

[51:23] Are there, the same is there, and I know there's no more going on.

[51:27] So, there's more more in the sales side.

[51:29] Yeah, but I don't think we crossed the road.

[51:33] So, yeah.

[51:34] So, you go through it.

[51:35] You're so good through it.

[51:35] Yeah.

[51:37] Yeah.

[51:37] I was aware that there was a couple of cases that I saw

[51:42] for

[51:46] consideration.

[51:47] This is a chart that we talked about a bit last time as well when we presented the commission

[51:50] that as part of the RFP for this project,

[51:54] and why we combined the two projects together was

[51:57] that we were doing a parks master plan

[52:00] and recreations or feeds directly into that,

[52:03] plus any potential recreation facility

[52:05] is most likely going to be located in one of our parks

[52:09] or be creating a new recreation area,

[52:11] which would then essentially function similar to a park.

[52:15] So part of the RFP was to define three potential locations

[52:19] to analyze them. And we came as we started analyzing three locations, we kind of honed in on the

[52:26] main park area, the uptown business district area and the McNeely park. And the thing I'll note is

[52:33] that at least for uptown and McNeely park, McNeely would be essentially a completely green field

[52:39] development that they're

[52:43] in space. And it's just, you know, McNeely's kind of a choose your

[52:48] or an adventure park at this point in time,

[52:50] and that is, I would hesitate to even call it forested,

[52:54] it's more overgrown, but it's, yes, yes.

[52:59] So there's a lot of opportunity there.

[53:06] The trade-offs with, nearly, can also be considered

[53:08] as trade-offs for any other kind of potential locations

[53:11] where we would be building on land,

[53:15] whether that would be another land that's owned by the municipality

[53:19] or purchased by the municipality or something else,

[53:22] You know, further down the line, the McNeely Greenfield trade-offs can also be viewed as sort of that open-ended, you know, if we acquired some other piece of land in the community to build on the same trade-offs would exist for that piece of land.

[53:37] Uptown, essentially located or redeveloped an area, you know, you can kind of use those same ideas for any other piece of land, maybe not necessarily.

[53:47] Hey, it's built something on top of the south garage, that was something we talked about, but also, you know, if there was any other pieces of land that became available in or near uptown, you could use these same ideas.

[53:57] So while they have these three labels, you know, the ideas stay the same regardless of the exact site location.

[54:03] So these are some of the trade-offs that have to be considered.

[54:07] There is no perfect site in

[54:14] having a tighter ability to install new parking like main

[54:18] park has versus potentially in topography with main park to park view and uptown to park

[54:25] with McNeely, the amount of earthwork that might be needed, the access to public transit,

[54:31] the access via, you know, walking or biking things like that, just the proximity to our population

[54:37] centers. How can you get there? You know, maybe parking up town are both pretty walkable for those

[54:42] the community versus the elite where kind of like the golf course, you have to leave Mt. Lebanon

[54:46] today, come back into Mt. Lebanon to get there. So, I'm not as accessible.

[54:55] Not to go too far back in the evening, but when we consider what those system-wide

[55:01] recommendations are related to connectivity and identity, depending upon where site may have

[55:09] arise to the top, the way in which, again, people are oriented to that site,

[55:14] and it is by vehicle, or if it is by foot, right, and holding that into itself.

[55:21] So we do have the full plan itself contains multiple kind of clock each site.

[55:31] for tonight's presentation, I chose just one, we chose just one of each, it wasn't just my report, it's all of our reports.

[55:37] It's a team effort, but we chose just one of each to kind of talk about it at some of the trade-offs there at.

[55:43] So, I will turn it back over to, let's see what kind of talk about some of those.

[55:46] Thank you. And Susie, as we go through each of these, we have that spread right of some of the costs compared to these are relative numbers to try and understand.

[55:58] And again, Zian Newworth's identifying different types of situations and trade-offs that could

[56:04] be realized.

[56:06] So as the exploration of these occurred throughout the last several months, and the highlight

[56:13] of one of several of the different options for each year, the consideration for main part

[56:19] had to focus at this juncture of thinking about a second story.

[56:25] Now, from an architectural element that could mean different things, right, in terms of the walls themselves that they would have that capacity to host that structure, or if it were almost done as almost a second building that was encapsulating the existing one and how the spaces in and around that would be utilized.

[56:46] The elements of connection are significant, no matter what is ultimately selected if main park were to be pursued.

[56:56] And by that is an item of how does the full space that exists have some incorporation potentially into an expanded structure if that were the case.

[57:07] how is the for court, I'll call it, meaning the transition between the where

[57:15] someone parks and the main entrance of the building organized. How are public

[57:20] spaces incorporated? It is not just a set of walls inside that can be used for

[57:26] flexible spaces. It is looking at sort of this as a whole and the considerations for

[57:31] that. The clue in there you did a minute ago about parking is we'll have one of the greatest

[57:40] impacts in pursuing main park. The way in which parking is configured and the possibilities

[57:48] of that being a structured element is something that would need to be on the list of that, that

[57:57] says specific things based upon things that we have heard over time about some of the important

[58:04] spaces that are adjacent to existing residential areas that are on the park's perimeter.

[58:14] The way in which some of that pavilion space and play space that is offered out to residents,

[58:22] what would that convene in another option? There was a different building configuration that had

[58:27] a different impact, right, on the green spaces. But at the same time, if surface parking

[58:35] is pursued at this type of view, then that entails field's work of space, just as that general

[58:46] relative relationship. So for the purpose of this, we looked at this. So let's go to the

[58:52] So Susie, if this will come up for you in a minute,

[58:55] and you can follow along right from your under-aspects.

[58:59] I just have one quick question for you to the number.

[59:01] So just go back one more slide.

[59:04] So where we have the structured parking to know it there

[59:08] is that like, do we have engineers look at that?

[59:14] It's okay, so it's just like put a box in a dollar,

[59:17] a flip for a parking, and that's the number.

[59:20] We're trying to size.

[59:21] Yes. The scale of the number of spaces and a general relationship of where on the site,

[59:33] it could fit meaning between a roadway and a building. The exact dimensions of this need to be

[59:39] that relative. And then on that slide, I think would remain learnedly.

[59:45] That's on this option and all of the options explored is part of that conceptualizing phase.

[59:52] The existing structure is intact.

[59:55] It's a matter of how any additional or enhancement of the...

[1:00:00] So the structure could be either folded in or incorporated into the site. Thanks, thanks. So Z. Yes. So looking at main part, in our facility programming model. So main part we considered both a local and a sub local area that would draw people in. To your location. So the recommendation would be for four basketball courts. Those could be cross lined into eight ball are eight pickle ball or eight volleyball.

[1:00:29] could be 12 pickable, depending on how that actual layout works.

[1:00:33] Mezzanine walking track, a membership-based fitness area,

[1:00:37] cardio and strength equipment in it,

[1:00:38] and training area, small and large exercise rooms,

[1:00:42] as well as child watch, an adventure area.

[1:00:45] This is the key differentiator for this facility

[1:00:47] would be an esports area, not necessarily an arena,

[1:00:50] but a membership esports-based area.

[1:00:53] And then a play structure climbing area,

[1:00:55] climbing wall adventure type element

[1:00:58] within the facility and then finally some classroom space. I know we saw a lot of those responses

[1:01:04] for classroom space and for education space. A cafe and kitchen area, not your general

[1:01:09] concession, but a health-based type cafe and kitchen area. Based on this and the square footage

[1:01:15] that it would take, roughly about $47 million. So we actually did the business unit analysis for

[1:01:22] for each of these, everything from local leagues, tournaments and events to special events looking at a it's even it's not something that you typically look at, but it's your earnings before tax income and depreciation.

[1:01:36] Positive cash flow is what we typically call it for people, so somewhere in the first year of about a $300,000 subsidy in year five actually on in the positive without a subsidy.

[1:01:47] at about $94,000. This, because it can host tournaments, local tournaments with the four

[1:01:55] courts, does have an economic impact that's fairly significant. About $4,500 room nights

[1:02:01] in year one with a $1.5 million estimate on economic impact to your local community, up

[1:02:08] to just over $2 million in year five with about $15,000, sorry, $5,200 room nights that could

[1:02:16] would be utilized through tournaments and events

[1:02:20] at the main park facility.

[1:02:23] Where's the cost associated with the $50 million bond issue?

[1:02:32] I'm sorry, again, I'm sorry.

[1:02:35] Where's the $50 million bond issue cost baked into that?

[1:02:43] So I'm not, do you currently, I'm not understanding

[1:02:46] your question, I'm sorry.

[1:02:47] I have the background for the estimates,

[1:02:50] everything from the hard shell cost through development for the estimate.

[1:02:56] I want to return. I need to know how much it also cost me to pay for the infrastructure that I just built the cost being $47 million.

[1:03:07] Yes, so this is not.

[1:03:08] Yeah, this does not consider any type of debt service I can provide that debt service with any type of breakdown in a 20 30 year term as well so you can see that debt service and what that payment would look like.

[1:03:23] Right.

[1:03:23] Well, so the EBITDA is off because it is only operating expenses, so it's only revenue and expenses cost of goods sold.

[1:03:35] it does not include any type of debt service.

[1:03:38] All right, very now.

[1:03:39] Okay, next thing, we have one hotel.

[1:03:46] So far, are we building another hotel?

[1:03:52] No, it's not revenue to us.

[1:03:54] That's revenue to other communities.

[1:03:56] It is revenue to other communities, but those same individuals would then utilize restaurants

[1:04:01] within your community, local convenience stores, gas stations.

[1:04:05] and so it is possible that you would see some of that,

[1:04:09] but you would not see the room that revenue,

[1:04:10] you are correct.

[1:04:12] Okay, so that, yeah, I think we could take that one off

[1:04:15] of our analysis, but this is my general question,

[1:04:17] everybody, do we want more traffic, get up home?

[1:04:22] This is a main point.

[1:04:23] No, I'm very interested.

[1:04:24] This is traffic everywhere coming into our community.

[1:04:27] So for the tournament to talk about,

[1:04:29] we want to be a regional center for turning.

[1:04:33] We want to be a regional center,

[1:04:34] recognizing that we don't have good access. Where Pittsburgh has good access, 79 has good access.

[1:04:40] We want people on surface streets coming into our town to a tournament level.

[1:04:45] Well, that's a real question. I think that we talk about then uptown because I think the

[1:04:50] consideration, Susie, also the programming for a facility that is not having that same reach

[1:04:59] is something more akin to what was explored in uptown.

[1:05:03] So it's meaning the scale of the facility

[1:05:06] if there were that type of interest

[1:05:08] that could be then adjusted to one of the other sites.

[1:05:13] Well, again, for me it's, I think at its core,

[1:05:16] I'm just, I'm kind of surprised that we're looking

[1:05:19] at tournament level facilities,

[1:05:21] given the nature of our footprint as a community.

[1:05:26] I think it's a valid question.

[1:05:28] I'm not a yes or no,

[1:05:29] but I think it's important to be very clear what we want that to come in now and so it's not

[1:05:37] location for me it's scale and kind of concept. Are we serving our community or are we trying to

[1:05:43] be a regional destination? So let's talk about the four basketball courts or first is the A basketball

[1:05:48] courts. I'm hearing that basketball is a huge demand not immediately locally and then within that

[1:05:53] 15-minute drive. So, Dormant, yes, you know, Castle Shannon, yes, we could probably write it out to

[1:06:00] those leagues as well as serve our own elements. Instead of the big tournaments, it could be a local

[1:06:06] draw as also which is different sorts of revenue. It's written. People go to say Claire,

[1:06:13] right? We all have kids, we go, we go, we go to these things, right? Right? But there's a certain

[1:06:19] scale you achieve when you become the turn of the destination.

[1:06:22] Yeah.

[1:06:23] I mean, when the guy came in and pitched pickle ball, he was talking about that, putting

[1:06:27] in certain reports and running tournaments and even some of the pictures that he put

[1:06:33] up were place in Florida.

[1:06:35] I can't remember there was another place in Arizona, someplace, but it was like a massive

[1:06:38] amount of people.

[1:06:40] That was part of the pitch when we were talking about costs for that too.

[1:06:43] You didn't take the tournament so much.

[1:06:45] Okay, I'm not saying this, but of course, you're off course, but

[1:06:49] I have what some of these facilities that are funded by taxpayer dollars, don't expect

[1:06:55] to return money.

[1:06:57] Don't.

[1:06:57] Sure.

[1:06:58] So, if you want to build it, don't think of it as we're going to go get rich off of this

[1:07:02] and generate initial tax dollars.

[1:07:05] It's got to be an amenity that you really want, and that's got to justify it.

[1:07:10] Hands down.

[1:07:11] Thank you.

[1:07:12] Yeah, I think there's community impact or she's got, yeah, community impact economic, I would say that that stuff is green.

[1:07:19] You know what I mean? If it feels a lot of, right? Yeah.

[1:07:23] I agree with that.

[1:07:24] What I want to say, like, don't do something just because we don't want one more.

[1:07:37] So I will say that we were very intentional in calling this a feasibility study.

[1:07:41] kind of look as the first question of is it feasible.

[1:07:46] And the RFP specifically asked for three locations to kind of analyze those of what we could do potentially.

[1:07:52] And I think kind of the idea of a tournament class facility came out of some of that demographic research that Susie talked about beginning that there is a large market in a drivable range of us that has disposable income to spend on sports things.

[1:08:10] So, you know, if those demographics, sites, you come back differently, then, you know, the recommendations from SFA may have come back a little bit differently. But not to get too far ahead of myself in the interest of time to go in 20 minutes let discussion session.

[1:08:23] That one of the next steps is sort of determining where we want to go on the recreation center piece of this.

[1:08:30] if we want to do further exploration, further get into like we didn't do any kind of architectural

[1:08:35] renderings, we didn't do any kind of floor planting, anything like that as part of this. This

[1:08:39] was purely a, is it feasible? It's not. And how much, yeah, probably. So the next step, which

[1:08:44] like I said, not too far, I haven't helped it. The next step on the recreation piece is really

[1:08:48] for the commission to say, you know, yes, we want to continue exploring this, or say, you know,

[1:08:53] thank you, this is great research. We'll potentially consider it the future, but we're not,

[1:08:58] We're going to move forward with kind of all the other 180 recommendations of the plan first before we really put our boots to the ground on the right side of the piece.

[1:09:08] So that's kind of a future conversation for the commission to have, you know, potentially with input from the sports advisory board and some other community members if you want to happen.

[1:09:17] But as far as tonight's presentation goes, this is kind of on the feasibility piece.

[1:09:21] I don't know that I would be ready to make that kind of decision now, I think Andrew brings

[1:09:26] up some good points about the cost because we're going to need that, or at least a summary

[1:09:32] of that number, to understand if we either want to be forward, because if we're going to

[1:09:36] be operating this at a loss, even a small one, we have to figure out a way to even fund

[1:09:41] that, which would mean tax increases or some other funding.

[1:09:45] And if we could be talking about a huge difference here.

[1:09:50] So I think we would need a little bit more detail

[1:09:52] just with the numbers to determine.

[1:09:55] When we have the ability of feasibility.

[1:09:57] And part of, I mean, they provided full,

[1:09:59] pro-former reports on all of these

[1:10:01] that I haven't can share with people,

[1:10:03] really want to look through all that.

[1:10:05] And you know, Andrew McCurrier,

[1:10:07] my instructor before Monday,

[1:10:10] you know, we're involved with their iteration.

[1:10:11] So he has some background in how they put their stuff

[1:10:13] together right now from talking with him

[1:10:17] when they built their facility, they essentially, like Commissioner Flynn said, the capital cost of facility construction was basically kind of considered the investment.

[1:10:28] And then their facility revenue is just based on offsetting the operating cost of facility.

[1:10:34] So their facility is not set up to recoup any of that bond investment.

[1:10:38] My money is set up to recruit the cost of operation.

[1:10:41] And that goes into us selling the idea of extra services

[1:10:45] that are presented as we want these things

[1:10:49] from surveys and things like that.

[1:10:51] And then the cost associated with that,

[1:10:52] whatever they are, that would be a project in and of itself.

[1:10:56] So that's kind of one of the kind of decisions

[1:10:58] for the commission coming out of this is,

[1:11:00] do we want to continue down that path?

[1:11:02] Or do we want to focus on the other recommendations first

[1:11:05] or how do we want to handle this?

[1:11:06] Would you say that the recommendation is any non-req-centre recommendation?

[1:11:10] So that's a further discussion that doesn't have to be decided tonight.

[1:11:14] Yeah, I think we do.

[1:11:15] Just because like the way that's presented here is like, hey, this is a whole bunch of stuff.

[1:11:20] And we all have info.

[1:11:21] Should we keep looking at it or not?

[1:11:22] I think we should look at it in a different way.

[1:11:25] At a different time.

[1:11:26] I'd like information on.

[1:11:29] What's the trends?

[1:11:31] You know, how much do people really want to exercise in the side?

[1:11:34] or how much do they really want to spend time outside?

[1:11:37] That's had some information I think would be helpful to me

[1:11:39] because my own personal view is that I don't want

[1:11:45] to exercise inside of the outside.

[1:11:47] I'd rather have my kids outside.

[1:11:49] They're inside and out, right?

[1:11:50] But I don't know what the, what the rest of the community thinks

[1:11:53] are, what the trends are towards that.

[1:11:55] And that just don't know when you get invested

[1:11:56] in something that is a backward trend.

[1:11:59] I'm not saying you did, because I'm saying I don't know.

[1:12:02] Excuse me, but you get into a little bit of that

[1:12:04] that as part of your analysis and we can share that information.

[1:12:09] We do, yes, we do include participation trends and some background information

[1:12:13] in that within the report.

[1:12:17] Why don't we let you guys keep going?

[1:12:20] Okay, sorry.

[1:12:22] So really just to kind of summarize here, I'll just take the reins.

[1:12:27] With the optum model, it's kind of smaller.

[1:12:29] Whereas we in the main park model, we had four basketball courts.

[1:12:33] this one's not too, you know, some of the other models are smaller than impacts the cost of

[1:12:38] the petrol revenue. Similarly with McNeely Park, while, like I said, it's more green field type

[1:12:44] development. You can build a bigger facility there with more parking. You know, access is certainly

[1:12:50] a question there that also comes with potentially more cost because you're doing more Earthworks,

[1:12:55] which you can also have more assets there. McNeely of all the sites we looked at is the one

[1:13:00] of both set up towards kind of that regional facility

[1:13:03] because while it is on the front of our community,

[1:13:06] it is kind of very accessible via a car

[1:13:10] to other adjacent communities and such.

[1:13:15] Can you back up on real quick?

[1:13:16] Yeah.

[1:13:17] So it might be more, but in the three panel one,

[1:13:20] you listed 70s out of set, 72%, 52%.

[1:13:24] Yes.

[1:13:24] And then MacNeely was the one that was the regional concern.

[1:13:27] Does the 52% of the survey responses

[1:13:30] is did that include survey and people within the region?

[1:13:35] Yeah, this is the 3,000 plus aspect of just the amount of that.

[1:13:42] Is there a sense of what, when we say pointable regional,

[1:13:44] what does that mean?

[1:13:46] And is it worth surveying people actually in that region?

[1:13:50] Because that number makes it look like it's less desirable.

[1:13:54] But if it's set up to be a big facility, it's different on this.

[1:14:00] question there was kind of a matrix format, but it was, you know, how often would you potentially use a indoor recreation facility at these locations that main park at outtown.

[1:14:13] The main dealing question was actually on on the fringe of the community, but in Mount Leven, I even really part, and then there was also options for, you know, outside of Mount Leven, but within one mile outside.

[1:14:25] a problem beyond one mile and the numbers just went down there and then it was daily monthly, weekly, monthly, you know, a few times a year, ever.

[1:14:38] So that was the survey question that went into those.

[1:14:44] So moving on to the determination of feasibility.

[1:14:48] soon if you want to run through these two slides real quick

[1:14:56] she's there she's

[1:15:00] Again, I'm sorry. I'm stable. I'm in the middle of the country. And I'm lagging behind in you. I'm sorry. So, determination of feasibility. First, to consider that youth and adults for its amateur industry, I mean, what that trend is. So, it is an $18 billion industry today. It is expected to grow. We've seen growth over the last 10 years. We're expected to see another 20% or so growth in the next five to seven years. So, that is an industry that is growing.

[1:15:28] is that something that you want to participate in, it's there.

[1:15:33] You do have a local and a regional market opportunity.

[1:15:36] Your proximity to population centers, the areas in which people can travel to and from your location.

[1:15:44] But the distance to existing facilities leads you programming out.

[1:15:49] And finally, the assets.

[1:15:51] The flexibility is very essential, right?

[1:15:53] To accommodate your local programs, the needs of your local individuals in your community.

[1:15:57] And if you decide to move into a tournament realm to have a flexible asset is essential business models that focus on in house programming and the ownership of those events have greater revenue return than programs that you do contract out.

[1:16:11] And finally to leverage sports operations revenue is essential.

[1:16:15] And yes, should you look or continue looking into the feasibility of recreation center.

[1:16:20] definitely the locations have trade-offs with each side. Whether it's central or perimeter,

[1:16:26] the access, the parking, the size, what assets are offered, are they just for your local community?

[1:16:32] Do you want to bring in additional people with tournaments and events and rentals? What is that

[1:16:37] target market? Finally, the funding. I mean, you mentioned it. Funding plans, we typically only,

[1:16:43] at this point, are seeing programs and facilities that are either privately funded or

[1:16:49] are funded through partnership opportunities

[1:16:52] and with strategic stakeholders.

[1:16:54] A lot of facilities include rental space in them

[1:16:57] as well that offers a 12 month a year stable revenue source.

[1:17:01] And finally, an operating plan.

[1:17:03] If you decide to move forward with this,

[1:17:05] I would highly suggest that you ensure

[1:17:06] that it's a top tier management that comes in.

[1:17:09] People who have operational success,

[1:17:11] that's with not only the programming aspects,

[1:17:14] but also parking maintenance and the services associated

[1:17:17] with that. Finally, to make sure that you plan on that long-term capital, there are replacement

[1:17:22] costs that are going to take place within the 5, 10, 15, 20 year and to ensure that you include

[1:17:28] those. But it is a feasibility, yes, from what we looked at regarding the sites.

[1:17:33] Great. Thank you, Susie, for all your work on it.

[1:17:38] So moving on to the next steps. So the four main

[1:17:42] the next steps that we have to kind of prioritizing the recommendations.

[1:17:47] So like the Seattle talked about, with those recommendations, they're set up kind of in

[1:17:52] those charts where, you know, kind of how long they should take once we initiate them.

[1:17:57] So, you know, do we want to just focus on kind of the ones that are going to take less than

[1:18:02] a year to start?

[1:18:03] That's not necessarily saying we have to do all those ones within the first year of the plan.

[1:18:07] But, you know, maybe we choose some of those, maybe we choose some of them that will have

[1:18:10] a longer time span to implement, but we can get working on them now both between the system wide

[1:18:15] and the part-specific recommendations. The streamlining of operations and processes,

[1:18:21] we talked a little bit about that. A lot of that's going to come from internal staff-led initiatives

[1:18:26] as Mr. McGill mentioned. Some of that's already in the process through the smart goals of the recreation

[1:18:30] department, you know, making decisions on acting on short-term strategies. And then like I mentioned

[1:18:36] before kind of making decisions for the recreation center on, you know, how much farther do we want to push this right now?

[1:18:41] Where do we want to go next? One of the things that we talked about a lot is kind of, you know, there's 180 recommendations in this point.

[1:18:50] What if we, you know, a lot of communities will have a plan done, and then it sits on the shelf for 20 years,

[1:18:55] black stuff, and nobody will plant anything. You know, what are kind of the most important things in this plan that if we do nothing else, these are the things we need to do.

[1:19:03] So it's kind of how we came up with our tier one priorities, which is these are the things that if nothing else happens, we should address these five things, which is the invasive species plan, the for sure management plan, the signage way finding connectivity.

[1:19:17] So that was one of the kind of biggest gaps that we saw.

[1:19:20] You know, there are parks that exist within the community,

[1:19:24] but Ridge Park for one that has zero signage,

[1:19:27] that if you didn't know it was there or how to get there,

[1:19:30] you wouldn't know there was a park there.

[1:19:33] And so there is some definite gaps there

[1:19:36] that should be addressed.

[1:19:38] The evaluation of field usage and efficiency,

[1:19:41] as we talked through kind of all of the park's

[1:19:43] specific recommendations, you know,

[1:19:46] the one that really rose to the top

[1:19:47] being the most kind of underutilized part currently is Sunset Hills Park or Bratford

[1:19:53] Tip. It's called those. That kind of gets into that community identity.

[1:19:57] Anything that we talked about too is kind of picking a specific name.

[1:20:00] But everything is, if people know about the Sunset Hills Park and it's Bratford and Park,

[1:20:04] if people know it as Bratford and Park, and if they don't know about the Sunset Hills Park,

[1:20:07] we should probably pick a name for it. So that that's really currently our most

[1:20:14] underutilized parks facility. So looking at those parks

[1:20:18] specific recommendations, if we do nothing else in this

[1:20:20] plan should look at improvements to Bradford Park. And then

[1:20:24] at least, you know, like I said, create a decision making

[1:20:27] plan for the recreation center. So if we, if there's things

[1:20:30] Mr. Garlic, Mr. Flynn, specifically who want to take a look

[1:20:33] at kind of making that decision, you know, we can kind of

[1:20:36] pull that together and at least have a plan for, here's

[1:20:38] what we're going to evaluate before we make a decision to

[1:20:41] move anything else forward on the recreation center.

[1:20:43] Just kind of a tier one priority is coming up with that plan

[1:20:46] for how we're going to make those decisions, basically.

[1:20:49] And then the tier two priorities, the main part master glen,

[1:20:53] so this is like, you know, if we just do the second set

[1:20:57] of things, these are the next things.

[1:20:59] There was a lot of items that came up when we toured main park.

[1:21:02] We talked to people about main park and survey responses.

[1:21:05] There's a lot of different ideas about out there

[1:21:08] for main park.

[1:21:08] there are some current maintenance issues that exist in main park that need to be corrected.

[1:21:14] There's some aging equipment there. So rather than trying to take a piecemeal approach to main park,

[1:21:19] the thought process was doing a full site master plan for just main park and say, okay,

[1:21:25] you know, if we want to install an amphitheater there, which was an idea that came up. If we want to

[1:21:30] sort of reorganize the playground spaces there, that was another thing that came up.

[1:21:36] and sort of access the types of

[1:21:40] flashback.

[1:21:42] Flashback.

[1:21:42] The accessibility, right?

[1:21:45] But it's better to, and to give back to the

[1:21:46] Recreation Center piece, you know, if we're potentially

[1:21:49] considering that as a location for Recreation Center,

[1:21:51] how does that impact the entire rest of the park?

[1:21:54] So kind of thinking about main park holistically,

[1:21:57] sites specifically for where we want main park to go in the next 10 to 20 years,

[1:22:02] kind of needing a master plan for that whole site,

[1:22:04] rather than trying to, you know, piecemeal things together.

[1:22:07] But we're going to look at ADA accessibility just for this one going,

[1:22:10] but not look at the accessibility of the park as a whole.

[1:22:13] And then improving coordination and communication

[1:22:15] with the school district on shared facilities, I think this is something

[1:22:18] that comes up quite often, especially for field usage,

[1:22:21] that the school is using our fields.

[1:22:24] And we have decent communication with them right now.

[1:22:27] We can always do better.

[1:22:28] And so the other facilities feel like better,

[1:22:30] but there's a shared facility agreement that they're

[1:22:35] at as well.

[1:22:35] And then finally, next steps, decision points, just to put a vote on this for the commission at the next meeting in April.

[1:22:44] There will be a resolution on the agenda to approve and accept the plan.

[1:22:48] As I mentioned, further discussion and decision on kind of those next steps with the recreation center.

[1:22:53] And then kind of acting on any short-term strategies that require funding.

[1:22:57] Right now, there was $15,000 allocated as part of the 2022 budget for implementation of parks master plan.

[1:23:05] items so we have a little bit of money to do some of the low-ane fruit items if we want to

[1:23:10] address them right now. There's also a pot of $30,000 that was allocated within this year's budget

[1:23:16] to do the forestry management and basic species plans. We have a pot of wine to move forward with

[1:23:22] that right now without needing any additional funding from the commission but if there's other projects

[1:23:27] that require more funding right now, the commission if we consider decision points on that.

[1:23:31] And then finally the one of the commission priority projects from last year's retreat was a board realignment project and there was a segment in the plan that recommended considering a joint parts recreation board.

[1:23:45] So kind of in alignment with that commission priority project of board realignment potentially considering that as the commission considers board realignment more holistically.

[1:23:54] We had success in this effort with those boards coming together at multiple points in time to talk about different aspects of this planning that starts to have that again crossover and understanding of what it means to actually have some priorities to a certain number of things.

[1:24:16] So in giving it a dry run and the opportunities to continue on with in sort of next step is there. So I see I can read it here that staff's going to look at how to incorporate some of these recommendations.

[1:24:29] Can I ask the commission? Is there anyone of these 1234567 tier one or two to priorities? Don't we don't want staff time to dig into a little bit and come back to us with.

[1:24:47] So the only thing I'll add to that is that part of the prioritization of recommending for staff to do is to look at everything and say, okay, this is the things that, along with what we're currently working on, like the website item, some of the things like that, the field service, field usage stuff like that, maybe some of the stuff we might already be doing.

[1:25:10] So, and then also kind of prioritizing, okay, you know, given the restraints and time commitments of staff, you know, here's what capacity we have to address this now versus, okay, I think this would align better to work on in 2023 or this will align better to work on, you know, kind of future.

[1:25:27] So one thing to remember here that this is a 10 to 15 year plan. So these tier one priorities is really just saying

[1:25:35] It's not saying you have to do these first. It's saying if you do nothing else in the plan, you should do these things.

[1:25:43] It's not a time sensitive.

[1:25:45] I mean, I don't have an issue with any of these. I think they're all good. I would probably be ordered.

[1:25:50] But me and I wouldn't do them in that order.

[1:25:53] But you like all of them?

[1:25:54] Yeah, I think all we need to be done.

[1:25:56] Well, I like the idea of defining the recreation parks

[1:26:03] master plan kind of board, and I think that's timely

[1:26:06] considering what we're talking about.

[1:26:08] So I like that idea, and if we're going to do that,

[1:26:10] they should probably be involved in some of these things.

[1:26:13] So it's probably put that first.

[1:26:15] We've been talking about evaluating field usage

[1:26:17] for a long time, and the results of that data

[1:26:20] would have an impact on anything else that we do.

[1:26:23] So the potential would be to put that higher at the top, that will have budget concerns which I would weigh against doing invasive species and signage of way fine.

[1:26:34] Like there were up to me to build an extra field or put signs up, you know, I build an extra field every day.

[1:26:41] on Sundays.

[1:26:47] I think it's going to be much consideration. And then, you know, questions about,

[1:26:53] you know, which of these are going to drive the most value? That's right. That's where we put it,

[1:26:57] the order of operation, whatever. So I would want to specify that before we get. I think staff,

[1:27:02] we should spend on all this. Okay. But I think we need to determine internally what's the order of

[1:27:07] operations for that?

[1:27:08] Well, my instinct isn't so much which ones and when,

[1:27:14] I think the staff is mentally qualified to do that.

[1:27:16] It's more a question of what's the framework for next steps?

[1:27:20] For me, it's not, are we doing the right center or not?

[1:27:23] It's what's the next step to move the dialogue forward?

[1:27:27] You know, with these other items as well, right?

[1:27:32] The short-term stuff, right?

[1:27:34] I don't know that, again, it's like I was saying

[1:27:36] with the solar on the library.

[1:27:38] I'm not qualified.

[1:27:39] There are people who are qualified

[1:27:41] to make those types of decisions.

[1:27:42] What's the process to move that forward?

[1:27:45] We will tell you what the budget is now.

[1:27:46] You know what the budget is now.

[1:27:48] You can tell us what we'd like for the budget next year

[1:27:51] for those items.

[1:27:52] But you tell me what's the next step

[1:27:55] and who's going to help work in that process.

[1:27:57] Is it a board?

[1:27:58] Is it just staff?

[1:28:00] When will we get updates?

[1:28:01] I assume when a budget comes along?

[1:28:03] For me, that's the process.

[1:28:05] This is a great plan. I'm really impressed.

[1:28:07] This is my my my concern with the right center.

[1:28:11] But this is fantastic. And so now for me as a question of how do we structurally embed this that there is a process going forward.

[1:28:18] Because this commission is not going to be here long enough to scale this example.

[1:28:21] So how do we make sure that there's a process that embedded with staff, the next generation of commissioners are like, oh, it's already going.

[1:28:29] That's.

[1:28:30] I think that's really important because I think each of us can pick apart or support any one of

[1:28:37] these things in here and then it just goes on and on and on. If we turn this over to the next

[1:28:41] commission, same things are going to happen. So, you know, I don't know, that's something we do,

[1:28:47] staff does, consultants do, but I agree with that attacking it in that way so that we can put that in

[1:28:54] place and push it. Yeah, push it down the road. Yeah, it's coming next budget season and there's

[1:29:03] going to be a certain amount that's going to be put aside for wayfinding and for this and for that

[1:29:06] and whatever the board and staff have come to the conclusion on these are the ones that coming out of

[1:29:11] this plan. These are the tier one, you know, recommendations. So get something to vote on.

[1:29:20] the parks advisory board can't utilize in the parks because the

[1:29:23] park conditions catch when they make their you know their list for the

[1:29:27] commission for the capital plan is feeding that off of the park specific

[1:29:30] recommendations and sports advisory board. So let me get sure I understand that.

[1:29:34] So I'll go back to the parks advisory board and the liaison and ask them when

[1:29:38] they have time to when will they have time to go through this but they

[1:29:42] don't see this. They haven't seen the final version yet until they sleep.

[1:29:45] We weren't even adopted.

[1:29:47] What do we want them to do?

[1:29:49] They should.

[1:29:51] In some of it is there's crossover between, right?

[1:29:53] We have 16 parks with 180 recommendations.

[1:29:56] But 16 parks, I think 15 of them probably have something.

[1:30:00] So, if you just take the signage thing and say, okay, signage is a priority, we're going to put signage at number of, like, two on the parks advisory boards list, right? Then you say, okay, signage would cost probably this much, they will sketch it out as a three year capital and that's something like that. We'll do the money, they'll do the just rankings. Right. But they can, they can use these to make their rankings. And the last and the sports board to do the field usage information. We need to have someone else in there doing that.

[1:30:29] because the people we have internally don't even believe they want to be done,

[1:30:33] and the people on the sports side have resisted doing or putting together any of that information.

[1:30:39] Like we asked them for their team sizes, we're not going to get it.

[1:30:42] So we need to force that discovery, and that will be easier done with an external group

[1:30:49] that will be done with your internal group staff.

[1:30:53] Yeah, let's talk about that. We did make sure that a progress and they would like

[1:30:57] I don't know what to do with the information, the research that they have who's going

[1:31:00] to hold that movement.

[1:31:02] And some of that was that as we were finalizing this plan, the sports advisory board was finalizing

[1:31:07] their collection of information on field usage.

[1:31:09] So we didn't have the final field usage data from the sports board at the time of production

[1:31:15] of this plan.

[1:31:16] So that was kind of why it was a next step was the sports advisory board to finalize that

[1:31:20] gathering of information of what they're doing.

[1:31:24] That's the real question.

[1:31:26] I hate to cut short.

[1:31:27] Yeah, it's okay.

[1:31:27] It's eight o'clock.

[1:31:28] We've got to go.

[1:31:29] Thank you very much.

[1:31:31] Thank you very much.

[1:31:32] Yeah.

[1:31:33] Amazing work.

[1:31:34] Everybody involved.

[1:31:35] That was a danger.

[1:31:37] Yeah.

[1:31:38] We appreciate you.

[1:31:40] Thank you.

[1:31:40] We will.

[1:31:42] Follow up.

[1:31:42] Yes.

[1:31:43] We will stay in that time.

[1:31:45] Sure.

[1:31:45] You will.

[1:31:48] Thank you.

[1:31:49] Thank you.

[1:31:49] Thank you very much. We are adjourned and I will see you on the other side.

03-22-22 Discussion Session

Agenda

Transcript