Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-2024 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020-2024 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the many citizens, staff and community groups who provided extensive community input for the development of this Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The efforts of this community will continue to ensure the success of Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation. PROJECT STAFF Michael W. Klitzing, CPRE, Director of Parks and Recreation Kurtis Baumgartner, CPRE, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Westermeier, CPRP, Former Director of Parks and Recreation (retired) CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION Richard F. Taylor III, President James L. Engledow, Vice President Jenn Kristunas, Treasurer Nick Plopper, Secretary Dr. Jessica Beer James D. Garretson Joshua A. Kirsh Linus Rude Lin Zheng PLANNING TEAM IN ASSOCIATION WITH: SmithGroup Williams Architects ETC Institute Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors iComprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Master Plan Goals .........................................................................................................2 1.3 Project Process .............................................................................................................2 1.4 Current Parks Map & Definition of Planning Area .........................................................3 1.5 Carmel/Clay Board of Parks and Recreation .................................................................5 1.6 Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles ........................................................................5 1.7 Statement On Accessibility ............................................................................................6 1.8 Key Recommendations .................................................................................................7 1.9 Fourward” Focus ...........................................................................................................8 1.10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER TWO – CCPR PROFILE ..............................................11 2.1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................11 2.2 Government ..................................................................................................................11 2.3 Natural Features and Landscape ..................................................................................13 2.4 Climate ..........................................................................................................................16 2.5 Man-Made, Historical and Cultural ................................................................................17 2.6 Social and Economic Factors ........................................................................................23 2.7 Market Profile ................................................................................................................34 2.8 Recreation Trends Analysis ...........................................................................................36 2.9 Benchmark Analysis ......................................................................................................50 2.10 Accessibility and Universal Design................................................................................58 CHAPTER THREE – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ....................60 3.1 Key Leader and Focus Groups ......................................................................................60 3.2 First Public Meeting .......................................................................................................66 3.3 Second Public Meeting ..................................................................................................66 3.4 Third Public Meeting ......................................................................................................66 3.5 Statistically-Valid Needs Assessment Survey................................................................67 3.6 Online Survey ................................................................................................................84 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreationii CHAPTER FOUR – PARKS, FACILITIES, AND OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS .....................................................107 4.1 Parks and Facilities Assessment ...................................................................................107 4.2 Site Inventory Database Tool .........................................................................................109 4.3 Park Classifications .......................................................................................................112 4.4 Level of Service Standards ...........................................................................................120 4.5 GIS Mapping .................................................................................................................123 4.6 Facility / Amenity Priority Rankings ...............................................................................140 4.7 Capital Improvement Plan .............................................................................................143 CHAPTER FIVE – RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS ...........157 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................157 5.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................157 CHAPTER SIX – OPERATIONAL REVIEW AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .........................................................161 6.1 Staff Focus Groups........................................................................................................161 6.2 Classification of Services ..............................................................................................164 6.3 Financial Analysis ..........................................................................................................168 6.4 Funding and Revenue Strategies ..................................................................................183 CHAPTER SEVEN – ACTION PLAN ............................................187 7.1 Key Recommendations .................................................................................................187 7.2 “Fourward” Focus ..........................................................................................................188 CHAPTER EIGHT – CONCLUSION ..............................................188 APPENDICES: Appendix 1 – Statistically-Valid Needs Assessment Survey Appendix 2 – Life-Cycle Asset Management Plan Appendix 3 – 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan Appendix 4 – Comprehensive Program Plan Appendix 5 – Action Plan iiiComprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1 CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (“CCPR”) has a legacy of providing high-quality parks and services to the community. Building upon the agency’s commitment to the quality of life in Carmel, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan details current and future needs of the community. CCPR manages and maintains more than 534 park acres and numerous recreation facilities, including the Monon Community Center and The Waterpark. In addition, CCPR partners with Carmel Clay Schools to offer Extended School Enrichment (ESE), a before- and after-school care program for K-6 grade students located at all 11 Carmel elementary schools. The Summer Camp Series is a component of ESE that offers 12 different summer camps accommodating children ages 5-15. CCPR has consistently been recognized as one of the best parks and recreation agencies in the United States winning the 2014 National Gold Medal Award for Excellence in Park and Recreation Management. CCPR is one of only 176 park and recreation systems in the United States accredited through the Commission for Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies, demonstrating compliance with national best practices. Other recent National Recreation and Park Association national awards include: 2018 National Distinguished Professional Award, 2016 Excellence in Inclusion Award and the 2015 Barb King National Environmental Stewardship Award. Also, in 2018, the Department took the lead in Indiana with the number of certified professionals: 2 Certified Park and Recreation Executives and 16 Certified Park and Recreation Professionals. As an accredited agency, CCPR serves the recreation, fitness, and nature needs of the community, manages and develops existing spaces and resources, and creates a sustainable future for parks and recreation programs through a financially viable and environmentally conscious parks system. The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan sought community input to identify their visions and expectations for the future of the park and recreation system. Community input was received via focus groups, key stakeholder interviews, public forums, a statistically-valid needs analysis survey, a community online open survey, and Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation2 a multi-lingual crowd-sourcing website www.carmelclayparks.com/master-plans. The information gathered from the community engagement process was combined with technical research to produce the final Master Plan. This plan establishes recommendations to achieve the vision the community has for the park and recreation system without sacrificing the value of the park assets and amenities or reducing the level of experiences and services available to users. An integral component of this master plan is a Life-Cycle Asset Management Plan that evaluates the condition of existing park infrastructure and forecasts the capital budget necessary to maintain and replace facilities, providing continued delivery of park services for the community. 1.2 MASTER PLAN GOALS This plan identifies the current and future needs of the community, updates level of service standards, assesses CCPR’s financial strength, and provides an action plan with a 5-year strategic implementation of goals and objectives. The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan represents CCPR’s continued commitment to providing a quality park and recreation system for the City of Carmel. This version of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan will address changes to the vibrant community since the previous plan was adopted in 2015. Population growth, changing demographics, evolving recreation trends, development of new parks and facilities, and the success of thousands of programs have increased and modified the demand for parks and recreation services in the community. As a result, these changes have created the need for new strategies to manage the park and recreation system for the next five years. The goals of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan include: • Engage the community, leadership and stakeholders through innovative public input to build a shared vision for parks, recreation, facilities and greenways in Carmel for the next five years • Utilize a wide variety of data sources and best practices to predict trends and patterns of use and how to address unmet needs in the City of Carmel • Determine unique Level of Service Standards to develop appropriate actions regarding parks, recreation, facilities, and greenways that reflect CCPR’s strong commitment in providing high quality recreational activities for the community • Shape financial and operational preparedness through innovative and “next” practices to achieve the strategic objectives and recommended actions • Develop a dynamic and realistic action plan that creates a road map to ensure long-term success and financial sustainability for CCPR’s parks, recreation, facilities, and greenways, as well as action steps to support the family-oriented community and businesses that call Carmel home Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 3 1.3 PROJECT PROCESS The Master Plan followed a process of data collection, public input, on-the-ground study, assessment of existing conditions, market research, and open dialogue with local leadership and key stakeholders. The project process followed a planning path, as illustrated below: 1.4 CURRENT PARKS MAP & DEFINITION OF PLANNING AREA The planning area for this Master Plan includes all areas within the boundaries of the City of Carmel. While this plan recognizes that the actual service areas of some CCPR parks, facilities, and programs may extend beyond the defined boundaries of the planning area, the primary purpose of this plan is to first and foremost identify and address the park and recreation needs of Carmel residents. The following map depicts the planning area (highlighted) and location of CCPR parks and greenways. I 465 I 465 Keystone Parkway Highway 311 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 14 1. Carey Grove Park 2. Central Park 3. Cherry Tree Park 4. Flowing Well Park 5. Founders Park 6. Greyhound Trail 7. Hagan-Burke Trail 8. Hazel Landing 9. Lawrence W. Inlow Park 10. Lenape Trace Park 11. Meadowlark Park 12. Monon Greenway North Trailhead 13. Monon Greenway South Trailhead 14. Prairie Meadow Park 15. River Heritage Park 16. Vera J. Hinshaw Preserve 17. West Park 18. White River Greenway CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION PARK LOCATION MAP Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation4 1.4.1 CCPR INVENTORY Current CCPR inventory by park name, address, park classification and size is detailed below: Name Address Classification Acres Carey Grove Park 14001 N. Carey Road, Carmel, IN 46033 Neighborhood Park 5.8 Founders Park 11675 Hazel Dell Parkway, Carmel, IN 46033 Community Park 35.27 Lawrence W. Inlow Park 6310 E. Main Street, Carmel, IN 46033 Community Park 16.37 Meadowlark Park 450 Meadow Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 Community Park 18.59 River Heritage Park 11813 River Road, Carmel, IN 46033 Community Park 40 Central Park 1195 Central Park Drive West, Carmel, IN 46032 Regional Park 158.65 West Park 2700 W. 116th Street, Carmel, IN 46032 Regional Park 120.57 Cherry Tree Park 13720 Hazel Dell Parkway, Carmel, IN 46032 Nature Preserves/ Open Space 13.38 Flowing Well Park 5100 E. 116th Street, Carmel, IN 46033 Nature Preserves/ Open Space 17.47 Hazel Landing Park 10601 Hazel Landing Parkway, Carmel, IN 46033 Nature Preserves/ Open Space 40.45 Prairie Meadow Park 5282 Ivy Hill Drive, Carmel, IN 46033 Nature Preserves/ Open Space 4.54 Vera J. Hinshaw Preserve East of Monon Greenway b/w 98th Street and 99th Street, Carmel, IN 46032 Nature Preserves/ Open Space 9.75 Greyhound Trail 931 Rangeline Road to 2400 E. 136th Street, Carmel, IN 46032 Greenways/ Trails 1.2 Hagan-Burke Trail 146th Street to the Monon Greenway, Carmel, IN 46032 Greenways/ Trails 2 Lenape Trace Park 9602 Westfield Boulevard, Carmel, IN 46032 Greenways/ Trails 4.53 Monon Greenway (including trailheads) 96th Street north to 146th Street, Carmel, IN 46032 Greenways/ Trails 26.56 White River Greenway (including Matilda Haverstick property) 13410 River Road, Carmel, IN 46033 Greenways/ Trails 19.71 Total Acres:534.84 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 5 1.5 CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION The Park Board was originally established in August 1991 through an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Carmel and Clay Township, last amended February 2005. A distinct political subdivision under Indiana law, the Park Board serves as the policy-setting body and fiduciary guardian for CCPR, through which it acquires, preserves, and maintains open lands and parks and provides quality recreation programs. The Park Board is comprised of nine appointed members based on their interest in and knowledge of parks and recreation. The Mayor and Township Trustee each appoint four members to staggered, four-year terms. The Carmel Clay School Board self-appoints one of its members to a one-year term. Current Park Board members include the following individuals: • Richard F. Taylor III, President • James L. Engledow, Vice President • Jenn Kristunas, Treasurer • Nick Plopper, Secretary • Dr. Jessica Beer • James D. Garretson • Joshua A. Kirsh • Linus Rude • Lin Zheng 1.6 VISION, MISSION, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES The following outlines the foundational framework for CCPR including vision, mission and guiding principles: Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation6 1.7 STATEMENT ON ACCESSIBILITY Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) makes a good-faith effort to ensure all patrons, and the community at-large, are knowledgeable of the resources and opportunities available to them, which supports full and active participation within CCPR’s parks, facilities, and programs. CCPR believes every individual has the right to participate in activities and programs that supports their physical, mental, social and emotional wellness, and therefore contributes to enhancing their overall quality of life. Based on this belief, and CCPR’s vision and mission, CCPR is committed to the provision of services for individuals of all ages, skills and ability levels. This is achieved by incorporating universal design for all new parks and facilities, identifying and removing barriers in order to serve individual and community needs, as well as provide quality programs and services accessible to all; such as the many recreational, leisure and education-based programs, volunteer opportunities and interactive public events. This commitment to accessibility is further illustrated through the Department’s employment of two full-time Inclusion Supervisors, both of which are held by Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists. Through their specialized educational training, the Inclusion Supervisors are uniquely qualified to review requests for accommodation and prescribe reasonable modifications in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, CCPR is dedicated to non-discrimination in the provision of programs, services and activities to the public. CCPR will continue to incorporate all consumer feedback, current research and practice knowledge in order to continue meeting and exceeding customer/community satisfaction and protect and promote access for all future generations. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 7 1.8 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Based on community feedback, stakeholder input, technical analysis, and the priority rankings outlined within this Master Plan, the following key recommendations were developed to enhance the park and recreation system and position it to best serve the current and future needs of the community: 1.8.1 ENHANCE PARK AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY: • Expand trails, river access, and environmental education along the White River Regional Corridor • Facilitate implementation of a West Regional Corridor centered on West Park • Develop a signature environmental education facility • Establish a neighborhood park strategy, recognizing the role of Homeowner Associations (HOAs) • Seek innovative solutions to serve identified underserved or unserved populations • Explore opportunities to provide community gardens as part of land-use strategies 1.8.2 PROVIDE EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES: • Reimagine existing parks through effective planning and appropriate updates • Create nature preserve experiences throughout the park system • Provide a diverse selection of facilities and amenities to accommodate indoor and outdoor recreational pursuits • Balance and expand program and volunteer opportunities throughout the community • Continue reinvestments in revenue facilities by adding or replacing amenities • Use Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to drive data-driven decisions regarding services and operations 1.8.3 ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM: • Develop long-term funding plan and implement Lifecycle Asset Management Plan • Continue and expand conservation management practices throughout the park system • Partner with public, private, and non-profit sectors to satisfy community needs for facilities with high construction and/or operating costs • Expand environmental education and park stewardship programming to increase appreciation for natural resources • Achieve 100% cost recovery for Recreation & Facilities Division and Extended School Enrichment Division • Examine internal and external communication efforts regarding financial operations of system • Update or develop business plans for revenue facilities and programs • Identify and pursue opportunities to expand earned-income and other funding sources Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation8 1.9 “FOURWARD” FOCUS While CCPR should strive to achieve all recommendations outlined within this Master Plan, the following represents the top four priorities for the next five years. Achievement of these will require the sustained effort and support of the community, elected officials, Park Board members, and CCPR. Successfully implementing these objectives will ensure CCPR remains responsive to the identified needs of the community and positions itself to remain one of the best managed park and recreation systems in the country. The following outlines the key recommendations: • Carmel White River Regional Corridor ° Expand the White River Greenway through equitable partnerships, increasing connections to nearby attractions and trail networks to establish a regional system • West Regional Corridor ° Continue development of West Park consistent with the 2016 West Park Master Plan ° Purchase and develop a new park in northwest Carmel ° Work with partners (e.g., Carmel Clay Schools, University High School, Hamilton County Parks & Recreation, Carmel Dads’ Club, etc.) to connect existing resources into a more integrated regional system • Reimagine Existing Parks ° Develop new master plans for Carey Grove, Cherry Tree, Flowing Well, Hazel Landing, Meadowlark, and River Heritage Parks ° Make a significant improvement within each existing park • Celebrate Nature ° Embrace and develop the White River Corridor as the community’s most significant natural resource ° Enhance the environmental focus of West Park, using it as an anchor to a natural corridor on the west side of Carmel ° Revitalize Flowing Well Park, honoring its role as the park system’s original nature preserve ° Expand opportunities for environmental education and park stewardship programming throughout the community Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 9 1.10 CONCLUSION CCPR is widely respected as a best-practice agency in the country for maintaining a consistent standard of excellence and level of service for residents of Carmel and visitors to the city. This Master Plan is designed to support CCPR in continuing to provide innovative and well-balanced facilities and programs in the community as the city grows and evolves. The community takes pride in CCPR. The quality of park maintenance was a key theme during the public engagement, as well as accessibility to an abundance of different park experiences. The Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, and Monon Greenway are tremendous assets to the community. CCPR also provides a wealth of programs, such as Extended School Enrichment (ESE) and the many programs offered at the Monon Community Center that reach a multitude of age segments and diverse interests represented in the community. Moving forward, additional actions are required to retain the high-quality system CCPR operates, which is to stay ahead of the park infrastructure and asset needs that CCPR owns and manages. Improving the existing recreation amenities and trails, as well as continuing to add new amenities will ensure CCPR is a community of choice for the residents of Carmel. CCPR is well-positioned to build upon its legacy over the next five years of providing vibrant parks, diverse recreation facilities, sustainable park resources, and engaging recreation programs that contribute to a high quality of life in the City of Carmel. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation10 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 11 CHAPTER TWO – CCPR PROFILE 2.1 PLANNING AREA Carmel is situated within Hamilton County in Central Indiana. The land in Central Indiana is characterized primarily by low, gently rolling hills and shallow valleys. Indiana has a humid continental climate, with cool winters and warm, comfortable summers. Carmel is in USDA Planting Zone 5. Due to recent annexations, Carmel encompasses all of Clay Township, which is geographically located in the southwest corner of Hamilton County. Its boundaries include Boone County (Zionsville) on the west, White River on the east, 96th Street (Marion County/Indianapolis) on the south, and 146th Street on the north. The total land area is approximately 50 square miles and the estimated 2018 population is 97,297, although its day time population is much larger. Traffic flow through Carmel is substantial with four major north/south roadways running through the city: US-421 on the western edge of the city, US-31 divides the city down the middle, and Keystone Parkway (formerly US-431) farther east. Hazel Dell Parkway on the far east side also carries a great deal of north/south traffic, relieving congestion on Keystone Parkway. Keystone Parkway, US-31 and US-421 all interchange with I-465, which runs along Carmel’s southern boundary. Although Carmel had one of the nation’s first traffic lights, it is now known as the “Roundabout Capital of the U.S.” because it has more roundabouts than any city in America (122 as of January 2019). Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation12 2.1.1 AGENCY OVERVIEW Founded in 1991, CCPR was established through an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Carmel and Clay Township in Indiana. CCPR was created to serve the nature and fitness needs of the community, manage and develop existing spaces and resources, and create a sustainable future for parks and recreation through a financially viable and environmentally conscious park and recreation system. CCPR manages and maintains more than 500 acres of parkland, has an annual operating budget of approximately $14 million, employs over 600 full-time, part-time and seasonal employees, and operates numerous recreation facilities. CCPR annually serves over 4.2 million visitors to their parks and facilities. Additionally, approximately 143,000 participants attend over 3,400 programs and classes offered by CCPR each year. While in existence for nearly three decades, CCPR experienced tremendous growth in its programming and services between 2004 and 2008. Beginning with the 2006/2007 school year, CCPR was awarded a contract to manage and operate the Carmel Clay Schools before and after-school program. This program, called Extended School Enrichment (ESE), operates in 11 elementary schools and has an enrollment of over 2,500 students with approximately 1,200 participants served daily. The Monon Community Center (MCC) opened in May 2007 and has amenities and program offerings unsurpassed anywhere in the Hoosier state. This state-of-the-art facility includes indoor and outdoor aquatic centers, a 3-court gymnasium, fitness center, and 1/8 mile indoor track, child- care service for facility users, and a variety of program and multipurpose rooms. Annual visitation at the MCC exceeds 750,000. Prior to 2004, CCPR had only nine full-time employees and typically peaked at 50 employees including part-time and seasonal staff. Today, the Department has 69 full-time positions and employs over 600 employees during the peak summer season. CCPR is led by an executive management team (Director and Assistant Director) and supported by five divisions: Administration & Planning, Marketing, Extended School Enrichment, Parks & Natural Resources, and Recreation & Facilities. Most administrative positions and Parks & Natural Resources are located on the north side of Central Park. Extended School Enrichment management Marketing, and Recreation & Facilities personnel are housed at the Monon Community Center. Extended School Enrichment also has supervisory and support staff based at each of the 11 elementary schools located within the school district. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 13 2.2 GOVERNMENT The City of Carmel has the following government administration positions and agencies: • The government consists of a mayor and a city council • The current mayor is James Brainard • The city council consists of seven members. Five are elected from individual districts and two are elected at-large. In 2020, the city council will expand to nine members, adding a new district and at-large members • Current boards and commissions serving the City of Carmel include: ° Board of Public Works ° Board of Zoning Appeals ° Carmel Audit Committee ° Carmel Bond Bank ° Carmel Cable and Telecommunications Commission ° Carmel/Clay Parks and Recreation Board ° Carmel Economic Development Commission ° Carmel Ethics Board ° Carmel Fire Department Merit Board ° Carmel Fire Department Pension Board ° Carmel Historic Preservation Commission ° Carmel Plan Commission ° Carmel Police Merit Board ° Carmel Redevelopment Authority ° Carmel Redevelopment Commission (CRC) and Department of Redevelopment ° Home Place Advisory Board ° Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Human Relations ° Storm Water Management Board ° Technical Advisory Committee Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation14 Clay Township has the following government administration positions and agencies: • The government consists of a township trustee and township board • The current township trustee is Douglas Callahan • The township board consists of three members • Township government is entrusted to perform services vital to the area. These duties include: ° Administration of Township assistance ° Maintenance of abandoned cemeteries. In Clay Township these cemeteries are Calvary Cemetery, 96th and Shelborne Road; Farley Cemetery, 106th Street and Keystone Parkway; Home Place Cemetery, 106th Street and College Avenue; and White Chapel, East 116th Street across from Flowing Well Park ° Provide fire protection in unincorporated areas by interlocal agreement with the City of Carmel ° Provide park and recreation services through interlocal agreement with the City of Carmel ° Appoint members to various City-Township boards. The trustee appoints four of the nine members of the Parks and Recreation Board for four-year terms. The trustee appoints five of the nine members of the Clay Township Regional Waste District Board for four-year terms 2.2.1 CITY DEPARTMENTS • Administration • Communications Center • Community Relations • Department of Community Services (DOCS) • Engineering • Fire • Human Resources • Information Systems • Law • Police • Street • Utilities Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 15 2.3 NATURAL FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE The natural resources in the City of Carmel and Clay Township area are important for a number of reasons. A community’s topography/terrain, water features (rivers and streams), and natural open space affect the potential for development. While lands containing natural resources may be considered environmentally sensitive and have limited development potential, they are often conducive to both active and passive park and recreation uses. Aside from providing park and recreation opportunities, the protection of natural resource areas can have a number of other benefits, such as protecting unique landforms, maintaining habitat, and preserving riparian and vegetative cover. CCPR will continue to work with the City of Carmel and Clay Township, as well as local developers, to monitor the natural resources within CCPR’s boundaries. The following natural features and landscapes exist within the service and planning area of CCPR and this Plan: 2.3.1 RIVER, FLOODPLAINS AND RIPARIAN AREAS The most significant environmental feature in the planning area is the White River and its associated floodplain and riparian areas. Situated on the eastern boundary of the planning area, the river provides an opportunity for people to connect to the environment. The floodplain area of White River is fairly extensive along its western bank. In certain segments this floodplain reaches nearly one-half mile from the centerline of the river and provides for the most extensive expanse of undeveloped and natural landscape in Carmel and Clay Township. Other streams and creeks traverse the planning area eventually draining into the White River. While Cool Creek has been predominantly urbanized, its most basic floodway has been preserved as a natural amenity. Williams Creek, west of Meridian Street, is another environmental corridor that is incorporated within large private estates or areas planned for urban development. Based on current or planned land uses, the White River provides the greatest and most realistic opportunity for enhanced public recreation use. CCPR is working with the City of Carmel, and Conner Prairie Interactive History Park, which has extensive land holdings on the west side of the river (in addition to its location in neighboring Fishers) to extend the White River Greenway from 96th Street to 146th Street (or the entire length of the planning area. CCPR is within a couple of parcels to make this a reality. This also provides future opportunities for river access north of the existing Hazel Landing Park, creating opportunities for an effective blueway for canoeists and kayakers. The “Fourward” Focus outlines recommendations that directly affect the river areas, which include: • Expand the White River Greenway through equitable partnerships, increasing connections to nearby attractions and trail networks to establish a regional system • Embrace and develop the White River Corridor as the community’s most significant natural resource Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation16 2.3.2 WETLANDS Another environmental feature associated with waterways that exists in the planning area is wetlands. Several wetlands designated on the National Wetland Inventory Maps exist within Carmel and Clay Township. Due to the potential difficulties of developing property with delineated wetlands and the associated cost of mitigation, undeveloped properties with significant wetland areas may be viable locations to explore for new parks in the underserved portions of the community. Wetlands have been preserved and/or created in various existing parks, providing wildlife refuge and opportunities for education interpretation. 2.3.3 WOODLANDS Very few original woodland areas have survived in Carmel and Clay Township. Most of these woodland concentrations occur along the White River or other streams and tributaries such as Cool Creek or Williams Creek. Since many of the woodlands are in areas also containing wetlands, undeveloped properties with significant woodlands also serve as logical potential locations for new parks in underserved areas. The preservation and restoration of woodlands was a driving force in the creation of CCPR in 1991 and remains a key focus of the Department. 2.3.4 GROUNDWATER Ground water is a significantly important feature in Carmel and Clay Township as the water supply system for residents comes from this source. The groundwater sources are found in the sand and gravel aquifer system of the West Fork of the White River valley. Groundwater is available at depths of 50 - 400 feet in the glacial drift with wells yielding several hundred gallons per minute. The City of Carmel has designated areas around these wells as “wellhead protection areas” to help protect the quality of the available drinking water. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 17 2.3.5 INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL The management of terrestrial invasive species is one of CCPR’s main focuses for stewardship of natural areas. These highly invasive plants are not native to Indiana and are counterproductive to establishing sustainable habitat with indigenous plants and wildlife. Multiple strategies are employed to manage invasives across CCPR’s 500+ acres of parkland, including volunteer stewardship projects, contracted natural resource professionals, and internal staff resources. Priorities are determined based on time of year, monitoring data, and availability of implementation source. Implementation primarily targets the most aggressive and harmful species first, such as Canada Thistle, Honeysuckle, and Callery Pear. The target list currently has 20 species and is regularly cross referenced with local partners established through the local Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area and the Indiana Invasives Initiative, with coordination from the Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District. Engaging local partners, including private landowners, contributes to consistent education and community engagement that is required to be successful with invasive species management. CCPR’s commitment to invasive species control is further demonstrated by the free outreach programs offering community education each year on identification, documentation, and removal strategies through classroom opportunities, nature walks, and volunteer stewardship projects. 2.3.6 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Communities rely on parks and greenways for vital access to natural resources such as clean water, clean air, and native landscapes. Keeping this access sustainable requires active support from everyone that engages the environment. The quality of life in a community is positively impacted when access to these resources is enhanced with recreation opportunities and programming. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation18 The framework for CCPR’s natural resource development and operations was established to foster a sustainable model that will support growth, adaptation, and enhanced quality of life. Federal, state, and local resources are regularly referenced for maintaining best practices to help the Department operate as a community leader in environmental stewardship and to exceed community expectations. CCPR partnered with the Indiana Wildlife Federation to develop a wildlife friendly park certification program, becoming the first Indiana park system to receive this designation. As a part of this program, CCPR utilizes a Natural Resources Management Plan for each park to establish baselines, understand localized flora and fauna, and identify priorities. The following goals are listed as high-priorities and overlap from one park to the next. How the goals are implemented within each park is determined by the characteristics, its surroundings, and the overall design and plan for the specific park. • Environmental sustainability • Social sustainability • Economic sustainability The first goal is to create environmental sustainability throughout parks for wildlife and future generations. Environmental sustainability consists of protecting, preserving, restoring, and/or enhancing the environment. For wildlife to survive and thrive, a park needs to provide the following key elements. These elements may change from one species to another depending on the needs of the animal/plant. • Food • Water • Shelter • A safe place to raise young CCPR established monitoring program guidelines in 2019, which encourages active community engagement to assess wildlife habitat, specifically expanding the artificial habitat program for bluebirds and wood ducks with local volunteers and Eagle Scouts. Additional volunteer support has increased with citizen scientists helping quantify species value and distribution through group BioBlitzes, individual monitoring efforts, and documented field observations through GIS and other technology tools. The second goal is to create social sustainability to provide a well-rounded experience encompassing the health and well-being of the community. Each Natural Resources Management Plan describes how educational elements are implemented throughout each park. This includes, but is not limited to, social media campaigns, interpretive signage, volunteer stewards and adopt-a- park partners, and offering natural resource topic programs throughout the parks. The third and final goal is to create economic sustainability by developing a park system that will be capable of better supporting itself. With this goal in mind, the Department implemented a vision and deliberately transferred the Volunteer Coordinator position to the Parks & Natural Resources division and converted an underutilized Event Coordinator position into a fulltime Natural Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 19 Resources Coordinator. The repurposing of these two fulltime professional positions has allowed the Department to establish the adopt-a-park program, create new volunteer ‘job descriptions’ for monitoring assistance, offer proactive and hands on education to field staff and the community, as well as improve work flow with GIS documentation of trouble sites and automated work orders to address invasives and other challenges. Implementation of the Natural Resources Management Plans will require the financial commitment of CCPR’s fiscal bodies, supplemented with external funding sources. The Carmel Clay Parks Foundation has provided supplemental funding to help eliminate Garlic Mustard, Asian Honeysuckle and other invasive priorities identified in the Natural Resources Management Plan for Central Park. As funding permits, this program will be expanded to other impacted areas within the park system, consistent with the Natural Resources Management Plan for each park. CCPR’s commitment to natural resources management is further demonstrated with 70% of CCPR’s parkland preserved in a natural state. Environmental education and community engagement, through interpretation and programming, will be critical to ensuring CCPR is able to maintain its mix of preserved natural areas against potential demands for built recreational facilities. When constructing new parks and facilities, the Department should continue to incorporate green-friendly design features, such as rain gardens to handle storm water and the use of sustainable construction materials where possible, which has become CCPR’s standard for all new development. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation20 2.4 CLIMATE Indiana is a temperate state with strongly marked seasons. The state’s weather is heavily influenced by the Gulf of Mexico, but is often influenced by Canadian weather systems as well. Autumn is generally considered the most pleasant season, with cool but mild temperatures, low humidity and clear skies. Summer is often hot and humid. Winter is cold. Spring and summer see frequent rainfall. Severe weather comes in the form of tornados and thunderstorms. The warmest month in Carmel and Clay Township is July with average high and low temperatures of 85° and 64° Fahrenheit. The coldest month is January with average high and low temperatures of 34° and 17° Fahrenheit. Overall, the climate of Carmel is similar to that of the rest of Indiana with relatively cold winters and hot, humid summers (Information pulled May 2019). Weather can serve as an uncontrollable factor in various facets of CCPR’s operations. Heavier than average snow during the winter may result in increased costs for staffing (e.g., park maintenance overtime) and supplies (e.g., salt and ice melt). An unseasonably cool or wet summer could negatively impact attendance at The Waterpark, placing pressures on the Department’s ability to achieve cost recovery goals. Severe winds or flooding could cause damage to park amenities or facilities, requiring basic to significant repairs or replacement. For these reasons, it remains critical for CCPR to maintain rainy day reserves to cover potential weather-related budget shortfalls or capital maintenance needs. Recognizing that climate change is gaining national and international attention, as well as recent Indiana hot summers, it is important to prepare CCPR’s park system to address current and future weather patterns. The Trust for Public Land’s Climate-Smart Cities program has laid out four objectives for parks as multi-benefit climate solutions: CCPR is mindful of including these solutions as part of park design in site master plans. • Cool: Shady green spaces reduce the “heat island” effect to protect people from heat waves and reduce summer energy use • Absorb: Water-smart parks, playgrounds and streetscapes absorb rainfall, reduce flooding and recharge drinking water supplies, while saving energy for water management • Protect: Strategically placed and managed parks and natural lands buffer cities from rising seas, coastal storms, inland flooding and wildfires • Connect: Trails, greenways and park systems provide carbon-free transportation options and link residents to popular destinations and to one another Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 21 2.5 MAN-MADE, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL Historically, the City of Carmel was a homogeneous area consisting of farms, rural residential, estate homes, small town residential and small town downtown commercial development. The construction of I-465 (1960s) and S.R. 431/Keystone (1960s), and significant upgrades to U.S. 31 (1970s) in Clay Township all led to an evolution of many types of development in the community. Today, the community has an urbanizing core, an employment corridor, significant redevelopment sites, many styles of residential development and multiple commercial areas. The evolution of the community has also resulted in distinguishable planning districts. Also, the Department’s Natural Resources Management Plans for each park identify historically significant locations within each park or culturally significant events that occurred on the location of existing parks. To facilitate more effective planning, the City of Carmel recognizes the uniqueness of four districts; East Carmel, North Central Carmel, South Central Carmel and West Carmel (see illustration below). The district boundaries were determined by evaluating development form, physical boundaries, and public input during the development of the City’s Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive (C3) Plan 2009. 2.5.1 EAST CARMEL CHARACTERISTICS East Carmel is unique compared to the other three districts because it typifies suburbia with curvilinear streets, dominantly single-family homes, and a small number of employment or commercial developments. More specifically, the district contains a large number of neighborhoods with custom-built homes and has very little integrated commercial development. Aside from the commercial corridor along East 96th Street (the south boundary), there are two existing integrated commercial areas within this district: Brookshire Village Shoppes and Hazel Dell Corner. A third is planned within the Legacy Town Center at 146th Street and River Road. There are also three commerce centers along 146th Street just outside of Carmel, Bridgewater Shoppes, Cool Creek Commons, and Noble West. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation22 East Carmel has a variety of recreational amenities including ten municipal and county parks and an evolving river greenway. It also has three golf courses. The Carmel Dads’ Club owns and operates Mark Badger Memorial Sports Park, leases Gray Road Park from the City, and maintains a partnership with Carmel Clay Schools to help meet community recreation needs as it relates to youth sports. The White River aquifer in East Carmel has provided the community with an abundance of high- quality water resources, which has been effectively tapped by Carmel’s water utility to serve the public need. Much of East Carmel falls within the aquifer and wellhead protection areas, designed to ensure the safety and quality of this public resource. Public and private decision-making must give due consideration to this important resource. The presence of quarry and aggregate mining operations along the White River creates the need to balance the legitimate needs of the nearby residents and the quarry as a supplier of material used for local construction. Once the mining operations cease, which is not anticipated to occur in the foreseeable future, it is likely that at least some of these properties will become available for future parks. 2.5.2 NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL CHARACTERISTICS North Central Carmel is clearly unique in comparison to the other districts, in that it is an urbanizing core. Although there are areas of suburban development, the district has evolved toward a more walkable vibrant downtown environment with significant mixed-use vitality, including Carmel City Center, the Arts and Design District, and the Old Meridian District. No longer are the tallest structures two stories and suburban in character. Numerous four-story or higher buildings have been built or are in the process of being built in this district. Many new buildings are also being built to the front property line, further evolving the pedestrian character of the area. North Central Carmel has two parks and the Monon Greenway. It is bordered by two dominant street corridors, U.S. 31 and Keystone Parkway, which contribute to and support the growth and vitality of this area. The North Central Carmel district contains multiple suburban style commercial retail areas including: Merchants Square, Clay Terrace, Kroger Plaza, and the Center. The district also includes a wide mix of residential developments including historic residential, suburban residential, estate homes, townhouses, flats, apartments, and condominiums. The district has significant employment areas, including a high concentration of office and health care development. The U.S. 31 Corridor and the Carmel Science and Technology Park are the main focus of employment-type development, but many other small office buildings are distributed throughout North Central Carmel. Carmel St. Vincent Hospital and Indiana University North/Riley Hospital have acted to energize health care as a major industry and employer in the U.S. 31 corridor. North Central Carmel is also home to several educational uses. The Carmel High School and Freshman Center campus along with Carmel Elementary and Carmel Clay Public Library are major educational resources along East Main Street. In addition, Clay Township’s Community Life and Learning Center, operated by IUPUI and Ivy Tech, provides higher education opportunities in the former Carmel Clay Public Library Building. The district also contains a middle school, private secondary school and regional facility for special needs. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 23 Adding significantly to the cultural life of the community, North Central Carmel is home to The Center for the Performing Arts, including The Palladium (concert theater), The Tarkington (proscenium theater), and The Studio Theater (black box theater). Resident companies of these world-class venues include Booth Tarkington Civic Theater, Carmel Symphony Orchestra, Gregory Hancock Dance Theatre, Actors Theater of Indiana, Central Indiana Dance Ensemble, and Indiana Wind Symphony. The Center for the Performing Arts annually hosts hundreds of concerts, productions, and entertainers, helping connect the community to the world. To minimize competition, maximize community resources, and best serve the public, CCPR has strived to develop collaborative relationships with the cultural organizations based in North Central Carmel. CCPR partners with the Carmel Clay Library to provide joint programming opportunities within the community, as well as the extension of “little” libraries or share boxes within the parks. CCPR has refrained from offering free summer concerts for adults or the general public to avoid competing with the City’s longstanding Gazebo Summer Concert Series, which predates the park system, and events at the new Midtown Plaza. Both The Center for the Performing Arts and the Arts and Design District offer additional free concerts, festivals, and other entertainment for the community, allowing CCPR to focus its resources on other recreational and environmentally- focused offerings for the community. 2.5.3 SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL CHARACTERISTICS Much of South Central Carmel’s uniqueness from the other districts comes from the significant number of 1950 through 1970s style residential development and the recently annexed Home Place village. The district also has intermingled areas of large-lot residential, including the homes abutting Woodland Country Club. A limited number of apartments and condominiums also exist. The north boundary (i.e., 116th Street corridor) and areas surrounding Central Park serve as a transition from the urbanizing North Central Carmel district to quality single family residential areas. Limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist in this area to connect people to the amenities in North Central Carmel. The south and west boundary includes employment areas along the I-465, U.S. 31, and 96th Street corridor. Similarly, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are lacking to convey people to these destinations. South Central Carmel has several parks including the Monon Community Center, Central Park, Monon Greenway and Lenape Trace Park. There is one golf course, Woodland Country Club. Despite significant park and public amenities in this area, pedestrian mobility is limited, making it difficult for people to connect with the amenities and jobs by means other than the automobile. South Central Carmel has two strong street corridors, Westfield Boulevard and College Avenue, which provide good north/south connectivity for vehicles. Regional north/south connectivity is also provided with U.S. 31 and Keystone Parkway. Convenient east/west connectivity is limited to 106th Street and 116th Street. While not direct, 96th Street also provides connectivity between U.S. 31 and Keystone Parkway. The South Central Carmel district has one commercial district, Home Place, and some additional pockets of commercial development along the 96th Street Corridor. Additionally, the Nora 86th Street corridor and Keystone Crossing area provide commercial amenities to South Central Carmel. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation24 A growing restaurant and service area at U.S. 31 and 96th Street offers residents and workers in this area further options for shopping and dining. New development occurring along the Monon Greenway close to the southern border of Carmel presents opportunities for increasing parkland and recreational opportunities in this portion of the community. 2.5.4 WEST CARMEL CHARACTERISTICS West Carmel remains unique as an area with many rural characteristics even after the development of many suburban residential subdivisions. Historically, West Carmel was dominantly horse farms, estate homes, agricultural land, and open space. The district is still distinguished from the East Carmel district by significantly lower density residential and substantial estate homes which act to maintain open space character. This area has a strong sense of place established from its origin as a region for estate homes and horse farms. Pride of place and rural living have characterized the values of many of the district’s residents; however, as the area continues to develop, there has been more emphasis on quality infrastructure, recreational amenities (e.g. parks and trails) and ball fields (e.g. Dads’ Club facilities on 126th and on Shelborne). Although West Carmel is a larger geographic area than the other districts, it has a lower density per acre. The population in West Carmel is served by two significant public parks and two golf courses. It also is home to one of the most well-known traditional neighborhood developments in the Midwest, the Village of West Clay. West Carmel contains the most substantial number of undeveloped acres and has the least developed road network. West Carmel continues to rely more heavily on the original county road network partly due to low density development. As this area has been annexed into Carmel, the road system has been upgraded from two-lane county roads to two lane boulevards with multi-use paths and roundabouts at major street intersections. As the infrastructure has been improved, Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 25 residents have emphasized the need for continued investment in pedestrian facilities, for improved mobility, and for health benefits. Regional mobility is provided by two north-south highway corridors, U.S. 421 and U.S. 31. 116th Street and 146th Street function as cross-county connectors, linking I-65 to I-69, thus linking Carmel, Zionsville, and Fishers. The West Carmel district currently has three commercial areas, the 116th Street and Illinois Street retail area, the Michigan Road corridor that serves as a community and regional destination, and the Village of West Clay, which functions as a local serving neighborhood commercial node. Additionally, the Town of Zionsville, 86th Street corridor and new commercial development along 146th Street near U.S. 31 are also recognized for providing commercial amenities to West Carmel residents. With the significant growth in West Carmel, this area could most benefit from the acquisition and development of a new park. Similar to what has occurred in South Central Carmel, opportunities to work with developers may present the most financially feasible means to secure new parkland for the community. CCPR completed a master plan in 2016 for West Park, which is currently being implemented. The master plan incorporated and integrated designs for the capital repair, or replacement, of existing infrastructure and expansion into the 45 undeveloped acres. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation26 2.5.5 CONNECTIVITY STRATEGY In addition to looking at opportunities at individual parks, open spaces and trails, the project team considered overall connectivity throughout the community. The team identified three potential regional green infrastructure corridors: • The West Corridor supported by West Park and adjacent compatible activities • The Central Corridor comprised of Central Park and the Monon Greenway • The River Corridor consisting of a series of parks and open spaces connected by the White River These three corridors are linked by several east-west streets including 131st Street/Main Street, 116th Street and 106th Street. As the Carmel Clay park system matures, these corridors could provide opportunities for future green infrastructure investment. As a near term goal, the East Regional Connectivity Diagram shown below and in Appendix 2 capitalizes on existing park infrastructure as linked by the White River to essentially create an east regional park that complements the services provided by West Park and Central Park. In addition to looking at opportunities at individual parks, open spaces and trails, the project team considered overall connectivity throughout the community. The team identified three potential regional green infrastructure corridors: • The West Corridor supported by West Park and adjacent compatible activities • The Central Corridor comprised of Central Park and the Monon Greenway • The River Corridor consisting of a series of parks and open spaces connected by the White River These three corridors are linked by several east-west streets including 131st Street/Main Street, 116th Street and 106th Street. As the Carmel Clay park system matures, these corridors could provide opportunities for future green infrastructure investment. As a near term goal, the East Regional Connectivity Diagram shown on Page 71 capitalizes on existing park infrastructure as linked by the White River to essentially create an east regional park that complements the services provided by West Park and Central Park. 90CONCLUSIONS CARMEL CLAY PARKS OVERALL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 27 2.5.6 RIVER CORRIDOR MAP One of the recommendations of the master plan that was heard from the community and from stakeholders was the development of a Carmel White River Corridor to create a multiuse trail system. For this legacy project to become a reality, will require the need for multiple public, not-for-profit, and private partnerships. The map below depicts the parcels owned by the key entities between 146th Street (North), 96th Street (South), the White River (East), and Hazel Dell Parkway (West). American Aggregates Conner Prairie Conner Prairie Citizens Utility Group Carmel Clay Schools City of Carmel City of Carmel Hamilton County AmericanAggregates Park Board Park Board City of Carmel City of Carmel Carmel Clay Schools City of Carmel City of Carmel City of Carmel City of Carmel City of Carmel City of Carmel City of Carmel MartinMarietta Park Board Hamilton County Carmel, IndianaWhite River Corridor Map Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary 0 ½1¼Miles ´ Property Owner Park Board City of Carmel Hamilton County Carmel Clay Schools Citizens Utility Group Conner Prairie Martin Marietta American Aggregates Other Parcels owned by key entitiesbetween 146th Street (North), 96th Street (South), the WhiteRiver (East), and Hazel DellParkway (West) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation28 2.5.7 TRANSPORTATION & WALKABILITY With the City’s philosophy toward multi-modal transportation, CCPR should be mindful of ensuring connectivity to existing parks within this network. CCPR parks act as a conduit for increasing multi- modal access not only within the park system, but throughout the entire community. According to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan 2016 Update: “The City is making the conscious decision to emphasize multiple modes of transportation to complement traditional vehicular transportation. Multi-modal transportation is increasingly desirable because residents want bicycle and pedestrian connectivity (e.g., Multi-use Paths) to local amenities, commuters want alternatives (e.g., light rail) for travel to work, and life-style changes are demanding more recreational facilities (e.g., Monon Greenway).” Maps were created to show the walk time to specific parks and amenities, which are detailed in Section 4.5. The City of Carmel has signed on to be a part of the 10 Minute Walk campaign, which was established by the Trust for Public Land, in partnership with the National Recreation and Park Association and the Urban Land Institute. The goal of this nationwide movement is to ensure there’s a great park within a 10-minute walk of every person, in every neighborhood. 10 Minute Walk Maps were created for: All Parks; All Parks and Neighboring Providers; Regional Parks; Community Parks; Greenways; and Community Centers. The map below details walk-time of 10-minutes for all CCPR and City parks. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 29 2.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS The focus of this master plan is to gathering both qualitative and quantitative information from which strategies will be developed to guide the future management of the parks and recreation system. A key component of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a demographics and recreational trends analysis which helps provide a thorough understanding of the demographic makeup of residents within the city, assesses key economic factors, as well as identifies national, regional, and local recreational trends. The demographic analysis describes the population within Carmel, Indiana. This assessment is reflective of the City’s total population and its key characteristics such as age segments, race, ethnicity, income levels, and gender. It is important to note that future projections are based on historical patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the analysis could have a significant bearing on the validity of the projected figures. 2.6.1 CITY DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation30 2.6.2 METHODOLOGY Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in June 2018 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Census as well as estimates for 2018 and 2023 as obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear regression was utilized for 2028 and 2033 projections. The City of Carmel’s boundaries shown below were utilized for the demographic analysis (Figure 1). Figure 1 - Service Area Bountries RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis. • American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment • Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam • Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands • White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa • Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. While Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of Hispanic / Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis. Figure 1 - Service Area Boundaries Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 31 RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis. • American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment • Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam • Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands • White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa • Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. While Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of Hispanic / Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis. Figure 1 - Service Area Boundaries Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation32 2.6.3 CITY POPULACE POPULATION The city’s population experienced a significant growing trend in recent years, increasing 15.98% from 2010 to 2018 (2.00% per year). This is more than double the national annual growth rate of 0.86% (from 2010-2018). Similar to the population, the total number of households also experienced a rapid increase in recent years (17.40% since 2010). As the City continues to grow, CCPR must be mindful of securing parkland in underserved areas of the community as the City reaches buildout. Currently, the population is estimated at 97,297 individuals living within 36,334 households. Projecting ahead, the total population and total number of households are both expected to continue growing rapidly over the next 15 years. Based on 2033 predictions, Carmel is expected to have 128,394 residents living within 48,607 households (Figures 2 & 3). Figure 2 - Service Area’s Total Population 83,893 97,297 108,398 118,224 128,394 2.00% 2.28% 1.81%1.72% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 2010 2018 2023 2028 2033 Total Population / Avg Annual Growth Carmel Population Average Annual Growth (%) 30,949 36,334 40,652 44,576 48,607 2.17%2.38% 1.93%1.81% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2018 2023 2028 2033 Total Households / Avg Annual Growth Carmel Households Average Annual Growth (%) Figure 3 - Service Area’s Total Number of Households Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 33 AGE SEGMENT Evaluating the city by age segments, Carmel is predominantly middle-aged, with just under a third of the population falling within the 35-54 segment. The service area has a median age of 40.4 years old, which is slightly above the U.S. median age of 38.3 years. Assessing the population as a whole, the City is projected to continue its current aging trend. Over the next 15 years, the 55+ population is expected to grow to represent 35% of the city’s total population. This is largely due to the increased life expectancies and the remainder of the Baby Boomer generation shifting into the senior age groups (Figure 4). Due to the continued growth of the older age segments, it is useful to further segment the “Senior” population beyond the traditional 55+ designation. Within the field of parks and recreation, there are two commonly used ways to partition this age segment. One is to simply segment by age: 55- 64, 65-74, and 75+. However, as these age segments are engaged in programming, the variability of health and wellness can be a more relevant factor. For example, a 55-year-old may be struggling with rheumatoid arthritis and need different recreational opportunities than a healthy 65-year old who is running marathons once a year. Therefore, it may be more useful to divide this age segment into “Active,” “Low-Impact,” and/or “Social” Seniors. Example programs include: • Active: Pickleball, senior Olympics, fitness classes, etc. • Low-Impact: water aerobics, yoga, biking, swimming, Tai Chi, etc. • Social: life-skill enrichment, day trips, hobbies, special events, etc. 29%26%25%24%23% 15%17%17%17%18% 34%29%28%26%25% 18%22%24%26%28% 4%5%6%7%7% 2010 2018 2023 2028 2033 Population by Age Segment 0-17 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+ Carmel Figure 4 - Service Area’s Population by Age Segment Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation34 RACE Analyzing race, the service area’s current population is primarily White Alone. The 2018 estimate shows that 82% of the population falls into the White Alone category, while the Asian (11%) and Black Alone (4%) categories represent the largest minorities. The racial diversification of Carmel is less diverse than the national population, which is approximately 70% White Alone, 13% Black Alone, and 7% Some Other Race. The predictions for 2033 expect the city’s population to continue diversifying, with the White Alone population projected to decrease (-7%) and the minority categories expected to experience slight increases (Figure 5). ETHNICITY Carmel’s population was also assessed based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, which by the Census Bureau definition is viewed independently from race. It is important to note that individuals who are Hispanic / Latino in ethnicity can also identify with any of the racial categories from above. Based on the 2010 Census, those of Hispanic/Latino origin represent just above 3% of the service area’s current population, which is significantly lower than the national average (18% Hispanic/Latino). The Hispanic/ Latino population is expected to grow slightly over the next 15 years, increasing to 5% of the city’s total population by 2033 (Figure 6). 86%82%79%77%75% 3%4%4%4%5% 9%11%14%15%16% 2010 2018 2023 2028 2033 Population by Race White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races Carmel Figure 6 - Service Area’s Population by Ethnicity 3%4% 97%96% 2010 2033 Hispanic / Latino Population All Others Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race) Carmel Figure 5 - Service Area’s Population by Race Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 35 HOUSEHOLD INCOME The city’s per capita income ($53,504) and median household income ($110,799) are both significantly higher than current state ($27,871 & $53,531) and national averages ($31,950 & $58,100). Additionally, as seen in Figure 7, both Carmel’s per capita income and median household income are expected to continue growing over the next 15 years reaching $69,044 & $132,624 (respectively) by 2033. GENDER Carmel currently has a slightly higher female population (51%) than male (49%). This is expected to remain unchanged over the next 15 years, as shown in Figures 8. Figure 7 - Service Area’s Income Characteristics 49%49%49%49%49%51%51%51%51%51% 0% 10% 20% 30%40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 Census 2018 Estimate 2023 Projection 2027 Projection 2032 Projection Gender Male Female Carmel Figure 8 - Service Area’s Gender Breakdown$53,504 $58,684 $63,864 $69,044 $110,799 $118,074 $125,349 $132,624 2018 2023 2028 2033 Income Characteristics Per Capita Income Median Household Income Carmel Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation36 2.6.4 CITY DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARATIVE SUMMARY Figure 9 below is a summary of Carmel’s demographic figures. These figures are then compared to the state and U.S. populations. This type of analysis allows CCPR to see how their community’s population compares on a state and national scale. The highlighted cells represent key takeaways from the comparison between Carmel and the national population. = Significantly higher than the National Average = Significantly lower than the National Average Figure 9 - Service Area’s Demographic Comparative Summary Table Carmel Indiana U.S.A. Annual Growth Rate (2010-2018)2.00% 0.54% 0.86% Projected Annual Growth Rate (2018-2033) 2.13% 0.56% 0.88% Annual Growth Rate (2010-2018)2.17% 0.53% 0.79% Average Household Size 2.66 2.52 2.59 Ages 0-17 26% 23% 22% Ages 18-34 17% 23% 24% Ages 35-54 29% 25% 25% Ages 55-74 22% 23% 22% Ages 75+5%6%7% White Alone 81.7% 82.1% 69.9% Black Alone 3.5% 9.5% 12.9% American Indian 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% Asian 11.3% 2.4% 5.7% Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Some other Race 0.8% 3.1% 6.9% Two or More Races 2.4% 2.5% 3.4% Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race)3.1% 7.1% 18.3% All Others 96.9% 92.9% 81.7% Per Capita Income $53,504 $27,871 $31,950 Median Household Income $110,799 $53,531 $58,100 2018 Demographic Comparison Income CharacteristicsPopulationHouseholdsAge Segment DistributionRace DistributionHispanic/Latino Population Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 37 2.6.5 KEY DEMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS The following outlines key demographic findings: • Carmel’s population annual growth rate (2.00%) is significantly higher than both Indiana’s (0.54%) and the U.S.’s (0.86%) growth rates • The city’s average household size (2.66) is slightly larger than both state (2.52) and national (2.59) averages • When assessing age segments, the service area’s 18-34 segment (17%) is noticeably lower than the national average (24%) • The city’s racial distribution has greater White Alone and Asian populations and slightly smaller Black Alone and Some Other Race populations, when compared to national percentage distribution • Carmel’s percentage of Hispanic/Latino population (3.1%) is significantly lower than the national average (18.3%) • The service area’s per capita income ($53,504) and median house income ($110,799) are both significantly higher when compared to Indiana’s ($27,871 & $53,531) and the U.S.’s ($31,950 & $58,100) income characteristics Based on these shifts in demographics, it will remain important for CCPR to be cognizant of the community’s increasing diversity in the delivery of its programs and development of new amenities. Extra effort should continue to be made to solicit input from diverse constituents, helping to ensure CCPR understands and addresses the potentially different recreation needs of the diverse community. Existing programs and outreach, advertising in local Asian/Indian and other minority publications, and recruitment and employment of a diverse staff representative of the community should be continued. As Carmel’s population continues to age, it will be important to move towards programs and facility types that can cater to the adult and senior population. Better connectivity and accessible offerings, fitness and wellness programs, life skill and self-directed programming would all be vital in meeting that audience’s needs. Types of programs can include aquatics programs – aqua-aerobics, therapeutic recreation programs, family activities such as biking, walking, and swimming, and general entertainment and leisure activities. At the same time, it would be helpful for CCPR to also provide youth centered programs as a means to attract younger families and fresh job seekers, as this age-segment is noticeably lower than the national average. Consideration of program types to this age segment should continue if Carmel wants to attract younger families. CCPR’s recreation programming is broken into focused Program Areas and Categories to better support the department’s vision of offering “engaging programs that contribute to healthy individuals and families, an active and tightly-knit community, a thriving economy, and a high quality of life in the City of Carmel and Clay Township.” Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation38 Recreation Programming is broken down into the following Program Areas and Categories: • Aquatics (all ages) • Adaptive (all ages) • Creative Arts (all ages) • Enrichment (all ages) • Fitness/Wellness (15+) • Homeschool • Nature (all ages) • Science & Technology (all ages) • Senior • Sports (all ages) • Extended School Enrichment These Program Areas are further broken down into the following Program Categories: • Parent/Child (0-5 years) • Preschool (3-5 years) • Youth (6-12 years) • Tween/Teen (11-17 years) • Adult (18+) By breaking program areas down to the age segment, provides CCPR customized to meet the changing demographics. Carmel’s service area is significantly higher than the state and national median and per capita income average. CCPR’s philosophy is that all revenue producing facilities maintain a 100% cost recovery. As such, operational cost recovery is a key performance indicator. Based off NRPA Park Metrics, the typical park and recreation agency recovers 27.3% of its operating expenditures from non-tax revenue. Agencies serving a similar population to CCPR (e.g. 50,000-99,999) Lower Quartile cost recovery is 16%, Median cost recovery is 28.8% and the Upper Quartile cost recovery is 44.4%. More detail on these metrics can be found in 2.9.4 Benchmarking. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 39 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation40 2.6.6 POVERTY LEVEL Poverty status is determined by comparing annual income to a set of dollar values called poverty thresholds that vary by family size, number of children and age of householder. If a family’s before tax money income is less than the dollar value of their threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. For people not living in families, poverty status is determined by comparing the individual’s income to his or her poverty threshold. Carmel’s poverty level (3.7%) is low for the State of Indiana, average of the State of Indiana is 14.6%, as is Hamilton County (5%), based on the American Fact Finder by the United States Census Bureau. While this data tells us that a majority of residents can afford to pay for desired park amenities and programs, it is important to remember that parks and recreation services were created to improve everyone’s quality of life regardless of their ability to pay. Since it is difficult to forecast the disposable income households will have in the future, it is important that CCPR continue to develop the recreation fee assistance for programs such as the before and after school program. 2.6.7 EDUCATION Based on the 2018 population, approximately 69.8% of Carmel’s residents (25+ years old) have attained a Bachelors or Graduate Degree; which is more than double the national average (30.3%). While an estimated 2.1% of the population never attained a high school diploma, as shown in Figure 10. 0.7%1.4% 8.8%1.2% 13.4% 4.7% 40.7% 29.1% Educational Attainment Less than 9th Grade 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma High School Graduate GED/Alternative Credential Some College, No Degree Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate/Professional Degree Figure 10 - Educational Attainment Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 41 2.6.8 UNEMPLOYMENT In assessing the civilian labor force (16+ years old), currently 97.8% of residents hold a full or part- time position, while the remaining 2.2% of the city’s (civilian) population are deem unemployed, as shown in Figure 11. This equates to approximately 73,095 residents being currently employed. Note: The unemployment rate excludes individuals who are currently in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes. 2.6.9 DISABILITY Based on a four-year trend (2012-2016) the percentage of Carmel’s population that has been diagnosed with a disability has slightly decreased since 2012, as shown in Figure 12. As expected, the 65+ population is at significantly greater risk of being diagnosed with a disability. Approximately 1/4 of all residents over the age of 64 has either a physical or mental disability. Based on 2017 program offerings, CCPR provides a majority of these targeted program areas including summer camps, specific teen programs, programs for people with disabilities, after school programs, preschool, and before school programs. 97.8% 2.2%Unemployment Rate Civilian Employed Civilian Unemployed (Unemployment Rate)3.5%3.9%29.3%2.6%4.0%26.4%1.1%3.7%27.6%0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over Population with a Disability 2012 2014 2016 Figure 11 - Unemployment Rate Figure 12 - Percent of Carmel’s Population with a Disability Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation42 2.7 MARKET PROFILE In addition to demographic characteristics, ESRI also provides a Market Profile which analyzes key economic factors, including tapestry segmentation, educational attainment, unemployment rate, and percent of population with disabilities. 2.7.1 TAPESTRY SEGMENTATION ESRI’s Tapestry Segmentation is a geodemographic system that classifies U.S. neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic and demographic compositions. This market segmentation tool integrates consumer traits with residential characteristics to identify individual markets within a specified area. The Tapestry provides a classification model with 67 distinct, behavioral market segments that depict consumers’ lifestyles and lifestages, and detail the diversity of the American population. These individual market segments are then arranged into 14 LifeMode groups that have similar characteristics and market profiles. A complete listing of these groups’ characteristics and the individual segments that comprise each LifeMode group is available in the Demographic & Trends Technical Report. (Source: ESRI) The ESRI Tapestry Segmentation provides an understanding of consumers’ lifestyle choices, what they buy, and how they spend their free time for a specified service area. This information is useful in identifying target markets, as well as highlighting segments that are being underserved, to ensure that the CCPR’s offerings are in line with the unique characteristics and preferences of its users. TOP 5 TAPESTRY SEGMENTS This section reveals the top five Tapestry Segments and corresponding LifeMode Groups, expressed as percentage of households, for the City. Analyzing the dominant Tapestry Segmentation allows the Carmel to assess the market profile of its service area by examining the distribution of household types and summarizing the general characteristics and behaviors expected from each group. For better context of how unique the City’s households are compared to the rest of the country, the percentage of U.S. households for each Tapestry Segment are also provided for comparison. % of Carmel Households % of U.S. Households 1 Professional Pride Affluent Estates 33.1% 1.6% 2 Savvy Suburbanites Affluent Estates 15.2% 3.0% 3 In Style GenXurban 13.7% 2.2% 4 Boomburbs Affluent Estates 10.5% 1.7% 5 Old and Newcomers Middle Ground 8.7% 2.3% 81.2% 10.8% Tapestry Segments Carmel Top 5 Tapestry Segments Total Percentage of Population: Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 43 KEY TAPESTRY SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS Below are brief summaries of the characteristics and consumer behaviors for the most prevalent Tapestry Segments within the City. Professional Pride (33.1% of City Households) • Families are mostly married couples (almost 80% of households), and more than half of these families have kids. Their average household size, 3.11, reflects the presence of children • Most households own two or three vehicles; long commutes are the norm • Median age is 40.5 with a median household income of $127,000 • These residents are well-educated career professionals and are goal oriented • Residents are well organized and routine is key to daily life Savvy Suburbanites (15.2% of City Households) • Residents are well educated, married couples who are mostly empty nesters (median age 44.1) in older neighborhoods outside the City • Activities include remodeling, gardening, exercising and enjoy cultural events, food and wine • Well-connected consumers that use technology for shopping, baking and staying up with current events • Median household income of $104,000 and home median value of $311,000 In Style (13.7% of City Households) • Interested in the arts, travel, and extensive reading • Mostly married couples with no children or single households; average household size is 2.33 • The population is slightly older, with a median age of 41.1 and median household income of $66,000 • Residents are college educated or have some college education – very connected and knowledgeable with technology • They are aware of pricing, use coupons – especially mobile coupons Boomburbs (10.5% of City Households) • Residents are well-educated professionals with a median age of 33.6 and median household income of $105,000 • They are well connected and comfortable with the latest technology Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation44 • Primarily single-family homes in new neighborhoods • Mostly young, married families with children; average household size is 3.22 • Unemployment is low and most households have more than two workers Old and Newcomers (8.7% of City Households) • Mostly renters who are just beginning their careers or retiring • Most residents are single households with a mix of married couples (no children) • Median age is 38.5 with a median household income of $39,000 • Consumers are price aware and coupon clippers but open to impulse buys • They are attentive to environmental concerns and comfortable with the latest technology SUMMARY Below are general commonalities found amongst the top five tapestry segments: • Young married couples (with or without children) • Well-educated • Very connected and comfortable with latest technology CCPR should be mindful of these consumer behaviors when pricing program/services, planning new programs, and/or considering building new facilities as roughly 80% of the community shares the above characteristics. 2.8 RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS The trends analysis is intended to provide an understanding of national, regional, and local recreational trends. This analysis examines participation trends, activity levels, and programming trends. It is important to note that all trends are based on current and/or historical patterns and participation rates. 2.8.1 NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2018 was utilized in evaluating the following trends: • National Trends in Sport and Fitness Participation • Core vs. Casual Participation • Activity by Generation Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 45 The study is based on findings from surveys carried out in 2017 and the beginning of 2018 by the Physical Activity Council, resulting in a total of 30,999 online interviews (individual and household surveys). A sample size of 30,999 completed interviews is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of +/- 0.27 percentage points at a 95% confidence interval. Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the total U.S. population figure of 298,325,103 people (ages six and older). The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in recreation across the U.S. CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active participants as either core or casual participants based on frequency. Core participants have higher participatory frequency than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus core participation may vary based on the nature of each individual activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness and recreational activities more than 50 times per year, while for sports, the threshold for core participation is typically 13 times per year. In a given activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be less likely to switch to other activities or become inactive (engage in no physical activity) than causal participants. This may also explain why activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern shifts in participation rates than those with larger groups of casual participants. In recent years, the percent of core participants has decreased in nearly every sport/activity as casual participation continues to become more common among today’s generation. This is expected to be a result of several factors including time restraints, financial barriers, and the introduction of new activities. All of these factors are contributing to participants trying out new activities and casually participating in a wide variety of sports and recreation endeavors versus the former trend of dedicating all of one’s time and finance to one (or two) activities. INACTIVITY RATES / ACTIVITY LEVEL TRENDS SFIA also categorizes participation rates by intensity, dividing activity levels into five categories based on the caloric implication (i.e., high calorie burning, low/med calorie burning, or inactive) and the frequency of participation (i.e., 1-50 times, 50-150 times, or above) for a given activity. Participation rates are expressed as ‘super active’ or ‘active to a healthy level’ (high calorie burning, 151+ times), ‘active’ (high calorie burning, 50-150 times), ‘casual’ (high calorie burning, 1-50 times), ‘low/med calorie burning’, and ‘inactive’. These participation rates are then assessed based on the total population trend over the last five years, as well as breaking down these rates by generation. 2.8.2 NATIONAL SPORT AND FITNESS PARTICIPATORY TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The sports most heavily participated in the United States were Golf (23.8 million in 2016) and Basketball (23.4 million), which have participation figures well in excess of the other activities within the general sports category (Figure 13). The popularity of Golf and Basketball can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively small number of participants. Even though Golf has experienced a recent decrease in participation, it still continues to benefit from its wide age segment appeal and is considered a life-long sport. Basketball’s success can be attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at the majority of American dwellings as a drive-way pickup game. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation46 Since 2012, Rugby and other niche sports, like Boxing, Lacrosse, and Roller Hockey have seen strong growth. Rugby has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport, as it has seen participation levels rise by 82.8% over the last five years. Based on the five-year trend, Boxing for Competition (42.6%), Lacrosse (35.1%), and Roller Hockey (34.2%) have also experienced significant growth. In the most recent year, the fastest growing sports were Boxing for Competition (13.1%) and Pickleball (11.3%). During the last five years, the sports that are most rapidly declining include Ultimate Frisbee (-39.1%), Touch Football (-22.8%), Tackle Football (-16.0%), and Racquetball (-13.4%). For the most recent year, Ultimate Frisbee (-14.9%), Badminton (-12.6%), Gymnastics (-10.7%), and Volleyball-Sand/Beach (-9.9%) experienced the largest declines. In general, the most recent year shares a similar pattern with the five-year trends. This suggests that the increasing participation rates in certain activities have yet to peak in sports like Rugby, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and Competitive Boxing. However, some sports that increased rapidly over the past five years have experienced recent decreases in participation, including Squash, Ice Hockey, Roller Hockey and Volleyball-Sand/Beach. The reversal of the five-year trends in these sports may be due to a relatively low user base (ranging from 1-5 million) and could suggest that participation in these activities may have peaked. 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Golf * (2011, 2015, and 2016 data)25,682 24,120 23,815 -7.3% -1.3% Basketball 23,708 22,343 23,401 -1.3% 4.7% Tennis 17,020 18,079 17,683 3.9% -2.2% Baseball 12,976 14,760 15,642 20.5% 6.0% Soccer (Outdoor)12,944 11,932 11,924 -7.9% -0.1% Softball (Slow Pitch)7,411 7,690 7,283 -1.7% -5.3% Football, Flag 5,865 6,173 6,551 11.7% 6.1% Badminton 7,278 7,354 6,430 -11.7% -12.6% Volleyball (Court)6,384 6,216 6,317 -1.0% 1.6% Football, Touch 7,295 5,686 5,629 -22.8% -1.0% Soccer (Indoor)4,617 5,117 5,399 16.9% 5.5% Football, Tackle 6,220 5,481 5,224 -16.0% -4.7% Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,505 5,489 4,947 9.8% -9.9% Gymnastics 5,115 5,381 4,805 -6.1% -10.7% Track and Field 4,257 4,116 4,161 -2.3% 1.1% Cheerleading 3,244 4,029 3,816 17.6% -5.3% Racquetball 4,070 3,579 3,526 -13.4% -1.5% Pickleball N/A 2,815 3,132 N/A 11.3% Ultimate Frisbee 5,131 3,673 3,126 -39.1% -14.9% Ice Hockey 2,363 2,697 2,544 7.7% -5.7% Softball (Fast Pitch)2,624 2,467 2,309 -12.0% -6.4% Lacrosse 1,607 2,090 2,171 35.1% 3.9% Wrestling 1,922 1,922 1,896 -1.4% -1.4% Roller Hockey 1,367 1,929 1,834 34.2% -4.9% Rugby 887 1,550 1,621 82.8% 4.6% Field Hockey 1,237 1,512 1,596 29.0% 5.6% Squash 1,290 1,549 1,492 15.7% -3.7% Boxing for Competition 959 1,210 1,368 42.6% 13.1% *2017 information not available for Golf. Information to be released by National Golf Foundation. Participation figures above reflect 2011, 2015, and 2016 data. National Participatory Trends - General Sports Activity Participation Levels % Change Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Figure 13 - General Sports Participatory Trends Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 47 CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The most popular sports, such as Basketball and Baseball, have a larger core participant base (engaged 13+ times annually) than casual participant base (engaged at least 1 time annually). Less mainstream, less organized sports such as Roller Hockey and Squash have larger casual base participation. Although these sports increased in participation over the last five years, the newcomers were mostly casual participants that may be more inclined to switch to other sports or fitness activities, resulting in the declining one-year trends. 2.8.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced strong growth in recent years. Many of these activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health and enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of options that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by most individuals. The most popular fitness activity, by far, is Fitness Walking, which had about 110.8 million participants in 2017, increasing 2.7% from the previous year (Figure 14). Other leading fitness activities based on total number of participants include Treadmill (52.9 million), Free Weights (52.2 million), Running/Jogging (50.7 million), Weight/Resistance Machines (36.2 million), and Stationary Cycling (36.0 million). Over the last five years, the activities growing most rapidly are Non-Traditional / Off-Road Triathlons (74.7%), Trail Running (57.6%), and Aerobics (32.7%). Over the same time frame, the activities that have undergone the most decline include: Boot Camps Style Cross Training (-11.3%), Stretching (-7.5%), and Weight/Resistance Machines (-6.9%). In the last year, activities with the largest gains in participation were Triathlon Non-Traditional/Off Road (10.1%), Running/Jogging (7.1%), and Trail Running (6.6%). From 2016-2017, the activities that had the most decline in participation were Traditional/Road Triathlon (-8.9%), Cardio Kickboxing (-3.0%), and Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise (-2.6%). 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Fitness Walking 114,029 107,895 110,805 -2.8% 2.7% Treadmill 50,839 51,872 52,966 4.2% 2.1% Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)N/A 51,513 52,217 N/A 1.4% Running/Jogging 51,450 47,384 50,770 -1.3% 7.1% Weight/Resistant Machines 38,999 35,768 36,291 -6.9% 1.5% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)35,987 36,118 36,035 0.1% -0.2% Stretching 35,873 33,771 33,195 -7.5% -1.7% Elliptical Motion Trainer* 28,560 32,218 32,283 13.0% 0.2% Free Weights (Barbells) 26,688 26,473 27,444 2.8% 3.7% Yoga 23,253 26,268 27,354 17.6% 4.1% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 25,110 24,454 N/A -2.6% Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,839 22,616 N/A 3.6% Aerobics (High Impact) 16,178 21,390 21,476 32.7% 0.4% Stair Climbing Machine 12,979 15,079 14,948 15.2% -0.9% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 12,914 13,622 N/A 5.5% Stationary Cycling (Group)8,477 8,937 9,409 11.0% 5.3% Trail Running 5,806 8,582 9,149 57.6% 6.6% Pilates Training 8,519 8,893 9,047 6.2% 1.7% Cardio Kickboxing 6,725 6,899 6,693 -0.5% -3.0% Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 7,496 6,583 6,651 -11.3% 1.0% Martial Arts 5,075 5,745 5,838 15.0% 1.6% Boxing for Fitness 4,831 5,175 5,157 6.7% -0.3% Tai Chi 3,203 3,706 3,787 18.2% 2.2% Barre N/A 3,329 3,436 N/A 3.2% Triathlon (Traditional/Road)1,789 2,374 2,162 20.8% -8.9% Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,075 1,705 1,878 74.7% 10.1% *Cardio Cross Trainer is merged to Elliptical Motion Trainer National Participatory Trends - General Fitness Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%)Legend: Figure 14 - General Fitness National Participatory Trends Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation48 CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS It should be noted that many of the activities that are rapidly growing have a relatively low user base, which allows for more drastic shifts in terms of percentage, especially for five-year trends. Increasing casual participants may also explain the rapid growth in some activities. For instance, core/casual participation trends showed that over the last five years, casual participants increased drastically in Non-Traditional/ Off Road (119.6%) and Tai Chi (26.9%), while the core participant base of both activities experienced significantly less growth. 2.8.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Results from the SFIA report demonstrate a contrast of growth and decline in participation regarding outdoor / adventure recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or within a group, and are not as limited by time constraints. In 2017, the most popular activities, in terms of total participants, from the outdoor / adventure recreation category include: Day Hiking (44.9 million), Road Bicycling (38.8 million), Freshwater Fishing (38.3 million), and Camping within ¼ mile of Vehicle/Home (26.2 million) (Figure 15). From 2012-2017, BMX Bicycling (83.4%), Adventure Racing (56.3%), Backpacking Overnight (38.3%), and Day Hiking (30.1%) have undergone the largest increases in participation. Similarly, in the last year, activities growing most rapidly include: BMX Bicycling (10.0%), Backpacking Overnight (8.1%), and Day Hiking (6.6%). The five-year trend shows activities declining most rapidly were In-Line Roller Skating (-20.7%), Camping within ¼ mile of Home/Vehicle (-16.5%), and Birdwatching (-9.2%). More recently, activities experiencing the largest declines were Adventure Racing (-15.7%), Traditional Climbing (-9.4%), and In-Line Roller Skating (-2.1%). 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Hiking (Day) 34,519 42,128 44,900 30.1% 6.6% Bicycling (Road)39,790 38,365 38,866 -2.3% 1.3% Fishing (Freshwater)39,002 38,121 38,346 -1.7% 0.6% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)31,454 26,467 26,262 -16.5% -0.8% Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,903 15,855 16,159 1.6% 1.9% Fishing (Saltwater)12,000 12,266 13,062 8.9% 6.5% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,535 11,589 12,296 -9.2% 6.1% Backpacking Overnight 7,933 10,151 10,975 38.3% 8.1% Bicycling (Mountain)7,265 8,615 8,609 18.5% -0.1% Archery 7,173 7,903 7,769 8.3% -1.7% Fishing (Fly)5,848 6,456 6,791 16.1% 5.2% Skateboarding 6,227 6,442 6,382 2.5% -0.9% Roller Skating, In-Line 6,647 5,381 5,268 -20.7% -2.1% Bicycling (BMX) 1,861 3,104 3,413 83.4% 10.0% Adventure Racing 1,618 2,999 2,529 56.3% -15.7% Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,189 2,790 2,527 15.4% -9.4% National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Figure 15 - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation Participatory Trends Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 49 CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION National participation trends for outdoor activities is on the rise; however, In-Line Roller Skating and Freshwater Fishing only experienced increases in casual participation over the last five years. Any decline in participation over the last five years was mainly ascribed to decreases in core participants for activities such as In-Line Roller Skating (-32.6%), Skateboarding (-10.7%), Road Bicycling (-10.4%), Camping Recreational Vehicle (-10.0%), and Archery (-3.2%). Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation50 2.8.5 NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY Swimming is unquestionably a lifetime sport, which is most likely why it has experienced such strong participation growth among the American population. In 2017, Fitness Swimming is the absolute leader in overall participation (27.1 million) for aquatic activities, due in large part to its broad, multigenerational appeal. In the most recent year, Fitness Swimming reported the strongest growth (2.0%) among aquatic activities, while Aquatic Exercise and Competitive Swimming experienced decreases in participation (Figure 16). Aquatic Exercise has had a strong participation base of 10.4 million, however it also has recently experienced a slight decrease in participants (-1.1%). Based on previous trends, this activity could rebound in terms of participation due largely to ongoing research that demonstrates the activity’s great therapeutic benefit coupled with increased life expectancies and a booming senior population. Aquatic Exercise has paved the way as a less stressful form of physical activity, while allowing similar benefits as land-based exercises, such as aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and balance. Doctors are still recommending Aquatic Exercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients with bone or joint problems. Compared to a standard workout, Aquatic Exercise can significantly reduce stress placed on weight-bearing joints, bones, and muscles, while also reducing swelling. CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY While all activities have undergone increases in participation over the last five years, most recently, casual participation (1-49 times) is increasing much more rapidly than core participation (50+ times). For the five-year timeframe, casual participants of Competition Swimming increased by 56.2%, Aquatic Exercise by 24.8%, and Fitness Swimming by 21.0%. However, core participants of Competition Swimming decreased by -6.5% and Aquatic Exercise declined by -4.6% (from 2012 to 2017). Figure 16 - Aquatic Participatory Trends 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Swimming (Fitness)23,216 26,601 27,135 16.9% 2.0% Aquatic Exercise 9,177 10,575 10,459 14.0% -1.1% Swimming (Competition)2,502 3,369 3,007 20.2% -10.7% National Participatory Trends - Aquatics Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 51 2.8.6 NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES The most popular water sports / activities based on total participants in 2017 were Recreational Kayaking (10.5 million), Canoeing (9.2 million), and Snorkeling (8.3 million) (Figure 17). It should be noted that water activity participation tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and environmental factors. A region with more water access and a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities than a region that has long winter seasons or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in water sports and activities, it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of environmental barriers which can greatly influence water activity participation. Over the last five years, Stand-Up Paddling (138.9%) was by far the fastest growing water activity, followed by White Water Kayaking (33.1%), Recreational Kayaking (28.7%), and Sea/Tour Kayaking (20.8%). Although the five-year trends show water sport activities are getting more popular, the most recent year shows a different trend. From 2016-2017 Stand-Up Paddling Recreational Kayaking reflect much slower increases in participation (3.3% and 5.2%), while White Water Kayaking (-2.0%), Sea/Tour Kayaking (-5.4%) both show decreases in participation numbers. From 2012-2017, activities declining most rapidly were Jet Skiing (-22.6%), Water Skiing (-19.4%), and Wakeboarding (-10.8%). In the most recent year, activities experiencing the greatest declines in participation included: Boardsailing/Windsurfing (-9.4%), Canoeing (-8.2%), and Scuba Diving (-7.6%). CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES As mentioned previously, regional, seasonal, and environmental limiting factors may influence the participation rate of water sport and activities. These factors may also explain why all water-based activities have more casual participants than core participants, since frequencies of activities may be constrained by uncontrollable factors. Figure 17 - Water Sports / Activities Participatory Trends 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Kayaking (Recreational)8,187 10,017 10,533 28.7% 5.2% Canoeing 9,813 10,046 9,220 -6.0% -8.2% Snorkeling 8,664 8,717 8,384 -3.2% -3.8% Jet Skiing 6,996 5,783 5,418 -22.6% -6.3% Sailing 3,841 4,095 3,974 3.5% -3.0% Water Skiing 4,434 3,700 3,572 -19.4% -3.5% Rafting 3,756 3,428 3,479 -7.4% 1.5% Stand-Up Paddling 1,392 3,220 3,325 138.9% 3.3% Wakeboarding 3,368 2,912 3,005 -10.8% 3.2% Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,446 3,124 2,955 20.8% -5.4% Scuba Diving 2,781 3,111 2,874 3.3% -7.6% Surfing 2,545 2,793 2,680 5.3% -4.0% Kayaking (White Water)1,878 2,552 2,500 33.1% -2.0% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,372 1,737 1,573 14.7% -9.4% National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities Activity Participation Levels % Change NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation52 2.8.7 ACTIVITY BY GENERATION Analyzing participation by age for recreational activities reveals that fitness and outdoor sports were the most common activities across all generations. Breaking down activity level by generation shows a converse correlation between age and healthy activity rates. Generation Z (born 2000+) were the most active, with only 17.6% identifying as inactive. Approximately 65% of individuals within this generation where active in 2017; with 26.3% being active to a healthy level, 18.5% being active & high calorie, and 20.1% being casual active & low/ med calorie. Almost half (46.7%) of millennials (born 1980-1999) were active to a healthy level (35.4%) or active & high calorie (11.3%), while 24.0% claimed they were inactive. Even though this inactive rate is much higher than Generation Z’s (17.6%), it is still below the national inactive rate (28%). Generation X (born 1965-1979) has the second highest active to a healthy level rate (35.0%) among all generations, only being 0.4% less than Millennials. At the same time, they also have the second highest inactive rate, with 28.1% not active at all. The Boomers (born 1945-1964) were the least active generation, with an inactive rate of 33.3%. This age group tends to participate in less intensive activities. Approximately 34% claimed to engage in casual & low/med calorie (4.3%) or low/med calorie (29.6%) burning activities. 26.3% 18.5% 20.1% 17.4% 17.6% Generation Z (2000+) 35.4% 11.3%13.0% 16.4% 24.0% Millennials (1980-1999) 26.5% 6.3% 4.3% 29.6% 33.3% The Boomers (1945-1964) *Times per year: Casual (1-50), Active (51-150), Active to Healthy Level (151+) 35.0% 9.1% 9.1% 18.7% 28.1% Generation X (1965-1979) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 53 2.8.8 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS Programs offered by Park and Recreation Agencies (Great Lakes Region) NRPA’s Agency Performance Review 2018 summarizes key findings from NRPA Park Metrics, which is a benchmark tool that compares the management and planning of operating resources and capital facilities of park and recreation agencies. The report contains data from 1,069 park and recreation agencies across the U.S. as reported between 2015 and 2017. The report shows that the typical agencies (i.e., those at the median values) offer 161 programs annually, with roughly 60% of those programs being fee-based activities/events. CCPR ranks well above this national median, offering approximately 2,613 programs/activities in 2017, 74% of which were fee based. According to the information reported to the NRPA, the top five programming activities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies, both in the U.S. and regionally, are described in the table below (Figure 18). A complete comparison of regional and national programs offered by agencies can be found in Figure 19. When comparing Great Lakes agencies to the U.S. average, team sports, themed special events, social recreation events, fitness enhancement classes, and health and wellness education were all identified as top five most commonly provided program areas offered regionally and nationally. Based on a three-year sample, aquatics and group fitness class were the most commonly provided program areas by CCPR. Top 5 Most Offered Core Program Areas (Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies) U.S. (% of agencies offering)Great Lakes Region (% of agencies offering) Team sports (86%)Themed special events (84%) Themed special events (84%)Team sports (81%) Social recreation events (81%)Social recreation events (81%) Fitness enhancement classes (78%)Health and wellness education (78%) Health and wellness education (78%)Fitness enhancement classes 76% Figure 18 - Top 5 Core Program Areas Great Lakes Region Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation54 In general, Great Lakes park and recreation agencies offered programs at a very similar rate as the national average. However, based on a discrepancy threshold of 5% or more, Great Lakes agencies are offering natural and cultural history activities at a higher rate than the national average. Contradictory, the Great Lakes Region is trailing the national average in regards to team sports. 51% 59% 57% 58% 65% 57% 58% 65% 65% 69% 71% 78% 76% 81% 84% 81% 47% 53% 56% 58% 61% 61% 62% 64% 68% 69% 70% 78% 78% 81% 84% 86% Golf Natural and cultural history activities Visual arts Cultural crafts Performing arts Martial arts Racquet sports Trips and tours Individual sports Aquatics Safety training Health and wellness education Fitness enhancement classes Social recreation events Themed special events Team sports Core Program Areas Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies (Percent of Agencies) U.S.Great Lakes Figure 19 - Programs Offered by Parks and Recreation Agency Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 55 TARGETED PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN, SENIORS, AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES For better understanding of targeted programs by age segment, the NRPA also tracks program offerings that cater specifically to children, seniors, and people with disabilities, on a national and regional basis. This allows for further analysis of these commonly targeted populations. According to the 2018 NRPA Agency Performance Review, approximately 79% of agencies offer dedicated senior programming, while 62% of park and recreation agencies provide adaptive programming for individuals with disabilities. Based on information reported to the NRPA, the top three activities that target children, seniors, and/or people with disabilities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies are described in the table below (Figure 20). A complete comparison of regional and national programs offered by agencies can be found in Figure 21. Top 3 Most Offered Core Program Areas (Targeting Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities) U.S. (% of agencies offering)Great Lakes Region (% of agencies offering) Summer camp (84%)Summer camp (84%) Senior programs (79%)Senior programs 79%) Teen programs (63%)Teen programs (63%) Figure 20 -Top 3 Core Target Program Areas Agencies in the Great Lakes tend to offer targeted programs at an almost identical rate as the national average. The only significant discrepancy is when it comes to preschool and before school program, which the Great Lakes Region offers at a higher rate than the national average. Based on 2017 program offering, CCPR provides a majority of these targeted program areas including summer camps, specific teen programs, programs for people with disabilities, after school programs, preschool, and before school programs. 9% 30% 45% 52% 61% 63% 79% 84% 8% 21% 36% 55% 62% 63% 79% 84% Full daycare Before school programs Preschool After school programs Programs for people with disabilities Specific teen programs Specific senior programs Summer camp Core Program Areas Targeting Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities (Percent of Agencies) U.S.Great Lakes Figure 21 - Targeted Programs for Children, Seniors, and People with Disabilities Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation56 2.8.9 LOCAL SPORT AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL MARKET POTENIAL INDEX (MPI) Figures 22-25 show sport and leisure market potential data for CCPR’s service area, as provided by ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within the city. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. national average. The national average is 100; therefore, numbers below 100 would represent lower than average participation rates, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rates. The service area is compared to the national average in four (4) categories – general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and commercial recreation. Overall, the service area demonstrates extremely high market potential index (MPI) numbers, this is particularly noticeable when analyzing the fitness and commercial recreation market potential charts. Every activity within both of these categories has an above average MPI score (100+). Analyzing the general sports and outdoor activity MPI charts, a majority of these activities score well above the national average, with only softball (96 MPI), Volleyball (95 MPI), and Horseback Riding (93 MPI) scoring below 100. These overall high MPI scores show that Carmel residents are very active and have a rather strong participation presence when it comes to recreational activities. This becomes significant when CCPR considers starting up new programs or building new facilities, giving them a strong tool to estimate resident attendance and participation. As seen in the charts below, the following sport and leisure trends are most prevalent for residents within Carmel. The activities are listed in descending order, from highest to lowest MPI score. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents within the service area will actively participate in offerings provided by the department. GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL When analyzing the general sports MPI chart, golf (161 MPI), tennis (138 MPI), and football (112 MPI) are the most popular sports amongst Carmel residents when compared to the national average. 161 138 112 110 106 106 96 95 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Golf Tennis Football Basketball Baseball Soccer Softball VolleyballMPI ScoresGeneral Sports Carmel MPI National Average Figure 22 - General Sports Participation Trends Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 57 FITNESS MARKET POTENTIAL The fitness MPI chart shows weight lifting (147 MPI), jogging/running (143 MPI), and yoga (136 MPI) as the most popular activities amongst Carmel residents when compared to the national average. OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MARKET POTENTIAL When analyzing the outdoor activity MPI chart, hiking (143 MPI), mountain biking (141 MPI), bicycling (140 MPI), and canoeing/kayaking (140 MPI) are the most popular activities amongst Carmel residents when compared to the national average. 147 143 136 135 134 133 130 108 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Weight Lifting Jogging/ Running Yoga Aerobics Pilates Walking for Exercise Swimming ZumbaMPI ScoresFitness Carmel MPI National Average Figure 23 - Fitness Participation Trends 143 141 140 140 130 107 101 93 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Hiking Bicycling (mountain) Bicycling (road) Canoeing/ Kayaking Backpacking Rock Climbing Fishing (fresh water) Horseback RidingMPI ScoresOutdoor Activity Carmel MPI National Average Figure 24 - Outdoor Activity Participation Trends Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation58 COMMERCIAL RECREATION MARKET POTENTIAL The commercial recreation MPI chart shows that those who attended a sports event (148 MPI), spent $250+ on sports/rec equipment (139 MPI), and went to a museum (133 MPI) as the most popular activities amongst Carmel residents when compared to the national average. Figure 25 - Commercial Recreation Participation Trends 106 110 110 110 113 117 121 123 124 125 129 130 131 133 139 148 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Visited indoor water park in last 12 months Did painting/drawing in last 12 months Danced/went dancing in last 12 months Spent $1-99 on sports/rec equip Went overnight camping in last 12 months Attended a movie in last 6 months Visited a theme park in last 12 months Did photography in last 12 months Visited a zoo in last 12 months Visited a theme park 5+ times in last 12 months Went to art gallery in last 12 months Spent $100-249 on sports/rec equip Played board game in last 12 months Went to museum in last 12 months Spent $250+ on sports/rec equip Attended sports event MPI Scores Commercial Recreation Carmel MPI National Average Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 59 EXPECTED LOCAL PARTICIPATION Figure 26 shows the expected percentage of resident participants within the city in regards to recreational activities. These percentages are correlated to MPI scores previously introduced, serving as an additional tool for programmatic decision-making that allows CCPR to quantify the expected participants by activity. Figure 26 - Carmel Expected Participation Percentage 1.8% 2.1% 2.7% 3.1% 3.7% 4.0% 4.4% 4.4% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 5.7% 9.0% 9.2% 10.6% 11.1% 11.6% 13.9% 14.1% 15.4% 17.4% 18.5% 21.1% 32.2% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Rock Climbing Horseback Riding Softball Volleyball Pilates Zumba Baseball Soccer Backpacking Tennis Football Bicycling (mountain) Basketball Canoeing/Kayaking Aerobics Yoga Fishing (fresh water) Golf Bicycling (road) Weight Lifting Hiking Jogging/Running Swimming Walking for Exercise % of Carmel PopulationActivitiesCarmel Expected Participation Percentage Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation60 2.9 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 2.9.1 OVERVIEW Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation (CCPR) identified operating metrics to benchmark against comparable parks and recreation agencies. The goal of the analysis is to evaluate how CCPR is positioned among peer agencies as it applies to effective, efficient, and innovative practices. The information sought was a combination of operating metrics that factor budgets, staffing levels, and inventories, as well as perspective on the organizational culture and identity. Information used in this analysis was obtained directly from each participating benchmark agency. Due to differences in how each system collects, maintains, and reports data, variances may exist. These variations can impact the per capita and percentage allocations, and the overall comparison must be viewed with this in mind. Benchmark data collection was completed in June 2018, and it is possible that information may have changed since the original collection date. In some instances, the information was not tracked or not available. 2.9.2 PEER AGENCIES The table below lists each benchmark agency in the study, arranged by total population, and describes the state, year of origination, size, and density of each jurisdiction. Agencies included in the study include a broad representation of national peer agencies from communities large and small, old and young. CCPR is just above the benchmark median for total population (95,170) and has the third largest land area (50 sq. mi.), which is the least dense service area (1,946 residents per sq. mi.) in the benchmark analysis. Established in 1991, CCPR is also the youngest agency in the study. Agency State Established Population Jurisdiction Size (Sq. Mi.) Population per Sq. Mi. Plano Parks & Rec TX 1968 286,057 71.60 3,995 Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources NC 1970 160,390 58.00 2,765 Bellevue Parks & Community Services WA 1953 140,000 30.00 4,667 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation IN 1991 97,297 50.00 1,946 Canton Leisure Services MI n/a 95,000 36.00 2,639 Castle Rock Parks & Rec CO 1977 65,000 34.00 1,912 Park District of Oak Park IL 1912 52,440 4.50 11,653 Westerville Parks & Rec OH 1967 39,000 12.47 3,128 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 61 2.9.3 ACCOLADES Peer agencies were also selected based on their exceptional level of performance, as each agency is a past recipient of the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Gold Medal Award and is accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). CCPR’s awards for inclusion and environmental stewardship, Cary’s NAYS award, and Oak Park’s recognition for turf management and innovation further demonstrate the quality of benchmark agencies in this study. 2.9.4 BENCHMARK COMPARISON PARK ACREAGE The following table provides a general overview of each system’s park acreage, including quantity of parks less than 10 acres or 100 acres or more, total acres managed, and the key performance metric of total acres per 1,000 residents, as well as whether each agency is responsible for maintaining boulevards, esplanades, and/or roundabouts. In comparison, CCPR ranks low in total acres managed (543) and acres per 1,000 residents (5.6), although this underrepresents the actual amount of parkland available within the community when factoring in public lands managed by either the City or Hamilton County and not included in CCPR’s inventory. Including this additional property, the community has 977 acres of parkland providing 10 acres per 1,000 residents, although this is still lower than all but two of the benchmark agencies. The department has a balance of smaller and larger parks, with fewer parks less than 10 acres than most of the benchmark agencies. CCPR is in line with the slight majority (4 to 3) of benchmark agencies that do not currently maintain boulevards, esplanades, or roundabouts. Agency NRPA Gold Medal CAPRA Accredited (Year)Other Notable National-Level Awards Plano Parks & Rec Winner (2015) Finalist (2014, 2012)Yes (1994) Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources Winner (2016) Yes (2003)NAYS Excellence in Youth Sports (2016) Bellevue Parks & Community Services Winner (2005) Yes (2005) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Winner (2014) Yes (2014) NRPA Excellence in Inclusion (2016) Barb King Environmental Stewardship (2015) Canton Leisure Services Winner (2008) Yes (2004) Castle Rock Parks & Rec Winner (2012) Finalist (2018)Yes (2015) Park District of Oak Park Winner (2015) Yes (2015) Sports Turf Management Field of the Year (2018) J. Robert Havlick Award for Innovation in Local Govt (2017) Westerville Parks & Rec Winner (2007, 2001) Finalist (2013)Yes (2005) Agency Population Total Parks 10 Acres or Less Total Parks 100+ Acres Total Acres Owned or Managed Total Acres per 1,000 Residents Maintain Blvds, Esplanades, and/or Roundabouts? Castle Rock Parks & Rec 65,000 9 1 3,789 58.3 Yes Bellevue Parks & Community Services 140,000 - - 2,700 19.3 - Plano Parks & Rec 286,057 29 9 5,166 18.1 Yes Westerville Parks & Rec 39,000 7 - 657 16.8 Yes Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 160,390 12 6 2,690 16.8 No Canton Leisure Services 95,000 1 1 800 8.4 No Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 97,297 4 2 543 5.6 No Park District of Oak Park 52,440 18 - 82 1.6 No Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation62 STAFFING CCPR employs the second largest number of individuals among peer agencies with 645 full- time, part-time, and seasonal staff, fortified by 372 volunteers contributing 2,345 total hours of assistance to the department. The department is also one of three park systems currently offering an employee bonus and/or incentive program. CCPR, along with Cary and Castle Rock, incentivize works through merit-based raises. Incentive program examples identified outside of CCPR’s ESE bonus include Castle Rock’s one-time employee performance bonuses. OPERATING EXPENSE PER CAPITA The majority of benchmark agencies have operating budgets of less than $16 million. CCPR has the second smallest operating budget with $12 million in expenditures in 2017. Dividing the annual operational budget by each service area’s population allows for a comparison of how much each agency is spending per resident. CCPR ranks below the benchmark median for operating expense per resident ($125). Agency Total Individuals Employed Peak 2017 (FT, PT, Seasonal) Volunteer Hours 2017 Employee Bonus or Incentive Program? Brief Description of Bonus / Incentive Program Plano Parks & Rec 712 22,795 No - Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 645 2,345 Yes Merit increase of up to 4% for full-time employees based on annual performance evaluation Extended School Enrichment Division: 1. $50 bonus if on payroll first day of fall or spring semester 2. $150 bonus if on payroll final day of fall or spring semester AND worked 400+ hours during the semester 3. CCPR offers PTO for part-time staff Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 543 31,500 Yes Merit increase of up to 4% based on employee performance Bellevue Parks & Community Services 532 110,812 No - Park District of Oak Park 500 2,409 No - Castle Rock Parks & Rec 400 30,000 Yes Recognize employee performance with awards up to a few thousand dollars, as well as pay for performance increases as part of annual review in the form of percentage income increase or one-time bonus Agency Population Total Operating Expense Operating Expense per Resident Bellevue Parks & Community Services 140,000 38,490,716$ 274.93$ Park District of Oak Park 52,440 14,405,024$ 274.70$ Westerville Parks & Rec 39,000 10,149,436$ 260.24$ Castle Rock Parks & Rec 65,000 14,788,136$ 227.51$ Canton Leisure Services 95,000 14,522,653$ 152.87$ Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 97,297 12,195,919$ 125.35$ Plano Parks & Rec 286,057 29,289,638$ 102.39$ Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 160,390 15,999,297$ 99.75$ Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 63 REVENUE PER CAPITA This section assesses the revenue generation of each agency by measuring non-tax revenues, excluding grants, then comparing to the population served to determine revenue earned per resident. CCPR ranks third in both total revenue ($10.2 million) and revenue per resident ($105), which demonstrates the strong revenue generating capabilities of the department. OPERATIONAL COST RECOVERY Operational cost recovery is a key performance indicator, arrived at by dividing total non-tax revenue by total operating expense, which measures how well each department’s revenue generation covers the total cost of operations. CCPR is the outright leader for operational cost recovery, as the department recoups 84% of its total operating expense. This level of cost recovery is recognized as best in practice nationwide and demonstrates the operational efficiency of CCPR. Based off NRPA Park Metrics, the typical park and recreation agency recovers 27.3% of its operating expenditures from non-tax revenue. Agencies serving a similar population to CCPR (e.g. 50,000-99,999) Lower Quartile cost recovery is 16%, Median cost recovery is 28.8% and the Upper Quartile cost recovery is 44.4%. Agency Population Total Non-Tax Revenue (excl. grants) Revenue per Resident (excl. grants) Total Grants Received 2017 Park District of Oak Park 52,440 7,557,562$ 144.12$ 751,146$ Westerville Parks & Rec 39,000 4,247,827$ 108.92$ 850,000$ Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 97,297 10,219,354$ 105.03$ -$ Castle Rock Parks & Rec 65,000 6,774,803$ 104.23$ -$ Bellevue Parks & Community Services 140,000 10,554,179$ 75.39$ 2,796,723$ Canton Leisure Services 95,000 6,890,502$ 72.53$ 115,000$ Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 160,390 8,691,440$ 54.19$ 2,072,000$ Plano Parks & Rec 286,057 11,584,959$ 40.50$ 1,000,000$ Agency Total Non-Tax Revenue (excl. grants) Total Operating Expense Operational Cost Recovery (excl. grants) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 10,219,354$ 12,195,919$ 84% Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 8,691,440$ 15,999,297$ 54% Park District of Oak Park 7,557,562$ 14,405,024$ 52% Canton Leisure Services 6,890,502$ 14,522,653$ 47% Castle Rock Parks & Rec 6,774,803$ 14,788,136$ 46% Westerville Parks & Rec 4,247,827$ 10,149,436$ 42% Plano Parks & Rec 11,584,959$ 29,289,638$ 40% Bellevue Parks & Community Services 10,554,179$ 38,490,716$ 27% Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation64 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The table below reveals the annual capital spending from 2015-2017, as well as the three-year average, for each agency. CCPR ranks below the median for current capital spending ($3.8 million) and average annual capital expense ($4 million). The department is also one of the few benchmark agencies that experienced a dip in spending from 2016 to 2017. This is largely the result of how CCPR funds capital projects. The department typically does not rely on bond proceeds to fund capital projects, building up capital reserves until there are sufficient dollars available to fund improvements. GRANTS Each benchmark also provided the total grants received in 2017 to better understand how peer agencies offset capital improvements. This is expressed in the table below by comparing the total grant dollars received as a percentage of capital improvements in 2017. CCPR is one of two agencies that did not receive any grants in the most recent year. Among agencies receiving grants, the benchmark median is 12% of CIP attributed to grant funding. Agency CIP Budget 2015 CIP Budget 2016 CIP Budget 2017 Avg Annual CIP Expense 2015-2017 Plano Parks & Rec 24,461,532$ 27,874,584$ 40,121,519$ 30,819,212$ Bellevue Parks & Community Services 11,693,908$ 14,106,605$ 24,321,181$ 16,707,231$ Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 6,465,350$ 13,868,848$ 10,655,105$ 10,329,768$ Castle Rock Parks & Rec 3,604,500$ 3,003,221$ 9,099,168$ 5,235,630$ Westerville Parks & Rec 1,562,800$ 5,094,004$ 6,741,400$ 4,466,068$ Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 2,808,640$ 5,438,209$ 3,846,733$ 4,031,194$ Park District of Oak Park 5,572,808$ 3,510,556$ 2,545,342$ 3,876,235$ Canton Leisure Services 1,390,000$ 609,000$ 2,500,000$ 1,499,667$ Agency Total Grants 2017 CIP Budget 2017 Grants as % of CIP Park District of Oak Park 751,146$ 2,545,342$ 30% Cary Parks, Rec, & Cultural Resources 2,072,000$ 10,655,105$ 19% Westerville Parks & Rec 850,000$ 6,741,400$ 13% Bellevue Parks & Community Services 2,796,723$ 24,321,181$ 11% Canton Leisure Services 115,000$ 2,500,000$ 5% Plano Parks & Rec 1,000,000$ 40,121,519$ 2% Castle Rock Parks & Rec -$ 9,099,168$ 0% Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation -$ 3,846,733$ 0% Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 65 2.9.5 OTHER INQUIRIES CCPR was specifically interested in a variety of inquiries to gain deeper understanding of each peer agency and identify competencies and/or insight on best practices. TOTAL NUMBER OF 18-HOLE GOLF COURSES Half of benchmark agencies (4 out of 8) currently operate at least one 18-hole golf course. Of those offering the amenity, Canton operates the most (3), followed by Bellevue (2), and Castle Rock / Plano (1). CCPR, Cary, Oak Park, and Westerville were the benchmark agencies that do not operate a golf course, although the City of Carmel does operate a public golf course for the Carmel-Clay community. BEFORE AND AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM CCPR is one of only three benchmark agencies (incl. Bellevue and Oak Park) that currently offer a before and after-school program. Among agencies reporting figures, CCPR has the most total sites (11) for before and after-school programs. Total enrollment for before and after-school for CCPR for the 2017/18 school year was 2,548. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation66 THREE THINGS EACHAGENCY IS CURRENTLY DOING FOR WHICH THEY ARE MOST PROUD Each agency listed the three things they are most proud of, as follows. CCPR • Financial sustainability – high cost recovery (84%) while also contributing to social equity of community ($205,000 in scholarships in 2017) • Environmental sustainability, with natural resource management plans for each park, programs to engage the public with nature, and environmentally-sensitive construction practices • Culture of inclusion through adaptive programming, inclusive parks and facilities, and staff culture Oak Park • Performance management as a real-time data driver for our organization • Environmental sustainability with LEED buildings, cisterns, solar, geothermal, green roofs, native plantings, bioswales, and much more • Recreation Fellowship offers a young professional a year-round rotation through all departments where they get hands on training for their career growth Westerville • Customer engagement / community support • Environmental sustainability • Social equity Plano • Five recreation centers and four pools that host 8,000+ classes and programs each year, totaling $364,652 on 5,081 receipts with an 80% online registration rate • Three FT and three PT staff (Field Service Specialists) assigned to the city’s 16 athletic sites to ensure proper use and compliance of facilities, as well as an interface for the department with the public during peak hours Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 67 • “Weekend Care’ Program where supervisory level parks employees tour city parks and document usage during peak times and provide a weekly report to Parks staff Canton • Lead Like a Girl and Be a Model Man – programs to teach young teens how to be better members of society • You Belong Here Initiative – providing access for all ages, races, and abilities to programs and employment in our department • Park Prescription Program – partnering with doctors to prescribe time in parks as medical therapy Cary • Innovative use of technology – using a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, called Salesforce, to build a registration system integrated with other town systems (finance, work orders, etc.) and a future 311 system for a 360-degree view of our citizens • Community arts as downtown revitalization tool – reuse and reinvest old spaces to help with revitalization efforts downtown, such as the new art house movie theater, The Cary, as well as a new park with color-changing fountain, outdoor game tables, and weekly special events as a destination for families and young people • Amateur and collegiate sports destination – between WakeMed Soccer Park, Cary Tennis Park, and USA Baseball National Training Complex, Cary has hosted 58 college championships and generated over $100 million in local economic impact Bellevue • NRPA CAPRA accredited since 2005 • NRPA Gold Medal Winner in 2005 • Community investment and appreciation of Bellevue’s Park System, it’s referred to as ‘a City in a Park’ Castle Rock • Creative program development – program growth includes 82% increase in Adaptive Recreation Program, outreach to seniors resulting in largest per capita Silver Sneaker Program in the US, and staff placed more than 60,000 lights for downtown holiday lighting • Using community input to provide operational direction to the department through comprehensive surveys • Using creative financing and partnerships (COPs, TIF, Parks and Trails Foundation) to develop new facilities to maintain level of service during rapid growth Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation68 ONE THING THAT MOST DISTINGUISHES EACH AGENCY FROM OTHER PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES The following responses indicate each agency’s ‘one thing’ that distinguishes the department, in no particular order: • Financial sustainability – high cost recovery • Performance management system – use of data to drive operational capital and strategic decision-making • Business practices along with excellent customer service and community engagement • Capital maintenance fund of $10 million per year for park and facility renovations • Willingness to take a risk on new ideas, encourage pushing new things, and not being afraid to fail – if we never fail, we are not trying enough ideas • Sports and entertainment venues – over $100 million in economic impact from sports tourism and our Koka Booth Amphitheater contributes $40 million of economic impact from the arts • Our department includes Human Service, as well as Probation • Full integration into the process of reviewing new development and work closely with developers to ensure adequate dedication of parks and open space, as well as trail construction, to serve future residents – we meet, or exceed, our standard of 30% of the gross land area of Town dedicated to open space and park land Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 69 2.9.6 SUMMARY OF BENCHMARK FINDINGS Findings from this benchmark analysis reveal CCPR is well positioned compared to its peers. This study included some of the finest park systems in the country, as every agency is CAPRA accredited and a past recipient of the NRPA Gold Medal Award. Benchmarking against peers that are industry leaders provides a sound measuring stick for best practices and innovative approaches that will help CCPR continue to achieve at a high level. CCPR as a system is relatively small in scale compared to benchmark agencies. While the population is quickly growing to one of the largest in the study, CCPR ranks next to last in population density and acres per 1,000 residents. The department also reports the second lowest operational budget, which can be partially attributed to lower service levels for parks and facilities compared to benchmark peers with much larger inventories. Capital improvements spending for CCPR also rank near the bottom among benchmark agencies. Areas where CCPR demonstrate great strengths include efficient operations, sustainability efforts, and resident participation. Based on operating cost per resident, CCPR has one of the most efficient operations in the study. Even more telling, CCPR is a clear leader nationally for achieving a remarkable cost recovery level of 84%, which is 30 percentage points higher than the next closest peer. The department’s ability to recover such a high percentage of operational costs is largely attributed to the significant amount of non-tax revenue being generated. This speaks highly to the level of participation of the community in CCPR programs, especially as one of the largest before and after school programs among benchmark peers. The benchmark study also identified some potential opportunities and/or improvements CCPR could explore in the future. The department reported the fewest number of volunteer hours among any peer agency, with most agencies reporting more than 10 times the number of volunteer hours. CCPR is also only one of two benchmark agencies that didn’t receive any funding through grants, and the median peer agency funds around 12% of CIP through grants. This form of alternative funding could be a good opportunity to bring in additional dollars that can help grow the system and increase the lower levels of service for park acreage. In general, CCPR is well represented as a peer among some of the highest functioning agencies in the country. This study should serve as a source of pride for the agency as well as a look into what other high-performing agencies are currently doing. Based on the findings in this study, CCPR is doing a great job of upholding its reputation as a best in class agency. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation70 2.10 ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN 2.10.1 STATEMENT ON ACCESSIBILITY Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) makes a good-faith effort to ensure all patrons, and the community at-large, are knowledgeable of the resources and opportunities available to them, which support full and active participation within CCPR’s parks, facilities, and programs. CCPR believes every individual has the right to participate in activities and programs that support their physical, mental, social and emotional wellness, and therefore contribute to enhancing their overall quality of life. Based on this belief, and CCPR’s vision and mission, we are committed to the provision of services for individuals of all ages, skills and ability levels. This is achieved by incorporating universal design for all parks and facilities, identifying and removing barriers in order to serve individual and community needs, as well as to provide quality programs and services accessible to all; such as our many recreational, leisure and education-based programs, volunteer opportunities and interactive public events. Commitment to accessibility is further illustrated through the Department’s employment of two full- time Inclusion Supervisors. Both positions are held by Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists. Through their specialized educational training, the Inclusion Supervisors are uniquely qualified to review requests for accommodation and prescribe reasonable modifications in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, CCPR is dedicated to non-discrimination in the provision of programs, services and activities to the public. CCPR will continue to incorporate all consumer feedback, current research and practice knowledge in order to continue meeting and exceeding customer/community satisfaction and to protect and promote access for generations to come. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 71 2.10.2 SUMMARY OF ACCESS AUDIT AND TRANSITION PLAN In May 2015, CCPR had an Access Audit and Transition Plan completed by Recreation Accessibility Consultants (“RAC”), LLC. A copy of this document is available upon request. The audit revealed that there were approximately 1,400 access deficits identified in the 20 Carmel Clay site reports, with an additional 1,100 for the school sites. For every deficit, a solution was identified. The report also noted that for every deficit that was found, RAC observed 10 elements that complied with access requirements. In other words, approximately 14,000 access features were in compliance with ADA across all Carmel Clay sites. The audit attempted to identify some broad solutions, such as the refreshing of all accessible parking, as a way to address issues identified in the earlier 34 site reports, and as a way for CCPR to better manage compliance. This approach also gives CCPR flexibility within its compliance efforts to move resources so that they are applied with optimal impact. However, the scope of the audit did not include the design of a solution, rather, it was performance based. For example, if a park restroom was identified as having an overall need to be made accessible, a recommendation was made. The assessment did not design unachievable solutions like removing walls or major utility overhauls. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION CCPR values intergovernmental cooperation and recognizes the benefits to taxpayers and registrants by sharing facilities to maximize the value of the built environment and to avoid duplication of services. Towards that end CCPR uses Carmel Clay Schools, through a joint agreement, for before and after school programs, and camps. Since these activities must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the access audit evaluated the respective locations and listed barriers at each school. CCPR shared the access audit and transition plan with Carmel Clay Schools since CCPR is not responsible for the physical attributes of these facilities. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation72 CONCLUSION CCPR has a variety of recreation facilities and sites. Skilled staff operate facilities and sites the community wants and enjoys. The report identifies some issues that are typical in a municipal infrastructure. CCPR takes steps towards accessibility every year and that undoubtedly helped. CCPR values its commitment to staff and the public and takes steps every year to make accessibility an ongoing part of its annual plans and budgets. US Department of Justice mandates that work toward accessibility be completed as soon as possible, therefore, CCPR could be forced to accelerate its pace toward ADA access. CCPR has an ADA Request for Modification located on its website and at https://ccpr.formstack. com/forms/request_for_modification Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 73 CHAPTER THREE – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 3.1 KEY LEADER AND FOCUS GROUPS As part of the Master Plan, key stakeholder interviews were completed April 23-25, 2018 to provide a foundation for identifying community issues and key themes, along with understanding question topics that would be beneficial for the statistically-valid community survey. Meetings were conducted in-person at City Hall, Clay Township Government Center, and the CCPR Administrative Offices. In conjunction for those that could not make an in-person meeting, 30-minute interviews were conducted on the phone over these three-days. A facilitation guide was developed that included a series of questions that spurred conversation and follow up questions were asked as appropriate. Invited stakeholders were identified by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) staff and included representatives from the following entities: • Carmel City Council Members • Clay Township Board Members • City of Carmel Mayor • Clay Township Trustee • Carmel/Clay Board of Parks and Recreation Members • Carmel Clay Parks Foundation Members • Carmel Redevelopment Commission • City of Carmel Police • City of Carmel Fire • Carmel Utilities • Carmel Dads Club • Carmel Clay Schools • Center for the Performing Arts • City of Carmel Engineer • Carmel Community Services • Carmel Clay Public Library • PrimeLife Enrichment • OneZone Chamber of Commerce • Carmel Alternative Transportation Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation74 3.1.1 SYNTHESIS After conversations with many stakeholders and interest groups, it is evident that the community has much pride in CCPR. Key themes identified were high-quality parks, maintenance of amenities, as well as accessibility to an abundance of different experiences. The Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, and Monon Greenway are tremendous assets to the community. CCPR also provides a wealth of programs, such as Extended School Enrichment (ESE) and the recreational opportunities offered at the Monon Community Center that reach a multitude of age segments and diverse interests represented in the community. A key theme that emerged in all stakeholder and interest group interviews was the need for additional parkland and indoor programming space in the west and northwest areas of the community. Also, expansion of the extensive trail and greenway system is valued by the community as evident by the many users of the system. Additional parkland and greenspace acquisition, while acknowledged as a challenge, is important to stakeholders as it is recognized that Carmel Clay is reaching anticipated buildout over the next 10 to 15 years. The community values the core philosophies of CCPR, which has led to many Department-wide successes e.g., National Gold Medal Award, CAPRA Accreditation and recent park upgrades at Central Park, Founders Park, and the upcoming West Park development. It is important to stakeholders that CCPR builds off the accomplishments and continues to operate under its core principles of fantastic parks, programs that serve all members of the community, quality maintenance, focus on inclusive design and innovation. While many stakeholders respect CCPR’s ability to meet 80% cost recovery, many believe this high of a mandate hinders the agency’s ability to innovate with new amenities and programs or serve an even broader constituency. A review of this cost recovery mandate with the City Council, Township Trustee Board, and the Park Board is desired. As infrastructure ages, stakeholders believe attention will need to be given to ongoing maintenance and operations through the initiation of a calculated capital improvement program, as well as the creation of a dedicated funding source. It will be important to continue to update and replace aging infrastructure throughout the park system as the community has a high standard for maintenance. The following key takeaways emerged from the various interest groups: 3.1.2 KEY TAKEAWAYS Residents Value the Most • The number of parks, abundance of green space, and interconnected trails throughout Carmel • Opportunities that parks and recreation provides for all age groups • The quality of the parks and programs • Central Park amenities that include the Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, walking paths and the Westermeier Commons Playground & Splash Pad • Innovative programs and amenities that are always evolving with new trends Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 75 Additional Improvement or Focus of the System • Additional indoor space, as the Monon Community Center is at or near capacity and the fitness space can be crowded. Also, indoor multi-purpose space for summer camps • Expansion of west Carmel amenities, specifically trails, greenspace, and indoor programming space • Continue to ensure safety is incorporated into design and engineering of parks and trails • Carmel has great passive parks, but potentially expand on active park amenities such as sports fields for adults and adventure programming opportunities with the White River • Access to the White River • Parks and greenspaces in downtown Carmel Areas CCPR is Doing Well and Should Not be Changed Leadership and vision of the park system that is innovative and constantly looking at improvement as an organization and emerging trends. It is a Gold Medal and CAPRA Accredited agency and the community is proud of these accomplishments • Listening to the community on areas of expansion and needs • Maintaining parks and amenities at a high level • Diversity of programming opportunities and park amenities for all age groups • Consistently looking to enhance current and expansion of partnerships • The Extended School Enrichment program is very well received in the community • Sound fiscal management and fiscal sustainability of the agency Biggest Challenges Facing CCPR Over the Next Five Years • Maintaining the park system as infrastructure ages, as well as expansion of the system as population increases • Adequate staff to maintain the park system as it expands • Need to establish a dedicated funding source as the Central Park Bond and Local Income Tax expire • Ensuring programs and amenities match with the changing demographics in Carmel (e.g., older and younger adults) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation76 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 77 Recreation Facilities/Amenities Most Needed Indoor multipurpose programming space that does not compete with the Monon Community Center Parkland in northwest and west Carmel, as well as near downtown Community gardens with individual or share plots where residents may grow fruit, vegetables, and/or plants would be a great addition Increased parking at key parks and facilities with high-demand Additional amenities at neighborhood parks such as enhanced restroom facilities, refurbished or new playgrounds, and security lighting Active amenities such as sports fields for adults and adventure programming opportunities with the White River Interactions with CCPR • Organizations interviewed have a great working relationship with CCPR • CCPR has a professional and dedicated staff • City departments (e.g., Community Services, Streets, Engineering) and CCPR should continue to complement one another • Consider quarterly meetings to ensure ongoing communication Desired Outcomes of the Planning Process • CCPR continues to be innovative and progressive providing quality amenities and programs to the community • As the number of users increase, ensure the demands and needs of residents are met • Increase in greenspace throughout the City, but specifically in west/northwest Carmel and downtown • Dedicated long-term funding and a new operational model less focused on system-wide cost recovery must be outlined • Additional focus on programming for older adults, as well as for younger adults moving to Carmel • Confirming the commitment of CCPR to maintain high quality and well-maintained parks • Remain community focused and build upon the core philosophies that have led to the success of the agency (e.g., parks, programs, operations, finances, etc.) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation78 3.1.3 INTERVIEW SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY QUESTION WHAT DO PEOPLE VALUE THE MOST ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES IN CARMEL? Residents value the accessibility and quality of the well-maintained park system. CCPR manages a variety of parks that offer different experiences and a greenway network interconnected with the City’s trail system, as well as access to the White River. The park system offers many programming opportunities for all age groups that are innovative and constantly evolving with new trends. Central Park amenities that are highly valued include the Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, walking paths, and the new playground area. Many believe CCPR is the “community hub” and serves as an important element to the vibrancy of Carmel. Further, CCPR’s staff are great and responsive. They have used the parks to create and provide a unique blend of amenities that are enjoyed by residents of all ages. Other responses include: • CCPR’s level of service and the responsiveness to community needs and requests • Willingness to add new services • Impact of the park system on the quality of life in Carmel • Trail system is used by many residents and more opportunities to bike are well received • The Monon Greenway is a highlight of Carmel • Well maintained, beautiful parks with a variety of offerings for all • Always evolving and changing the amenities • Monon Community Center and The Waterpark offer accessible features and great programs • Fantastic programs through Extended School Enrichment and summer camps Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 79 WHAT PART OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DO YOU BELIEVE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR MORE FOCUS? There is a need for additional multipurpose indoor space as the Monon Community Center is near capacity. Ideally, the west side of Carmel has a need for such a facility with West Park being a potential location. Additional indoor space needs to include space for summer camps. The community values the great multi-purpose trails and desires additional trails connecting to more parks. Expansion of west and northwest Carmel parkland is desired, specifically for trails, greenspace and indoor space, as well as greenspace in downtown Carmel. The community enjoys the many passive parks that CCPR offers but would like to see additional active park amenities such as sports field for adults and adventure programming opportunities along the White River. Some stakeholders would like CCPR to offer additional senior, adaptive, and bicycling programs. Other responses include: • Additional multipurpose trails • Outdoor adventure opportunities along the trails and areas that the community would not expect • Additional services on the west side of Carmel. Balance the equity of what is offered. Potentially alleviate the huge demand for fitness at the Monon Community Center • A trail should be a priority along the White River • Adaptive programming is great and needs to be increased • Consider adding variety of experiences at the smaller parks • A downtown park • Additional dog parks • Expanding Meadowlark Park to provide additional offerings would be helpful • Need more walking trails beyond the Monon • The quarry – 5-10 years before the lake is turned over to Utilities and could be a great opportunity for passive recreation (106th and along Hazel Dell Parkway) • More aquatics and indoor space are needed but should not compete with the Monon Community Center • Consideration of outdoor pickleball courts • Mountain biking area along the White River, as well as bicycling programs • Expansion of senior programs as the population ages • Improve wayfinding signage throughout the park system such as educational signage on the prairie grasses in the parks • More variety of weekend fitness classes at the Monon Community Center Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation80 WHAT IS CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION DOING WELL THAT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED? The strength that can be readily observed is the abundance of parkland, amenities and programs CCPR offers the residents. Park and amenity maintenance are excellent and CCPR is constantly adding additional amenities in parks. The parks also offer many different experiences for different age segments of the community. Expansion of the trail system and maintenance of the Monon Greenway is appreciated by the community. The leadership and vision of the park system is innovative and constantly seeking emerging trends to support a culture of continuous improvement. CCPR is a Gold Medal and CAPRA Accredited agency and the community is proud of these accomplishments. Being fiscally responsible is valued by the community and respondents indicated that they appreciate that CCPR does a great job listening to the community on areas of expansion and needs. While many stakeholders respect CCPR’s ability to meet the 80% cost recovery goal, many believe this high of a mandate hinders the agency’s ability to innovate with new amenities and programs. A review of this cost recovery mandate with the City Council, Township Board, and the Park Board is desired. Diversity of program opportunities, as well as CCPR’s willingness to expand partnerships is valued. The Extended School Enrichment and summer camps are very well received in the community. Other responses include: • CCPR is doing a great job and should continue to enhance parks, programs, and amenities. People move to Carmel for schools and parks • Maintenance of the Monon Community Center is very good. Great response to upgrades so the building feels new. Pedestrian bridge is now fitness space. Control of the entry points is appreciated • Continue to be responsive to the community • Adaptive programs are excellent • The ESE program serves many residents in the community and is well-received • Parks and facilities are well maintained • The before and after school program is good • Cost recovery of CCPR is great; however, a review of the 80% cost recovery is desired • Variety of playgrounds and other offerings • Continue to maintain the parks at the current level • Fantastic leadership throughout CCPR. Continue to groom the next “crop” of leaders. Great philosophy on training their employees internally • The Waterpark, Flowrider, Monon Community Center are all amazing – it’s a great place for kids to grow up in • Great job on analyzing all of our services and if doing in-house or outsourcing is better Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 81 WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION WILL FACE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? Maintenance of the current CCPR system, as infrastructure ages, will be a challenge. Also, expansion of the system to meet the needs of residents may strain resources, both financially and staff. CCPR needs to ensure staff increases as the system grows to ensure the level of care does not diminish. Many participants expressed the need for a dedicated funding source as the Central Park Bond and the Local Income Tax expire. Also, it is important to ensure that the park impact fee is updated to serve new park and recreation needs resulting from development. Carmel is undergoing a slight aging trend but is also seeing many young adults and more diverse population move to the City. Programming and amenities will need to match with these changing demographics. As Carmel continues to grow, CCPR needs to be thoughtful of land acquisition, especially in the west and northwest portions of the City. Other responses include: • Financing the system and the need for a dedicated funding source with the expiration of the Central Park Bond and the Local Income Tax • Keeping up with the growth of Carmel and running out of greenspace to purchase • Serving current population well, especially with the West Park redevelopment. However, continue to look at acquisition in greenspace on the west and northwest side • Security may become a concern moving forward, and we need to be cognizant with park design Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation82 AS YOU SEE CARMEL CHANGING IN THE FUTURE, WHAT RECREATION FACILITIES AND/OR AMENITIES ARE MOST NEEDED IN CARMEL? There is a strong desire toward the addition of parkland in northwest and west Carmel, as well as near downtown. Additionally, indoor multipurpose space that will not compete with the Monon Community Center is needed. An increase in amenities at neighborhood parks such as enhanced restroom facilities, refurbished or new playgrounds, community gardens, and security lighting is desired. Trails are always desired by the community to provide connectivity. Regarding the White River, a trail and adventure programming opportunities were a priority by stakeholders. Other amenities for adults, such as sports fields, were also mentioned. As Carmel is trending older in age segments, consider additional facilities to accommodate seniors. Other responses include: • Community is aging, need to provide opportunities for more senior programming • Playgrounds are always a need by the many families that are moving • Meadowlark Park has great potential for improvement, as well as some of the other neighborhood parks could be rethought • A plan for the quarry • Constant collaboration with other public entities (e.g., Utility Department, schools). All public agencies need to support one another • Land acquisition • More walkability and being able to walk / bike to school • Additional offerings for older adult (50 or older) population (e.g., community gardens, pickleball, loop trails, indoor walking track) • Not a lot of greenspace in many multi-housing communities • Pedestrian bridge over the White River at 106th Street Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 83 HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? The organizations interviewed have a great working relationship with CCPR and appreciate that the organization is proactive in communication. City departments (e.g. Community Services, Streets, Engineering, etc.) and CCPR should continue to complement and partner as much as possible. Consideration of quarterly meetings to guarantee communication continues is desired. Greater synergy with the schools on development could be beneficial to both with land at a premium. Other responses include: • Interaction between the Park Board and staff is excellent • Organizations interviewed have a great working relationship with CCPR • Improved communication on how implementation of the master plan is going (quarterly updates on implementation) • CCPR has a professional and dedicated staff • City departments (e.g. Community Services, Streets, Engineering) and CCPR should continue to complement one another. Consider quarterly meetings to guarantee communication continues Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation84 WHAT ARE THE KEY OUTCOMES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME FROM THIS PLANNING PROCESS? CCPR continues to be innovative and progressive providing the community quality amenities and programs and this plan needs to ensure this legacy is upheld. The master plan needs to confirm the commitment of CCPR to maintain high quality and well-maintained parks. Also, CCPR must remain community focused and build off the core philosophies that have led to the success of the agency (e.g., parks, programs, operations, finances, etc.) As the number of users increase as Carmel grows, ensure the demand of residents are being met. Residents want to see additional greenspace throughout the City, but specifically in the west/ northwest and in downtown. Also, greater collaboration with community partners (e.g., library, schools, parks) to share what each partner is hearing from their community engagement methods from residents. Greater equity and balance between the east and west side for parks and services is desired. The master plan must have an implementation plan on how CCPR should be organized, as well as financed, as it likely becomes a City department. The master plan must be bold in its vision. Continue to ask the community for new ideas. There is a strong desire not to stifle innovation, but embrace the ideas we hear from the community. For those ideas that make sense as it relates to the agency and community values, CCPR should aspire to implement them. The clear mandate is to be on the cutting-edge as an agency. Other responses include: • Asset management lifecycle recommendations • Funding source for the entire system outlined by year and a plan moving forward • CCPR continues to be innovative and progressive providing quality amenities and programs to the community • Sustainability for environment and financially • Continue and improve communication with the community is paramount. Be cutting edge on communication • Important to pay attention to the needs for services by Carmel residents, while also being cognizant on national trends • Equity and balance east and west side for parks and services • Collaboration with community partners ° Share what each partner is hearing from their community engagement methods for needs (e.g., library, schools, parks) • Increase in greenspace throughout the City, but specifically in west/northwest Carmel and downtown • Dedicated long term funding and a new operational model must be outlined in the planning process Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 85 • Open to any dedicated funding; every opportunity should be explored. People will pay for excellent service • Additional focus on programming for older adults, as well as for younger adults moving to Carmel • Confirming the commitment of CCPR to maintain high quality and well-maintained parks • Remain community focused and build upon the core philosophies that have led to the success of the agency (e.g., parks, programs, operations, finances, etc.) • Additional bicycle stands along the Monon Greenway • Pedestrian bridge over the White River at 106th Street 3.2 FIRST PUBLIC MEETING CCPR held an open forum on Tuesday, October 14th, 2018 at 6:30pm at a regularly scheduled park board meeting. The meeting was held within the Monon Community Center – East and was open to the public which included zero members of the public. The forum began with a brief presentation explaining the master plan process, initial findings, and next steps. The park board meeting is open to the public and was professionally video-taped and available to the public for download if residents were unable to attend (4 views by members of the public). 3.3 SECOND PUBLIC MEETING The second public forum was held on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:30pm at a regularly scheduled park board meeting. The meeting was held within the Monon Community Center – East and was open to the public, which included zero members of the public. The consulting team updated the park board and community attendees on the asset management plan findings and recommendations. The park board meeting is open to the public and was professionally video- taped and available to the public for download if residents were unable to attend (4 views by members of the public). 3.4 THIRD PUBLIC MEETING The third public forum was held on Monday, September 9, 2019 at 6:00pm at a special joint meeting that included the Park Board, Mayor, City Council, Clay Township Trustee and Township Board member. The meeting was held within the Monon Community Center – East and was open to the public, which included attendance of four members of the public along with elected officials. The consulting team updated the park board members, elected officials, and the public on the master plan findings and recommendations, review of the White River Vision Plan and discussed long term financing. The meeting was open to the public and was professionally video-taped and available to the public for download if residents were unable to attend (3 views by members of the public). Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation86 3.5 STATISTICALLY-VALID NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY 3.5.1 OVERVIEW ETC Institute administered a needs assessment survey for the City of Carmel during the summer of 2018 and was mailed the week of May 7th and closed the week of June 25th. The survey was administered as part of the City’s efforts to plan the future for parks and recreation opportunities. The survey and its results will guide the City of Carmel in making improvements to the City’s existing and future parks, trails, and recreational programs to best serve the needs of residents. The survey will also help the City establish priorities for the future improvement of parks and recreation facilities, programs and services within the community. 3.5.2 METHODOLOGY ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households in the City of Carmel. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage-paid return envelope. Residents who received the survey were given the option of returning the survey by mail or completing it on-line at www.CarmelClaySurvey.org. Ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails and placed phone calls to the households that received the survey to encourage participation. The emails contained a link to the on-line version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete the survey. To prevent people who were not residents of the City of Carmel from participating, everyone who completed the survey on-line was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses that were entered on-line with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed on-line did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the on-line survey was not counted. The goal was to obtain completed surveys from at least 400 residents. The goal was exceeded with a total of 576 residents completing the survey. The overall results for the sample of 576 households have a precision of at least +/-4.0% at the 95% level of confidence. • The full report can be found in the Appendix 1 and it contains the following: • Charts showing the overall results of the survey (Section 1) • Priority Investment Rating (PIR) that identifies priorities for facilities and programs (Section 2) • Benchmarking analysis comparing the City’s results to national results (Section 3) • Tabular data showing the overall results for all questions on the survey (Section 4) • A copy of the survey instrument (Section 5) The major findings of the survey are summarized below and on the following pages. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 87 PARKS AND FACILITIES USED Half (50%) of respondents indicated their household has either “frequently” (27%) or “sometimes” (23%) used Monon Greenway as the top park destination. The top four facilities that households use most often include: Monon Greenway (50%), Monon Community Center (39%), Central Park (34%), and West Park (32%). Respondents were then asked to indicate which three facilities their household uses the most frequently (once a week or more). Facilities that households specified they most frequently use, were: Monon Greenway (46%), Monon Community Center (40%), Central Park (34%), and West Park (29%). When respondents were asked to rate the overall condition of all the Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation locations, sixty‐three (63%) percent of respondents rated the locations they visited as ‘’excellent” and 35% rated the locations as “good”. 27% 21% 12% 12% 12% 4% 7% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 23% 18% 22% 20% 13% 14% 10% 11% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% 5% 25% 34% 34% 30% 14% 26% 34% 32% 19% 17% 19% 13% 19% 16% 25% 28% 32% 39% 61% 55% 49% 55% 70% 74% 72% 78% 73% 77% Monon Greenway Monon Community Center Central Park West Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails Founders Park The Waterpark Flowing Well Park River Heritage Park Carey Grove Park White River Greenway Meadowlark Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park Hazel Landing Park 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Q4. How Often Respondents Used Various Parks & Recreation Facilities Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 46% 40% 34% 29% 17% 16% 12% 12% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% Monon Greenway Monon Community Center Central Park West Park The Waterpark Founders Park Flowing Well Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails Carey Grove Park White River Greenway Lawrence W. Inlow Park River Heritage Park Meadowlark Park Hazel Landing Park 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Most Frequent 2nd Most Frequent 3rd Most FrequentSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q4a. Facilities Used Most Frequently by Respondent Households 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 5 27% 21% 12% 12% 12% 4% 7% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 23% 18% 22% 20% 13% 14% 10% 11% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% 5% 25% 34% 34% 30% 14% 26% 34% 32% 19% 17% 19% 13% 19% 16% 25% 28% 32% 39% 61% 55% 49% 55% 70% 74% 72% 78% 73% 77% Monon Greenway Monon Community Center Central Park West Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails Founders Park The Waterpark Flowing Well Park River Heritage Park Carey Grove Park White River Greenway Meadowlark Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park Hazel Landing Park 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Q4. How Often Respondents Used Various Parks & Recreation Facilities Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 46% 40% 34% 29% 17% 16% 12% 12% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% Monon Greenway Monon Community Center Central Park West Park The Waterpark Founders Park Flowing Well Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails Carey Grove Park White River Greenway Lawrence W. Inlow Park River Heritage Park Meadowlark Park Hazel Landing Park 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Most Frequent 2nd Most Frequent 3rd Most FrequentSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q4a. Facilities Used Most Frequently by Respondent Households 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 5 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation88 Respondents were asked if in the last twelve months, they have used other parks and recreation facilities provided by other organizations, other than Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation. Forty-two (42%) percent of respondents indicated they use private fitness clubs, 41% specified they use neighborhood association parks/facilities, and 36% indicated that they use school grounds. When asked to rank the three parks or facilities as being most frequently used by them and their household; 34% indicated they use Cool Creek Park most frequently, 29% use neighborhood association parks/facilities, 27% use school grounds, and 24% use Coxhall Gardens. 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 9 31% 21% 14% 6% 14% 6% 5% 3% 2% 11% 20% 22% 20% 9% 14% 11% 10% 8% 6% 20% 23% 37% 13% 35% 19% 30% 17% 53% 39% 42% 37% 65% 45% 65% 57% 73% Private fitness clubs Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Cool Creek Park Carmel Dads' Club facilities Coxhall Gardens River Road Park Holliday Park James A Dillon Park 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequently Sometimes Rarely NeverSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q8. How Often Respondents Used Various Parks & Recreation Facilities Provided by Other Organizations by percentage of respondents Q8a. Parks & Recreation Facilities Most Frequently Used by Respondent Households by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 34% 29% 27% 24% 23% 16% 15% 15% James A Dillon Park 12% Other 8% Cool Creek Park Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Coxhall Gardens Private fitness clubs Carmel Dads' Club facilities Holliday Park River Road Park 0%10% 20%30%40% Most Frequent 2nd Most Frequent 3rd Most FrequentSource: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 9 31% 21% 14% 6% 14% 6% 5% 3% 2% 11% 20% 22% 20% 9% 14% 11% 10% 8% 6% 20% 23% 37% 13% 35% 19% 30% 17% 53% 39% 42% 37% 65% 45% 65% 57% 73% Private fitness clubs Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Cool Creek Park Carmel Dads' Club facilities Coxhall Gardens River Road Park Holliday Park James A Dillon Park 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequently Sometimes Rarely NeverSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q8. How Often Respondents Used Various Parks & Recreation Facilities Provided by Other Organizations by percentage of respondents Q8a. Parks & Recreation Facilities Most Frequently Used by Respondent Households by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 34% 29% 27% 24% 23% 16% 15% 15% James A Dillon Park 12% Other 8% Cool Creek Park Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Coxhall Gardens Private fitness clubs Carmel Dads' Club facilities Holliday Park River Road Park 0%10% 20%30%40% Most Frequent 2nd Most Frequent 3rd Most FrequentSource: ETC Institute (2018) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 89 BARRIERS TO PARK AND FACILITY USAGE Respondents were asked from a list of 11 potential reasons to identify what prevents them from using parks and facilities provided by Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation. The top four reasons were: too busy/no time (44%), too far from residence (31%), too crowded (20%), and not knowing what is available (16%). Respondents were then asked out of the list of 11 items, which three are the major reasons preventing them or their household from using parks and facilities by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. Forty‐one (41%) percent indicated a major reason is they are too busy, 29% specified parks and facilities being too far from their residence, and 17% indicated the major reason preventing them from going to parks and facilities is they are too crowded. 44% 31% 20% 16% 14% 13% 10% 9% 7% 2% 1% 8% Too busy; no time Too far from residence Too crowded Don't know what is available Don't know where parks are located No safe way to walk/bike there Use parks in other communities Not interested Lack desired amenities/facilities Feel unsafe Poorly maintained Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Q7. Reasons Preventing Households From UsingCarmel Clay Parks & Recreation Parks and Facilities by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 41% 29% 17% 12% 12% 11% 9% 7% 6% 2% 1% 7% Too busy; no time Too far from residence Too crowded Don't know what is available No safe way to walk/bike there Don't know where parks are located Use parks in other communities Not interested Lack desired amenities/facilities Feel unsafe Poorly maintained Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1st Reason 2nd Reason 3rd ReasonSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q7a. Major Reasons Preventing Households From Using Parks & Facilities 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 8 44% 31% 20% 16% 14% 13% 10% 9% 7% 2% 1% 8% Too busy; no time Too far from residence Too crowded Don't know what is available Don't know where parks are located No safe way to walk/bike there Use parks in other communities Not interested Lack desired amenities/facilities Feel unsafe Poorly maintained Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Q7. Reasons Preventing Households From UsingCarmel Clay Parks & Recreation Parks and Facilities by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 41% 29% 17% 12% 12% 11% 9% 7% 6% 2% 1% 7% Too busy; no time Too far from residence Too crowded Don't know what is available No safe way to walk/bike there Don't know where parks are located Use parks in other communities Not interested Lack desired amenities/facilities Feel unsafe Poorly maintained Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1st Reason 2nd Reason 3rd ReasonSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q7a. Major Reasons Preventing Households From Using Parks & Facilities 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 8 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation90 FACILITY NEEDS AND PRIORITIES Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 26 recreation facilities and amenities and rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various facilities. The four recreation facilities with the highest percentage of households that indicated a need for the facility were: paved multipurpose trails (66%), nature trails/boardwalks (64%), fitness/exercise facilities (50%), and indoor walking/running track (50%). 26%27%19%18%20%33%29%32%32%28%25%21%28%28%29%16%23%21%22%23%ParksSchoolsRestaurantsRetail storesEntertainment venues 0%20%40%60%80%100% Fully Met Mostly Met Partly Met Not Met Q12. How Well Trail Connectivity Meets Needs of Respondent Households Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents with a need for trail connectivity 66%64%50%50%47% 41% 37% 37% 36% 35% 34%29%29%29%28%27%24%21% 19% 13% 12%12%11%10%6%3%6% Paved multipurpose trailsNature trails/boardwalksFitness/exercise facilitiesWalking/running track (indoors)Aquatic/pool facilities Playground equipment (outdoors) Botanical/formal gardens Environmental education/nature center Splash pads/spray parks Picnic shelters Destination restaurantGarden plots/community gardensExercise equipmentFishing areasCanoe/kayak launchPlayground equipment (indoors)Off-leash dog parkGolf courses Adult sports fields Disc golf course Bocce ball courtsBike/BMX coursePickleball courts (indoor)Pickleball courts (outdoor)Skateboarding parkCricket fieldOther 0%20%40%60% Q13. Facilities/Amenities Respondent Households Have a Need For by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 15 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 91 FACILITY IMPORTANCE In addition to assessing the needs for each facility, ETC Institute also assessed the importance that residents placed on each facility. Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, the three most important facilities to residents were: paved multipurpose trails (36%), nature trails/boardwalks (33%), and aquatic/pool facilities (22%). Q13. Estimated Number of Households Whose Needs for Facilities/Amenities Are Being Partly Met or Not Met10,6249,7738,8958,6227,8057,4676,7776,5176,2846,0615,9665,5565,2924,6644,1313,8113,3423,0102,9512,7642,5822,5792,1032,0747106511,895Destination restaurant in a signature parkBotanical/formal gardensNature trails/boardwalksEnvironmental education/nature centerGarden plots/community gardensExercise equipment (outdoors)Playground equipment (indoors)Off-leash dog parkCanoe/kayak launch (White River)Fishing areasPaved multipurpose trails (e.g. walking, biking)Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors)Walking/running track (indoors)Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors)Picnic shelters (rentable)Bocce ball courtsAdult sports fieldsGolf coursesSplash pads/spray parksPickleball courts (outdoors)Playground equipment (outdoors)Disc golf courseBike/BMX coursePickleball courts (indoors)Cricket fieldSkateboarding parkOther 0 4,000 8,000 12,000Partly Met Not MetSource: ETC Institute (2018) by number of households based on 34,212 households in Carmel, IN by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top four choices 36%33%22%19%19%16%14%13%12%10%10%10%9%8%7%7%7%4%4%4%3%3%2%2%1%1%4%1% Paved multipurpose trailsNature trails/boardwalksAquatic/pool facilitiesWalking/running track (indoors)Fitness/exercise facilitiesPlayground equipment (outdoors)Botanical/formal gardensSplash pads/spray parksOff-leash dog parkDestination restaurantPlayground equipment (indoors)Environmental education/nature centerFishing areasGarden plots/community gardensGolf coursesCanoe/kayak launchExercise equipmentPicnic sheltersAdult sports fieldsBocce ball courtsPickleball courts (outdoor)Pickleball courts (indoor)Bike/BMX courseDisc golf courseSkateboarding parkCricket fieldOtherOther 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important 4th Most Important Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q13a. Facilities/Amenities Most Important to Respondent Households 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 17 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation92 PRIORITIES FOR FACILITY INVESTMENTS The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on parks and recreation investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weighs (1) the importance that residents place on facilities and (2) how many residents have unmet needs for the facility. Based the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the following seven facilities were rated as high priorities for investment: • Nature trails/boardwalks (PIR=174) • Paved multipurpose trails (PIR=156) • Botanical/formal gardens (PIR=131) • Destination restaurant in a signature park (PIR=129) • Indoor aquatic/pool facilities (PIR=113) • Environmental education/nature center (PIR=108) • Indoor walking/running track (PIR=103) The chart on the below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 26 facilities/amenities that were assessed on the survey. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 93 IMPORTANCE OF PARKS, RECREATION SERVICES, AND OPEN SPACE TO QUALITY OF LIFE The City of Carmel asked its residents how important parks, recreation services, and open space are to the quality of life in Carmel; in which, seventy‐three (73%) percent indicated they are “very important” and 20% indicated they are “important”. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with benefits that they and their household receive from parks, recreation services, and the open spaces provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. Respondents indicated the benefits they receive from the parks, recreation services, and open spaces, are: they provide space for people to enjoy the outdoors (99%), they improve physical health and wellness (99%), and they make Carmel a more desirable place to live (99%). Very important73% Important20% Somewhat important5% Neutral1% 1% Q1. How important are parks, recreation services, and open space to the quality of life in Carmel? Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households Not important 78% 71% 74% 77% 60% 53% 57% 63% 40% 21% 29% 25% 22% 38% 44% 40% 34% 55% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Improve physical health & wellness Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Preserve open space & natural areas Improve mental health & reduce stress Connect people, build stronger families Help attract new residents & businesses Increase property values in surrounding areas Provide employment opportunities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Q2. Level of Agreement With Benefits Household Receives From Parks, Recreation Services, and Open Space Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 2 Very important73% Important20% Somewhat important5% Neutral1% 1% Q1. How important are parks, recreation services, and open space to the quality of life in Carmel? Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households Not important 78% 71% 74% 77% 60% 53% 57% 63% 40% 21% 29% 25% 22% 38% 44% 40% 34% 55% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Improve physical health & wellness Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Preserve open space & natural areas Improve mental health & reduce stress Connect people, build stronger families Help attract new residents & businesses Increase property values in surrounding areas Provide employment opportunities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Q2. Level of Agreement With Benefits Household Receives From Parks, Recreation Services, and Open Space Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 2 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation94 The top four benefits that are most important to households, are: improve physical health and wellness (58%), preserve open space and natural areas (51%), provide places for people to enjoy outdoors (47%), and make Carmel a more desirable place to live (40%). METHODS OF TRAVEL TO PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES Survey respondents were asked to check all ways that they or household members travel to parks and recreation facilities; eighty‐nine (89%) percent drive, 55% walk, and 52% bike or bikeshare. by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 58% 51% 47% 40% 30% 24% 19% 9% 4% 3% Improve physical health & wellness Preserve open space & natural areas Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Connect people, build stronger families Improve mental health & reduce stress Increase property values in surrounding areas Help attract new residents & businesses Provide employment opportunities Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most ImportantSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q2a. Benefits Most Important to Households 89% 55% 52% 1% 2% 3% Drive Walk Bike or bikeshare Uber or rideshare Other None, do not use parks 0%20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q3. Ways Respondent Households Travel to Parks & Recreation Facilities Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households (multiple choices could be made) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 3 by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 58% 51% 47% 40% 30% 24% 19% 9% 4% 3% Improve physical health & wellness Preserve open space & natural areas Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Connect people, build stronger families Improve mental health & reduce stress Increase property values in surrounding areas Help attract new residents & businesses Provide employment opportunities Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most ImportantSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q2a. Benefits Most Important to Households 89% 55% 52% 1% 2% 3% Drive Walk Bike or bikeshare Uber or rideshare Other None, do not use parks 0%20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q3. Ways Respondent Households Travel to Parks & Recreation Facilities Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households (multiple choices could be made) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 3 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 95 When asked the maximum amount of time they would be willing to travel to visit a park or facility: 73% indicated they would walk 20 minutes or less, 70% indicated they would drive/ride in a car for 20 minutes or less, and 62% indicated they would ride a bike for 20 minutes or less. PARKS WITHIN 10-MINUTE WALK The top two most common types of parks or public spaces within a 10‐minute walk from residence(s) are; neighborhood association parks/facilities (56%) and school grounds (51%). 34% 29% 20% 39% 41% 42% 19% 17% 25% 8% 13% 14% Walk Drive or ride in a car Ride a bike 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10 minutes or less 11 to 20 minutes 21 to 30 minutes 31 minutes or more Q3a. Maximum Amount of Time Respondents Are Willing to Travel to Visit a Park or Facility Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents 56% 51% 39% 35% 27% 3% Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Trails along major streets City or county parks Linear trail corridors Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Q3b. Types of Parks or Public Spaces Within a 10-Minute Walk From Residence Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households (multiple choices could be made) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 4 34% 29% 20% 39% 41% 42% 19% 17% 25% 8% 13% 14% Walk Drive or ride in a car Ride a bike 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10 minutes or less 11 to 20 minutes 21 to 30 minutes 31 minutes or more Q3a. Maximum Amount of Time Respondents Are Willing to Travel to Visit a Park or Facility Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents 56% 51% 39% 35% 27% 3% Neighborhood association parks/facilities School grounds Trails along major streets City or county parks Linear trail corridors Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Q3b. Types of Parks or Public Spaces Within a 10-Minute Walk From Residence Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households (multiple choices could be made) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 4 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation96 DAYS AND TIMES MOST FREQUENTLY USE PARK Respondents were asked when they or household members most frequently use parks provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation; 45% responded that they use parks most frequently in the evening on weekdays and 44% indicated they use parks most frequently during the afternoon on the weekends. TOP FOUR ACTIVITIES WHEN VISITING PARKS The top four activities that respondent households do when visiting parks provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation, are: walking for pleasure (78%), nature walks (58%), bicycling for pleasure (53%), and to use the playground (44%). Excellent63% Good35% Fair2%Q4b. How Would You Rate the Overall Condition of all the Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Locations You Have Visited? Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of households 45% 44% 38% 33% 29% 27% Weekday evening Weekend afternoon Weekend morning Weekday morning Weekend evening Weekday afternoon 0%10%20%30%40%50% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Q5. Days & Times Respondent Households Most Frequently Use Parks Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 6 78%58%53%44%40%35%33%32%29%28%20%16%15%11%11%6%5%4%2%2%2%1%1%1%5% Walking for pleasureNature walksBicycling for pleasurePlaygroundExercising/aerobicsDog walking/parksWildlife viewing Jogging/runningPicnickingSplash pad/spray parkBird watchingSportsPhotographyFishingSleddingDisc golfCanoeing/kayakingGeocachingIn-line skatingSkateboardingPainting/sketchingBicycling (BMX)Skiing SnowshoeingOther 0%20%40%60%80% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Q6. Activities Respondent Households Do When Visiting Parks Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top four choices 0% 1% 0%0%0% 60%39%35%34%26%23%20%17%13%12%7%6%5%5%2%2%2%1%1%1% 0% 0%5% Walking for pleasureNature walksBicycling for pleasurePlaygroundExercising/aerobicsDog walking/parksJogging/runningSplash pad/spray parkWildlife viewingPicnickingSportsPhotographyFishingBird watchingDisc golfSleddingCanoeing/kayakingBicycling (BMX)GeocachingIn-line skatingSkateboarding Painting/sketchingSnowshoeingSkiingOther 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1st Reason 2nd Reason 3rd Reason 4th ReasonSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q6a. Major Reasons Households Use Parks & Facilities Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 7 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 97 Household respondents were asked which four activities are the major reasons they and their household use parks and facilities; 60% indicated they walk for pleasure, 39% indicated nature walks, 35% indicated bicycling for pleasure, and 34% specified the playgrounds as a major reason they use the parks and facilities. METHODS USED TO LEARN ABOUT CCPR PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES Survey respondents were asked to specify the ways they learn about Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation programs and activities. The top three ways that respondents learn about programs and facilities, are: from friends and neighbors (58%), website (52%), and by direct mail (50%). 78%58%53%44%40%35%33%32%29%28%20%16%15%11%11%6%5%4%2%2%2%1%1%1%5%Walking for pleasureNature walksBicycling for pleasurePlaygroundExercising/aerobicsDog walking/parksWildlife viewingJogging/runningPicnickingSplash pad/spray parkBird watchingSportsPhotographyFishingSleddingDisc golfCanoeing/kayakingGeocachingIn-line skatingSkateboardingPainting/sketchingBicycling (BMX)SkiingSnowshoeingOther 0%20%40%60%80% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)Q6. Activities Respondent Households Do When Visiting Parks Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top four choices 0% 1% 0%0%0% 60%39%35%34%26%23%20%17%13%12%7%6%5%5%2%2%2%1%1%1% 0% 0%5% Walking for pleasureNature walksBicycling for pleasurePlaygroundExercising/aerobicsDog walking/parksJogging/runningSplash pad/spray parkWildlife viewingPicnickingSportsPhotographyFishingBird watchingDisc golfSleddingCanoeing/kayakingBicycling (BMX)GeocachingIn-line skatingSkateboardingPainting/sketchingSnowshoeingSkiingOther 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1st Reason 2nd Reason 3rd Reason 4th Reason Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q6a. Major Reasons Households Use Parks & Facilities Provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 7 58% 52% 50% 25% 22% 20% 10% 9% 6% 2% 2% 1% 6% From friends & neighbors Website Direct mail Social media Newspaper Flyers at the Monon Community Center Conversations with staff eNewsletters School newsletters Television Radio Text messages/SMS Other 0%20%40%60% Q9. Ways Respondents Learn About Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Programs & Activities by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 48% 45% 40% 23% 14% 12% 11% 6% 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% Website Direct mail From friends & neighbors Social media Newspaper eNewsletters Flyers at the Monon Community Center Conversations with staff School newsletters Text messages/SMS Television Radio Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Most Preferred 2nd Most Preferred 3rd Most PreferredSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q9a. Most Preferred Ways to Learn About Parks & Recreation Services 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 10 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation98 When asked which three sources respondents would prefer to learn about parks and recreation services, the top three, were: by the website (48%), direct mail (45%), and from friends and neighbors (40%). NEED FOR TYPES OF PARKS Respondents were asked if they or a household member would have a need for different types of parks and the top two types of parks respondents have a need for are: linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway (66%) and nature preserves/natural areas (65%). 58%52%50%25%22%20%10%9%6%2%2%1%6%From friends & neighborsWebsiteDirect mailSocial mediaNewspaperFlyers at the Monon Community CenterConversations with staffeNewslettersSchool newslettersTelevisionRadioText messages/SMSOther0%20%40%60%Q9. Ways Respondents Learn About Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Programs & Activitiesby percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 48% 45% 40% 23% 14% 12% 11% 6% 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% Website Direct mail From friends & neighbors Social media Newspaper eNewsletters Flyers at the Monon Community Center Conversations with staff School newsletters Text messages/SMS Television Radio Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Most Preferred 2nd Most Preferred 3rd Most Preferred Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q9a. Most Preferred Ways to Learn About Parks & Recreation Services 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 10 66% 65% 54% 52% 50% Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway Nature preserves/natural areas Large parks serving the entire community Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods Small parks in my neighborhood 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Q10. Types of Parks Respondent Households Have a Need For by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) 22,511 22,340 18,372 17,688 17,003 Linear trail corridors like Monon Greenway Nature preserves/natural areas Large parks serving entire community Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods 0 6,000 12,000 18,000 24,000 30,000 Q10. Estimated Number of Households That Have a Need for Various Types of Parks Source: ETC Institute (2018) by number of households based on 34,212 households in Carmel, IN Small parks in my neighborhood 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 11 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 99 When respondents were asked to rank the level of priority of various types of parks, twenty-six (26%) percent indicated that linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway ranked as highest priority. SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS ACTIONS CCPR CAN TAKE TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM Survey respondents were asked to indicate how supportive they would be on various actions that Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation could take to improve the park system. Fifty‐one (51%) percent of respondents indicated they are “very supportive” of the upgrade of playgrounds and amenities in existing parks and 52% indicated they were “very supportive” of acquiring and developing new parks. by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top five choices 26% 16% 12% 19% 10% 18% 18% 16% 9% 14% 13% 17% 14% 9% 15% 9% 9% 9% 9% 18% 6% 9% 12% 16% 5% Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway Nature preserves/natural areas Large parks serving the entire community Small parks in my neighborhood Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Highest Priority 2nd Highest Priority 3rd Highest Priority 4th Highest Priority 5th Highest PrioritySource: ETC Institute (2018) Q10a. Level of Priority of Various Types of Parks 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 13 51% 52% 41% 31% 24% 33% 26% 28% 17% 22% 14% 14% 24% 31% 30% 3% 7% 7% 22% 24% Upgrade playgrounds & amenities in existing parks Acquire & develop new parks Construct a community center in west Carmel 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Not Sure Not SupportiveSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q11. Level of Support of Major Actions That Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Could Take to Improve the Park System by percentage of respondents Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads' Club by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top five choices 26% 16% 12% 19% 10% 18% 18% 16% 9% 14% 13% 17% 14% 9% 15% 9% 9% 9% 9% 18% 6% 9% 12% 16% 5% Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway Nature preserves/natural areas Large parks serving the entire community Small parks in my neighborhood Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Highest Priority 2nd Highest Priority 3rd Highest Priority 4th Highest Priority 5th Highest PrioritySource: ETC Institute (2018) Q10a. Level of Priority of Various Types of Parks 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 13 51% 52% 41% 31% 24% 33% 26% 28% 17% 22% 14% 14% 24% 31% 30% 3% 7% 7% 22% 24% Upgrade playgrounds & amenities in existing parks Acquire & develop new parks Construct a community center in west Carmel 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Not Sure Not SupportiveSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q11. Level of Support of Major Actions That Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Could Take to Improve the Park System by percentage of respondents Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads' Club Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation100 The top three most important actions Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation could take are: upgrading playgrounds and amenities in existing parks (59%), acquiring and developing new parks (54%), and finish developing the multiuse trail (47%). NEED FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY Residents were asked to specify what need they or their household have for trail connectivity from their home to other destinations; 57% indicated they have a need for trails from home to parks and 48% indicated they have a need for trails from home to restaurants. by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 59% 54% 47% 33% 27% 5% Upgrade playgrounds & amenities in existing parks Acquire & develop new parks Construct a community center in west Carmel Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most ImportantSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q11a. Most Important Actions Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Could Take 57% 48% 37% 36% 29% 2% Parks Restaurants Retail stores Entertainment venues Schools Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Q12. Trail Connectivity Respondent Households Need by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 14 Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads' Club by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices 59% 54% 47% 33% 27% 5% Upgrade playgrounds & amenities in existing parks Acquire & develop new parks Construct a community center in west Carmel Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most ImportantSource: ETC Institute (2018) Q11a. Most Important Actions Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Could Take 57% 48% 37% 36% 29% 2% Parks Restaurants Retail stores Entertainment venues Schools Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Q12. Trail Connectivity Respondent Households Need by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 14 Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads' Club Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 101 DEMOGRAPHICS One9% Two 38% Three17% Four23% Five8% Six4% Seven or more1% Q14. Demographics: Number of People in Household by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q15. Demographics: Ages of People in Household by percentage of household occupants Under 5 years6% 5-12 years11% 13-17 years8% 18-34 years17% 35-50 years21% 51-69 years29% 70+ years8% Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 18 One9%Two 38%Three17% Four23% Five8%Six4%Seven or more1%Q14. Demographics: Number of People in Householdby percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q15. Demographics: Ages of People in Household by percentage of household occupants Under 5 years6% 5-12 years11% 13-17 years8% 18-34 years17% 35-50 years21% 51-69 years29% 70+ years8% Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 18 Under 35 years15%35 - 44 years21% 45 - 54 years22% 55 - 64 years21% 65+ years21% Q16. Demographics: What is your age? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) Male50% Female50% Q17. Demographics: What is your gender? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 19 Yes5% No95% Q18. Demographics: Are you or members of your household of Hispanic or Latin ancestry? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 87% 6% 4% 2% 1% 2% White/Caucasian Asian/Indian Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Native American Other 0%20%40%60%80% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Q19. Demographics: Race/Ethnicity Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 20 Under 35 years15%35 - 44 years21% 45 - 54 years22% 55 - 64 years21% 65+ years21% Q16. Demographics: What is your age? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) Male50% Female50% Q17. Demographics: What is your gender? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 19 Yes5% No95% Q18. Demographics: Are you or members of your household of Hispanic or Latin ancestry? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 87% 6% 4% 2% 1% 2% White/Caucasian Asian/Indian Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black Native American Other 0%20%40%60%80% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Q19. Demographics: Race/Ethnicity Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 20 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation102 Q20. Demographics: What is your household income?by percentage of household occupants Under $25,0003%$25,000 to $49,9995%$50,000 to $74,99912%$75,000 to $100,00018%$100,000 to $149,99921%$150,000 or more41%Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q21. Demographics: Primary Language Spoken in the Home by percentage of household occupants English96% Spanish0% Chinese2% Hindi2%American Sign Language0% Other1% Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 21 Q20. Demographics: What is your household income? by percentage of household occupants Under $25,0003% $25,000 to $49,9995% $50,000 to $74,99912% $75,000 to $100,00018% $100,000 to $149,99921% $150,000 or more41% Source: ETC Institute (2018) Q21. Demographics: Primary Language Spoken in the Home by percentage of household occupants English96% Spanish0% Chinese2% Hindi2%American Sign Language0% Other1% Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 21 21% 10% 6% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% Spanish American Sign Language Chinese Hindi Japanese French German Other 0%10%20% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Q22. Demographics: Languages Would Like to See Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Materials Translated Into Source: ETC Institute (2018) 0-5 years23% 6-10 years14% 11-15 years14% 16-20 years14% 21-30 years22% 31+ years13% Q23. Demographics: How many years have you lived in Carmel and/or Clay Township? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 22 21% 10% 6% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% Spanish American Sign Language Chinese Hindi Japanese French German Other 0%10%20% by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)Q22. Demographics: Languages Would Like to See Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Materials Translated Into Source: ETC Institute (2018) 0-5 years23% 6-10 years14% 11-15 years14% 16-20 years14% 21-30 years22% 31+ years13% Q23. Demographics: How many years have you lived in Carmel and/or Clay Township? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute (2018) 2018 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Community Interest and Opinion Survey Page 22 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 103 3.5.3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS When analyzing the facilities offered by the City of Carmel, the two items that were the most important to respondent’s households and are two of the seven highest priorities for investment; paved multipurpose trails and nature trails/boardwalks. Focusing on creating paved multipurpose trails (e.g., walking, biking) and nature trails/boardwalks would benefit the largest number of residents within the City of Carmel. Nature trails and/or boardwalks is one of the top three most needed amenities and was also in the top three for unmet need. Focusing on this amenity will give the City the opportunity to provide the greatest benefit for the largest number of residents. In order to ensure that the City of Carmel continues to meet the needs and expectations of the community, ETC Institute recommends that the Department sustain and/or improve the performance in areas that were identified as “high priorities” by the Priority Investment Rating (PIR). The facilities and programs with the highest PIR ratings are listed below. • Nature trails/boardwalks (PIR=174) • Paved multipurpose trails (PIR=156) • Botanical/formal gardens (PIR=131) • Destination restaurant in a signature park (PIR=129) • Indoor aquatic/pool facilities (PIR=113) • Environmental education/nature center (PIR=108) • Indoor walking/running track (PIR=103) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation104 3.6 ONLINE SURVEY As part of the planning process, an electronic survey (powered by SurveyMonkey) was completed for a better understanding of the characteristics, preferences, and satisfaction levels of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) users. The survey was made available on the department’s website from June 25th through August 31st 2018 and received a total of 237 responses. The electronic survey emulated the statistically-valid survey questions distributed by ETC Institute. This allowed residents not randomly selected for the ETC Institute survey the opportunity to participate in the community input process. 3.6.1 SURVEY FINDINGS How important are parks, recreation services, and open space to the quality of life in Carmel? Approximately 97.9% of survey respondents indicated that parks, recreation services, and open space were either Very Important (85.1%) or Important (12.8%) to the quality of life in Carmel. The remaining 2.1% answered with Somewhat Important (1.7%) or Not Important (0.4%). 85.1% 12.8% 1.7%0.4% How important are parks, recreation services, and open space to the quality of life in Carmel? Very important Important Somewhat important Neutral Not important Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 105 PLEASE RATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS THAT YOU AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD MAY RECEIVE FROM PARKS, RECREATION SERVICES, AND OPEN SPACE PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION. In combining ratings of Strongly Agree and Agree, respondents indicated the highest level of agreement with ‘Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors’ (99%), ‘Improve physical health and wellness’ (99%), and ‘Make Carmel a more desirable place to live’ (98%). The benefit with the lowest level of agreement was ‘Provide employment opportunities for youth/young adults’ (90%). 37% 57% 56% 68% 77% 50% 78% 79% 79% 53% 35% 38% 28% 19% 47% 20% 20% 20% 6% 2% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Provide employment opportunities for youth/young adults Increase property values in surrounding areas Help attract new residents and businesses Improve mental health and reduce stress Preserve open space and natural areas Connect people, build stronger families and neighborhoods Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Improve physical health and wellness Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Rate your level of agreement with the following benefits Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation106 WHICH THREE OF THE BENEFITS FROM THE LIST IN THE QUESTION ABOVE ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Survey respondents indicated that the most important benefits to their households were ‘Improve physical health and wellness’ (163), ‘Preserve open space and natural areas’ (139), and ‘Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors’ (126). The least important benefits indicated were ‘Provide employment opportunities for youth/young adults’ (11), ‘Help attract new residents and businesses’ (15), and ‘Increase property values in surrounding areas’ (22). PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES THAT YOU USE. The most frequently given responses regarding travel methods were ‘Drive’ (222), ‘Bike or bikeshare’ (140), and ‘Walk’ (136). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Provide employment opportunities for youth/young adults Help attract new residents and businesses Increase property values in surrounding areas Connect people, build stronger families and neighborhoods Improve mental health and reduce stress Make Carmel a more desirable place to live Provide places for people to enjoy outdoors Preserve open space and natural areas Improve physical health and wellness Which THREE of the benefits from the list below are MOST IMPORTANT to you and members of your household? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 163 139 126 78 70 62 22 15 11 2 2 136 140 222 0 50 100 150 200 250 None; do not use parks Uber or rideshare Walk Bike or bikeshare Drive CHECK ALL of the following ways you and members of your household travel to the parks and recreation facilities Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 107 PLEASE INDICATE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO TRAVEL TO VISIT A PARK OR FACILITY FOR YOUR RECREATION NEEDS USING EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. Whether users are walking, biking, or driving, the most frequent response given regarding maximum amount of time users would be willing to travel to visit a park or facility is 11-20 minutes. The least frequent response given for all three travel methods was 31 minutes or more. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF PARKS OR PUBLIC SPACES ARE WITHIN A 10-MINUTE WALK FROM YOUR RESIDENCE? A majority of survey respondents indicated that they were within a 10-minute walk from ‘Neighborhood association parks/facilities’ (55.4%) and ‘Trails along major streets’ (54.9%), while 42.7% and 44.6% indicated they were within a 10-minute walk of school grounds or city/county parks (respectively). 74 35 63 91 105 94 36 46 51 24 32 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Walk Ride a bike Drive or ride in a car Indicate the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME you would be willing to travel to visit a park or facility 10 minutes or less 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31 minutes or more 42.7% 44.6% 47.6% 54.9% 55.4% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% School grounds City or county parks Linear trail corridors (e.g., Monon Greenway) Trails along major streets (e.g., 106th St., Towne Rd.) Neighborhood association parks/facilities Which of the following types of parks or public spaces are within a 10-minute walk from your residence? Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation108 IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED THE FOLLOWING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? In combining Frequently (once a week or more) and Sometimes (1-2 times a month) percentages, respondents indicated the highest level of usage of ‘Monon Community Center’ (73%), ‘Monon Greenway’ (70%), and ‘Central Park’ (59%). The facilities least frequently used include ‘Carey Grove Park’ (5%), ‘Hazel Landing Park’ (7%), ‘River Heritage Park’ (7%), and ‘Meadowlark Park’ (7%). 6% 9% 19% 28% 43% 53% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 7% 9% 16% 16% 15% 12% 31% 27% 20% 20% 21% 17% 18% 26% 21% 31% 35% 33% 23% 33% 23% 13% 15% 60% 56% 56% 54% 50% 52% 54% 41% 38% 40% 36% 18% 16% 13% 15% 16% 20% 21% 16% 18% 4% 5% 6% 13% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Carey Grove Park Hazel Landing Park River Heritage Park Meadowlark Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park White River Greenway Flowing Well Park Founders Park West Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails The Waterpark Central Park (excluding Waterpark & MCC) Monon Greenway Monon Community Center How often have you used the following parks and recreation facilities? Frequently (once a week or more)Sometimes (1-2 times a month) Rarely (less than 5 times a year)Never Did Not Know Existed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 109 WHICH THREE PARKS OR FACILITIES FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE MOST FREQUENTLY USED BY YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Survey respondents indicated that their households most frequently utilize ‘Monon Community Center’ (148), ‘Central Park’ (116), and ‘Monon Greenway’ (102). The parks and facilities used least frequently include ‘Carey Grove Park’ (5), ‘White River Greenway’ (15), and ‘River Heritage Park’ (8). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Carey Grove Park White River Greenway River Heritage Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park Hazel Landing Park Meadowlark Park Flowing Well Park Hagan-Burke or Greyhound Trails Founders Park West Park The Waterpark Monon Greenway Central Park (excluding Waterpark & MCC) Monon Community Center Which THREE parks or facilities listed below are MOST FREQUENTLY used by you or members of your household? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 148 116 102 57 47 30 29 14 13 11 10 8 5 5 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation110 HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL CONDITION OF ALL THE CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION LOCATIONS YOU HAVE VISITED? Approximately 96.8% of survey respondents gave a satisfactory rating of either Excellent (63.0%) or Good (33.8%), in reference to CCPR locations they have visited. The remaining 3.2% or survey participants rated the locations Fair (1.4%) or stated they Don’t know; have not visited locations (1.8%). WHAT DAYS AND TIMES DO YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD MOST FREQUENTLY USE PARKS PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? The chart below indicates the most frequent days/times survey participants utilize CCPR parks. ‘Weekday mornings - before noon’ (53.8%) and ‘Weekend morning - before noon’ (40.6%) are the time periods that the parks are most heavily used. On the contrary, ‘Weekend evening - 5 pm or after’ (20.3%) and ‘Weekend afternoon - noon to 4:59 pm’ (30.2%) are the time periods when the parks are least frequently used. 63.0% 33.8% 1.4%1.8% How would you rate the overall condition of all the Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know; have not visited locations 20.3% 30.2% 31.6% 39.6% 40.6% 53.8% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Weekend evening (5 pm or after) Weekend afternoon (noon to 4:59 pm) Weekday afternoon (noon to 4:59 pm) Weekday evening (5 pm or after) Weekend morning (before noon) Weekday morning (before noon) What days and times do you and members of your household MOST FREQUENTLY use parks? Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 111 PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES YOU OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD DO WHEN VISITING PARKS PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION. The most popular activities amongst survey respondents are ‘Walking for pleasure’ (155) and ‘Exercising/aerobics’ (135), followed by ‘Nature walks’ (125) and ‘Bicycling for pleasure’ (123). While the least popular activities include ‘Skateboarding’ (1), ‘Skiing- cross county’ (2), ‘Snowshoeing’ (2), and ‘Bicycling- BMX’ (3). 1 2 2 3 4 6 7 8 11 18 20 32 38 52 53 60 65 70 78 89 123 125 135 151 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Skateboarding Skiing (cross county) Snowshoeing Bicycling (BMX) In-line skating Painting/sketching Disc golf Geocaching Canoeing/kayaking Sledding Fishing Sports Photography Bird watching Picnicking Dog walking/parks Wildlife viewing Splash pad/spray park Jogging/running Playground Bicycling for pleasure Nature walks Exercising/aerobics Walking for pleasure CHECK ALL of the following activities you or other members of your household do when visiting parks Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation112 WHICH FOUR ACTIVITIES FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE THE MAJOR REASONS YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USE PARKS AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? The activities which are the major reasons for survey participants utilizing CCPR parks include ‘Walking for pleasure’ (107) and ‘Exercising/aerobics’ (101), followed by ‘Bicycling for pleasure’ (84) and ‘Nature walks’ (65). Activities that are least noteworthy include ‘Geocaching’ (1) ‘Skiing- cross county’ (1), and ‘Snowshoeing’ (1). Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 113 PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD FROM USING CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION PARKS AND FACILITIES. The reason residents are most deterred from using CCPR parks and facilities more frequently are: being ‘Too busy; no time’ (44.8%), parks/facilities being ‘Too crowded’ (39.0%), and parks/facilities being ‘Too far from residence’ (27.3%). WHICH THREE OF THE ITEMS FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE THE MAJOR REASONS PREVENTING YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD FROM USING PARKS AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? The major reasons that deter residents from using CCPR parks and facilities more frequently based on their top 3 choices are: being ‘Too busy; no time’ (75), parks/facilities being ‘Too crowded’ (64), and parks/facilities being ‘Too far from residence’ (50). 2.3% 4.7% 7.0% 10.5% 12.2% 12.2% 14.5% 15.7% 27.3% 39.0% 44.8% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Poorly maintained Feel unsafe Not interested Use parks in other communities No safe way to walk/bike there Do not know where parks are located Lack desired amenities/facilities Do not know what is available in parks Too far from residence Too crowded Too busy; no time CHECK ALL of the following reasons that prevent you or other members of your household from using Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation parks and facilities 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Poorly maintained Feel unsafe Not interested Use parks in other communities Do not know where parks are located No safe way to walk/bike there Lack desired amenities/facilities Do not know what is available in parks Too far from residence Too crowded Too busy; no time Which THREE of the items from the list below are the MAJOR REASONS preventing you and members of your household from using parks and facilities? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 75 64 50 29 26 22 18 17 14 9 4 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation114 IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU USED THE FOLLOWING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PROVIDED BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS? In combining Frequently (once a week or more) and Sometimes (1-2 times a month) percentages, respondents indicated the highest level of usage of ‘Neighborhood association parks/facilities’ (36%), ‘Private fitness clubs’ (29%), and ‘School grounds’ (25%). 6% 8% 8% 20% 16% 5% 9% 9% 5% 13% 16% 17% 9% 21% 15% 15% 41% 10% 32% 42% 24% 8% 20% 67% 63% 44% 68% 46% 30% 49% 61% 41% 13% 11% 11% 6% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% James A. Dillon Park (Noblesville) River Road Park (Carmel) Holliday Park (Indianapolis) Carmel Dads’ Club facilities Coxhall Gardens (Carmel) Cool Creek Park (Westfield) School grounds Private fitness clubs Neighborhood association parks/facilities How often have you used the following parks and recreation facilities provided by other organizations? Frequently (once a week or more)Sometimes (1-2 times a month) Rarely (less than 5 times a year)Never Did Not Know Existed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 115 WHICH THREE PARKS OR FACILITIES FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE MOST FREQUENTLY USED BY YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Survey respondents indicated that their households most frequently utilize ‘Cool Creek Park - Westfield’ (84), ‘Neighborhood association parks/facilities’ (75), and ‘Holliday Park - Indianapolis’ (59). PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS YOU LEARN ABOUT CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES. The most effective marketing methods for survey participants are the ‘Website - CarmelClayParks.com’ (72.5%), ‘Direct mail’ (54.5%), ‘Flyers at the Monon Community Center’ (46.6%), and ‘From friends and neighbors’ (46.6%). The least effective mediums are ‘Television’ (0.5%), ‘Radio’ (1.1%), and ‘Text messages/SMS’ (2.7%). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 James A. Dillon Park (Noblesville) Carmel Dads’ Club facilities River Road Park (Carmel) Private fitness clubs School grounds Coxhall Gardens (Carmel) Holliday Park (Indianapolis) Neighborhood association parks/facilities Cool Creek Park (Westfield) Which THREE parks or facilities from the list below are MOST FREQUENTLY used by you or members of your household? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 84 75 59 49 39 36 24 22 12 0.5% 1.1% 2.7% 5.8% 9.0% 21.2% 27.0% 45.5% 46.6% 46.6% 54.5% 72.5% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Television Radio Text messages/SMS School newsletters Newspaper eNewsletters Conversations with staff Social media(e.g., Twitter, Facebook) From friends and neighbors Flyers at theMonon Community Center Direct mail (e.g., brochures, reports, happenings) Website (CarmelClayParks.com) CHECK ALL of the following ways you learn about Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation programs and activities. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation116 WHICH THREE OF THE SOURCES FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE YOUR MOST PREFERRED WAYS TO LEARN ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION? The most preferred marketing methods for survey participants are the ‘Website - CarmelClayParks. com’ (120), ‘Direct mail’ (95), and ‘Social media’ (79). The least preferred mediums are ‘Radio’ (0), ‘Television’ (1), and ‘Newspaper’ (7). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Radio Television Newspaper School newsletters Text messages/SMS Conversations with staff Flyers at the Monon Community Center From friends and neighbors eNewsletters Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) Direct mail (e.g., brochures, reports, happenings) Website (CarmelClayParks.com) Which THREE of the sources from the list below are your MOST PREFERRED ways to learn about parks and recreation services provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 120 95 79 48 47 42 29 11 8 7 1 0 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 117 PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAS A NEED FOR EACH TYPE OF PARK LISTED BELOW BY SELECTING EITHER “YES” OR “NO”. IF “YES,” PLEASE RATE HOW WELL ALL PARKS OF THIS TYPE IN CARMEL MEET THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USING A SCALE OF 4 TO 1, WHERE 4 MEANS THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE “FULLY MET” AND 1 MEANS “NOT MET.” The charts below reveal the percentage of survey participates who answered “yes, my household has a need” as well as the percentage breakdown of how well that need is currently being met. This allows for direct comparison in order to identify facilities/amenities with the highest level of unmet needs. Top 3 Needs 1. Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway (89%) 2. Nature preserves/natural areas (87%) 3. Large parks serving the entire community (86%) Top 3 Unmet Needs 1. Small parks in my neighborhood 3 acres or less (31%) 2. Nature preserves/natural areas (14%) 3. Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods (11%) 55% 70% 86% 87% 89% 45% 30% 14% 13% 11% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Small parks in my neighborhood 3 acres or less (e.g., Center Green, Carey Grove Park) Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods Large parks serving the entire community Nature preserves/natural areas Linear trail corridors like the MononGreenway Indicate if you or any member of your household has a need for each type of park listed below Yes No 26% 26% 30% 46% 52% 20% 34% 36% 33% 33% 23% 25% 22% 16% 11% 31% 14% 11% 5% 5% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Small parks in my neighborhood 3 acres or less (e.g., Center Green, Carey Grove Park) Nature preserves/natural areas Medium size parks servingmultiple neighborhoods Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway Large parks serving the entire community If Yes, how well are your needs being met? 4 (Fully Met)3 (Most Met)2 (Partly Met)1 (Not Met) Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation118 RANK THE TYPE OF PARKS FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IN PRIORITY ORDER, WHERE 1 IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY AND 5 IS THE LOWEST PRIORITY. In ranking the types of parks from highest to lowest priority, ‘Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway’ and ‘Large parks serving the entire community’ received the most 1st and 2nd choice votes (respectively). While ‘Small parks in my neighborhood 3 acres or less’ received the fewest votes. PLEASE INDICATE HOW SUPPORTIVE YOU ARE OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ACTIONS THAT CARMEL CLAY PARKS & RECREATION COULD TAKE TO IMPROVE THE PARK SYSTEM. Approximately 84% of survey respondents are Very Supportive or Somewhat Supportive of CCPR ‘Acquiring and developing new parks.’ While only 43% of survey participants are Very Supportive or Somewhat Supportive of the Department ‘Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads’ Club’. 25% 32% 50% 56% 57% 18% 13% 24% 27% 27% 29% 26% 21% 13% 10% 28% 28% 5% 5% 7% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads’ Club Construct a community center in west Carmel Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Upgrade playgrounds and amenities in existing parks Acquire and develop new parks Indicate how supportive you are of each of the following major actions Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Not Sure Not Supportive 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Small parks in my neighborhood 3 acres or less (e.g., Center Green, Carey Grove Park) Medium size parks serving multiple neighborhoods Nature preserves/natural areas Large parks serving the entire community Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway Rank the type of parks from the list below in priority order, where 1 is the HIGHEST priority and 5 is the LOWEST priority. 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 4th Choice 5th Choice 145 138 134 125 106 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 119 WHICH THREE ACTIONS FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? The three actions which are most important to survey respondents are ‘Upgrade playgrounds and amenities in existing parks’ (112), ‘Acquire and develop new parks’ (111), and ‘Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River’ (101). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Construct an indoor sports complex in partnership with the Carmel Dads’ Club Construct a community center in west Carmel Finish developing the multiuse trail along White River Acquire and develop new parks Upgrade playgrounds and amenities in existing parks Which THREE actions from the list below are MOST IMPORTANT to your household? 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice 112 111 101 55 45 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation120 PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAS A NEED FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY FROM YOUR HOME TO THE DESTINATIONS LISTED BELOW BY SELECTING EITHER “YES” OR “NO”. IF “YES,” PLEASE RATE HOW WELL CARMEL MEETS THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USING A SCALE OF 4 TO 1, WHERE 4 MEANS THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE “FULLY MET” AND 1 MEANS “NOT MET.” The charts below reveal the percentage of survey participates who answered “yes, my household has a need” as well as the percentage breakdown of how well that need is currently being met. This allows for direct comparison in order to identify facilities/amenities with the highest level of unmet needs. Top 3 Needs 1. Parks (75%) 2. Restaurants (71%) 3. Entertainment Venues (59%) Top 3 Unmet Needs 1. Retail stores (23%) 2. Entertainment Venues (21%) 3. Schools (16%) 47% 53% 59% 71% 75% 53% 47% 42% 29% 25% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Schools Retail stores Entertainment Venues Restaurants Parks Indicate if you or any member of your household has a need for trail connectivity from your home to the destinations listed below Yes No 17% 24% 28% 29% 33% 27% 26% 22% 29% 30% 36% 27% 35% 26% 23% 21% 23% 15% 16% 14% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Entertainment Venues Retail stores Restaurants Schools Parks If Yes, how well are your needs being met? 4 (Fully met)3 (Mostly Met)2 (Partly Met)1 (Not Met) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 121 PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAS A NEED FOR EACH OF THE TYPES OF FACILITIES LISTED BELOW BY SELECTING EITHER “YES” OR “NO”. IF “YES,” PLEASE RATE HOW WELL THE FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE IN CARMEL MEET THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD USING A SCALE OF 4 TO 1, WHERE 4 MEANS THE NEEDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE “FULLY MET AND 1 MEANS “NOT MET.” In combining ‘several times/week’ and ‘a few times/month’ indoor running/walking track (57%), weight room/cardiovascular equipment area (55%), and indoor lap lanes for exercise swimming (45%) were identified as the most frequently utilized amenities. Features that were projected to receive the least amount of use by survey respondents include banquet/ special event space (1%), indoor stage/performing arts (8%), and multi-purpose space for classes/ meetings/parties (9%). Top 3 Needs 1. Paved multipurpose trails (90%) 2. Fitness/exercise facilities (85%) 3. Nature trails/boardwalks (83) 5% 6% 11% 17% 18% 19% 20% 23% 29% 30% 35% 38% 38% 38% 47% 49% 51% 54% 56% 57% 66% 76% 76% 83% 85% 90% 95% 94% 89% 83% 82% 81% 80% 77% 71% 70% 65% 62% 62% 62% 53% 51% 49% 46% 44% 43% 34% 24% 24% 17% 15% 10% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Cricket field Skateboarding park Bike/BMX course Bocce ball courts Pickleball courts (outdoors) Disc golf course Pickleball courts (indoors) Adult sports fields Garden plots/ community gardens Off-leash dog park Golf courses Fishing areas Playground equipment (indoors) Exercise equipment (outdoors) Picnic shelters (rentable) Canoe/kayak launch (White River) Destination restaurant in a signature park Botanical/formal gardens Playground equipment (outdoors) Splash pads/spray parks Environmental education/ nature center Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors) Walking/running track (indoors) Nature trails/boardwalks Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors) Paved multipurpose trails(e.g., walking, biking) Indicate if you or any member of your household has a need for each of the types of facilities listed below Yes No Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation122 Top 3 Unmet Needs 1. Pickleball courts - outdoors (90%) 2. Bocce ball courts (87%) 3. Destination restaurant in a signature park (84%) 5% 11% 9% 11% 22% 9% 24% 20% 14% 22% 31% 38% 21% 64% 45% 39% 42% 35% 57% 53% 51% 63% 15% 11% 15% 19% 11% 27% 15% 20% 26% 22% 25% 24% 42% 20% 31% 30% 47% 27% 36% 38% 27% 13% 5% 9% 22% 36% 23% 26% 35% 28% 24% 34% 50% 19% 31% 14% 34% 18% 15% 22% 24% 18% 14% 10% 9% 8% 87% 90% 84% 71% 47% 55% 50% 35% 67% 36% 37% 26% 10% 37% 13% 24% 18% 20% 8% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Bocce ball courts Pickleball courts (outdoors) Destination restaurant in a signature park Playground equipment (indoors) Canoe/kayak launch (White River) Exercise equipment (outdoors) Garden plots/ community gardens Botanical/formal gardens Cricket field Environmental education/ nature center Off-leash dog park Adult sports fields Fishing areas Disc golf course Bike/BMX course Golf courses Nature trails/boardwalks Skateboarding park Pickleball courts (indoors) Picnic shelters (rentable) Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors) Paved multipurpose trails (e.g., walking, biking) Walking/running track (indoors) Splash pads/spray parks Playground equipment (outdoors) Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors) If Yes, how well are your needs being met? 4 (Fully met)3 (Mostly Met)2 (Partly Met)1 (Not Met) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 123 WHICH FOUR FACILITIES FROM THE LIST IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Survey respondents indicated that the most important facilities to their households are ‘Fitness/ exercise facilities- indoors’ (70), ‘Paved multipurpose trails’ (62), ‘Nature trails/boardwalks’ (54), and ‘Aquatic/pool facilities- indoors’ (45). While the least important facilities include ‘Skateboarding park’ (1) and ‘Cricket field’ (3). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Skateboarding park Cricket field Adult sports fields Bike/BMX course Bocce ball courts Disc golf course Picnic shelters (rentable) Exercise equipment (outdoors) Off-leash dog park Garden plots/community gardens Pickleball courts (indoors) Golf courses Fishing areas Canoe/kayak launch (White River) Pickleball courts (outdoors) Splash pads/spray parks Botanical/formal gardens Destination restaurant in a signature park Playground equipment (indoors) Environmental education/nature center Walking/running track (indoors) Playground equipment (outdoors) Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors) Nature trails/boardwalks Paved multipurpose trails (e.g., walking, biking) Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors) Which FOUR facilities from the list below are MOST IMPORTANT to your household? 1st Choice 2nd choice 3rd Choice 4th Choice 70 62 54 45 35 30 29 24 24 24 20 17 17 14 13 12 12 11 10 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation124 3.6.2 SURVEY COMPARISON RESPONDENTS VISITATION OF VARIOUS PARKS & RECREATION FACILITATES PROVIDED BY CCPR IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS 2018 Statistically-Valid Question 4 2018 Electronic Survey Question 4 2013 Statistically-Valid – Question #5 The Waterpark 51%64%N/A Monon Community Center 73%88%69% Central Park (excluding The Waterpark and Monon Community Center) 68%82%39% Carey Grove Park 27%25%14% Flowing Well Park 45%55%32% Founders Park 45%55%28% Hazel Landing Park 23%27%12% Lawrence W. Inlow Park 27%34%15% Meadowlark Park 22%25%10% River Heritage Park 30%24%18% West Park 61%56%46% Monon Greenway 75%83%55% Hagan-Burke or Grey- hound Trails 39%48%19% White River Greenway 28%30%9% Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 125 MAJOR REASON HOUSEHOLDS USE PARKS AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY CCPR 2018 Statistically-Valid Question 6a 2018 Electronic Survey Question 12 Walking for pleasure 60%53% Nature walks 39%33% Bicycling for pleasure 35%42% Playground 34%32% Exercising/aerobics 26%50% Dog walking/parks 23%18% Jogging/running 20%24% Splash pad/spray park 17%19% Wildlife viewing 13%14% Picnicking 12%8% Sports 7%7% Photography 6%5% Fishing 5%3% Bird watching 5%5% Disc golf 2%1% Sledding 2%1% Canoeing/kayaking 2%3% Bicycling (BMX)1%3% Geocaching 1%0% In-line skating 1%1% Skateboarding 1%1% Painting/sketching 0%1% Snowshoeing 0%0% Skiing (cross country)0%0% Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation126 HOW WELL PARKS MEET THE NEEDS OF HOUSEHOLDS, UNMET NEED, AND PRIORITY 2018 Statistically-Valid Question 10 and 10a 2018 Electronic Survey Question 19 and 20 Percentage that have a Need Unmet Need (50% or below) Percentage of Highest Priority (highest and second highest) Percentage that have a Need Unmet Need (50% or below) Percentage of Highest Priority (highest and second highest) Linear trail corridors like the Monon Greenway 66%19%44%89%21%64% Nature preserves/natu- ral areas 65%23%34%87%39%38% Large parks serving the entire community 54%31%28%86%16%43% Medium size parks serving multiple neigh- borhoods 53%41%24%70%33%26% Small parks in my neigh- borhood 50%43%28%55%54%23% LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR MAJOR ACTIONS CCPR COULD TAKE TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM AND MOST IMPORTANT ACTIONS 2018 Statistically-Valid Question 11 and 11a 2018 Electronic Survey Question 21 and 22 Level of Support by Major Action (Very Supportive & Somewhat Supportive Most Important Action (Top Three Choice) Level of Support by Major Action (Very Supportive & Some- what Supportive Most Import- ant Action (Top Three Choice) Upgrade playgrounds & amenities in existing parks 84%59%83%64% Acquire & develop new parks 78%54%84%63% Finish developing the multiuse trail along the White River 69%47%74%58% Construct a Community Center in west Carmel 48%33%45%31% Construct an indoor sports complex in part- nership with the Carmel Dad’s Club 44%27%43%26% Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 127 HOW WELL FACILITIES/AMENITIES MEET THE NEEDS OF RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLDS 2018 Statistically-Valid Question 13 and 13a 2018 Electronic Survey Question 24 and 25 Percentage that have a Need Unmet Need (Partly Met or Not Met) Percentage of Highest Priority (Top 4 Most Important) Percentage that have a Need Unmet Need (Partly Met or Not Met) Percentage of Highest Priority (Top 4 Most Important) Paved multipurpose trails 66%27%36%90%18%39% Nature trails/boardwalks 64%41%33%83%37%34% Fitness/exercise facilities 50%27%19%85%10%43% Walking/running track (indoors)50%31%19%76%16%19% Aquatic/pool facilities 47%34%22%76%28%28% Playground equipment (outdoors)41%28%16%56%10%22% Botanical/formal gar- dens 37%78%14%54%70%15% Environmental educa- tion/nature center 37%68%10%66%64%18% Splash pads/spray parks 36%24%13%57%11%12% Picnic shelters 35%34%4%47%30%2% Destination restaurant 34%91%10%51%93%15% Garden plots/community gardens 29%78%8%29%76%7% Exercise equipment (outdoors)29%75%7%38%78%6% Fishing areas 29%61%9%38%60%9% Canoe/kayak launch 28%65%7%49%83%11% Playground equipment (indoors)27%72%10%38%93%15% Off-leash dog park 24%80%12%30%61%7% Golf courses 21%41%7%35%38%8% Adult sports fields 19%53%4%23%60%2% Disc golf course 13%57%2%19%56%2% Bocce ball courts 12%91%4%17%100%2% Bike/BMX course 12%51%2%11%44%2% Pickleball courts (in- door)11%58%3%20%35%7% Pickleball courts (out- door)10%80%3%18%95%11% Skateboarding park 6%34%1%6%36%1% Cricket field 3%77%1%5%67%2% Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation128 3.6.3 CONCLUSION Resident opinions are consistent between the online community survey and the statistically-valid survey conducted by the ETC Institute. However, there is a noticeable difference between the two survey methods in that online survey respondents demonstrate a higher rate of agreeance, in general, than statistically-valid survey respondents. This is likely a factor of the willingness to participate among online survey participants as they are likely users of the CCPR system, versus the random sample solicited through the statistically-valid survey. Even though the degree of agreeance varies between surveys, it is encouraging that both survey platforms produced similar perspectives on the current system and reported consistent priorities and needs for CCPR in the future. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 129 CHAPTER FOUR – PARKS, FACILITIES, AND OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS 4.1 PARKS AND FACILITIES ASSESSMENT As part of the life-cycle asset plan, SmithGroup and Williams Architects completed a park assessment of the entire CCPR system. The full Life-Cycle Asset Plan is located in Appendix 2. The following pages outline the methodology and general findings. 4.1.1 PARK ASSESSMENT PROCESS The project team was retained by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) to complete a life-cycle management plan for the entire park system as part of the 2020-2024 Parks & Recreation Master Plan. The goal of life-cycle asset management planning is to evaluate the condition of existing park infrastructure and to forecast the capital budget necessary to replace facilities, providing for continued delivery of park services for the community. The process began with a three-day, detailed condition inventory and assessment for all CCPR park assets, including buildings and surrounding sites, multi-use fields, playgrounds, aquatic facilities, natural areas, parking lots, and trails. Following this evaluation, a spreadsheet tool was created that details the condition of individual facilities and forecasts the required cost to renovate or replace assets that fall short of meeting park user expectations. Capital budget requirements were projected through 2030, broken into near term (2018-2020), mid-range (2021- 2025), long- range (2026-2030) and future (beyond 2030) asset replacements. This report complements the working spreadsheet tool by documenting the locations of the individual facilities inventoried for each park, and by providing a summary of the capital budget projections including yearly escalations and estimated soft costs. The project team conducted a three-day, detailed inventory and assessment of all CCPR park assets in May 2018. The team broke into two groups to document the condition of both architectural assets and park site features. CCPR staff joined the team on the tour, sharing their extensive knowledge on park history, maintenance challenges, and planned facility updates. All park assets were coded based on the following scale for condition: 4 - Exceeds Expectations, Replace beyond 2030 3 - Meets Expectations, Replace 2026-2030 2 - Marginally Meets Expectations, Replace 2021-2025 1 - Below Expectations, Replace 2018-2020 The detailed park assessment is located in the Appendix 2. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation130 4.1.2 OVERALL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS The Carmel Clay parks are generally in good condition, and the majority of park structures meet or exceed community expectations. Overall system recommendations include: • Asphalt trails throughout the park system need repair. Pavement resurfaced in 2018 along the Monon Greenway and Central Park are in good condition, but trails within smaller parks such as Carey Grove, Meadowlark, and Prairie Meadow have significant cracking • Update all park lighting to the contemporary LED standard. Central Park lighting updated in spring 2018 demonstrates the current standard • Update park amenities such as entrance signage, benches, and trash bins to current standards as other facilities within the parks are improved • For major trails, establish a consistent wayfinding scheme between maps and signage. For example, all site amenities and trail signage for the Monon Greenway are red, but the wayfinding maps show the trail as green • Increase sustainable design and maintenance practices throughout the park system. Provide permeable parking and/or trail surfacing in suitable locations • Utilize infiltration basins and bioswales • Increase native planting areas • Decrease amount of mown lawn • Improve maintenance efficiency by evaluating maintenance routes and facility locations • Several parks have been identified as in need of a master plan: ° Carey Grove ° Cherry Tree ° Flowing Well ° Hazel Landing ° Meadowlark ° River Heritage Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 131 4.2 SITE INVENTORY DATABASE TOOL 4.2.1 DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS The information gathered during the site inventory and analysis process was compiled into a user- friendly, working Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is organized by park, and provides master-plan level unit costs for all site features and structures. Projected replacement time lines include escalation factors and soft costs. The spreadsheet can be searched and sorted in a variety of ways to evaluate the condition of existing site and building amenities, and to identify required outlays for potential system-wide capital improvement projects such as playground or bench upgrades. Unit costs and park features are easy to update within the tool, allowing CCPR to track the impact of future park expansion and improvement projects on projected capital replacement budgets. The total value of all park assets in 2018 is listed in the table on the following page. Note, values are for capital improvements only and thus do not include the value of the land. Overall, system-wide capital improvements are valued at over $160M, which is projected to increase to over $300M by 2030. Assumptions built into the asset management tool include the following: • The tool predicts order-of-magnitude budgets using master planning level opinion of probable construction cost • Unit costs are in 2018 dollars. Soft costs are estimated at 35% based on CCPR experience. Escalation is estimated at 3% per year • Cost data include major repairs forecasted for buildings (i.e. roof replacements) but not typical annual maintenance (i.e. painting) • Updated master plans are recommended for specific parks. Future improvements recommended by master plans may vary in cost from that necessary to replace current assets. Budgets based on asset replacement alone may be low for parks that are completely reconstructed per master plan, due to changes in program or replacement of features that are coded in good condition but are within the reconstructed area • Budgets and value of assets are based on the best data available. (i.e. Repair costs for trail bridges are known from City structural evaluation, but total value of bridges within the trail system are not) • Utilities such as storm, sanitary, water, and electrical service were not given a rating as their condition could not be determined by the methods used in the inventory Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation132 4.2.2 TOTAL ASSET VALUE BY PARK ***Trail assets do not include unknown value of bridge structures. Regional 2018 Current Value 2018 Current Value with Soft Costs Escalation 2018-2020 Escalation 2021-2025 Escalation 2026-2030 Central Park $ 110,483,300 $ 149,152,400 $ 158,235,800 $ 183,438,700 $ 212,655,700 West Park 15,734,600$ 20,651,500$ 21,909,100$ 25,398,700$ 29,444,100$ SUBTOTAL $ 126,217,900 $ 169,803,900 $ 180,144,900 $ 208,837,400 $ 242,099,800 Community Founders Park 10,799,900$ 14,579,800$ 15,467,800$ 17,931,400$ 20,787,400$ Lawrence W. Inlow Park 3,521,400$ 4,753,900$ 5,043,400$ 5,846,600$ 6,777,900$ Meadowlark Park 2,736,900$ 3,594,400$ 3,509,000$ 4,067,800$ 4,715,700$ River Heritage Park 3,391,300$ 4,578,200$ 4,857,000$ 5,630,600$ 6,527,500$ SUBTOTAL 20,449,500$ 27,506,300$ 28,877,200$ 33,476,400$ 38,808,500$ Neighborhood Carey Grove Park 1,549,200$ 2,091,400$ 2,218,800$ 2,572,200$ 2,981,900$ SUBTOTAL 1,549,200$ 2,091,400$ 2,218,800$ 2,572,200$ 2,981,900$ Nature Preserves / Open Space Cherry Tree 282,600$ 381,500$ 404,800$ 469,300$ 544,000$ Flowing Well 1,464,600$ 1,977,200$ 2,097,700$ 2,431,800$ 2,819,100$ Hazel Landing 1,328,300$ 1,793,200$ 1,902,400$ 2,205,400$ 2,556,700$ Prairie Meadow 229,700$ 310,100$ 329,000$ 381,400$ 442,100$ Vera J. Hinshaw 195,000$ 263,300$ 279,300$ 323,800$ 375,300$ SUBTOTAL 3,500,200$ 4,725,300$ 5,013,200$ 5,811,700$ 6,737,200$ Greenways / Trails Greyhound Trail***362,600$ 489,400$ 519,200$ 602,000$ 697,800$ Hagan-Burke Trail***1,119,600$ 1,511,500$ 1,603,500$ 1,858,900$ 2,155,000$ Lenape Trace 391,100$ 528,000$ 560,200$ 649,400$ 752,800$ Monon Greenway***5,078,300$ 6,855,600$ 7,273,100$ 8,431,600$ 9,774,500$ Monon Greenway North Trailhead 327,600$ 442,300$ 469,200$ 544,000$ 630,600$ Monon Greenway South Trailhead 303,700$ 409,900$ 434,900$ 504,200$ 584,500$ White River Greenway 932,500$ 1,258,800$ 1,335,500$ 1,548,200$ 1,794,800$ SUBTOTAL 8,515,400$ 11,495,500$ 12,195,600$ 14,138,300$ 16,390,000$ TOTAL $ 160,232,200 $ 215,622,400 $ 228,449,700 $ 264,836,000 $ 307,017,400 *** Does not include value of bridge structures. Totals do not include value of land. Total Asset Value by Park Trail assets do not include unknown value of bridge structures. *** 75 PARK INVENTORY DATABASE TOOL STUDY RESULTSTOTAL ASSET VALUE BY PARK Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 133 4.2.3 PROJECTED CAPITAL REPLACEMENT BUDGETS BY PARK Based on the condition ratings, the following table shows the projected capital replacement budgets by park, including escalation and soft costs. It should be noted that several parks were recommended for updated master plans, which may provide a different opinion of probable construction cost based on programmatic changes or new features. * Replacement cost for West Park is based on current asset value only. If 2016 Master Plan is implemented, projected cost will range from $12.2M to $27.8M. **Updated master plan for park required. Future improvement costs per plan may vary from replacement cost based on current assets. Regional Current Total Value with Soft Costs 2018 - 2020 Replacement (Rating = 1) 2021 - 2025 Replacement (Rating = 2) 2026 - 2030 Replacement (Rating = 3) Central Park $ 149,152,400 1,516,000$ 17,005,700$ $ 25,262,700 West Park *20,651,500$ 9,287,700$ 3,227,100$ SUBTOTAL $ 169,803,900 1,516,000$ 26,293,400$ $ 28,489,800 Community Founders Park 14,579,800$ $ 159,800 $ 4,763,300 $ 4,724,600 Lawrence W. Inlow Park 4,753,900$ 2,148,300$ 251,000$ 2,777,400$ Meadowlark Park **3,594,400$ 288,600$ 3,182,800$ 92,700$ River Heritage Park **4,578,200$ 186,200$ 3,782,000$ 1,657,300$ SUBTOTAL 27,506,300$ $ 2,782,900 $ 11,979,100 $ 9,252,000 Neighborhood Carey Grove Park **2,091,400$ 91,100$ 1,883,700$ 362,900$ SUBTOTAL 2,091,400$ 91,100$ 1,883,700$ 362,900$ Nature Preserves / Open Space Cherry Tree 381,500$ Flowing Well 1,977,200$ 401,000$ 641,000$ 219,700$ Hazel Landing **1,793,200$ 83,900$ 158,700$ 764,800$ Prairie Meadow 310,100$ 227,600$ Vera J. Hinshaw 263,300$ SUBTOTAL 4,725,300$ 484,900$ 1,027,300$ 984,500$ Greenways / Trails Greyhound Trail 489,400$ 14,300$ 85,600$ Hagan-Burke Trail 1,511,500$ 7,200$ 2,155,000$ Lenape Trace 528,000$ 111,400$ 445,200$ Monon Greenway 6,855,600$ 653,000$ 34,000$ 9,774,500$ Monon Greenway North Trailhead 442,300$ 9,300$ 243,900$ Monon Greenway South Trailhead 409,900$ 42,300$ 29,100$ 188,900$ White River Greenway 1,258,800$ 3,300$ 974,400$ SUBTOTAL 11,495,500$ 716,800$ 187,100$ 13,867,500$ TOTAL $ 215,622,400 $ 5,591,700 $ 41,370,600 $ 52,956,700 Projected Capital Replacement Projects by Park *Replacement cost for West Park is based on current asset value only. If 2016 Master Plan is implemented, projected cost will range from $12.2M to $27.8M. ** Master plan required. Future improvement costs per plan may vary from replacement cost based on current assets. Replacement cost for West Park is based on current asset value only. If 2016 Master Plan is implemented, projected cost will range from $12.2M to $27.8M. Updated master plan for park required. Future improvement costs per plan may vary from replacement cost based on current assets. * ** Based on the condition ratings, the following table shows the projected capital replacement budgets by park, including escalation and soft costs. It should be noted that several parks were recommended for updated master plans, which may provide a different opinion of probable construction cost based on programmatic changes or new features. 76 PARK INVENTORY DATABASE TOOL STUDY RESULTSPROJECTED CAPITAL REPLACEMENT BUDGETS BY PARK Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation134 4.3 PARK CLASSIFICATIONS 4.3.1 INTRODUCTION In developing design principles for parks, it is important that each park be programmed, planned, and designed to meet the needs of its service area and classification within the overall park and recreation system. Every park, regardless of type, needs to have an established set of outcomes. Park planners/designers design to those outcomes, including operational and maintenance costs associated with the design outcomes. Each park classification category serves a specific purpose, and the features and facilities in the park must be designed for the number of age segments the park is intended to serve, the desired length of stay deemed appropriate, and the uses it has been assigned. Recreation needs and services require different design standards based on the age segments that make up the community that will be using the park. A varying number of age segments will be accommodated with the park program depending on the classification of the park. The age segments used for this purpose are broken into the following sets and subsets: • Ages 0-17 ° Ages 0-5 ° Ages 6-12 ° Ages 13-17 • Ages 18-34 ° Ages 18-24 ° Ages 25-34 • Ages 35-54 ° Ages 35-44 ° Ages 45-54 • Ages 55-74 ° Ages 55-64 ° Ages 65-74 • Ages 76+ Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 135 4.3.2 DEFINITIONS Land Usage: The percentage of space identified for active or passive use within a park. A park master plan should follow land usage guidelines. • Active Use: An area that requires more intensive development to support the desired recreation activities. Spaces are designed specifically to encourage people to congregate and interact with each other. Active areas include built amenities, such as playgrounds, splash pads, sports courts or fields, community centers, program pavilions, swimming pools, rentable shelters, and similar amenities. Active may also be used in reference to a program or activity that requires a more vigorous physical effort to participate, such as playing sports, swimming, working out, skating, etc. • Passive Use: An area that has minimal to no development, usually for the purpose of providing non-programmed open space and/or preserving or restoring natural habitat. Areas that are developed are designed to promote casual and frequently self-directed activities, such as hiking, fishing, bird watching, wildlife viewing, picnicking, kite-flying, Frisbee, or similar generally unstructured activities. Built amenities may include trails, boardwalks, fishing piers, benches, picnic tables, grass meadows, etc. Passive may also be used in reference to a program or activity that requires minimal physical exertion to participate, such as attending an arts and crafts class, continuing education program, etc. Park/Facility Classifications: Includes Pocket Park/Public Plaza, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Regional Park, Special Use Park/Facility, School Grounds, Greenways/Trails, and Nature Preserves/Open Space. Signature Facility/Amenity: This is an enhanced facility or amenity which is viewed by community as deserving of special recognition due to its design, location, function, natural resources, etc. A signature facility/amenity is frequently synonymous with the park from the general public’s perspective. A signature facility/amenity may also be a revenue facility. Examples include a community center, waterpark, destination playground, artesian well, or similar facilities, amenities or natural features. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation136 Site Features: The specific types of facilities and amenities included within a park. Site features include such elements as a community center, playground, splashpads, picnic shelters, restrooms, game courts, trails, open meadows, nature preserves, etc. These types of amenities are categorized as lead or support amenities. Community demographics and needs should be considered when identifying site features for a park. Revenue Facilities: These include facilities that charge a fee to use in the form of an admission fee, player fee, team fee, or permit fee. These could include pools, golf courses, tennis courts, recreation centers, sport field complexes, concession facilities, hospitality centers, rentable shelters, outdoor or indoor theatre space, and special event spaces. User Experiences: The type of intentional recreation experiences a user has available to them when visiting a park. A park master plan should incorporate user experience recommendations based on the following types of experiences: • Leader-Directed Experiences: An experience received from a facility, amenity or service where participant involvement is directed by a leader and supervision is required for participation. These experiences, usually provided through an organized class, often promote skill development or learning, but may be for recreational purposes only. Leader-directed experiences typically require advance registration and include a user fee to participate. Examples include day camps, learn-to-swim programs, environmental education classes, sports leagues, etc. Certain types of special events, such as concerts, 5K fun runs/walks, or similar events that rely on the performance or significant coordination of someone to occur are also considered leader-directed experiences • Self-Directed Experience: An experience received from a facility, amenity or service that provides opportunities for individuals or groups to participate independently and at their own pace. Supervision, when provided, is primarily to promote safety or regulate attendance. A user fee may or may not be charged, depending on the setting. Advance registration is often not required. Examples include playground or splashpad usage, picnicking, disc golf, nature walks, walking a dog, etc. General use of a community center, such as using fitness equipment, using the gym or indoor aquatic during open times or walking the track, are also considered self- directed experiences Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 137 4.3.3 PARK CLASSIFICATIONS POCKET PARKS/PUBLIC PLAZAS A pocket park/public plaza is a small outdoor space, usually less than 0.25 acres, but may be up to 3 acres, and most often located in an urban area surrounded by commercial buildings or higher- density housing. Pocket parks/public plazas are small, urban open spaces that serve a variety of functions, such as: small event space, play areas for children, spaces for relaxing and socializing, taking lunch breaks, etc. Successful pocket parks/public plazas have four key qualities: they are accessible, allow people to engage in activities, are comfortable spaces that are inviting, and are sociable places. In general, pocket parks offer minimal amenities on site and are not designed to support organized recreation services. The service area for pocket parks/public plazas is usually less than a quarter-mile and they are intended for users within close walking distance of the park. This type of park is not commonly found in a public park system, and is normally designed, constructed and maintained as a common area within a downtown corridor. CCPR does not have a mini park/public plaza within its inventory, but will have Vera J. Hinshaw Park opening in 2019. The City of Carmel’s inventory includes City Hall, Center Green, as well as the anticipated 2019 development of Midtown Plaza & Monon Boulevard. Pocket parks/public plazas are not designed to accommodate more than very limited recreation services. They are typically able to provide recreation services for one user group such as a playground, splashpad, benches for walkers, landscape and trails for enjoyment of the natural environment or display of public artwork. • Size of park: Pocket Parks/public plazas are between 2,500ft2 and one acre in size. Anything larger would typically be considered a neighborhood park • Service radius: Several city blocks or less than 1/4 mile in a residential setting • Site selection: Servicing a specific recreation need, ease of access from the surrounding area, and linkage to the community pathway system are key concerns when selecting a site. Ideally, it will have adjacency to other park system components, most notably greenways, and the trail system. Location is determined by the needs of the neighborhood, partnership opportunities and the availability and accessibility of land • Length of stay: One-hour experience or less • Site features: Community input through the public meeting process needs to be the primary determinant of the development program for this type of park. Pocket Parks/Public Plazas are not designed to accommodate more than very limited recreation use. They are typically able to provide recreation use for one user group such as a playground or splash pad for youth, benches for walkers, landscape and trails for enjoyment of the natural environment or display of artwork for the local neighborhood. Amenities are ADA compliant. Although demographics and population density play a role in location, the justification for a Pocket Park/Public Plaza lies more in servicing a specific recreation need or taking advantage of a unique opportunity. Given the potential variety of Pocket Park/Public Plaza activities and locations, services can vary Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation138 • Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience • Revenue facilities: None • Land usage: 90% active/10% passive. The character may be one of intensive use or aesthetic enjoyment. Area businesses and residents should be encouraged to assist in policing and the day-to-day maintenance of this type of park, as they are located in downtown areas. The primary function of such a park is to provide recreation space to those areas of the City where population densities limit the available open space • User experiences: Predominately self-directed, but a signature amenity may be included which provides opportunities for leader-directed programs. Depending on the size and location, special events could be activated • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience • Parking: Parking is typically not required • Lighting: Site lighting is typically used for security and safety • Naming: Consistent with the agency’s naming policy for naming of parks, such as being named after a prominent or historic person, event, or natural landmark Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 139 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK A neighborhood park should be 3-10 acres; however, some neighborhood parks are determined by use and facilities offered and not by size alone. The service radius for a neighborhood park is one half mile or six blocks. Neighborhood parks should have safe pedestrian access for surrounding residents; parking may or may not be included but if included accounts for less than ten cars and provides for ADA access. Neighborhood parks serve the recreational and social focus of the adjoining neighborhoods and contribute to a distinct neighborhood identity. Currently, Carey Grove Park is classified as neighborhood park within CCPR’s inventory. • Size of park: 3 to 10 acres (usable area measured). Preferred size is eight acres • Service radius: 0.5-mile radius • Site selection: On a local or collector street. If near an arterial street, provide natural or artificial barrier. Where possible, next to a school. Encourage location to link subdivisions and linked by trails to other parks • Length of stay: One-hour experience or less • Site features: One signature amenity (e.g., playground, splashpad, sport court, gazebo); no restrooms unless necessary for a signature amenity; may include one non-programmed sports field; playgrounds for ages 2-5 and 5-12 with some shaded elements; no reservable shelters; loop trails; one type of sport court; no non-producing/unused amenities; benches, small picnic shelter(s) next to play areas. Amenities are ADA compliant • Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience. Customized to demographics of neighborhood; safety design meets established Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards; integrated color scheme throughout • Revenue facilities: None • Land usage: 85% active/15% passive • User experiences: Typically, self-directed, but a signature amenity may be included which provides opportunities for leader-directed programs • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience • Parking: Design should include widened on-street parking area adjacent to park, when feasible. Goal is to maximize usable park space. As necessary, provide 5-10 spaces within park including accessible parking spaces. Traffic calming devices encouraged next to park • Lighting: Security only. Lighting on all night for security • Naming: Consistent with the agency’s naming policy for naming of parks, such as being named after a prominent or historic person, event, or natural landmark Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation140 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 141 COMMUNITY PARK Community parks provide diverse recreation opportunities to serve the residents of Carmel and Clay Township. These include active and passive recreation, as well as self-directed and organized recreation opportunities for individuals, families and small groups. Community Parks often include facilities that promote outdoor recreation and activities such as walking and biking, picnicking, playing sports, playing on playgrounds, and fishing. These sites also include natural areas, emphasizing public access to important natural features. Since community parks may attract people from a wide geographic area, support facilities are required, such as parking and restrooms. Self-directed recreation activities such as meditation, quiet reflection, and wildlife watching also take place at community parks. Community parks generally range from 10 to 100 acres depending on the surrounding community. Community parks serve a larger area – radius of one to three miles – and contain more recreation amenities than a neighborhood park. Currently, CCPR Community Parks include Founders, Lawrence W. Inlow, Meadowlark, and River Heritage. • Size of park: 10 to 100 acres, but ideally 20 to 40 acres • Service radius: One to three-mile radius • Site selection: On two collector streets minimum and preferably one arterial street. If near arterial street, provide natural or artificial barrier. Minimal number of residences abutting site. Preference for adjacent or nearby proximity with school or other municipal use. Encourage trail linkage to other parks • Length of stay: Two to three hours experience • Site features: Four signature amenities at a minimum: (e.g., trails, sports fields, large shelters/ pavilions, community playground for ages 2-5 and 5-12 with some shaded elements, recreation center, pool or family aquatic center, sports courts, water feature); public restrooms with drinking fountains, ample parking, and security lighting. Amenities are ADA compliant. Multi-purpose fields are appropriate in this type of park • Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience. Enhanced landscaping at park entrances and throughout park • Revenue facilities: One or more (e.g. picnic shelters, program pavilion, dog park) • Land usage: 65% active and 35% passive • User experiences: Mostly self-directed experiences, but may have opportunities for leader- directed programs based on available site features and community demand • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience. May include kiosks in easily identified areas of the facility Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation142 • Parking: Sufficient to support the amenities; occupies no more than 10% of the park. Design should include widened on-street parking area adjacent to park. Goal is to maximize usable park space. Traffic calming devices encouraged within and next to the park • Lighting: Security lighting and lighting appropriate for signature amenities • Naming: Consistent with the agency’s naming policy for naming of parks, such as being named after a prominent or historic person, event, or natural landmark • Other: Strong appeal to surrounding neighborhoods; integrated color scheme throughout the park; partnerships developed with support groups, schools and other organizations; loop trail connectivity; linked to trail or recreation facility; safety design meets established CPTED standards REGIONAL PARK Regional parks provide access to unique recreation features, natural areas, and facilities that attract visitors from the entire community and beyond. Regional parks often accommodate small and large group activities and have infrastructure to support group picnics. As community attractions, Regional parks can enhance the economic vitality and identity of the entire region. These parks may include significant natural areas and wetlands, trails and pathways, gardens and arboretums, ponds, and other water features. They add unique facilities, such as destination or thematic playgrounds, community centers, aquatic centers, sledding hills, mazes, viewing knolls, skateparks, and other interesting elements. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 143 Regional parks can and should promote tourism and economic development. Regional parks can enhance the economic vitality and identity of the entire region. Regional parks are typically 100 or more acres in size. Currently, CCPR has Central Park and West Park that fall under the regional park designation. • Size of park: 100+ acres • Service radius: Three miles or greater radius • Site selection: Prefer location which can preserve natural resources on-site such as wetlands, streams, and other geographic features or sites with significant cultural or historic features. Significantly large parcel of land. Access from public roads capable of handling anticipated traffic • Length of stay: All day experience • Site features: 10 to 12 amenities to create a signature facility (e.g., community center, waterpark, lake, destination playground, 3+ reservable picnic shelters, outdoor adventure amenities, gardens, trails, and specialty facilities); public restrooms with drinking fountains, concessions, restaurant, ample parking, special event site • Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience. Enhanced landscaping at park entrances and throughout park • Revenue facilities: More than two; park designed to produce revenue to help offset operational costs • Land usage: Up to 50% active/50% passive • User experiences: Significant mix of leader-directed and self-directed experiences. More than four recreation experiences per age segment with at least four core programs provided • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience, may include kiosks in easily identified areas of the facility • Parking: Sufficient for all amenities. Traffic calming devices encouraged within and next to park • Lighting: Security lighting and lighting appropriate for signature amenities • Naming: Consistent with the agency’s naming policy for naming of parks, such as being named after a prominent or historic person, event, or natural landmark • Other: Safety design may meet CPTED safety standards; integrated color scheme throughout the park; linked to major trails systems, public transportation available, concessions, food and retail sales available, dedicated site managers on duty Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation144 SPECIAL USE PARK Special use parks are those spaces that do not fall within a typical park classification. A major difference between a special use park and other parks is that they usually serve a single purpose whereas other park classifications are designed to offer multiple recreation opportunities. It is possible for a special use facility to be located inside another park. Special use parks generally contain one facility or amenity that falls into the following categories: Historic/Cultural/Social Sites – Unique local resources offering historical, educational, and cultural opportunities. Examples include memorials, historic downtown areas, commercial zones, arboretums, display gardens, and amphitheaters. Frequently these are located in community or regional parks Golf Courses – 9- and 18-hole complexes with ancillary facilities such as club houses, driving ranges, program space and learning centers. These facilities are highly maintained and support a wide age level of males and females. Programs are targeted for daily use play, tournaments, leagues, clinics and special events. Operational costs come from daily play, season pass holders, concessions, driving range fees, earned income opportunities, and sale of pro shop items Indoor Recreation Facilities – specialized or single purpose facilities. Examples include community centers, senior centers, performing arts facilities, and community theaters. Frequently these are located in community or regional parks Outdoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include aquatic parks, disk golf, skateboard, BMX, and dog parks, which may be located in a park While CCPR does not have any special use facilities within its current inventory, the City of Carmel’s inventory includes Brookshire Golf Club, Gray Road Park, and Carmel Clay Veterans Memorial & Reflecting Pool. • Size of park: Depends upon facilities and activities included. The diverse character of these parks makes it difficult to apply acreage standards • Service radius: Depends upon facilities and activities included. Typically serves special user groups while a few serve the entire population • Site selection: Given the variety of potential uses, no specific standards are defined for site selection. As with all park types, the site itself should be located where it is appropriate for its use • Length of stay: Varies by facility • Site Features: Varies by facility • Revenue facilities: Due to nature of certain facilities, revenue may be required for construction and/or annual maintenance. This should be determined at a policy level before the facility is planned and constructed • Land usage: Varies by facility • User experiences: Varies by facility Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 145 • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Signage: Directional signage and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience • Parking: On-street or off-street parking is provided as appropriate for facility • ighting: Security lighting and lighting appropriate for facility • Landscape design: Appropriate design to enhance the park theme/use/experience • Naming: Consistent with the agency’s naming policy for naming of parks, such as being named after a prominent or historic person, event, or natural landmark • Other: Integrated color scheme throughout the park; safety design meets established CPTED standards SCHOOL GROUNDS By combining the resources of two public agencies, such as CCPR and Carmel Clay Schools, the school grounds classification allows for expanding the recreation, social, and educational opportunities available to the community in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Through a partnership agreement, CCPR uses elementary schools to provide its Extended School Enrichment Program to the community. The important outcome in the joint-use relationship is that both the school district and the park system benefit from shared use of facilities and land area. Depending on circumstances, school grounds often complement other community open lands. As an example, an elementary school can serve as neighborhood park providing a playground and open space to the surrounding community during non-school hours. Similarly, a middle school or high school may serve in a number of capacities that could include athletic fields, tennis courts, etc. • Size: Variable as it depends on function • Location: Determined by location of school district property • Site features: May include playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, athletic fields, and trails • Recreation services: Mainly self-directed recreation activities. Where feasible, if athletic fields are developed on school grounds, they are oriented to youth programming. Establishing a joint- use agreement is recommended to making school ground designations work for both agencies. This is particularly important to maintenance, liability, use, and programming of the facilities Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation146 NATURE PRESERVES/OPEN SPACE Nature preserves/open space are undeveloped but may include natural or paved trails. Grasslands under power line corridors are one example and creek areas are another. Nature preserves/ open space contain natural resources that can be managed for recreation and natural resource conservation values such as a desire to protect wildlife habitat, water quality, and endangered species. Nature preserves/open space also can provide opportunities for nature-based, self- directed, low-impact recreational opportunities such as walking and nature viewing. These lands consist of: • Individual sites exhibiting natural resources • Lands that are unsuitable for development but offer natural resource potential • Parcels with steep slopes and natural vegetation, drainage ways and ravines, surface water management areas (man-made ponding areas), and utility easements • Protected lands, such as wetlands/lowlands and shorelines along waterways, lakes, and ponds The intent of nature preserves/open space is to enhance the livability and character of a community by preserving as many of its natural amenities as possible. Integration of the human element with that of the natural environment that surrounds them enhances the overall experience. CCPR offers many unique nature preserves/open space parks that include Cherry Tree Park, Flowing Well Park, Hazel Landing Park, Prairie Meadow, and Vera J. Hinshaw Preserve. • Amenities: May include paved or natural trails, wildlife viewing areas, mountain biking, disc golf, nature interpretation, and education facilities • Maintenance standards: Demand-based maintenance with available funding. Biological management practices observed • Lighting: None • Signage: Interpretive kiosks as deemed appropriate. • Landscape design: Generally, none. Some areas may include landscaping, such as entryways or around buildings. In these situations, sustainable design is appropriate Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 147 GREENWAYS/TRAILS Greenways/trails include natural and built corridors that typically support trail-oriented activities, such as walking, jogging, biking, skating, etc. Greenways/trails function as linear parks by linking features together and providing green buffers. Greenways/trails may be located along abandoned railroad lines, transportation or utility rights-of-way, riparian corridors, or elongated natural areas. Greenways/trails and linear parks may be of various lengths and widths, and these corridors typically support facilities such as viewing areas, benches, and trailheads. Greenways/trails between key destinations can help create more tightly-knit communities, provide opportunities for non-motorized transportation, and link to the regional trail system. The Monon Greenway, White River Greenway, Greyhound Trail, Hagan-Burke Trail, and Lenape Trace Park are examples of greenways/trails. • Size: Typically, unencumbered land at least 30-feet wide. It may include a trail to support walk, bike, run, and sometimes equestrian type activities. Usually, an urban trail is at minimum 10- feet wide to support pedestrian and bicycle uses. Trails incorporate signage to designate where a user is located and where the trails connect in the community • Site selection: Located consistent with approved a community’s comprehensive plan and/or alternative transportation plan as appropriate • Amenities: Parking and restrooms at major trailheads. May include pocket parks/public plazas along the trail • Maintenance standards: Dependent on site features, landscape design, and park visitation • Lighting: Security lighting at trailheads is preferred. Lighting in urbanized areas or entertainment districts as appropriate • Signage: Mileage markers at half mile intervals. Interpretive kiosks as deemed appropriate • Landscape design: Coordinated planting scheme in urban areas. Limited or no landscape planting in open space areas with a preference for maintaining natural areas as a buffer to neighbors • Other: Connectivity to parks or other community attractions and facilities is desirable Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation148 4.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 4.4.1 OVERVIEW Level of Service (LOS) standards are guidelines that define service areas based on population that support investment decisions related to parks, facilities, and amenities. LOS standards are updated over time as industry trends and community demographics change. The consulting team evaluated park facility standards using a combination of resources. These resources included market trends, demographic data, community and stakeholder input, the statistically-valid community survey, and general observations. The existing level of service was based on analysis of CCPR and other service providers in Carmel. This information allowed standards to be customized to Carmel. It is important to note that these LOS standards should be viewed as a guide. The standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment related to the particular situation and needs of the community. By applying these standards to the population of Carmel, gaps or surpluses in park and facility types are revealed. 4.4.2 PER CAPITA “GAPS” According to the LOS, there are multiple needs to be met to properly serve the Carmel community today and in the future. The existing level of service meets and exceeds best practices and recommended service levels for many items; however, there are several areas that do not meet recommended standards. Although Carmel nearly meets the standards for total park acres, there is a deficit for neighborhood, community, open space, and greenways park acreage, as well total miles of trails. For outdoor amenities, Carmel shows a shortage of pavilions, softball fields, dog parks, and a skate board park. In terms of indoor space, Carmel has a shortage of approximately 34,000 square feet of indoor recreation space. It should be noted, however, that other providers in Carmel, such as the City, Carmel Redevelopment Commission, Hamilton County, Dads Club, Carmel Clay Schools, and HOAs, adds to the community inventory measured in the Level of Service. It is important for CCPR to understand its role in the LOS in relation to the other providers in order to position itself by maintaining its importance in providing parks, open space, and greenways within the local market. The standards that follow are based upon population figures for 2018 and 2023, the latest estimates available at the time of analysis. 149 The Level of Service Standard helps to determine community unmet needs based on the Community Survey, NRPA National Standards, best practices in Midwest area communities of similar size and nature. Carmel Clay Park & Recreation Level of Standards Inventory:Carmel ClayPark Inventory City / CRC HamiltonCounty DadsClub Carmel ClaySchools HOA Total Inventory Meet Standard/Need Exists Project AddingInventory Total 2018-2023 Meet Standard/Need Exists PARKS: Pocket Parks/Public Plazas - 9.18 9.18 0.09 acres per 1,000 0.10 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 1 Acre(s)Vera J Hinshaw Park - 1.98 acMidtown Plaza - .26 ac 2.24 2.24 Meets Standard - Acre(s) Neighborhood Parks 5.80 5.80 0.06 acres per 1,000 0.25 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 19 Acre(s)- Need Exists 21 Acre(s) Community Parks 110.23 64.75 174.98 1.80 acres per 1,000 2.00 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 20 Acre(s)- Need Exists 42 Acre(s) Regional Parks 279.22 116.24 395.46 4.06 acres per 1,000 4.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)- Need Exists 38 Acre(s) Special Use 150.93 83.33 133.48 367.74 3.78 acres per 1,000 3.50 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)- Need Exists 12 Acre(s) School Grounds 251.00 251.00 2.58 acres per 1,000 2.50 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s)- Need Exists 20 Acre(s)Nature Preserves/Open Space 85.59 3.89 89.48 0.92 acres per 1,000 1.00 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 8 Acre(s)- Need Exists 19 Acre(s)Greenways/Trails 54.00 54.00 0.56 acres per 1,000 0.65 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 9 Acre(s)Monon Lakes Trail 2.38 2.38 Need Exists 14 Acre(s)Total Park Acres 534.84 164.00 180.99 83.33 384.48 - 1,347.64 13.85 acres per 1,000 14.00 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 15 Acre(s)- Need Exists 170 Acre(s)TRAILS: Paved Trails 20.66 0.49 3.50 - 1.81 - 26.46 0.27 miles per 1,000 0.40 miles per 1,000 Need Exists 12 Mile(s)0.20 0.20 Need Exists 17 Mile(s) Unpaved Trails 4.01 - 1.40 - - - 5.41 0.06 miles per 1,000 0.25 miles per 1,000 Need Exists 19 Mile(s)Monon Lakes Trail 0.30 0.30 Need Exists 21 Mile(s)OUTDOOR AMENITIES: Picnic Shelters 19.00 3.00 - - 1.00 - 23.00 1.00 site per 4,230 1.00 site per 5,000 Meets Standard - Sites(s)- Meets Standard - Sites(s)Pavilion 2.00 - 1.00 - - - 3.00 1.00 site per 32,432 1.00 site per 15,000 Need Exists 3 Sites(s)- Need Exists 4 Sites(s) Baseball Fields - 3.00 - 2.00 20.00 5.00 30.00 1.00 field per 3,243 1.00 field per 5,000 Meets Standard - Field(s)- Meets Standard - Field(s) Softball Fields - - 4.00 - 4.00 - 8.00 1.00 field per 12,162 1.00 field per 10,000 Need Exists 2 Field(s)- Need Exists 3 Field(s) Multi-Use Field(Soccer/Lacrosse/Football/Rugby) 2.00 - 3.00 23.00 39.50 1.00 68.50 1.00 field per 1,420 1.00 field per 4,000 Meets Standard - Field(s)- Meets Standard - Field(s) Outdoor Basketball Courts 1.50 - 1.00 - 14.00 12.00 28.50 1.00 court per 3,414 1.00 court per 3,500 Meets Standard - Court(s)- Need Exists 2 Court(s) Tennis Courts - - - - 38.00 50.00 88.00 1.00 court per 1,106 1.00 court per 2,000 Meets Standard - Court(s)- Meets Standard - Court(s) Playground (Youth & Tot) 15.00 1.00 2.00 - 11.00 25.00 54.00 1.00 site per 1,802 1.00 site per 2,000 Meets Standard - Site(s)Midtown Plaza & Monon Blvd 1.00 1.00 Meets Standard - Site(s) Dog Park 1.00 - - - - - 1.00 1.00 site per 97,297 1.00 site per 40,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s)- Need Exists 2 Site(s) Sand Volleyball 2.00 - - - - - 2.00 1.00 site per 48,649 1.00 site per 40,000 Need Exists 0 Site(s)- Need Exists 1 Site(s) Skate Board Park 1.00 - - - - - 1.00 1.00 site per 97,297 1.00 site per 50,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s)- Need Exists 1 Site(s) Splashpad 3.00 - - - - - 3.00 1.00 site per 32,432 1.00 site per 25,000 Meets Standard - Site(s)Midtown Plaza & Monon Blvd 1.00 1.00 Meets Standard - Site(s) RECREATION SPACE: Indoor Recreation Space 160,225.00 - - - - - 160,225.00 1.65 SF per person 2.00 SF per person Need Exists 34,369 Square Feet - Need Exists 56,571 Square FeetOutdoor Aquatic Space 48,183.50 - 21,000.00 - - - 69,183.50 0.71 SF per person 0.50 SF per person Meets Standard - Square Feet - Meets Standard - Square Feet 97,297 108,398 Notes:1. West Commons Playground at Central Park is counted in the inventory as 4 playgrounds, due its large size and regional appeal. 2018 Estimated Population 2023 Estimated Population 2018 Inventory - Developed Facilities Current Facility Needs Forecasted Five-Year Facility Needs Current Service Level based upon population Recommended Service Levels Additional Facilities/Amenities Needed Additional Facilities/Amenities Needed Anticipated Future Park Development 2018 - 2023 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 151 4.5 GIS MAPPING The maps on the following pages outline various methodologies toward mapping. Maps were created to depict 10-minute walk times, 15-minute drivetime, 30-minute drivetime, as well as service area maps based on the level of service standards. These maps include: 4.5.1 SERVICE AREA MAPS Service area maps and standards assist CCPR in assessing where services are offered, how equitable the service distribution and delivery is across the Carmel service area, and how effective the service is as it compares to the demographic densities. In addition, looking at guidelines with reference to population enables CCPR to assess gaps in services, where facilities are needed, or where an area is over saturated. This allows the CCPR management to make appropriate capital improvement decisions based upon need for a system as a whole and the ramifications those decisions may have on a specific area. The maps contain several circles, which represent the recommended per capita LOS found on the previous page. The circles’ size varies dependent upon the quantity of a given amenity (or acre type) located at one site and the surrounding population density. The bigger the circle, the more people a given amenity or park acre serves and vice versa. Additionally, some circles are shaded a different color which represents the “owner” of that particular amenity or acre type. There is a legend in the bottom left-hand corner of each map depicting the various owners included in the equity mapping process. The areas of overlapping circles represent adequate service, or duplicated service, and the areas with no shading represents the areas not served by a given amenity or park acre type. Service area maps were created for: • All Parks • All Parks and Neighboring Providers • Community and Regional Parks • Community Centers 4.5.2 WALK TIME OF 10 MINUTES MAPS Maps were created to show the walk time to specific parks and amenities. The City of Carmel has signed on to be a part of the 10 Minute Walk campaign, which was established by the Trust for Public Land, in partnership with the National Recreation and Park Association and the Urban Land Institute. The goal of this nationwide movement is to ensure there’s a great park within a 10-minute walk of every person, in every neighborhood. 10 Minute Walk Maps were created for: • All Parks • All Parks and Neighboring Providers • Regional Parks • Community Parks • Greenways • Community Centers Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation152 4.5.3 DRIVETIME MAPS Maps were created to show the drivetime to specific parks and facilities. Drivetime maps were created for either a 15-minute drivetime and/or a 30-minute drivetime. Drivetime maps were created for: • All Parks 15-Minute Drivetime • All Parks and Neighboring Providers 15-Minute Drivetime • Community Center 15-Minute Drivetime • Community Centers 30-Minute Drivetime • Community and Regional Parks 15-Minute Drivetime • Community and Regional Parks 30-Minute Drivetime Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 153 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation154 4.5.4 SERVICE AREA MAPS ALL PARKS FlowingWell Park PrairieMeadow White River Greenway(including MatildaHaverstick property) City Hall CenterGreen BrookshireGolf Club MidtownPlaza CareyGrove Park Founders Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Central Park West Park Cherry Tree Park HazelLanding Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-BurkeTrail LenapeTrace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) Gray Road Park Carmel Clay Veterans Memorial & Reflecting Pool Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Recommended Standard of All Parks Between 0.10 - 4 Acres per 1,000 People 0 1 2½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 155 ALL PARKS AND NEIGHBORING PROVIDERS RiverHeritage Flowing Well Park PrairieMeadow White River Greenway(including MatildaHaverstick property) CityHall CenterGreen BrookshireGolf Club Gray RoadPark MidtownPlaza CreeksideNature Park FishersHeritagePark atWhite River Cheeney CreekNatural Area Roy G. HollandMemorial Park Carey Grove Park Founders Park Lawrence W.Inlow ParkMeadowlarkPark Central Park West Park Cherry Tree Park Hazel Landing Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-Burke Trail LenapeTrace Park Monon Greenway (including trailheads) Carmel Clay Veterans Memorial & Reflecting Pool Dr. James A.Dillon Park Lions Park Starkey Nature Park HarrisonThompson Park Liberty Park Zion NatureSanctuary Eller Fields Town RunTrail Park Ritchey Woods Nature Preserve Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Recommended Standard of All Parks and Neighboring Providers Between 0.10 - 4 Acres per 1,000 People 0 1½3¾Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation156 COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARKS Central Park West Park Founders Park Lawrence W.Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Recommended Standard of Community & Regional Parks Community: 2 Acres per 1,000 People 0 1 2½Miles ´Regional: 4 Acres per 1,000 People Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 157 COMMUNITY CENTERS Monon CommunityCenter Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Recommended Standard of Monon Community Center 2 Square Feet per 1 Person 0 0.65 1.30.325 Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation158 4.5.5 WALK TIME OF 10 MINUTES MAPS ALL PARKS PrairieMeadow White RiverGreenway(includingMatildaHaverstickproperty) MidtownPlaza CareyGrove Park Founders Park Lawrence W.Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Central Park West Park Cherry Tree Park FlowingWell Park HazelLanding Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-BurkeTrail Lenape Trace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) City Hall Center Green BrookshireGolf Club Gray RoadPark Carmel Clay VeteransMemorial & Reflecting Pool 10min Walk Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of All Parks 10 Minutes 0 1 2½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 159 ALL PARKS AND NEIGHBORING PROVIDERS PrairieMeadow White River Greenway(including MatildaHaverstick property) CareyGrove Park FoundersPark Lawrence W.Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritageCentral Park West Park CherryTree Park Flowing Well Park HazelLanding Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-BurkeTrail LenapeTrace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) City Hall Center Green BrookshireGolf Club Gray RoadPark Carmel Clay VeteransMemorial & Reflecting Pool MidtownPlaza Dr. James A.Dillon Park10min Walk Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of All Parks and Neighboring Providers 10 Minutes 0 1 2½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation160 REGIONAL PARKS 10min Walk Central Park West Park Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of Regional Parks 10 Minutes 0 0.65 1.30.325 Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 161 COMMUNITY PARKS 10minWalk Founders Park Lawrence W.Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of Community Parks 10 Minutes 0 0.55 1.10.275 Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation162 GREENWAYS 10min Walk GreyhoundTrail Hagan-BurkeTrail LenapeTrace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) White River Greenway (includingMatilda Haverstick property) Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of Greenways/Trails 10 Minutes 0 0.65 1.30.325 Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 163 COMMUNITY CENTERS 10min Walk Monon CommunityCenter Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Walk Time of Monon Community Center 10 Minutes 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation164 4.5.6 DRIVETIME MAPS ALL PARKS 15-MINUTE DRIVETIME FlowingWell Park PrairieMeadow CityHall CenterGreen BrookshireGolf ClubMidtownPlaza CareyGrove Park Founders Park Lawrence W. Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Central Park West Park Cherry Tree Park HazelLanding Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-BurkeTrail Lenape Trace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) White River Greenway (includingMatilda Haverstick property) Gray Road Park Carmel Clay Veterans Memorial & Reflecting Pool 15min Drive Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of All Parks 15 Minutes 0 2 41Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 165 ALL PARKS AND NEIGHBORING PROVIDERS 15-MINUTE DRIVETIME CareyGrove Park Lawrence W.Inlow Park RiverHeritage FlowingWell Park PrairieMeadow White River Greenway(including MatildaHaverstick property) CityHall CenterGreen BrookshireGolf Club Gray RoadPark MidtownPlaza LionsPark FishersHeritagePark atWhite River Roy G. HollandMemorial Park Founders Park MeadowlarkPark Central Park West Park Cherry Tree Park Hazel Landing Park Vera J. HinshawPreserve Greyhound Trail Hagan-Burke Trail Lenape Trace Park Monon Greenway(including trailheads) Carmel Clay VeteransMemorial & Reflecting Pool Dr. James A.Dillon Park Creekside Nature Park StarkeyNature Park Cheeney CreekNatural Area HarrisonThompson Park Liberty Park Zion NatureSanctuary Town HallPark Eller FieldsTown RunTrail Park Ritchey WoodsNature Preserve 15min Drive Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of All Parks and Neighboring Providers 15 Minutes 0 3 61½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation166 COMMUNITY CENTER 15-MINUTE DRIVETIME 15min Drive Monon CommunityCenter Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of Monon Community Center 15 Minutes 0 1½3¾Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 167 COMMUNITY CENTERS 30-MINUTE DRIVETIME 30min Drive Monon CommunityCenter Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of Monon Community Center 30 Minutes 0 3 61½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation168 COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARKS 15-MINUTE DRIVETIME 15min Drive Central Park West Park FoundersPark Lawrence W.Inlow Park MeadowlarkPark RiverHeritage Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of Community & Regional Parks 15 Minutes 0 2 41Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 169 COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARKS 30-MINUTE DRIVETIME 30min Drive Central Park West Park Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Carmel, Indiana Parks and RecreationService Provider Maps Local Road Major Road Highway Carmel City Boundary Drive Time of Regional Parks 30 Minutes 0 3 61½Miles ´ Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Service Area Owner Carmel Clay City Fishers Indianapolis Noblesville Westfield Zionsville Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation170 4.6 FACILITY / AMENITY PRIORITY RANKINGS The purpose of the Facility/Amenity Priority Rankings is to provide a prioritized list of facility/ amenity needs for the community served by CCPR. This model evaluates both quantitative and qualitative data. • Quantitative data includes the statistically-valid community survey, which asked residents to list unmet needs and rank their importance • Qualitative data includes resident feedback obtained in community input, stakeholder interviews, staff input, local demographics, recreation trends, and planning team observations A weighted scoring system is used to determine the priorities for CCPR facilities/amenities: Data Source Component Weighting Quantitative Data Unmet Needs Reported by the Community Survey – This is used as a factor from the total number of households stating whether they have a need for a facility/amenity and the extent to which their need for facilities/amenities has been met. Survey participants were asked to identify this for 26 different facilities/amenities. 35% Importance Rankings Reported by the Community Survey – This is used as a factor from the importance allocated to a facility/amenity by the community. Each respondent was asked to identify the top four most important 26 facilities/amenities. 35% Qualitative Data Synthesis of Trends and Anecdotal Information – This factor is derived from the planning team’s evaluation of f acility/amenity priority based on survey results, community input, stakeholder interviews, staff input, local demographics, and recreation trends. 30% These weighted scores provide an overall score and priority ranking for the CCPR system as a whole. The results of the priority ranking are tabulated into three categories: High Priority (top third), Medium Priority (middle third), and Low Priority (bottom third). Further, the planning team also evaluated how the priority ranking varied by the six planning areas based off the statically-valid survey, as follows: • Northeast: North of 126th Street, East of Keystone Parkway • Southeast: South of 126th Street, East of Keystone Parkway • North Central: North of 116th Street, Between Keystone Parkway and Meridian Street • South Central: South of 116th Street, Between Keystone Parkway and Meridian Street • Northwest: North of 116th Street, West of Meridian Street • Southwest: South of 116th Street, West of Meridian Street It should be noted that the planning area priority rankings do not have a weighted planning team evaluation, but are based solely on the statistically-valid survey needs and importance factors. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 171 4.6.1 PRIORITY RANKING OVERALL & PLANNING AREA Facility / Amenity Overall Northeast Southeast North Central South Central Northwest Southwest Nature trails/boardwalks 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Paved multipurpose trails (e.g., walking, biking)2 6 2 2 2 1 3 Environmental education/nature center 3 8 6 8 5 7 5 Off-leash dog park 4 15 15 3 11 11 2 Botanical/formal gardens 5 5 4 4 3 10 4 Destination restaurant in a signature park 6 2 3 5 4 8 9 Garden plots/community gardens 7 3 5 6 10 12 13 Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors)8 4 7 11 7 4 8 Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors)9 12 9 13 8 6 6 Walking/running track (indoors)10 14 11 12 6 3 10 Playground equipment (indoors)11 7 8 14 16 5 18 Exercise equipment (outdoors)12 9 13 7 15 9 11 Fishing areas 13 13 10 17 9 14 7 Canoe/kayak launch (White River)14 11 14 10 12 13 12 Playground equipment (outdoors)15 17 12 18 13 16 15 Splash pads/spray parks 16 19 17 20 17 15 24 Picnic shelters (rentable)17 10 18 16 14 21 19 Bocce ball courts 18 18 19 15 19 17 17 Golf courses 19 16 16 23 18 19 14 Adult sports fields 20 22 20 9 22 18 20 Pickleball courts (outdoors)21 20 24 19 20 24 16 Disc golf course 22 23 23 21 23 20 23 Pickleball courts (indoors) 23 24 22 22 24 23 21 Bike/BMX course 24 26 21 24 26 22 22 Skateboarding park 25 21 26 25 21 26 25 Cricket field 26 25 25 26 25 25 25 Facility/Amenity Priority Ranking Overall & Planning Area *Note: Overall Priority Ranking Considers Consultant Evaluation Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation172 4.6.2 OPPORTUNITY STATEMENTS The following opportunity statements are provided for each of the facility /amenities in order of ranking. 1. Nature trails/boardwalks: Consistently top priority by community through multiple planning periods 2. Paved multipurpose trails (e.g., walking, biking): Consistently a top priority by community through multiple planning periods 3. Environmental education/nature center: Consider partnership opportunity with Conner Prairie 4. Off-leash dog park: Lower development cost; Top 3 priority for NC and SW 5. Botanical/formal gardens: Included in plans for Coxhall Gardens which is managed by Hamilton County Parks 6. Destination restaurant in a signature park: Included in Conner Prairie master plan for Carmel property 7. Garden plots/community gardens: Lower development cost; Higher priority on eastside of community 8. Aquatic/pool facilities (indoors): Component of community center 9. Fitness/exercise facilities (indoors): Component of community center 10. Walking/running track (indoors): Component of community center 11. Playground equipment (indoors): Component of community center; Potential for MCC (KidZone/Multipurpose West) 12. Exercise equipment (outdoors): Lower developmental cost 13. Fishing areas: Opportunity for improvements at Meadowlark & development along White River Corridor 14. Canoe/kayak launch (White River): Opportunity for White River Corridor 15. Playground equipment (outdoors): Capital replacement needs at Carey Grove, Meadowlark, River Heritage & West Park to be funded by Clay Township Impact Program 16. Splash pads/spray parks: Closely related to playgrounds; Capital replacement needs at Inlow & West Park to be funded by Clay Township Impact Program 17. Picnic shelters (rentable): Closely related to playgrounds 18. Bocce ball courts: Court included in Monon Boulevard 19. Golf courses: City making upgrades to Brookshire Golf Club Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 173 20. Adult sports fields: Low need except for NC area 21. Pickleball courts (outdoors): Opportunity in Meadowlark Park through Clay Township Impact Program 22. Disc golf course: 3 courses already in community; low need 23. Pickleball courts (indoors): Component of community center 24. Bike/BMX course: Lower priority; Opportunity for White River Corridor 25. Skatepark: Lower priority; Existing facility in Central Park 26. Cricket field: Lowest ranked need per survey 4.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year projection of planned physical improvements to the park system. The CIP provides revenue projections and a “blueprint” for spending priorities to support the desired outcomes of the 2020-2024 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. No actual expenditures are made until they are included in the annual budget and/or reviewed and approved by the Carmel/Clay Board of Parks and Recreation (Park Board), in accordance with applicable Indiana Code and Park Board Purchasing Rules. One of the core functions of the Park Board and CCPR management is to preserve and protect existing park system assets, therefore the CIP strives to provide necessary funding for the ongoing capital maintenance or replacement of existing assets before allocating funds for new parks and recreation facilities. Additionally, based on the Park Board’s mandate to achieve cost recovery for recreation facilities and programs, capital improvements with the ability to contribute to this goal are given priority over projects that would represent new operational costs with minimal to no offsetting revenue. The permitted uses of available funding and identified public needs also necessarily factor into the establishment and prioritization of the proposed timelines within this CIP. Public input is integral to the success of CCPR. The public has ongoing opportunities for input on Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation174 capital improvements through the planning process for this Master Plan and park-specific site plans. The public is also invited to provide comment at the beginning of every Park Board meeting and at the annual Public Hearing held before the budget is approved, or by contacting CCPR and Park Board members throughout the year. The CIP should be viewed as a working document, updated at least annually to reflect actual revenue collections, refined cost projections, potential changes in community or park system needs, and unique opportunities. The total cost of capital improvements outlined in this CIP far exceeds the revenue projections from current funding streams. Opportunities for new revenue sources and/or partnerships to help share costs will need to be explored to accelerate new capital development. 4.7.1 TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS For the purpose of this CIP, capital improvements are defined as projects that have a monetary value of at least $5,000, a useful life of at least three years, and result in the creation or renovation of a fixed asset that allows CCPR to serve the park and recreation needs of the community. Examples of capital improvements include construction, remodeling, equipment replacements, or purchase of parkland, park fixtures, buildings, vehicles, and equipment. Planning efforts associated with capital improvements, including architectural, engineering, and legal services, are also considered capital expenditures and incorporated within the CIP. Capital improvements within this CIP are divided into two classifications: Capital Reinvestment: The improvement or replacement of existing park assets and any related planning efforts. Capital Reinvestment is required to preserve the usefulness and extend the life of existing park assets and may be the result of capital replacement plans or unexpected, emergency needs. Capital Reinvestment needs for the current 5-year planning period are estimated at $47,465,600. New Investment: The purchase and/or development of new parks, recreation facilities, and/or equipment. “Soft costs” associated with the planning and design of the park system or specific parks are also classified as a New Investment. New Investments are typically identified and designed through an extensive planning process with input from many stakeholders, including the community, user groups, elected officials, other governmental entities, partners, staff, and the Park Board. There is an estimated need for $48,947,100 in New Investments during the 5-year planning period. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 175 4.7.2 PRIORITIZATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Continued investment in the park system is critical to providing quality parks and recreation experiences for the residents of Carmel and Clay Township. Since funding for capital improvements is finite, projects are prioritized based on the following criteria, subject to the permitted uses of available funding: All Improvements: All capital improvements must support the goals and objectives of the most current Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board Priority 1: Capital Reinvestment needs of revenue generating facilities mandated to be self- sufficient. Since the condition of these facilities has a direct impact on operational costs and revenue generation, capital repairs and replacements for revenue facilities receive the highest priority. Applicable facilities currently include the Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, Jill Perelman Pavilion, Wilfong Pavilion, and the Central Bark Park. Any capital repairs or replacements required to ensure the safety of visitors or employees will also be considered a Priority 1 project, regardless of the asset’s revenue generating capacity Priority 2: Capital Reinvestment needs of existing parks and non-revenue generating recreation facilities or equipment. Residents and community leaders consistently place a high priority on maintaining existing assets. This was validated by the 2018 Community Interest and Opinion Survey, in which nearly 98% of respondents supported upgrades to playground and amenities within existing parks. In fact, nearly 60% of respondents identified this as their first, second, or third choice when ranking the most important actions CCPR could take for the new master plan, eclipsing actions involving new construction Priority 3: New Investments enhancing existing parkland or community assets with consideration given for revenue generation and operational expenses Priority 4: New Investments requiring the purchase of new parkland with consideration given for revenue generation and operational expenses Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation176 4.7.3 FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Following is a summary of current and historical funding sources used by or available to Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation to pay for capital improvements within the park system: TAXES Originally created in 1991 by the City of Carmel and Clay Township, CCPR currently operates under the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (Interlocal) approved by the City Council and Township Board in 2002 and amended in 2004 and 2010. The Interlocal specifies that the City and Township provide tax funding for CCPR based on each entity’s proportionate share of the aggregate assessed valuation for the entire township for the following fiscal year. Funding may come from property taxes or income taxes at the discretion of the City and Township. CCPR’s General Fund (101) and Parks Capital Fund (103), both maintained by the City’s fiscal officer1, have historically been funded under this provision. As of March 1, 2018, the last remaining unincorporated area within the township was annexed into the city, eliminating the Township’s obligation to contribute to these two funds. The General Fund (101) is used to cover expenses related to the general administration, operation, and maintenance of the park system. Only a nominal amount of the General Fund has been used for capital improvements, predominately for small equipment replacements. General Fund dollars are not used for operating or capital expenses at the Monon Community Center (MCC) or for the Extended School Enrichment (ESE) program. The Parks Capital Fund (103), which was not funded between 2007 and 2019, is a non-reverting fund dedicated to capital projects within the park system. Budget allocations were suspended as a result of Local Income Tax (LIT) received from the Township attributable to the Central Park Bond, which is described below. The 2020 budget, as approved by the City Council provides new tax funding for CCPR capital projects for the first time in 14 years. LOCAL INCOME TAX ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CENTRAL PARK BOND Since 2008, the primary source of tax dollars used to fund CCPR’s capital projects has been Local Income Tax attributable to the Central Park Bond (Central Park Bond LIT). As a result of the $55 million Central Park Bond originally issued in 2004 and refinanced in 2015, the Township currently receives a share of LIT paid to the State by all Hamilton County residents with income tax obligations. LIT is distributed to local units of government within the county based on a State- established formula2. The Township is required under the 2010 amendment to the Interlocal to provide the Central Park Bond LIT for CCPR’s capital projects throughout the term of the bond. With the imminent retirement of the Central Park Bond in January 2025, this funding source is expected to be significantly diminished in 2025 with only a nominal distribution in 2026. Following 2026, based on the current terms of the Interlocal, the Township will have no direct funding obligations to CCPR. 1 Through December 31, 2019, the City’s fiscal officer is the Clerk-Treasurer. With the City becoming a Class II City, under Indiana statute and City ordinance, the fiscal officer will become the Controller as of January 1, 2020. 2 The Central Park Bond was one of the last bonds issued in the state for which the budgeted repayments factor into the LIT distributions. New bond repayments no longer factor into the distribution formula for local units of government. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 177 PARK IMPACT FEES The Park Impact Fee is established by a Zone Improvement Plan, which requires the approval of both the Carmel Plan Commission and City Council. The maximum fee is defined by a State- established formula that factors in the community’s historical capital investment within the park system. Recognizing that new residential development and the resulting increase in population places a greater demand for park infrastructure, the State allows communities to assess an impact fee to fund new capital development to accommodate the increased demand. As part of this master planning process, the 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan was prepared and is expected to be approved prior to December 15, 2019 to ensure no lapse in the Park Impact Fee. The new fee is anticipated to increase from $2,972 to $4,882 effective June 1, 2020. A Zone Improvement Plan must be adopted at least every five years in order to continue collecting Park Impact Fees. All fees are deposited within the non-reverting Park Impact Fee Fund (106), which is maintained by the City’s fiscal officer, and may be used by CCPR for new capital development within parks or projects specifically identified within the current Zone Improvement Plan. As proposed, New Investments will be authorized within West Park and along the White River Corridor. The new Zone Improvement Plan would also permit the use of Park Impact Fees to purchase and develop a new park in the northwest portion of the community. Fees collected each year vary based on market factors impacting residential development. The proposed 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan is provided in Appendix 3. BONDS ISSUED BY THE CITY OR TOWNSHIP Both the City and Township have periodically issued bonds that directly impact the park system. In these instances, the City or Township use bond proceeds to fund capital improvements, turn the assets over to CCPR to manage and maintain, and repay the bonds with other funding sources so not to impact CCPR’s budget. Example investments by the City include Monon Boulevard and Midtown Plaza, both of which opened in 2019. As mentioned above, the Township issued bonds to fund the original development of Central Park. The Clay Township Impact Program (CTIP), initiated by the Township in 2019, will use bond proceeds to fund Capital Reinvestments and several New Investments in Carey Grove Park, Flowing Well Park, Lawrence W. Inlow Park, Meadowlark Park, the Monon Greenway, River Heritage Park, and West Park. The bonds will provide an estimated $22,687,500 for these projects and are expected to be issued in October 2019. CTIP will also fund a New Investment for the City of Carmel by expanding the Japanese Garden, which is anticipated to be managed by CCPR upon completion. All Clay Township Impact Program projects are expected to be completed by 2021. The City’s bond limit has been committed recently for infrastructure. To the extent City projects include park-related components, it is likely that CCPR will assume at least some level of maintenance responsibility. At the same time, City-issued bonds should not be viewed as a significant source to fund projects outlined in this CIP. The Township should continue to have the ability to issue bonds that benefit CCPR capital projects, but will likely have a significantly reduced bonding capacity through 2038. Beyond the 2019 CTIP bonds, additional Township-issued bonds should not be viewed as a viable funding source for this CIP. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation178 BONDS ISSUED BY THE PARK BOARD While much of the park system has been built by the Park Board on a “pay as you go” basis using existing cash on hand to fund capital improvements, Indiana Park Law and the Interlocal does allow the sale of bonds to fund park projects. Issuance of a bond by the Park Board must follow all requirements defined by applicable State law and the Interlocal, including a public hearing, and receive approval from both the City Council and Township Board. As outlined within the Interlocal, it is anticipated that a special benefit tax would need to be levied by the City or Township to repay the bond, likely impacting tax rates. Strong public support would be necessary to secure approval from elected officials. A Park Board-issued bond has not been considered as a funding source for this CIP. USER FEES As revenue-generating facilities or programs like the Monon Community Center, Central Bark Park, and Summer Camp Series continue to be self-sufficient and generate net income, it has been increasingly possible to fund some capital projects with revenue generated from user fees. User fees are deposited into the ESE Fund (108), MCC Fund (109), or Recreation Facilities Fund (110) based on the revenue source. These non-reverting funds are maintained by the City’s fiscal officer and may be used to fund operating and/or capital projects. While it is unlikely that user fees will become a viable source to fund capital projects on a grand scale, the impact of improvements to the associated facility or program funding a project should not be viewed as nominal. Proceeds from user fees are used as funding sources from projects identified in this CIP. LEASE FINANCING State law allows CCPR to use lease financing for certain capital purchases, such as the acquisition of vehicles, fitness equipment, building mechanical systems, and other amenities or significant components. This funding option has been used successfully by the City and may be a viable means to finance some future projects. GIFTS, DONATIONS, SPONSORSHIPS, & GRANTS CCPR’s non-reverting Gift Fund (853) is funded by gifts, donations, sponsorships, and grants received from individuals or organizations. The person or entity providing the funds often restricts its use for specific projects or purposes. The Gift Fund is maintained by the City’s fiscal officer and may be used to fund operating and/or capital projects, depending on applicable restrictions. The Gift Fund has not been a meaningful source of funding for capital projects for over 15 years. CCPR is starting to more actively explore grant opportunities that may be available. PARKS FOUNDATION The Carmel Clay Parks Foundation, Inc. was established in 2011 as a 501(c)3 charitable organization with the sole mission of supporting Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. While still in its formative stage, the Parks Foundation has the potential to be a significant source of revenue for capital improvements in the future, helping complement other funding sources and providing additional avenues for securing bequests, donations, grants, and similar alternative funding mechanisms. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 179 4.7.4 RAINY DAY CAPITAL RESERVES The Park Board maintains within several of the above identified funds “rainy day” reserves to protect and sustain the park system in the event of unforeseen or emergency situations. These reserves help ensure the availability of funding and mitigate the need to request funding from other City or Township funds not dedicated to CCPR. PARK SYSTEM CAPITAL MAINTENANCE RESERVE Consistent with best practices for park agencies, the Park Board has maintained a $1.5 million reserve since 2010 for unforeseen and unbudgeted capital repairs and replacements to existing infrastructure within the park system. In the event it is necessary to use the Capital Maintenance Reserve, and to the extent feasible, CCPR would use new Central Park Bond LIT received the following year to replenish the reserve back to the $1.5 million balance. MCC RESERVES The Monon Community Center (MCC) is mandated to operate at 100% cost-recovery and has accomplished this feat since 2010. All net proceeds after expenses are retained in the MCC Fund 109. Cash reserves representing approximately four months of average operating expenses are maintained to ensure sufficient funds to cash flow operations. The Park Board also maintains a $1 million reserve to address potential shortfalls in revenue at the MCC. While the facility is projected to remain self-sufficient for the foreseeable future, the ability to achieve cost recovery could be negatively impacted by a variety of factors such as changes in the political and/or economic climate, natural disasters, poor weather for multiple summers, increased competition within the local market, and/or other uncontrollable factors. Any remaining balance after deducting the cash-flow and operating reserves are dedicated to capital repairs or replacements. RECREATION FACILITIES RESERVES Similar to the MCC, cash reserves representing approximately four months of average operating expenses are maintained in the Recreation Facilities Fund (110) to ensure sufficient funds to cash flow operations at the dog park and program pavilions. Any remaining cash balance is retained and dedicated to capital improvements. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation180 4.7.5 CAPITAL FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR 2020-2024 During the five-year planning period, it is projected that CCPR will receive approximately $34,135,200 in new money from existing funding sources available for capital improvements. These projections assume a 3% annual increase across all funds receiving tax dollars using the 2020 anticipated funding as the baseline. Revenues from the Park Impact Fee Fund 109 are based on annual projections identified in the 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan and assume no credits in lieu of impact fees granted to developers by the Parks Board or Board of Public Works, both of which have authority under City ordinance to grant such credits. Any variances from the funding projections will require revisions to this Capital Improvement Plan based on the priorities established in this Master Plan. The 2020-2024 funding is supplemented with an anticipated $22,687,500 in bond proceeds from the Clay Township Impact Program and $2.3 million in 2019 encumbered LIT funds from the Township. In total, this Capital Improvement Plan is based on an estimated $59,122,700 in available funding over the five-year planning period. FUND 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TOTAL PERMITTED USES Parks Capital Fund-103¹$525,000 $540,800 $557,000 $573,700 $590,900 $2,787,400 Any Capital Improvement Park Impact Fee Fund-106²$2,668,300 $3,187,900 $3,187,900 $3,187,900 $3,187,900 $15,419,900 New Investments in ZIP ESE Fund-108¹$75,000 $77,300 $79,600 $82,000 $84,500 $398,400 Facilities used by ESE/SCS MCC Fund-109¹$100,000 $103,000 $106,100 $109,300 $112,600 $531,000 MCC or Waterpark Parks & Rec. Facilities Fund-110¹$25,000 $25,800 $26,600 $27,400 $28,200 $133,000 Pavilions, Shelters or Dog Park Twp. Local Income Tax Fund-1215¹$2,800,000 $2,884,000 $2,970,500 $3,059,600 $3,151,400 $14,865,500 Any Capital Improvement Total Projected Funding Sources $6,193,300 $6,818,800 $6,927,700 $7,039,900 $7,155,500 $34,135,200 ¹ Based on 2020 proposed budget; assumes a 3% annual increase during planning period ² Assumes adoption of proposed 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan with new rate effective 6/1/2020 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 181 4.7.6 LONG-TERM CAPITAL FUNDING ASSESSMENT As identified in the Life-Cycle Asset Management Plan, CCPR will need to make approximately $92 million in Capital Reinvestments by 2030 to maintain the existing park and recreation facilities at the community’s current standards. This figure does not include construction of new facilities or acquisition of additional parkland to meet the increasing demand on the park system. While CCPR’s capital funding sources will likely remain stable and consistent with historical funding during the planning period for the 2020-2024 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the forecast is not near as favorable after 2024. Central Park Bond LIT is expected to drop significantly in 2025 and become almost negligible in 2026. With undeveloped land in the community becoming scarce, new residential housing will become increasingly more reliant on redevelopment instead of the construction of new subdivisions with single family homes. This will ultimately impact the influx of revenue from Park Impact Fees. As the two primary funding sources currently used for capital improvements, it is imperative that CCPR, the Park Board, and elected officials proactively identify new revenue strategies as part of this Master Plan to meet the long-term capital needs of the park system before existing revenue streams are extinguished. In addition to amending or renegotiating the Interlocal to identify and reestablish the Township’s funding obligations for the park system, strong consideration should be given to establishing a cumulative building fund for the purchase of parkland and building, remodeling, and repair of park and recreation facilities. Ideally, the cumulative building fund would be funded by a dedicated tax levy for this sole purpose. Permissible under State statute and the Interlocal, a cumulative building fund could become a viable source to help offset at least a portion of the pending loss of the LIT. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation182 4.7.7 CAPITAL REINVESTMENT FUNDING NEEDS Based on funding projections, it is anticipated that $34,028,200 will be available for the capital repairs and replacements specified in the Life-Cycle Asset Management Plan as needing completed by 2025. This means approximately 28% of identified Capital Reinvestment projects will remain unfunded. An estimated $13,434,700 in additional funding will be required to properly address all anticipated capital repairs and replacements during the planning period. Following is a summary of the unfunded needs by park. TOTAL FUNDED REGIONAL PARKS Central Park $8,162,000 $6,062,100 $2,099,900 26% - Central Bark Park $16,600 $16,600 $0 0% - Monon Community Center $9,345,400 $4,285,200 $5,060,200 54% - The Waterpark $701,500 $701,500 $0 0% West Park $8,401,800 $4,595,000 $3,806,800 45% - Jill Perelman Pavilion $0 $0 $0 0% White River Corridor $0 $0 $0 0% COMMUNITY PARKS Founders Park $4,765,600 $2,295,100 $2,470,500 52% - Wilfong Pavilion $157,500 $157,500 $0 0% Lawrence W. Inlow Park $2,049,100 $2,049,100 $0 0% Meadowlark Park $3,103,100 $3,103,100 $0 0% Northwest Park $0 $0 $0 0% River Heritage Park $3,968,200 $3,968,200 $0 0% NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Carey Grove Park $1,862,200 $1,862,200 $0 0% NATURE PRESERVES/OPEN SPACE Cherry Tree Park $0 $0 $0 0% Flowing Well Park $1,117,400 $1,117,400 $0 0% Hazel Landing Park $242,600 $242,600 $0 0% Prairie Meadow Park $227,600 $227,600 $0 0% Vera J. Hishsaw Nature Preserve $0 $0 $0 0% GREENWAYES/TRAILS Greyhound Trail $14,300 $14,300 $0 0% Hagan-Burke Trail $7,200 $7,200 $0 0% Lenape Trace Park $111,400 $111,400 $0 0% Monon Greenway $1,628,800 $1,628,800 $0 0% - Monon Greenway North Trailhead $9,300 $9,300 $0 0% - Monon Greenway South Trailhead $70,700 $70,700 $0 0% White River Greenway $3,300 $3,300 $0 0% OTHER Vehicle & Equipment Replacements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 0% TOTAL $47,465,600 $34,028,200 $13,437,400 28% CAPITAL REINVESTMENTS UNFUNDED Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 183 4.7.8 NEW INVESTMENTS FUNDING NEEDS Based on funding projections, it is anticipated that $25,094,500 will be available for new capital projects to address the community needs identified within this Master Plan and the 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan. Approximately 49% of desired New Investment projects will remain unfunded during this planning period. An estimated $23,852,600 in additional funding will be required to complete the identified new capital projects based on the estimated costs. TOTAL FUNDED REGIONAL PARKS Central Park $0 $0 $0 0% - Central Bark Park $0 $0 $0 0% - Monon Community Center $0 $0 $0 0% - The Waterpark $955,000 $955,000 $0 0% West Park $17,713,700 $2,500,000 $15,213,700 86% - Jill Perelman Pavilion $0 $0 $0 0% White River Corridor $13,103,900 $12,599,900 $504,000 4% COMMUNITY PARKS Founders Park $0 $0 $0 0% - Wilfong Pavilion $0 $0 $0 0% Lawrence W. Inlow Park $523,700 $523,700 $0 0% Meadowlark Park $871,900 $871,900 $0 0% Northwest Park $8,904,900 $2,520,000 $6,384,900 72% River Heritage Park $0 $0 $0 0% NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Carey Grove Park $138,500 $138,500 $0 0% NATURE PRESERVES/OPEN SPACE Cherry Tree Park $1,750,000 $0 $1,750,000 0% Flowing Well Park $827,100 $827,100 $0 0% Hazel Landing Park $0 $0 $0 0% Prairie Meadow Park $0 $0 $0 0% Vera J. Hishsaw Nature Preserve $0 $0 $0 0% GREENWAYES/TRAILS Greyhound Trail $0 $0 $0 0% Hagan-Burke Trail $0 $0 $0 0% Lenape Trace Park $0 $0 $0 0% Monon Greenway $4,058,400 $4,058,400 $0 0% - Monon Greenway North Trailhead $0 $0 $0 0% - Monon Greenway South Trailhead $0 $0 $0 0% White River Greenway $100,000 $100,000 $0 0% OTHER Vehicle & Equipment Replacements $0 $0 $0 0% TOTAL $48,947,100 $25,094,500 $23,852,600 49% NEW INVESTMENTS UNFUNDED Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation184 4.7.9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE Following is the desired implementation schedule for Capital Reinvestments and New Investments based on the projected available funding. Capital Reinvestments were identified as recommended capital repairs and replacements in the Life-Cycle Asset Management Plan. New Investments are based on the identified community needs within this Master Plan and construction estimates from the 2020-2025 Zone Improvement Plan. Projected budgets are reflective of the funding estimates identified above. Timelines and budgets will likely need to be adjusted based on the actual funding received, unexpected needs, and/or unique opportunities not identified or envisioned at the time this CIP was developed. YEAR PARK/FACILITY PROJECT PRIORITY LEVEL FUNDING SOURCE(S) PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUNDING 2020 Monon Community Center Various Capital Reinvestments 1 Local Income Tax $275,000 2020 The Waterpark Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $100,000 2020 Wilfong Pavilion Rubber multipurpose flooring 1 User Fees $75,000 2020 Hagan-Burke Trail Culvert improvement 2 City Revenues $5,000 2020 Monon Greenway Bridge & culvert improvements 2 City Revenues $520,000 2020 General Fleet & equipment replacements; various capital reinvestments 2 Local Income Tax User Fees $275,000 $25,000 2020 Carey Grove Park Playground replace- ment; trail, parking lot & shelter upgrades; restroom facility 2/3 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $2,000,700 2020 Meadowlark Park Playground, fishing pier & shelter replacements; parking lot upgrades; restroom facility 2/3 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $3,975,000 2020 West Park Playground and splash pad replacements; parking lot and re- stroom upgrades --------------------------- New shelters; road with bridge to connect The Core to The Groves; additional parking 2 3 Clay Township Impact Program Bond Park Impact Fee $4,595,000 $2,500,000 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 185 YEAR PARK/FACILITY PROJECT PRIORITY LEVEL FUNDING SOURCE(S) PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUNDING 2020 The Waterpark U/V filters for Activity/ Lap Pool & Kiddie Pool 3 Local Income Tax $70,000 2020 White River Greenway North trail extension & 126th Street bridge study 3/4 Local Income Tax $100,000 2020 White River Corridor Acquisition of 14.77 acres at 12999 Hazel Dell Parkway 4 Park Impact Fee $700,000 2020- 2021 Central Park West roundabout enhancement & parking lot repaving 1/2 Local Income Tax $2,180,000 2020- 2021 Monon Greenway Trail upgrades between Carmel Drive & City Center Drive 2 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $4,605,000 2020- 2021 Flowing Well Park Bank stabilization; trail, bridge & parking lot up- grades; restroom facility 2/3 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $1,944,500 2020- 2021 White River Corridor Master Plan for corridor, including river education center 3/4 Park Impact Fee Grants Partnerships $225,000 2021 Central Dog Park Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $16,600 2021 Monon Community Center Various Capital Reinvestments 1 Local Income Tax $1,197,300 2021 The Waterpark Various Capital Reinvestments 1 Local Income Tax User Fees $170,500 $103,000 2021 Central Park Paver replacements 2 Local Income Tax $395,400 2021 Lawrence W. Inlow Park Splash pad replace- ment; restroom & park- ing lot upgrades 2 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $2,572,800 2021 General Fleet & equipment replacements; various capital reinvestments 2 Local Income Tax User Fees $290,800 $9,200 2021 River Heritage Park Playground replace- ment; restroom & parking lot upgrades; nature trail 2/3 Clay Township Impact Program Bond $2,994,500 2021 The Waterpark New waterslide; U/V filters for FlowRider & Dive Well 3 Local Income Tax $830,000 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation186 YEAR PARK/FACILITY PROJECT PRIORITY LEVEL FUNDING SOURCE(S) PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUNDING 2021 White River Corridor Trail development 3/4 Park Impact Fee Grants $1,500,000 2021- 2022 Wilfong Pavilion Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $82,500 2021- 2022 Monon Greenway Bridge & culvert replacements 3 City Revenues $562,200 2021- 2022 Northwest Park Acquisition of approx. 25 acres in TBD location in northwest Carmel 4 Park Impact Fee Grants $2,395,000 2022 Monon Community Center Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $74,400 2022 The Waterpark Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $106,100 2022 Greyhound Trail Bridge repair 2 City Revenue $14,300 2022 Hagan-Burke Trail Trail repair 2 City Revenue $2,200 2022 Lenape Trace Park Landscape & site amenity improvements 2 City Revenue $111,400 2022 Monon Greenway North & South Trailhead repairs 2 City Revenue $80,000 2022 Prairie Meadow Park Trail repaving 2 City Revenue $227,600 2022 White River Greenway Dog pot station replacements 2 City Revenue $3,300 2022 General Fleet & equipment replacements; various capital reinvestments 2 Local Income Tax User Fees $273,400 $26,600 2022 The Waterpark U/V filters for Lazy River 3 Local Income Tax $55,000 2022- 2023 Monon Community Center Mechanical & roof system replacements 1 Local Income Tax $1,892,100 2022- 2024 White River Corridor River ecology center, trailhead & trail development 3/4 Park Impact Fee Grants Partnerships $10,174,900 2023 Monon Community Center Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $82,000 2023 The Waterpark Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $109,300 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 187 YEAR PARK/FACILITY PROJECT PRIORITY LEVEL FUNDING SOURCE(S) PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUNDING 2023 Hazel Landing Park Entrance road & signage improvements 2 City Revenue $242,600 2023 General Fleet & equipment replacements; various capital reinvestments 2 Local Income Tax User Fees $272,600 $27,400 2023- 2024 Founders Park Parking lot repaving & upgrades 2 Local Income Tax City Revenue $2,250,000 $45,100 2023- 2024 River Heritage Park Various Capital Reinvestments 2 City Revenue $973,700 2023- 2024 Northwest Park Master Plan for new park 4 Park Impact Fee $125,000 2024 Monon Community Center Mechanical system replacements 1 Local Income Tax $679,900 2024 Monon C ommunity Center Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $84,500 2024 The Waterpark Various Capital Reinvestments 1 User Fees $112,600 2024 Central Park Boardwalk replacement 2 Local Income Tax $3,486,700 2024 General Fleet & equipment replacements; various capital reinvestments 2 Local Income Tax User Fees $271,800 $28,200 TOTAL $59,122,700 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation188 4.7.10 CONCLUSION The capital improvements to the park system necessary to support the desired outcomes of the 2020-2024 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan have an estimated cost of $96,412,700. This includes $47,465,600 in Capital Reinvestment projects necessary to preserve or replace existing park assets and $48,947,100 in New Investments intended to meet the evolving park and recreation needs of a growing and increasingly more diverse community. The existing funding sources available to CCPR are estimated to contribute $59,122,700 in revenues to address the identified capital needs. During the 5-year planning period, over 93% of the funding is expected to come from bond proceeds received through the Clay Township Impact Program ($22,687,500), Local Income Tax attributable to the Central Park Bond ($17,165,500), and Park Impact Fees ($15,419,900). The balance of funding will come from City of Carmel revenues ($2,787,400) and user fees generated from CCPR facilities and programs ($1,062,400). To fully implement this Capital Improvement Plan, an additional $37,290,000 will be required. Without new funding sources, 28% of anticipated capital repairs or replacements will be deferred to the tune of $13,437,400. Nearly half (49%) of desired new development within the park system will be delayed, leaving $23,852,600 in new construction for future planning periods and at ever increasing costs. Recognizing that funding for capital improvements is finite, projects have been prioritized based on defined criteria that considers improvements to existing assets before developing new ones and recognizes the impact of facility conditions in achieving cost recovery goals. Permitted or restricted uses of available funds also factors into the allocation of capital dollars. For example, Park Impact Fees per State statute may only be used for New Improvements in parks specifically identified in the Zone Improvement Plan. CCPR will take all appropriate measures to extend the life of existing assets in an effort to mitigate the impact of the deferred Capital Reinvestment projects. Capital repairs or replacements required to ensure the safety of visitors or employees will always be prioritized. Some critical funding decisions will need to be made by community leaders that will have a significant impact on both the current planning period and long-term future of the park system. While the capital funding sources anticipated during the current 5-year planning period remain significant, identified projects in this plan are expected to be unfunded. More importantly, two of the primary capital funding sources are in their waning years, which will significantly impact plans beyond the 2020-2024 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. CCPR will cease receiving Local Income Tax attributable to the Central Park Bond after 2026 and the Township will no longer have funding obligations under the current Interlocal Agreement beyond repayment of existing bonds. New revenue from Park Impact Fees is also expected to decline as the availability of vacant land reduces the ease of constructing new residences. When this drop in Park Impact Fee funding will occur is less certain than the timeline for LIT, making it more crucial to capitalize on this funding source while it remains viable. New funding options must be considered and implemented during this planning period to avoid facing a true capital funding crisis in the not too distant future. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 189 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation190 CHAPTER FIVE – RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS 5.1 INTRODUCTION A standalone Comprehensive Program Plan was completed as a long-term framework for creating, planning, and implementing the innovative and inspiring programs demanded by the high expectations of the Carmel and Clay Township community. The purpose of the Comprehensive Program Plan is to ensure the department is providing mission-driven and guest-focused recreation programming, which will enhance the quality of life for all who live, work and visit the City of Carmel and Clay Township. Additionally, this plan is created to achieve the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) standard 6.1 Recreation Programming Plan. As per the standard, the plan is to address how the agency delivers services to persons of all ages and abilities, develops program offerings, and utilizes the following elements: • Program objectives • Program and service statistics • Program and service determinants • Recreation and leisure trends analysis • Community inventory The full Comprehensive Program Plan can be found in the Appendix 4. 5.2 METHODOLOGY 5.2.1 RECREATION PROGRAMMING STRUCTURE AND DESIGN The Department’s Recreation Programming is broken into focused Program Areas and Categories to better support the department’s vision of offering “engaging programs that contribute to healthy individuals and families, an active and tightly-knit community, a thriving economy, and a high quality of life in the City of Carmel and Clay Township.” Recreation Programming is broken down into the following Program Areas and Categories: • Aquatics (all ages) • Adaptive (all ages) • Creative Arts (all ages) • Enrichment (all ages) • Fitness/Wellness (15+) • Homeschool • Nature (all ages) • Science & Technology (all ages) • Senior • Sports (all ages) • Extended School Enrichment (ESE) Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 191 These Program Areas are further broken down into the following Program Categories: • Parent/Child (0-5 years) • Preschool (3-5 years) • Youth (6-12 years) • Tween/Teen (11-17 years) • Adult (18+) 5.2.2 PRIORITIZATION OF SERVICES The provision of facilities, programs, and services is fundamental to the vision and mission of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. Since the resources available to offer programs and services is limited, the delivery of these services is prioritized based on the following criteria: All Services: All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board Priority 1: Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objective of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided ° Parks: Greenways, Open Space, playgrounds, splash pads, trails ° Facilities: Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, Central Dog Park, program pavilions ° Programs: Aquatics, Extended School Enrichment/Summer Camp series, Fitness/Wellness ° Other Services: Inclusion, Natural, cultural and land resource management Priority 2: Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations ° Facilities: Shelter (rentable) ° Programs: Adaptive, Nature ° Other Services: Concessions, KidZone Priority 3: Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well-positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recover objectives ° Programs: Creative Arts, Enrichment, Homeschool, Science & Technology, Senior, Sports Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation192 5.2.3 PRIORITY RANKINGS To help identify future need, the Consultant Team implemented a statistically-valid community survey that solicited feedback on a variety of issues related to parks and recreation within the City of Carmel. Respondents were asked if they have a need for a program or facility and to what degree their need is currently being met. The results allowed the consultant team to synthesize needs and importance to understand community service provision. Taking the analysis a step further, “Priority Rankings” were developed to provide a hierarchal representation of community interest. CCPR can use these rankings as a foundation for future service decisions. Priority Rankings combine community need and importance (as learned from the survey) with information gleaned from other public engagement processes and technical research. It should be noted, however, that this is a list relative unto itself. That is, the Priority Rankings chart lists programs the community has stated have the potential for the “greatest reach” within the community. This chart does not mean programs located toward the bottom of the chart are subject to disposition; instead, programs toward the bottom of the chart tend to serve more of a “niche” market. As denoted by the Priority Rankings (below), the top tier program priorities (or focus areas) center on: • Health and fitness • Outdoor recreation/adventure • Senior programs • Sports • quatics • Programs with your pet • Nature/environment • Art • Family programs Based on the priority rankings and CCPR’s existing core program focus areas, there is an opportunity to increase the focus on outdoor recreation/adventure and nature/ environment programs. These areas would represent new focus areas in which the community desires strengthened. Additionally, the community has stated to continue the strong offerings for health and fitness, senior programs, sports, aquatics, pet programs, art, and family program opportunities. Program Overall Rank Adult health/fitness 1 Adult outdoor recreation/adventure 2 Senior programs 3 Adult sports 4 Adult aquatics/swim lessons 5 Programs with your pet 6 Adult nature/environmental education 7 Adult art 8 Family programs 9 Adult performing arts/dance 10 Youth/teen sports 11 Preschool aquatics/swim lessons 12 Youth/teen health/fitness 13 Youth/teen aquatics/swim lessons 14 Youth/teen summer camp 15 Preschool sports 16 Youth/teen performing arts/dance 17 Youth/teen art 18 Preschool art 19 Youth/teen nature/environmental education 20 Preschool nature/environmental education 21 Adult programs for people with disabilities 22 Preschool summer camp 23 Preschool performing arts/dance 24 Youth/teen programs for people with disabilities 25 Preschool programs for people with disabilities 26 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 193 5.2.4 KEY FINDINGS: OPPORTUNITY STATEMENTS Using the recreation programming overarching goals as a guide and information gleaned through the planning process, specific objectives were established, reviewed annually, and adjusted as necessary. These objectives are categorized by program focus area and/or age group, and they allow the divisions to measure outcomes and/or the desired impact by the program or service. The objectives are written as Opportunity Statements that provide the divisions with specific direction for each program area. Each Opportunity Statement is supported by technical research and is evaluated annually. See the Comprehensive Program Plan for all Opportunity Statements. The Opportunity Statements are categorized by CCPR’s Program Areas and Categories. Opportunity Statements are a direct result of a comprehensive data collection process that identifies gap area(s) between existing programming and future programming. First, a program assessment is performed that reviews participation data, program evaluations, lifecycle stages, and performance measure indicators. This provides a baseline understanding of the current service provision and overall “health” of the recreation program portfolio. Second, a community needs assessment is performed via a statistically-valid community survey, similar provider analysis, and demographic and trends analysis. This information provides a broader planning context that can then be compared to the existing service provision. Lastly, the “gap” area(s) are identified and transitioned in to Opportunity Statements. The Opportunity Statements are written as actionable steps CCPR can take to improve or enhance the existing service provision in light of community needs and industry best practices. Opportunity Statements should be used to inform the action/implementation plan associated with the Comprehensive Program Plan. Additionally, all statements should be reviewed annually for completion status, relevancy, and any adjustments that need to be made as a result of annual program evaluations. Based off the Opportunity Statements, the following overarching strategies were developed for the Master Plan: 1. Provide a balance of program offerings across the city of Carmel by better utilizing the existing parks and greenways owned and maintained by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 2. Provide recreation programs that focus on environmental education and park stewardship by utilizing existing natural resource infrastructure 3. Evaluate existing programs to determine current and future gaps in service for underserved or unserved populations such as senior citizens, adaptive, cultural diversity, at-risk youth/teens, etc. 4. Seek innovative solutions to serve identified underserved or unserved populations 5. Design and implement fitness and wellness program offerings based upon community needs, current trends, and best practices Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation194 5.2.5 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATE The Comprehensive Program Plan will be reviewed annually during the winter, prior to budget planning for the coming fiscal year, and in conjunction with the preparation of the Department’s Business Plan for the coming fiscal year. The focus of this planning meeting is to review budget performance, including participation trends, analyze emerging trends within recreation and identify unmet and ongoing community needs. A review of the Comprehensive Program Plan will help ensure that the Department is responding to the anticipated growth of the community. Department staff also participate in seasonal program planning meetings, which include a review of evaluation data for all programs and services and progress of goals/objectives. Many Department staff members participate in these meetings, including the Director of Parks and Recreation, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, ESE Director, ESE Assistant Director, Parks & Natural Resources Director, Recreation & Facilities Director, Recreation & Facilities Assistant Director, Recreation Services Manager, and Recreation Programming Supervisors. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 195 CAPTER SIX – OPERATIONAL REVIEW AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 6.1 STAFF FOCUS GROUPS As part of the Master Plan, interviews were completed with Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) staff members in September 2018 to provide a foundation for identifying operational issues, along with understanding question topics that would be beneficial for the operational review. A facilitation guide was developed that included a series of questions that spurred conversation and follow up questions were asked as appropriate. CCPR staff were identified by the representatives from the following CCPR key functions: • Administration (Business Services, Human Resources, and Marketing) • Extended School Enrichment facilitators • Extended School Enrichment supervisory staff • Monon Community Center non-supervisory and part-time staff • Monon Community Center supervisory staff • Park maintenance (full and part-time) • Senior Management (Executives and division directors) 6.1.1 KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE MASTER PLAN Staff shared many outcomes from the master plan that included a variety of operational and programming opportunities. A new maintenance facility at Central Park was mentioned, as well as consideration of equipment storage needs at other key parks (e.g. West Park, Founders, and Inlow). Consideration of a dedicated maintenance staff person at 2-3 parks such as Central Park, West Park and a person dedicated to the east side parks. Regarding partnerships, building on the current relationship with Carmel Clay Schools and the Extended School Enrichment (ESE) program is desired. Also related to partnerships, a defined role of the Parks Foundation needs to be an outcome of the Master Plan. Communication improvement within CCPR is desired that may include those in specific programs (e.g. ESE, Monon Community Center) communicating more effectively internally, as well as with the public on policy issues. Throughout the organization, staff desire a bold internal vision from the master plan that pushes the agency forward. CCPR is a leader in the community and staff want to build on this legacy whether in self-sustainable resources, innovative programs and facilities, or in being an “employer of choice” to its employees. An outcome of master plan included ensuring the community has inclusion and accessibility to parks and programs and to be mindful that the any new program or amenity is inclusive to the community. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation196 6.1.2 KEY ISSUES TO ADDRESS IN THE MASTER PLAN Staff had a variety of issues to be addressed in the master plan ranging from specific storage needs at the Monon Community Center and for maintenance staff to ensuring that amenities are equitable throughout Carmel. Many mentioned that the west and northwest areas of Carmel are underserved and that the master plan needs to have a strategy in serving these residents. As the system expands, staff want to ensure that operational dollars follow to ensure that maintenance remains at a high level to meet community expectations. Regarding the Monon Community Center, the facility is at capacity and the facility serves a much larger market than just Carmel residents. As such, there is a fine balance in serving members and specific programs. Staff want to increase programming, but are cognizant to not over program to ensure members do not feel slighted. The 80% cost recovery goal mandate of the system needs to be addressed philosophically as the parks system grows, the more difficult this will be to attain as not all parks are revenue producing. ESE programmers would like to see more time to tie their curriculum to those at each school. Also, communication with each school and ESE program on behavioral issues of students is desired. Regarding operations, turnover of the part-time staff both at the Monon Community Center and the ESE program is an issue. Quality of part-time staff has been a challenge as the market place is competitive in regards to pay and the positions available at CCPR are limited due to hours available for part-time staff. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 197 6.1.3 MANAGEMENT STANDARDS IN PLACE AND NEW STANDARDS TO CONSIDER CCPR currently utilizes many management standards across the system. New standards to consider include design standards for nature trails that are wide enough for a maintenance truck. Maintenance staff have adopted maintenance standards they operate by, but lack time to perform preventive maintenance. For the ESE program, staff would like to see additional management standards adopted. ESE currently works with the Indiana Afterschool Network and continued enhancement of curriculum back to the Indiana State school requirement. Continue to formalize how to deal with behavioral issues. Regarding human resources, there can be a lag in background checks that limits processing of new hires. Training and communicating the CCPR operational mandates to new employees is needed, specifically to part-time employees (e.g. cost recovery goals). To be more proactive, CCPR needs to track staff turnover by part-time position. Staff appreciate the environmentally sensitive philosophy that CCPR functions. The constant update of facilities and progressive planning is appreciated by staff, as well as membership, specifically the updates to the MCC. CCPR should consider adopting cost recovery goals by a site/facility (e.g. MCC, Waterpark, ESE) not by an adopted system cost recovery goal. 6.1.4 EQUIPMENT CHALLENGES Many of the comments in regards to equipment challenges were related to storage needs for park maintenance staff and their need for an updated facility, storage at specific parks such as Central Park and West Park, as well as utility vehicles at regional or community parks. Other comments related to park equipment challenges included cameras to dissuade vandalism, as well as automatic locks on restrooms. Wifi connectivity challenges at certain ESE sites was a concern, as well as disruption in the program’s software system. Related to equipment challenges at the MCC and the Waterpark, staff mentioned that the point of sale system currently being utilized through ActiveNet may not meet the long-term needs for concessions, which is operated seasonally as a key component of the Waterpark. Staff also acknowledged that fitness space is overcapacity during peak time, especially the weight area. The Waterpark, during peak time, has issues with water quality specifically the lap pool Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation198 6.1.5 FACILITY CHALLENGES Facility challenges were focused on the need for a new maintenance facility, as well as satellite storage areas at West Park and Founders Park or another east side park location. In regards to the ESE program, space for summer camp programming is a need. The schools have been a great partner in providing middle school space, but each school is different in regards to the level of space. There is also the need for office space at the MCC due to shared use between Administrative staff for both MCC/ESE. CCPR administrative offices are appreciated by employees; however, there are limitations as the large open space can be quite noisy and lacks privacy. Human Resources should consider a move to the MCC as it would allow for easier access to staff, visibility, as well as privacy. 6.1.6 CURRENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND NEW PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO CONSIDER The ESE program uses internal meetings to ensure staff are meeting deadlines, as well as site visits at each of the program locations. One additional performance indicator would be to provide an incentive for parents to take the satisfaction survey at the end of each semester to provide feedback. In regards to financial data, CCPR staff appreciate that they track cost recovery, but believe the agency does not celebrate the personal success stories of employees. Other considerations included a “positive spin” to data tracking such as retention rates versus cancelation rates. Regarding the cost recovery mandate, there needs to be an understanding by members of the City Council, Township Board, and the Park Board on why CCPR can and cannot offer amenities or services due to the 80% cost recovery stipulation. 6.1.7 ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGMENT CCPR staff feel like the organizational alignment works most of the time. There are minor adjustments in some staffing such as an additional Supervisor at the MCC, as well as additional park maintenance staff. Other comments included moving KidZone from Aquatics to Member Services. Also, it was mentioned that there is sometimes a disconnect between park maintenance and MCC staff on general maintenance responsibilities to no fault of either, but want to ensure responsibilities are clear and defined. 6.1.8 POLICY ISSUES In regards to policy issues, there is a desire of staff to alter the “Accountable for your Actions” feedback method to a something more positive and less negative. When rolling out new system- wide policies, review how these changes are communicated across the system so everyone is following the same policies. Maintenance staff have made some adjustments to the maintenance management standards from the 2011 plan, but this is due to the updates at some of the parks. Currently, procuring equipment requires a work-order for a small part or equipment. Process to utilize department issued credit cards can be cumbersome. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 199 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation200 Dress code during the summer for employees requires pants, dark shirts, and closed shoes, specifically during hot days. Consider changing the colors around so we have white shirts and navy lettering for the hot summer days. Waiver for flow-rider has a database so the waiver is always valid once it’s completed. Need to use this same methodology with other waivers (e.g. fitness training, aquatic training) as it would make it much easier for processing. Consider an adjustment in policing memberships as there is inconsistency in how to let people in and out of the building. Currently, 100% check-in is used and its use is not being enforced by all staff. Balancing security/safety with the guest experience can be challenging. 6.1.9 FINANCIAL ISSUES Staff mentioned the desire for a staff appreciation budget and recognition program; consider raising these funds through the Park Foundation. The City of Carmel has a large staff appreciation party each year at the MCC. Salary increases are needed to prevent staff turnover. Especially for year-round employees who are limited by the 27.5 hours as part-time employees. Looking into the salaries of part-time staff. Currently, underpaying many of our positions. Staff mentioned adding professional training opportunities if increasing benefits and pay is not available. 6.1.10 ONE CHANGE TO ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT Regarding the Maintenance Division, staff desire more involvement with park site specific master plans to ensure there is adequate storage for equipment. A new maintenance facility “hub” would allow for more efficiency. Lowering staff turnover was mentioned by both ESE staff and members at the MCC. Ideas to help limit staff turnover included opportunities for advancement in the organization, as well as professional development options. As an organization, maintain the expectation of performing like a Gold Medal agency through innovation, as well as ensuring the agency has the financial resources to provide the community high-quality experiences. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 201 6.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES As part of the Master Plan, a workshop was completed with Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) staff members in November 2018 to provide a foundation for classifying services and overall organizational functions, along with understanding question topics that would be beneficial for the operational review. Classifying services is an important process for an agency to follow in order to remain aligned with the community’s interests and needs, the mission of the organization, and to sustainably operate within the bounds of the financial resources that support it. The first milestone is to develop a classification system for the services and functions of CCPR. These systems need to reflect the statutory obligations of the agency, the support functions performed, and the value-added services that enrich both the customer’s experience and generate earned revenues in mission-aligned ways to help support operating costs. In order to identify how the costs of services are supported and by what funding source, the services are to be classified by their intended purpose and what benefits they provide. Then funding source expectations can be assigned and this data used in future cost analysis. 6.2.1 PRIORITIZATION OF SERVICES The provision of facilities, programs and services is fundamental to the vision and mission of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. Since the resources available to offer programs and services is limited, the delivery of these services is prioritized based on the following criteria: • All Services: All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board • Priority 1: Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided ° Parks: Greenways, Open Space, playgrounds, splashpads, trails ° Facilities: Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, Central Bark Park, program pavilions ° Programs: Aquatics, Extended School Enrichment/Summer Camp Series, Fitness/ Wellness ° Other Services: Inclusion, Natural, cultural and land resource management • Priority 2: Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations ° Facilities: Shelters (rentable) ° Programs: Adaptive, Nature ° Other Services: Concessions, Kid Zone • Priority 3: Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well-positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives ° Programs: Creative Arts, Enrichment, Homeschool, Science & Technology, Senior, Sports ° Other Services: N/A Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation202 6.2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES In workshops with CCPR, the major functional areas were assessed and classified based on the criteria established. This process included determining which services fit into each classification criteria. The following core service areas were classified, as well as sub-services: • Planning • Maintenance • Natural, Cultural, and Land Resource Management • Facilities and Equipment • Parkland • Programs and Services • General Agency Functions The tables below and on the following pages represent a summary of CCPR services by core service area: PLANNING MAINTENANCE Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives Long range planning (Department)X Long range planning (City)X Park master planning X Project management for Capital Projects X Lifecycle Management X Land acquisition, surveying, and easements X CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Planning Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Notes All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives General grounds and park access (equipment, mowing, plowing, etc.)X Contracted/In-houseHard surface (parking lots, bridges, driveways, parkways, walkways, multipurpose courts)X ContractedAmenities (playgrounds, restrooms, shelters, benches, statues, exercise stations, etc.)X Contracted/In-houseBuilding infrastructure (electrical, water, trades, utilities, carpentry, etc.)X Contracted Contract maintenance services (procurement, oversight, accountability, etc.)X Paved Trails X Contracted/In-house (management agreement with the City) Unpaved Trails X In-house Signage X In-house Security Lighting/CPTED Standards X Contracted Fleet maintenance X Contracted Playground Inspection X In-house Tree Removal/Management X Contracted Snow removal (soft surface)X In-house CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Maintenance Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 203 NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT PARKLAND Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives Natural capital X Facility and site service support X Resource assessments X Wildlife management X Habitat management X Invasive plant/species management X CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Natural, Cultural, and Land Resource Management Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives Splash pads X The Waterpark X Monon Community Center (MCC)X Dog Park X Program Pavilions X Facility rentals (e.g., shelters, pavilions, etc.)X CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Facilities and Equipment Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives Pocket Parks/Public Plazas X Neighborhood Parks X Community Parks X Regional Parks X Special Use Parks X Nature Preserve/Open Space X Greenways/Trails (development, management, and maintenance)X CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Parkland Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation204 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES GENERAL AGENCY FUNCTIONS Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives Aquatics X Extended School Enrichment/Summer Camp Series X Fitness/Wellness X Inclusion X Adaptive X Nature X Concessions X Kid Zone X Creative Arts X Enrichment X Homeschool X Science & Technology X Senior X Sports X Programs and Services CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 All programs and services must support the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as approved or amended by the Park Board. Programs and services that directly contribute to the cost recovery objectives of the department, are high priorities of the public and for which there is a demonstrated demand or expectation for the department to offer, or are legally mandated to be provided Programs and services that are value-added or complimentary to Priority 1 Services that build brand loyalty or directly or indirectly contribute to cost recovery expectations Program and services for which there is an unmet need within the community and the department is well- positioned to provide that do not detract from cost recovery objectives MCC Retail X Food & beverage concessions (catering, satellite locations, vending, contracts)X Park use permits/business activity licenses X Contract maintenance services (procurement, oversight, accountability, etc.)X Volunteer Program X Environmental Advocacy X Adaptive X Inclusion Programming X Adult X Safety and security X Finance X Marketing X IT X Risk Management X Fleet X CAPRA X Foundation X Staff Training X Outside Reporting/Boards (e.g., Township, City, Park Board)X Grants X Customer Service X Payroll X Procurement X HR X Scholarships X Special Projects X General Agency Functions Programs and Services CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICESFor each Service place an 'X' to indicate if it is an Essential, Important, or Value-Added service Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 205 6.3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the financial assessment of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (“CCPR”) as a part of the Master Plan. The revenues, expenditures and capital funds were analyzed to identify trends and assess CCPR’s financial integrity. The cost recovery for facilities, programs, and services at major functional levels has also been analyzed to access the cost of service readiness. 6.3.1 DATA REVIEWED The detailed cost and activity information prepared by CCPR staff was reviewed as part of this analysis. The financial reports for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 were analyzed to assess the financial situation of CCPR. 6.3.2 FINANCIAL STRENGTH CCPR has maintained adequate cash balances for each year shown in Figure 28. A strong cash balance provides flexibility with respect to managing programs, maintaining assets, and meeting the changing needs of the community. The cash balances increased between fiscal years 2013 and 2018. The fiscal year 2018 cash balance is 35% of annual expenditures and is 14% less than the 2017 cash balance. The fiscal year 2018 non-capital funds cash balance is 37% of annual non-capital funds expenditures and is 3% more than the 2017 non-capital funds cash balance. It is recommended that agencies have a range of cash and investments between 60 and 90 days to cover unexpected revenue drops and unusual or emergency expenditures. CCPR had 129 days of total cash for 2018. The non-capital funds cash was 134 days for 2018. CCPR should continue to maintain enough cash reserves. Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Cash Balance $11,815,301 $12,724,111 $15,623,736 $15,623,736 $15,723,674 $12,057,165 $22,241,529 $23,259,898 $23,390,611 $23,390,611 $31,858,429 $34,005,409 Cash to Expenditures 53% 55% 67% 67% 49% 35% Days of Cash 194 200 244 244 180 129 Non-Capital Cash $3,645,976 $4,076,467 $2,484,168 $2,484,168 $3,189,465 $3,655,221 Non-Capital Expenditures $12,118,683 $12,900,667 $6,850,475 $6,850,475 $9,261,555 $9,977,952 Cash to Expenditures 30% 32% 36% 36% 34% 37% Days of Cash 110 115 132 132 126 134 Annual Expenditures, Encumbrances, & Reserves Figure 28 - Cash Balances Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation206 CCPR has no debt which is unusual for a large agency. The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Carmel and Clay Township, which created the park system, dictates that any bonds issued to acquire or improve real property be issued in either the name of the City or Township. In 2004, the Carmel Clay Parks Building Corporation issued a $55 million lease-rental bond, the proceeds of which were used to construct Central Park and the Monon Community Center. Because the City did not have the ability to tax throughout the entire Township, and to ensure property owners both within and outside the incorporated limits of the City were paying the same tax levy for the Central Park Bond, the City Council passed an ordinance authorizing issuance of the bond and waiving to the Township its taxing authority for bond-related expenses. As authorized by this action, for the life of the 20-year bond, Clay Township will levy a tax on all property owners within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the township to make the annual lease payments on the Central Park Bond. Semi-annual lease payments made by the Township range from $2,237,000 to $2,240,500 as specified in the payment schedule for the bond. While these payments represent expenses on behalf of the park system, CCPR funds are not used to make the payments and therefore are excluded from this financial assessment. Unless refinanced or paid off ahead of schedule, the Central Park Bond will be retired on January 1, 2026. 6.3.3 REVENUES The revenues for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 are shown in Figure 29. Over the period, total revenues increased by 27%. Tax revenues increased by 26% and the earned income increased by 25%. The percent of earned income to total revenues ranged from 57% to 61%. In similar size agencies across the country, generally, earned income provides 40% to 60% of funding. CCPR has maintained a good mix of funding from earned income with the most recent years being higher than the average. Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 REVENUES Taxes-City of Carmel $2,614,859 $2,660,799 $2,728,969 $2,800,288 $3,003,488 $3,092,608 Taxes-Clay Township $2,519,799 $2,595,856 $2,463,814 $2,678,182 $2,744,425 $3,374,030 Impact Fee $813,790 $1,144,648 $2,290,543 $899,011 $1,741,606 $1,148,884 User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $8,505,698 $8,460,531 $9,728,674 $9,913,247 $10,292,096 $10,673,640 Total Revenues $14,454,146 $14,861,834 $17,212,000 $16,290,728 $17,781,615 $18,289,162 Annual Change 3% 16% -5%9%3% Cummulative Change 3% 19% 13% 23% 27% Annual Increase in Tax Revenues 2% -1%6%5% 13% Cummulative Increase in Tax Revenues 2%1%7% 12% 26% Annual Increase in Impact Fees 41% 100% -61% 94% -34% Cummulative Increase in Impact Fees 41% 181% 10% 114% 41% Annual in User Fees, Interest & Earned Income -1% 15%2%4%4% Cummulative Increase in User Fees, Interest & Earned Income -1% 14% 17% 21% 25% Percent of Revenues from Earned Income 59% 57% 57% 61% 58% 58% Figure 29 - Total Revenues Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 207 The revenues shown in the Figure 30 indicate that CCPR has its revenue source distribution over the six-year period. 6.3.4 OPERATING EXPENDITURES Figure 31 shows the historical expenses from fiscal ending 2013 through 2018. $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fiscal Years Personal Services Supplies Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 REVENUES Taxes 36% 35% 30% 34% 32% 35% Impact Fee 6%8% 13%6% 10%6% User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income 59% 57%57% 61% 58% 58% Total Revenues 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure 30 - Percent of Total Revenue by Category Figure 31 - Expenditures Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation208 The total expenditures for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 have increased by 26% from $10,040,361 in 2013 to $12,638,938 in 2018 as shown in Figure 32. The Capital Outlay expenditures compared to operation and maintenance expenditures have increased by 112% over the five-year period from 2013 to 2017. The 2018 Capital Outlay is approximately the same as 2013. 6.3.5 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES Figure 33 shows the Capital Development & Maintenance expenditures from fiscal ending 2013 through 2018. The Capital Development & Maintenance expenditures have increased by approximately 212% over the six-year period primarily with a significant increase in 2018. This reflects the CCPR’s ability to develop, maintain, and replace CPRR’s equipment and facilities. CCPR has invested over $27.5 million over the six-year period in capital projects. A strong capital investment indicates the ability for CCPR to develop and maintain quality facilities for future users. Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 EXPENDITURES Capital Development & Maintenance $2,952,886 $3,192,806 $2,808,640 $5,583,135 $3,846,733 $9,205,060 Annual Capital Development & Maintenance Change 8% -12% 99% -31% 139% Cummulative Capital Development & Maintenance Change 8% -5% 89% 30% 212% Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 EXPENDITURES Personal Services $6,301,791 $6,756,326 $7,089,633 $7,285,553 $7,356,192 $7,770,799 Supplies $717,385 $732,295 $805,092 $901,398 $928,320 $891,506 Other Services and Charges $2,964,082 $3,203,811 $3,484,356 $3,486,432 $3,790,602 $3,922,016 Capital Outlay $57,103 $43,465 $24,114 $125,582 $120,933 $54,617 Total Expenditures $10,040,361 $10,735,897 $11,403,196 $11,798,964 $12,196,047 $12,638,938 Annual Total Change 7%6%3%3%4% Cummulative Total Change 7% 14% 18% 21% 26% Annual Operations and Maintenance Change 7%6%3%3%4% Cummulative O&M Change 7% 14% 17% 21% 26% Annual Capital Change -24% -45% 421% -4% -55% Cummulative Capital Change -24% -58% 120% 112% -4% Percent of Capital to Total Expenditures 1%0%0%1%1%0% Figure 32 – Operating Expenditures Figure 33 -Capital Development & Maintenance Expenditures Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 209 6.3.6 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURE TRENDS The total revenues and expenditures have increased over the six-year period as shown in Figure 34. The gap between revenues and expenditures shows an increasing rate. This indicates that CCPR is well positioned to maintain the quality and quantity of programs and facilities with future cost inflation. 6.3.7 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES Between fiscal years 2013 and 2018, the Taxable Property Values for the City of Carmel increased by 41% or approximately 6.8% per year as shown in Figure 35. The Clay Township values increased by 11% over the six-year period. CCPR receives tax revenues from the City of Carmel and Clay Township. The City of Carmel Population increased by 7% between 2013 and 2018. City of Carmel City of Carmel Clay Township Year Population* Adjusted Net Assessed Value* Adjusted Net Assessed Value* 2013 85,923 5,136,119,362$ 193,421,685$ 2014 86,588 5,240,097,904$ 197,669,507$ 2015 88,088 6,448,055,097$ 198,603,086$ 2016 91,065 6,664,876,338$ 202,469,463$ 2017 92,198 6,957,174,353$ 206,044,452$ 2018 N/A 7,216,601,040$ 214,223,491$ 2013-2018 Change 7%41%11% Notes: Population from U.S. Census Bureau State of Indiana, Department of Local Government Finance $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income Operating Expenditures Linear (User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income) Linear (Operating Expenditures) Figure 34 - Revenues and Expenses Trends Figure 35 - Property Tax Values Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation210 6.3.8 COST RECOVERY FROM USER FEES, INTEREST & OTHER EARNED INCOME The industry best practices are 35- 40% for cost recovery from revenues other than taxes for similar park and recreation agencies. Non-Tax Revenues, which exclude revenues from taxes or impact fees, have averaged 83% over the six-year period. Figure 36 shows that CCPR’s cost recovery from non-tax revenues ranges from 79% to 85% of the total operating expenses. CCPR continues to demonstrate a best in class cost recover. A strong cost recovery will provide quality programs and facilities for the current and future users. 6.3.9 OPERATING FUNDS A summary of the cost recovery by the Operating Funds is shown in Figure 37. Figure 37 includes all funding sources and transfers. CCPR has demonstrated a healthy cost recovery with the Extended School Enrichment, Monon Community Center, and Recreation Facilities. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $8,505,698 $8,460,531 $9,728,674 $9,913,247 $10,292,096 $10,673,640 Total Operating Expenditures $10,040,361 $10,735,897 $11,403,196 $11,798,964 $12,196,047 $12,638,938 User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income Over (Under) Total Operating Expenditures ($1,534,663.20) ($2,275,366.66) ($1,674,522.18) ($1,885,717.64) ($1,903,951.04) ($1,965,298.17) Cost Recovery from Earned Income 85%79%85%84%84%84% Fiscal Year:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 PROS Anticipated Program Funds Cost Recovery Extended School Enrichment 119% 110% 114% 110% 112% 111% 100%+ Monon Community Center 107% 102% 110% 105% 105% 109%80% to 100% Recreation Facilities N/A N/A 140% 243% 256% 219%40% to 100% Figure 36 - Cost Recovery from Non-Tax Revenues Figure 37 - Summary of Cost Recovery from Selected Operations Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 211 6.3.10 EXTENDED SCHOOL ENRICHMENT OPERATIONS The revenues and expenditures for the Extended School Enrichment Operations for fiscal year 2018 are illustrated below in Figure 38. The cost recovery is shown for operating and maintenance costs and total costs which includes capital expenditures. The program has a cost recovery rate over 100% for operating expenditures. 108 1081 1082 EXTENDED SCHOOL ENRICHMENT UNASSIGNED BEFORE & AFTER SCHOOL CAMPS Total ACCOUNT 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual OPERATING REVENUES Park Department Fees $0.00 $3,041,106.52 $1,171,471.17 $4,212,577.69 Interest on Sweep Acct $42,275.37 $0.00 $0.00 $42,275.37 Contributions, Gifts & Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL REVENUES $42,275.37 $3,041,106.52 $1,171,471.17 $4,254,853.06 OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $0.00 $2,388,043.09 $389,249.76 $2,777,292.85 SUPPLIES $0.00 $231,079.39 $42,088.63 $273,168.02 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES $0.00 $412,448.18 $333,745.96 $746,194.14 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $20,871.20 $0.00 $20,871.20 TOTAL EXPENSES $0.00 $3,052,441.86 $765,084.35 $3,817,526.21 NET REVENUE/(LOSS)$42,275.37 ($11,335.34)$406,386.82 $437,326.85 Cost Recovery N/A 99.6% 153.1% 111.5% Figure 38 – 2018 Extended School Enrichment Program Cost Recovery Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation212 The Revenues, Expenditures, Cost Recovery and Cash Balance/Investments are shown in Figure 39 for Extended School Enrichment for fiscal years 2013 through 2018. The cost recovery has remained strong and the fund has a healthy cash balance to provide for capital projects and expanded program needs. Figure 39 - Extended School Enrichment: Revenue, Expenditures, Cost Recovery, and Cash Balance/Investments Extended School Enrichment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fund 108 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual OPERATING REVENUES User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $3,607,773 $3,651,160 $4,129,175 $4,057,196 $4,221,188 $4,254,853 Total Operating Revenues $3,607,773 $3,651,160 $4,129,175 $4,057,196 $4,221,188 $4,254,853 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of Beginning of Year $1,173,986 $1,753,464 $2,084,858 $2,590,634 $2,957,823 $3,404,220 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $4,781,758 $5,404,624 $6,214,033 $6,647,830 $7,179,011 $7,659,073 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services $2,366,904 $2,608,370 $2,754,113 $2,764,704 $2,742,148 $2,777,293 Supplies 259,410 264,711 316,112 281,702 284,818 273,168 Other Services & Charges 387,688 446,684 550,114 643,541 732,168 746,194 Capital Outlay 14,292 0 3,060 60 16,921 20,871 Total Operating Expenses $3,028,294 $3,319,765 $3,623,399 $3,690,007 $3,776,055 $3,817,526 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Encumbrances & Dedicated to Projects $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 Operating Reserve 0 0 0 0 878,002 0 Cash Flow Reserve 750,000 800,000 950,000 950,000 1,025,000 0 Total Encumbrances & Reserves $750,000 $800,000 $950,000 $950,000 $1,903,002 $0 Total Expenses, Encumbrances & Reserves $3,778,294 $4,119,765 $4,573,399 $4,640,007 $5,679,056 $3,817,526 Net Income $579,478 $331,394 $505,776 $367,189 $445,133 $437,327 Cost Recovery 119% 110% 114% 110% 112% 111% Cash Balance/Investments $1,753,464 $2,084,858 $2,590,634 $2,957,823 $3,403,002 $3,841,547 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 213 6.3.11 MONON COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS The revenues and expenditures for the Monon Community Center Operations for fiscal year 2018 are illustrated below in Figure 40. The cost recovery is shown for operating and maintenance costs and total costs which includes some capital expenditures. The Monon Center has a cost recovery over 100% for operating expenditures for the study period. MONON 109 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 UNASSIGNED ADMINISTRATION GUEST SERVICES MAINTENANCE AQUATIC FACILITIES FOOD SERVICES RECREATION GIFT CARDS TOTAL TITLE 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual 2018 Actual OPERATING REVENUES Sales Tax Collected $0.00 $17,558.51 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,558.51 Monon Center Revenue $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $287,032.80 $0.00 $287,032.80 Facility Rentals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,108.93 $44,318.50 $0.00 $0.00 $62,427.43 Shelter Rentals $0.00 $0.00 $64,329.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $64,329.19 Food Service Revenue $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215,540.26 $0.00 $0.00 $215,540.26 Aquatics Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $267,749.50 $0.00 $267,749.50 Fitness Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $196,102.00 $0.00 $196,102.00 KidZone Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $745.00 $0.00 $745.00 Therapeutic Rec Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $61,420.75 $0.00 $61,420.75 Annual Passes $0.00 $0.00 $60,836.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $456.00 $0.00 $61,292.34 Corporate Annual Passes $0.00 $0.00 $7,392.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,392.00 Season Passes $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,781.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,781.07 Monthly Passes $0.00 $0.00 $3,332,443.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,332,443.50 Corporate Monthly Passes $0.00 $0.00 $288,134.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $288,134.56 Value Passes $0.00 $0.00 $66,673.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,673.00 Daily Passes $0.00 $0.00 $1,118,744.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,118,744.50 Contractor Commissions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,582.77 $0.00 $0.00 $17,582.77 Merchandise Sales $0.00 $0.00 $10,385.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,385.00 Miscellaneous Revenues $8,709.00 $2,954.87 $12,532.49 $0.00 $2,280.56 $0.00 $16,361.60 $0.00 $42,838.52 Interest on Sweep Account $29,421.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29,421.55 Contributions, Gifts & Grants $0.00 $16,310.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,474.00 $0.00 $17,784.83 Other Reimbursements $15,339.39 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,339.39 TOTAL REVENUES $53,469.94 $36,824.21 $4,961,470.58 $0.00 $64,170.56 $277,441.53 $831,341.65 $0.00 $6,224,718.47 OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $0.00 $213,517.03 $782,329.06 $239,507.10 $712,254.57 $102,577.13 $863,299.77 $0.00 $2,913,484.66 SUPPLIES $0.00 $26,255.99 $29,318.67 $110,285.60 $131,248.26 $107,610.15 $65,249.51 $0.00 $469,968.18 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES $0.00 $1,498,520.98 $4,412.73 $522,123.78 $103,252.20 $115.50 $163,911.02 $0.00 $2,292,336.21 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $17,934.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,934.78 TOTAL EXPENSES $0.00 $1,756,228.78 $816,060.46 $871,916.48 $946,755.03 $210,302.78 $1,092,460.30 $0.00 $5,693,723.83 NET REVENUE/(LOSS)$53,469.94 ($1,719,404.57)$4,145,410.12 ($871,916.48) ($882,584.47)$67,138.75 ($261,118.65)$0.00 $530,994.64 Cost Recovery #DIV/0!2.1% 608.0%0.0%6.8% 131.9% 76.1% #DIV/0!109.3% Figure 40 - Monon Community Center Program Cost Recovery Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation214 The Revenues, Expenditures, Cost Recovery and Cash Balance/Investments are shown in Figure 41 for Monon Community Center for fiscal years 2013 through 2018. The cost recovery has remained strong and the fund has a healthy cash balance to provide for capital projects and expanded program needs. Monon Community Center 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fund 109 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual OPERATING REVENUES User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $4,856,586 $4,789,282 $5,490,938 $5,720,418 $5,908,074 $6,224,718 Total Operating Revenues $4,856,586 $4,789,282 $5,490,938 $5,720,418 $5,908,074 $6,224,718 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of Beginning of Year $1,509,331 $1,844,468 $1,944,303 $2,427,521 $2,666,639 $3,040,404 Transfer from Cash Change Fund 16,500 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,600 16,000 Gift Card Sales & Customer Overpayments 0 0 3,248 (48,759)72,654 9,109 Total Other Financing Sources $1,525,831 $1,860,468 $1,963,551 $2,394,762 $2,755,893 $3,065,513 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $6,382,417 $6,649,750 $7,454,489 $8,115,180 $8,663,967 $9,290,231 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services $2,222,792 $2,350,441 $2,476,562 $2,703,974 $2,801,203 $2,913,485 Supplies 346,641 367,384 404,072 515,204 524,596 469,968 Other Services & Charges 1,925,654 1,946,983 2,122,310 2,100,137 2,185,684 2,292,336 Capital Outlay 26,862 24,640 6,297 109,985 90,661 17,935 Total Operating Expenses $4,521,948 $4,689,447 $5,009,242 $5,429,301 $5,602,142 $5,693,724 DEVELOPMENT & OTHER EXPENSES Transfer to Cash Change Fund $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $0 Gift Card & Customer Credit Transfers 0 0 1,726 3,241 5,839 0 Total Development & Other Expenses $16,000 $16,000 $17,726 $19,241 $21,839 $0 Total Expenses $4,537,948 $4,705,447 $5,026,968 $5,448,541 $5,623,981 $5,693,724 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Outstanding Liabilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,606 $0 MCC Operating Reserve 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 Park System Capital Maintenance Reserve 0 0 0 0 635,799 0 Cash Flow Reserve 1,130,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,325,000 1,375,000 0 Total Encumbrances & Reserves $1,130,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,325,000 $2,010,799 $0 Total Expenses, Encumbrances & Reserves $5,667,948 $5,905,447 $6,326,968 $6,773,541 $7,634,780 $5,693,724 Net Income $334,637 $99,835 $481,696 $291,118 $305,932 $530,995 Cost Recovery 107% 102% 109% 105% 105% 109% Cash Balance/Investments $1,844,468 $1,944,303 $2,427,521 $2,666,639 $3,040,404 $3,596,507 Figure 41 - Monon Community Center: Revenue, Expenditures, Cost Recovery, and Cash Balance/Investments Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 215 6.3.12 RECREATION FACILITIES The cost recovery is shown for operating and maintenance costs. The recreation programs have a cost recovery over 100% for operating expenditures for the last three years. The Revenues, Expenditures, Cost Recovery and Cash Balance/Investments are shown in Figure 42 for Recreation Facilities for fiscal years 2013 through 2018. The cost recovery has remained strong and the fund has a healthy cash balance to provide for capital projects and expanded program needs. Recreation Facilities 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fund 110 Actual Actual Actual Actual REVENUES Taxes-City of Carmel $0 $0 $0 $0 Taxes-Clay Township $0 $0 $0 $0 Local Income Taxes-Clay Township $0 $0 $0 $0 Impact Fee User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $38,638 $79,436 $90,092 $131,595 Total Revenues $38,638 $79,436 $90,092 $131,595 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of Beginning of Year $0 $11,113 $57,821 $112,703 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $38,638 $90,549 $147,913 $244,298 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies $898 $8,416 $14,467 $23,288 Other Services & Charges $26,627 $24,312 $20,743 $36,905 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $27,525 $32,728 $35,210 $60,193 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Park System Capital Maintenance Reserve $0 $0 $97,703 $0 Cash Flow Reserve $0 $8,000 $15,000 $0 Total Encumbrances & Reserves $0 $8,000 $112,703 $0 Total Expenses, Encumbrances & Reserves $27,525 $40,728 $147,913 $60,193 Net Income $11,113 $46,708 $54,882 $71,402 Cost Recovery 140% 243% 256% 219% Cash Balance/Investments $11,113 $57,821 $112,703 $184,105 Figure 42 – Recreation Facilities: Revenue, Expenditures, Cost Recovery, and Cash Balance/Investments Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation216 6.3.13 PARK IMPACT FEES The Park Impact Fee is established under Indiana law by a Zone Improvement Plan, which requires the approval of both the Carmel Plan Commission and City Council. The maximum fee is defined by a State-established formula that factors in the community’s historical capital investment within the park system. Recognizing that new residential development and the resulting increase in population places a greater demand for park infrastructure, the State allows communities to assess an impact fee to fund new capital development to accommodate the increased demand. CCPR began collecting impact fees September 7, 2012, per the 2010-2015 Zone Improvement Plan. The initial park impact fee was $1,526 for each new residential dwelling unit. Completed September 2014, the 2015-2020 Zone Improvement Plan documented a maximum fee of $2,981 per residential dwelling unit. The new park impact fee has a phased implementation of $2,031 begun in June 2015 with a final increase to $2,972 per unit to being in June 2019. All impact fees are deposited within the Park Impact Fee Fund (106), which is maintained by the Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Carmel and may be used by CCPR for new capital development within parks specifically identified within the 2010-2015 Zone Improvement Plan. Authorized parks include Cherry Tree, Founders, Hazel Landing, and West Park. The Zone Improvement Plan also allows impact fees to be used to purchase new parkland in the northwest portion of the township. The impact fees collected for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 are illustrated below in Figure 43. Impact fees have generated over $11.4 million between 2013 and 2018 for capital improvements designated in the Zone Improvement Plan. The fund continues to have a healthy balance of $2.4 million to meet future capital development needs. Fiscal Years:2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (106) Impact Fee (106) Impact Fee (106) Impact Fee (106) Impact Fee (106) Impact Fee (106) Impact Fee REVENUES Impact Fee $813,790 $1,144,648 $2,290,543 $899,011 $1,741,606 $1,148,884 Interest & Other Revenues 2,926 1,441 4,885 11,679 37,546 46,179 Total Revenues $816,716 $1,146,089 $2,295,428 $910,690 $1,779,152 $1,195,063 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of First of Year $1,905,206 $1,878,025 $1,740,438 $3,827,885 $4,226,494 $5,594,129 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $2,721,922 $3,024,114 $4,035,866 $4,738,575 $6,005,646 $6,789,192 EXPENDITURES Capital Development & Maintenance $843,897 $1,283,676 $207,981 $512,081 $411,517 $4,344,892 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Encumbrances & Approved Projects 1,338,509 259,217 113,984 4,226,494 5,594,129 2,444,300 Total Expenditures, Encumbrances & Reserves $2,182,406 $1,542,893 $321,965 $4,738,575 $6,005,646 $6,789,192 Current Cash Balance/Investments $1,878,025 $1,740,438 $3,827,885 $4,226,494 $5,594,129 $2,444,300 Unencumbered/Undedicated Funds $539,516 $1,481,221 $3,713,901 $0 $0 $0 Figure 43 - Impact Fee Analysis Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 217 6.3.14 LOCAL INCOME TAXES As a result of Central Park Bond, Clay Township currently receives a share of Local Income Tax (LIT) paid to the State by all Hamilton County residents with income tax obligations. The LIT attributable to the Central Park Bond (Central Park Bond LIT) is identified in Figure 44. LIT is distributed to local units of government within the County based on a State-established formula. The LIT distribution for one year is calculated on the Township’s previous year’s budget and paid to the Township in 12 equal monthly payments. Because LIT is an income tax, and therefore subject to fluctuations in the economy, annual LIT distributions typically vary from year to year. With the City waiving its taxing authority to the Township for the Central Park Bond and the Township assuming full responsibility to repay the bond, all Central Park Bond LIT is distributed to the Township. The Township will continue to receive Central Park Bond LIT distributions until the bond is paid in full, regardless of recent or future annexations by the City within the Township. The Second Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement adopted in 2010 designates the use of Central Park Bond LIT for capital projects throughout the park system. Central Park Bond LIT is received and maintained by the Township Trustee in the Township’s Park Capital Non- Reverting Fund (1215). At the present time, this is the only source of new tax dollars available to CCPR for capital projects. Figure 44 - Local Income Tax Analysis 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (Twp 1215) LIT Capital (Twp 1215) LIT Capital (Twp 1215) LIT Capital (Twp 1215) LIT Capital (Twp 1215) LIT Capital (Twp 1215) LIT Capital REVENUES Taxes-Clay Township $2,440,038.00 $2,511,864.96 $2,379,413.00 $2,593,360.20 $2,658,222.96 $3,285,269.80 User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $34,422.72 $12,694.01 $34,361.93 $37,944.83 $27,979.76 $10,317.56 Total Revenues $2,474,460.72 $2,524,558.97 $2,413,774.93 $2,631,305.03 $2,686,202.72 $3,295,587.36 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of First of Year $5,235,831.37 $5,831,451.24 $6,447,801.40 $6,261,316.38 $3,850,727.27 $3,112,509.29 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $7,710,292.09 $8,356,010.21 $8,861,576.33 $8,892,621.41 $6,536,929.99 $6,408,096.65 DEVELOPMENT & OTHER EXPENSES Capital Development & Maintenance $1,878,840.85 $1,908,208.81 $2,600,259.95 $5,041,894.14 $3,424,420.70 $4,435,344.90 Total Expenses $1,878,840.85 $1,908,208.81 $2,600,259.95 $5,041,894.14 $3,424,420.70 $4,435,344.90 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Encumbrances & Dedicated to Projects $3,331,451.24 $3,947,801.40 $3,761,316.38 $1,350,727.27 $1,612,509.29 $472,751.75 Non-Reverting Operations Reserve $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Park System Capital Maintenance Reserve $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 Total Encumbrances & Reserves $5,831,451.24 $6,447,801.40 $6,261,316.38 $3,850,727.27 $3,112,509.29 $1,972,751.75 Total Expenses, Encumbrances & Reserves $7,710,292.09 $8,356,010.21 $8,861,576.33 $8,892,621.41 $6,536,929.99 $6,408,096.65 Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation218 6.3.15 GIFT FUND CCPR Gift Fund received $45,350 between 2013 and 2018. This fund provides additional resources to better the facilities and programs. Figure 45 shows the contributions, expenditures and reserves. The unencumbered and undesignated reserves were $23,480.12 at the year of fiscal year 2018. Figure 45 – Gift Fund Analysis 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (853) Gift (853) Gift (853) Gift (853) Gift (853) Gift (853) Gift REVENUES User Fees, Interest & Other Earned Income $3,260 $5,476 $24,395 $5,095 $3,901 $3,223 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Cash Reserves as of First of Year $49,715 $48,043 $47,306 $45,534 $32,584 $36,357 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources $52,974 $53,519 $71,700 $50,629 $36,485 $39,580 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies $0 $158 $1,575 $0 $128 $0 Other Services & Charges $4,581 $6,056 $24,591 $18,045 $0 $1,530 Capital Outlay $350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $4,931 $6,214 $26,166 $18,045 $128 $1,530 ENCUMBRANCES & RESERVES Designated Gifts $9,789 $9,520 $9,685 $11,124 $13,764 $14,570 Total Expenses, Encumbrances & Reserves $14,720 $15,734 $35,851 $29,169 $13,892 $16,100 Current Cash Balance/Investments $48,043.48 $47,305.63 $45,534.03 $32,584.09 $36,357.19 $38,050.21 Unencumbered/Undedicated Funds $38,254.11 $37,785.89 $35,848.98 $21,460.19 $22,592.89 $23,480.12 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 219 6.3.16 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CCPR is in a sound financial position with respect to operating revenues and expenditures, fund balances, and investments in capital projects. The use of revenues for capital development, renewal, and replacements and the park impact fee program demonstrates that CCPR is willing to develop and maintain the system’s assets to the maximum potential life. The total revenues are consistently more than the expenditures which indicate sound financial planning with respect to financial strength. The trend analysis in Figure 46 shows that there is an increasing positive gap between the operating revenues and expenditures in the projected years. In 2016, the expenditures were higher than the revenues, but CCPR also had a significant increase in cash reserves. The cash reserve trend line is also positive and is an indication of CCPR’s financial strength. The expenditure increase between 2017 and 2018 is the result of capital projects. CCPR continues to have enough cash reserves to cover the expenditures. Nationally, many park and recreation systems have been neglected in recent years due to the lack of economic resources. CCPR has been fortunate to weather the poor economic periods with a relatively strong position. The financial success has been largely the result of quality operations with Extended School Enrichment and the Monon Community Center. Continued success for these operations will be dependent on being attuned to customer expectations, closely monitoring operating expenses, investing in necessary capital repairs and replacements, and making pricing adjustments as appropriate. $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 Total Revenues Projected Revenues Total Expenditures & Transfers Projected Expenditures & Transfers Current Cash Balance/Investments Projected Cash Balance/Investments Figure 46 - Revenue, Expenditures, and Cash Balance Trend Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation220 6.4 FUNDING AND REVENUE STRATEGIES Park and recreation systems across the United States today have learned to develop a clear understanding of how to manage revenue options to support parks and recreation services in a municipality based on the limited availability of tax dollars. Park and Recreation systems no longer rely on taxes as their sole revenue option but have developed new sources of revenue options to help support capital and operational needs. CCPR leads the way across the nation in this effort. A growing number of agencies have developed policies on pricing of services, cost recovery rates and partnership agreements for programs and facilities provided to the community. They also have developed strong partnerships that are fair and equitable in the delivery of services based on whom receives the service, for what purpose, for what benefit and for what costs. In addition, agencies have learned to use parks and recreation facilities, amenities, programs and events to create economic development as it applies to keeping property values high around parks and along trails through increased maintenance, adding sports facilities and events to drive tournaments into the region that create hotel room nights and increase expenditures in restaurants and retail areas. They have learned to recognize that people will drive into their community for good recreation facilities such as sports complexes, pools, recreation centers and for special events if presented correctly and if they are well managed. Outlined below are several options for CCPR to consider. Some, if not all, of these sources should be considered as an option to support the capital and operational needs of CCPR. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 221 6.4.1 FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DOLLARS AND OPERATIONS The following financial options outline opportunities for CCPR to consider in supporting the recommended capital improvements outlined in the Master Plan as well as operational costs associated with managing the system for the future. General Obligation Bond: A general obligation bond is a municipal bond secured by a taxing authority such as the City of Carmel or Clay Township to improve public assets that benefits the municipal agency involved that oversee the parks and recreation facilities. General Obligation Bonds should continue to be considered for the park and recreation facility projects; such as, a recreation center or a sports complex. Improvements to parks should also be covered by these funding sources because there is very little operational revenues associated with some of CCPR’s parks to draw from. Parks help frame the Carmel’s image and benefit a wide age segment of users and updating some parks will benefit the community as a whole and stabilize neighborhoods. Over the last 10 years across the United States over 90% of park and recreation bond issues have passed in cities when offered to the community to vote to support the community needs for parks and recreation according to Trust for Public Lands research. Governmental Funding Programs: A variety of funding sources are available from federal and state government for park-related projects. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund program has $900 million and can provide capital funds to state and local governments to acquire, develop, and improve outdoor recreation areas. Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used to support open space related improvements including redevelopment and new development of parks and recreation facilities. Transportation Enhancement Funds available through SAFETELU, the current federal transportation bill, can be used for trail and related green space development, AmeriCorps Grants can be used to fund support for park maintenance. SAFETULU Funds as well as Safe Routes To School Funds should be pursued for the trail improvements outlined in the plan. SAFETULU monies require a 20% match by CCPR and Safe Routes to School Funds require no match by CCPR. CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) funds are used by many agencies to enhance parks. These funds should be used to support the re-development of major facilities based on its location in Carmel and what it will do to enhance the neighborhood and schools surrounding the park which is the purpose for CDBG monies. AmeriCorps Grants should be pursued by CCPR to support park maintenance and cleanup of drainage areas where trails are located and small neighborhood parks in Carmel. Federal Housing Grants can also help support parks near federal housing areas and should be pursued if appropriate. Impact Fees: Impact fees shift the cost of new and expanded park facilities from the community at large to the new development that is generating the need for those new and expanded facilities. Impact fees, however, cannot be used to finance improvements to overcome existing deficiencies in park facilities, nor can they be used to fund maintenance or operations. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation222 Internal Park Improvement Fund: This funding source is created from a percentage of the overall park admissions to attractions such as sport complexes or special events in the park and would allow a percentage usually in the 3%-5% of gross revenues as be dedicate to the park for existing and future capital improvements. This funding source is used for sports complexes, aquatic parks, recreation center, golf courses, and fee based parks. This type of user fee generally does not require voter approval but is set up in a dedicated fund to support the existing attraction for future maintenance and improvements. Tax Allocation or Tax Increment District: Commonly used for financing redevelopment projects. A Tax Allocation District (TAD) involves the issuance of tax-exempt bonds to pay front- end infrastructure and eligible development costs in partnership with private developers. As redevelopment occurs in the Carmel, the “tax increment” resulting from redevelopment projects can be used to retire the debt issued to fund the eligible redevelopment costs. The public portion of the redevelopment project funds itself using the additional taxes generated by the project. TADs can be used to fund park improvements and development as an essential infrastructure cost. The City of Valparaiso has used this funding source extensively for their redevelopment of the downtown area and has made a huge impact on the image and impact to parks and business in the downtown area. Developer Cash-in-Lieu of meeting the Open Space Requirement: Ordinances requiring the dedication of open space within developments to meet the park and recreation needs of the new residents often have provisions allowing cash contribution to substitute for the land requirement. Facility Authority: A Facility Authority is sometimes used by park and recreation agencies to improve a specific park or develop a specific improvement such as a stadium, large recreation center, large aquatic center, or sports venue for competitive events. Repayment of bonds to fund the project usually comes from a sales tax in the form of food and beverage. A facility Authority could oversee improvements for the large facilities; such as, aquatic center and sports fields appropriate. CCPR could seek out a private developer to design build a park/facility with CCPR paying back these costs over a 20-year period. The Facility Authority would include representation from the schools, CCPR and private developers. Utility Lease Fee: Utility lease fees have been used to support parks in the form of utility companies supporting a park from utility easements, storm water runoff and paying for development rights below the ground. This funding source is derived from fees on property owners based on measures such as the amount of impervious surfacing as well as fees from utility companies having access through the park. It is used by many agencies to acquire and develop greenways and other open space resources that provide improvements in the park or development of trails. Improvements can include trails, drainage areas, and retention ponds that serve multiple purposes such as recreation, environmental protection, and storm water management. This could be a source for the utilities to make a contribution to support the parks and trails in the future. Transient Occupancy Tax: This funding source is used by many agencies to fund improvements to parks from hotels that benefit from the parks and Transient Occupancy Taxes are typically set at 7%-8% on the value of a hotel room with a 1% sales tax that can be dedicated for park and recreation improvement purposes. Because of the value that parks could provide in the way of events, sports, entertainment and cultural events hotels in the area that benefit could be set up with a portion of their occupancy funds going to support park and recreation related improvements. This funding source could be implemented progressively as CCPR increases the number of events it sponsors. Tracking the economic value back to the hotels is important to build trust with the Hotel business community. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 223 Food and Beverage Tax: These dollars can come from the local community as well as visitors to Carmel to help pay for a bond to finance future park and recreation related improvements. Food and Beverage Taxes are very well accepted in most Midwest communities. The Town of Brownsburg has a dedicated 1% sales tax on food and beverage for parks in the Town. Accumulated Building Funds: The Park Board, under Indiana code 36-10-3 can establish a Cumulative Building fund for the Department. These funds can provide money for building, remodeling and repairing park and recreation facilities. In addition, the Park Board can purchase land with the funds for park and recreation purposes. The Cumulative Building Fund must be proposed by the Park Board and then approved by the City Council in order to levy the tax. The Cumulative Building Fund can provide capital funds that are best utilized for improvements to existing park and recreation amenities and facilities in the system. Capital Improvement Fee: A capital improvement fee can be added to an admission fee to a recreation facility or park attraction to help pay back the cost of developing the facility or attraction. This fee is usually applied to golf courses, aquatic facilities, recreation centers, stadiums, amphitheaters, and special use facilities such as sports complexes. The funds generated can be used either to pay back the cost of the capital improvement on a revenue bond that was used to develop the facility. Capital improvement fees normally are $5 per person for playing on the improved site or can be collected as a parking fee. Lease Back: Lease backs are a source of capital funding in which a private sector entity, such as a development company, buys the land or leases the park land and develops a facility such as a park, recreation attraction, recreation center, pool, or sports complex; and leases the facility back to the municipality to pay off the capital costs over a 30 to 40 year period. This approach takes advantage of the efficiencies of private sector development while relieving the burden on the municipality to raise upfront capital funds. This funding source is typically used for recreation and aquatic type facilities, stadiums, civic buildings, and fire stations. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation224 6.4.2 FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPERATIONAL DOLLARS Land Leases/Concessions: Land leases and concessions are public/private partnerships in which the municipality provides land or space for private commercial operations that enhance the park and recreational experience in exchange for payments to help reduce operating costs. These can range from restaurants to full management of recreation attractions. Admission to the Park: Many park and recreation systems in the United States have admission fees on a per car, per bike and per person basis to access a park that can be used to help support operational costs. Car costs range from $3 to $5 a car, $2 a bicycle or $2 a person. This fee may be useful for large events and festivals that have the capability to be set up as a fee based park at least on weekends. Parking Fee: Many parks that do not charge an admission fee will charge a parking fee. Parking rates range from $3 to $4 a day. This funding source could work for helping to support special events, festivals and tournaments. User Fees: User fees are fees paid by a user of recreational facilities or programs to offset the costs of services provided by the a agency in operating a park, a recreation facility or in delivering programs and services. For services where CCPR believes they cannot move forward on adequate user fees to obtain the cost recovery goals, consideration of contracting with a not-for-profit and/or private company to help offset service costs should be pursued. This would save CCPR dollars in their operational budgets while still ensuring the community receives the service to keep the quality of life at a high standard. Corporate Naming Rights: In this arrangement, corporations invest in the right to name an event, facility, or product within a park in exchange for an annual fee, typically over a ten-year period. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 225 The cost of the naming right is based on the impression points the facility or event will receive from the newspapers, TV, websites, and visitors or users to the park. Naming rights for park and recreation facilities are typically attached to sports complexes, amphitheaters, recreation centers, aquatic facilities, stadiums, and events. Naming rights are a good use of outside revenue for parks, recreation facilities or special attractions in Carmel. Corporate Sponsorships: Corporations can also underwrite a portion or all of the cost of an event, program, or activity based on their name being associated with the service. Typically, sponsorships are title sponsors, presenting sponsors, associate sponsors, product sponsors, or in-kind sponsors. Many agencies seek corporate support for these types of activities. Advertising sales on sports complexes, scoreboards, gym floors, trash cans, playgrounds, in locker rooms, at dog parks, along trails, flower pots, and as part of special events held in CCPR parks/ facilities to help support operational costs have been an acceptable practice in parks and recreation systems for a long time and should be considered CCPR to support operational costs. Maintenance Endowment Fund: This is a fund dedicated exclusively for a park’s maintenance, funded by a percentage of user fees from programs, events, and rentals. Park Revolving Fund: This is a dedicated fund to be used for park purposes only that is replenished on an ongoing basis from various funding sources such as grants, sponsorships, advertising, program user fees and rental fees within the park. Permit Fees: This fee is incorporated for exclusive reservation for picnic shelters, sports fields, special events, and competition tournaments by other organizations. Permit fees include a base fee for all direct and indirect costs for CCPR to provide the space on an exclusive basis plus a percentage of the gross for major special events and tournaments held on CCPR owned permitted facilities. Alcohol permits should be explored and if determined worthwhile, added to these permits which would generate more dollars for CCPR for these special use areas. These dollars could be applied to the Park Revolving Fund to help support park improvements. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation226 6.4.3 PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES Business/Citizen Donations: Individual donations from corporations and citizens can be sought to support specific improvements and amenities. CCPR might consider trying to raise the money privately for the development of major facilities. Private Foundation Funds: Nonprofit community foundations can be strong sources of support for the Department and should be pursued for specific park and recreation amenities. CCPR could rely on the Parks Foundation or working under another community foundation to support park related programs and improvements. Nonprofit Organizations: Nonprofit organizations can provide support for green space and parks in various ways. Examples include: • Conservancy or Friends Organization: This type of nonprofit is devoted to supporting a specific park. These Park Conservancy’s or Friends Groups are a major funding source for parks in the United States and should be considered for CCPR parks and recreation facilities especially Central Park • Greenway Foundations: Greenway foundations focus on developing and maintaining trails and green corridors on a city-wide basis. CCPR could seek land leases along trails as a funding source, in addition to selling miles of trails to community corporations and nonprofits in Carmel. The development rights along the trails can also be sold to local utilities for water, sewer, fiber optic, and cable lines on a per mile basis to support development and management of these corridors. Indianapolis Greenway Foundation has been very successful in raising matching funds for development of trails in the city of Indianapolis 6.4.4 VOLUNTEER SOURCES Adopt-an-Area of a Park or a Park: In this approach, local neighborhood groups or businesses make a volunteer commitment to maintaining a specific area of a park. Adopt-an-Area of a Park arrangements are particularly well-suited for CCPR’s local or community parks. Adopt-a-Trail: This is similar to Adopt-a-Park but involves sponsorship of a segment of a trail (e.g., one mile) for maintenance purposes. Community Service Workers: Community service workers are assigned by the court to pay off some of their sentence through maintenance activities in parks, such as picking up litter, removing graffiti, and assisting in painting or fix up activities. Most workers are assigned 30 to 60 hours of work. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 227 CHAPTER SEVEN – ACTION PLAN Based on community feedback, stakeholder input, technical analysis, and the priority rankings outlined within this Master Plan, the following key recommendations were developed to enhance the park and recreation system and position it to best serve the current and future needs of the community. The full Action Plan can be found in Appendix 5. 7.1 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1.1 ENHANCE PARK AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY: • Expand trails, river access, and environmental education along the White River Regional Corridor • Facilitate implementation of a West Regional Corridor centered on West Park • Develop a signature environmental education facility • Establish a neighborhood park strategy, recognizing the role of HOAs • Seek innovative solutions to serve identified underserved or unserved populations • Explore opportunities to provide community gardens as part of land-use strategies 7.1.2 PROVIDE EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES: • Reimagine existing parks through effective planning and appropriate updates • Create nature preserve experiences throughout the park system • Provide a diverse selection of facilities and amenities to accommodate indoor and outdoor recreational pursuits • Balance and expand program and volunteer opportunities throughout the community • Continue reinvestments in revenue facilities by adding or replacing amenities • Use Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to drive data-driven decisions regarding services and operations Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation228 7.1.3 ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM: • Develop long-term funding plan and implement Lifecycle Asset Management Plan • Continue and expand conservation management practices throughout park system • Partner with public, private, and non-profit sectors to satisfy community needs for facilities with high construction and/or operating costs • Expand environmental education and park stewardship programming to increase appreciation for natural resources • Achieve 100% cost recovery for Recreation & Facilities Division and Extended School Enrichment Division • Examine internal and external communication efforts regarding financial operations of system • Update or develop business plans for revenue facilities and programs • Identify and pursue opportunities to expand earned-income and other funding sources Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 229 7.2 “FOURWARD” FOCUS While CCPR should strive to achieve all recommendations outlined within this Master Plan, the following represent the top priorities for the next five years. Achievement of these will require the sustained effort and support of the community, elected officials, Park Board members, and CCPR to accomplish. Successfully implementing these objectives will ensure CCPR remains responsive to the identified needs of the community and positions itself to remain one of the best managed park and recreation systems in the country. The following outlines the key recommendations: • Carmel White River Regional Corridor ° River multiuse trail and working with partners to establish a regional system • West Regional Corridor ° West Park development and working with partners (e.g., Dads Club, Schools, County, etc.) ° Northwest side park • Reimagine Existing Parks ° Develop new master plans for Carey Grove, Cherry Tree, Flowing Well, Hazel Landing, Meadowlark, and River Heritage Parks ° Make a significant improvement within each existing park • Celebrate Nature ° White River Corridor ° West Park redevelopment ° Flowing Well ° Environmental education and park stewardship programming Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation230 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan 231 CHAPTER EIGHT – CONCLUSION CCPR is widely respected as a best-practice agency in the country for maintaining a consistent standard of excellence and level of service for residents of Carmel and visitors to the city. This Master Plan is designed to support CCPR in continuing to provide innovative and well-balanced facilities and programs in the community as the city grows and evolves. The community takes pride in the quality of parks and accessibility to an abundance of different park experiences. The Monon Community Center, The Waterpark, and Monon Greenway are tremendous assets to the community. CCPR also provides a wealth of programs, such as Extended School Enrichment (ESE) and the many programs offered at the Monon Community Center that reach a multitude of age segments and diverse interests represented in the community. Moving forward, additional actions are required to retain the high-quality system CCPR operates, which is to stay ahead of the park infrastructure and asset needs that CCPR owns and manages. Improving the existing recreation amenities and trails, as well as continuing to add new amenities will ensure CCPR is a community of choice for residents of Carmel. CCPR is well-positioned to build upon its legacy over the next five years of providing vibrant parks, diverse recreation facilities, sustainable park resources, and engaging recreation programs that contribute to a high quality of life in the City of Carmel.