1996-07-15SOUTHLAKE PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
July 15, 1996
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: W. Ralph Evans, Vice -President. Members: Pamela Muller, Rick
Stacy, Carol Lee Hamilton, Scott Martin, and Rod Johnson (arrived at 6:30 p.m.).
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Yelton, President.
STAFF PRESENT: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager; Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance; Tracy
Southers, Public Information Officer; Sandy LeGrand, City Secretary; and Kim Lenoir, Director
of Parks & Recreation.
Agenda Item #1, Call to Order
In the absence of President David Yelton, Vice President W. Ralph Evans called the meeting to
order at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was present.
Agenda Item #2, Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the May 20, 1996 meeting were approved as presented by a vote of 4-0.
Agenda Item #3, Presentation: 1996 Park & Recreation Survey
Dr. Jim Glass and Richard L. Cole, of Glass and Associates, the firm conducting the survey, were
present and provided an overview of the 1996 Park & Recreation Survey. [The presentation was
video-taped for the members of the Park Board and other Council members who could not attend.]
Mr. Glass gave some highlights of the survey and answered questions from the committee. The
survey was conducted in May and June 1996. The goal was to get 600 completed surveys; the
result was 637 surveys. He called attention to the basic responses of the respondents and the
frequencies, the sub -groups of the respondents in terms of age, income and other factors. He
noted that generally, all ratings for Parks & Recreation were high, indicating a high-level of
satisfaction. Dr. Glass noted that the survey indicates there is a high interest in "expanding"
recreational activities for the adult age group (16-60 years of age). The Survey also indicates top
priority being "access to library services," as generated from 74% of the respondents. However,
when the respondents were asked to rank the top three priorities, the "access to library services"
SPDC MINUTES -- REGULAR MEETING ON JULY 15, 1996 Page 1 of 4
�W�
was ranked 4th, following "undeveloped open space" as #2, and "city-wide hiking and biking
trails" as #1, and #3 being "tennis courts." See the Survey for details of the results.
Agenda Item #4.Report: Progress of Turf Grass for Bicentennial Park
Parks & Recreation Director Kim Lenoir reported there was $35,000 more allocated for turf
grass, irrigation and shade structures and the expansion of Bicentennial Park, Phase II. She
explained the reason for the additional funds for the grass. A copy of the memo explaining the
expenditures is attached to the minutes. In addition to the turf and irrigation, she discussed shade
structures and the interest from the Baseball Association to raise funds. The Baseball Association
wants to share cost with SPDC for sodding an outfield and is putting up $5,000. They would like
for SPDC to match funds.
Ms. Lenoir informed members that all of the park is being irrigated by the city wells.
Scott Martin said there has been interest from Friends of Adventure Alley, Larry Abernathy, Joey
Milner and himself to raise funds ($50,000) for construction of shade pavilions at Adventure
Alley. He noted they are approaching SPIN and other organizations to help raise the $50,000.
He commented that the $2,500 remaining in City funds from the sodding project could be used
toward the shading structure at Adventure Alley. Martin continued to explain that since the
preceding SPDC and City Council had agreed to spend some money on shading, and if there are
outside groups willing to raise money, then perhaps SPDC could expend some money towards
seed purchase. The proposed shade structures will be permanent, wooden, octagon -shaped for
$50,000. Mr. Martin said there was a pledge from the Milner family for $10,000. In regards to
the shade structures, Rod Johnson commented he would like to see lights also; there is not enough
light available on the playground. He said he would like to see lighting addressed before SPDC
spends money on shade structures.
After discussion, the committee agreed the remaining $2,500 will be spent for sod this summer.
Agenda Item #5, Consider: Trail Cost for Phase I of Kirkwood Boulevard
Kim Lenoir brought this request forward from the Park Board at the May meeting. SPDC then
requested staff to bring options to this meeting. Ms. Lenoir's memo notes there are many projects
on the list that SPDC had not been able to fund to date. Therefore, options are limited. One
option is to agree to pay for the first phase only ($20,000) with the understanding that Maguire
Thomas must add the trail at their cost to all future phases. The other options noted are to ask
the City to fund, out of the general fund or park dedication fees, or not to fund, setting the
precedent that Kirkwood Blvd. will not have an on -road bike route.
Curtis Hawk stated we have a deficit now of about $700,000 and the committee needs to go back
SPDC MINUTES -- REGULAR MEETING ON DULY 15, 1996 Page 2 of 4
and look at projects established to date for Phase I and Phase II of the park expansion. He said
we need to ask ourselves if we are to continue with the projects we are setting in motion now and
try to get the funds to do those projects, or do we pull off on some [funding] of the items that
were not on the original list?
Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance, reminded members of the initial "three-year plan." She
explained that the costs have exceeded the initial estimates and that some projects have had to be
accelerated due to timing issues faster than anticipated. She said what we are looking at are the
projects remaining on the initial plan that need to be done. Ms. Heath reiterated the information
about funds accumulating in the operating funds (presently about $527,000 as of 1996) and how
much could be used to fund these SPDC projects. The Council can, during the deliberation
portion of their budget review process, decide what portion of the operating funds can be set aside
for park use or other projects. Ms. Heath handed out budget sheets (SPDC Revenue Bond
Projects Fund and SPDC Operating Fund sheets attached to Minutes) and identified the other
projects that have been talked about but have not been considered for funding. She suggested that
the SPDC Board consider whether they want to fund the paving of the next phase of Bicentennial
Park with the shaded structures and ballfields and the land acquisition to make it complete. Heath
explained that after going through the budget process for fiscal year 1997, there will be additional
funds over and above what they have committed for SPDC projects which will be able to be added
to the funds available now. With those funds applied to the projects already committed to, there
will be a revenue bond funding deficiency of $717,000.
Mayor Rick Stacy suggested that SPDC purchase the land now -- it should be a top priority. Lou
Ann Heath said that SPDC will be refunding some outstanding debts by the end of fiscal year
1997, therefore, there would be an opportunity at that time to issue additional debts for these
projects. She suggested that the SPDC Board outline their priorities for the projects, including
the remaining items presented in the original Plan, and prioritizing the other items for
consideration. Kim Lenoir will work with architects/planners to come up with better costs
estimates on those items identified. Those figures should be ready by the budget review
meetings. $750,000 will be the starting point.
Mr. Hawk explained the acquisition process and considerations necessary for the purchase of land
in the Bob Jones Park area.
The committee talked again about the role the Trail Master Plan plays, the standards being set,
the exceptions to the Plan, and the question of whether to fund the extra two feet of pavement
needed on Kirkwood to develop the on -road bike route. The total cost of the trail pavement is
$96,000. Recognizing that the first three years of projects have already been established as
priorities, there are no funds to acquire trails. The City does have a Trail Master Plan, but the
dollars are not there yet. At some point in time the Council and the SPDC need to decide their
priorities. Rod Johnson stressed the need to either follow the Plan or not; the need for Council
SPDC MINUTES -- REGULAR MEETING ON JULY 15, 1996 Page 3 of 4
LIM
to send a clear message that they will not grant any more exceptions, if that is their position.
Rick Stacy made a motion that the SPDC not fund the trail cost for Phase I of Kirkwood
Boulevard. Scott Martin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Evans, Hamilton, Stacy, and Martin
Nays: Muller and Johnson
Vote: 4-2 to deny funding of the trail.
Ralph Evans was excused from the meeting at 7.-10 p. m. to attend another meeting.
Agenda Item #6, Discussion: 1996-97 Projects
Curtis Hawk said a list of projects provided by the previous SPDC is available. There is a section
where additional projects can be added. He suggested the projects be listed by priority rank. It
can be compiled and returned by next week.
Agenda Item #7, Consider: Election of Officer
Mayor Rick Stacy presided over this item in Mr. Evan's absence. The Mayor opened the floor
for nominations. Rod Johnson nominated David Yelton as president. Carol Lee Hamilton
seconded the nomination. Being no other nominations, the committee voted upon the nomination.
The vote was 5-0 to appoint David Yelton as president.
Pamela Muller moved to nominate Ralph Evans as Vice President. Rod Johnson seconded the
motion. The committee voted 5-0 to appoint Ralph Evans as Vice President.
Pamela Muller and Carol Lee Hamilton were nominated as Secretary. The committee voted on
the nominations independently. There were two votes in favor of Carol Lee Hamilton and three
votes in favor of Pamela Muller. Ms. Muller will serve as the Secretary.
Adjournment
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.
11
S
Sandra L. UGrand c�
City Secretary *
D:\WP-FELES\SPDC\M1NUTES.WP
David Yelton,
�W N
SPDC MINUTES -- REGULAR ON JULY 15, 1996 Page 4 of 4
Love Henry Homeowners
Southlake, Texas
329-8840, 481-3241, 481-6242
July 16, 1996
Southlake Parks and Development Corporation
Southlake City Hall Chambers
Southlake, Texas
Southlake Parks and Development members;
We,the homeowners of Love Henry Ct.have decided that we will
present a unified front on the approach to the present condition at
Bicentennial Park and the future expansion of the same park. We are a
development that has been established over 20 years, and one of the
few low density develpoments in the city. While we have been property
owners for over 20 years, we have received very little for our city
taxes,our street has not been resurfaced, our water lines not upgraded
and sewer not offered. We do however have the proximity of a park
that we spoke against in 1994 both at Planning and Zoning and City
Council meetings where we asked that the ball diamonds be positioned
on the far south portion of the property near the commercial
development. We also requested a buffer that was not on the original
plans, we received a wood fence and dead trees that stop neither
light, sound or dirt. We request the following as a means to correct
a current situation that is presently not acceptable to our
neighborhood residents:
IMMEDIATE REQUESTS
1. That under no circumstances there be any further
development Bicentennial Park until the buffer zone is purchased,
established and in place. This is the number one priority.
2. The purchase and construction of a buffer North of the
present park that is sufficient to block noise pollution, air
pollution and lights. We realize that the available zoned buffers are
not adequate for the present situation and must be changed.
3. The establishment of an attractive buffer of 15-20 feet
in height with high density, established evergreen trees and shrubs.
4. The combination of the recreation center with the pool
adjacent in one area in the center of the parking area so as to give
the police easier access to patrol the exterior of the building.
5. The recommendation that the two uses not be separated
by parking lots as foot traffic by teenagers could lead to other
items of concern.
6. The possibilities of the joint usage of recreation
center and pool area in activities.
7. The lights require further adjustment until they do not
illuminate the property adjacent to the park.
S. The lighting timers require more correction. The
fields should not be lit when not in use or beyond restricted times.
Current restrictions are not acceptable, under no circumstances
should the lights exceed 10 pm weekdays and 11 pm weekends as this was
the original agreement in 1994.
9. Do not construct a City-wide maintenance facility at
this park.
11. That all utilities be placed underground and all
utility easements be on city owned property.
10. There should be homeowner notification and input before
temporary extension of hours of use of lights and fields beyond the
current restrictions which were originally 10 pm weeknights and 11 pm
weekends.
11. We do not support the purchase of the retail frontage
on 1709 for an entrance, the purchase at commercial rates does not
seem prudent at this time.
12. The concern for the placing of priorities and time of
purchase of the buffers at Bob Jones Park as compared to Bicentennial,
especially the size comparisons and proximity of homes.
With the apparent switch of property of PIMA Properties with the
parks is a perfect time to invest the money paid for the expansion of
the shopping center for a buffer on the North side of the current
park. Mr. McMahan stated that the property where the current soccer
practice is could be donated and the new land purchased from the city,
with this property fronting Whites Chapel he also stated that it was
probably more valuable than what he was donating. Mr. McMahan seemed
very open to all suggestions of tree plantings and moving, perhaps the
buffer could be purchased and the trees that he needs to move or
replace could be used in the buffer on the North side of Bicentennial
Park in the very near future. We strongly encourage this development
with the above suggestions.
We are willing to engage in communication at any time
to solve the situation at hand and we request that we be notified
individually of all meetings of the City Council, Parks Board,
Southlake Parks Development Corporation, Joint Utilization Committee,
Planning & Zoning Commission, and Zoning Board of Adjustment, in which
any decisions involving Bicentennial Park are on the agenda.
Sincerely yours,
Si and Nell Rickman John and Kim Campbell
Harold and Angela Annie Francis and Lisa Nathan
John and Mo Remetta Izak and Gay Gregory
John and Kay Were Mike and Phyllis Benton
Mr.& Mrs. Nichols Mr.& Mrs.Prestjohn
John and Kim Campbell
495 LoveHenry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
329-8840
Micheal Benton
615 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
481-2688
Mark Prestjohn
610 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
Mr. and Mrs. Nichols
575 Love Henry Ct.
QW, Southlake, Tx
Francis and LisaNathan
535 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
481-9559
Izak and Gay Gregory
530 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
481-6504
IN
Residents of
Southlake Estates Addition
Loue Henry Ct.
Southlake, TH. 76092
Si and Nell Rickman
455 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
481-3241
John and Mo Remetta
450 Love Henry Ct.
Southlake, Tx
488-5276
Harold and Angla Annis
490 Love Henry Ct
Southlake, Tx
481-6242
John and Kay Myers
570 Love Henry Ct
Southlake, Tx
481-0206
F
11 SOUTHLAKE PARKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REVENUE BOND PROJECTS FUND
June 1994 through May 1996
Revenue bonds issued $3,5795000
Interest earnings
Total $3,73%000
Projects to date:
Carroll Middle School Gymnasium $753,000
Bicentennial Park Expansion & Land $2,197,000
Land - Bob Jones Park
Total $39250,000
Bonds funds available for projects $4899000
Remaining Projects in Initial SPDC Plan:
Bicentennial Park Phase II $430,000
Bicentennial Park - Land $300,000
Bob Jones Park - Land$4760000
Total $15206,000
Revenue Bond Funding deficiency-$717,000
Other projects identified for future consideration:
Remainder of Bob Jones Park lots; parking lot at Carroll Middle School; Land -out -parcel at
Bicentennial Park (currently in use as sand volleyball court and practice fields); Durham
gymnasium; soccer fields @ Bob Jones Park; Kirkwood Trail; Fox Hollow Trail; Tennis Center;
Land -south side park; Continental Boulevard Trail; Rockenbaugh Elementary gymnasium
A
SOUTHLAKE PARKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OPERATING FUND
Revenues
Sales tax
Interest earnings
Total
Expenditures
Personnel
Operations
Capital
Total
Other Sources/(Uses) of Funds
Transfer to Debt Service
Transfer to Revenue Bond
Projects Fund
Total
Beginning Fund Balance (10/1)
Ending Fund Balance (9/30)
15% reserve required (rounded up)
*Other Projects Identified for funding_
FY96/97 Budget - Durham Gymnasium
(debt service FY94-95, FY95-96)
FY97/98 Budget - Durham Gymnasium
(debt service FY96-97, FY97-98)
FY98/99 Budget - Durham Gymnasium
(debt service FY98-99)
Budget Preliminary
FY95/96 FY96/97
$670,500 $803,000
$21,000 $35,000
$691,500 $838,000
WOO $47,680
$4,800 $4,800
$52,480 $523480
-$363,200-$344,770
- 42 000 *- 142 4 0
-$405,200-$484,770
$393,846 $627,666
$62706 $928,416
$101,000 $120,450
$142,490
$136,790
$68,395
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
MESA DESIGN GROUP
Bicentennial Park July 8, 1996
C ' Expenditure Phasing Recommendations
i
IiDESCRIPTION COST SUBTOTAL
PHASE I -LANDS ACQUISITION
,Brunson Tract
Bank Tract
(?) $500,000.00
PHASE II — EXISTING FACILITY ENHANCEMENT
A. Shade Structure Baseball Area
$100,000.00
B. Playground Pavilion
$50,000.00 ;
C. Water Playground
$75,000.00
D. Parking Lot Expansion
$200,000.00 ,
E. Additional Trees $100,000.00 $525,000.00
PHASE III — HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL
A. One Mile Loop — 10' Concrete
$150,000.00
B. Graphics, Grading, Miscellaneous
$50.000.001
$200.000.00
PHASE IV — TEEN RECREATION AREA
A. In —Line Hockey Rink
$125,000.00
B. Basketball Courts (3)
$50,000.00
C. Sand Volleyball
$30,000.00
D. Parking Expansion
$100,000.00
stroom/Storage Area
$75,000.00
F. hting
$100,000.001
$480,000.00
PHASE V — TENNIS FACILITIES
A. Lighted Courts (8)
$250,000.00
B. Restroom/Storage Area
$150,000.00
C. Miscellaneous/Landscape
$100,000.00
$500,000.00
PHASE VI — SOFTBALL FIELD RENOVATION/OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
A. New Lighted Fields (4)
$750,000.00
B. Restroom Renovation
$100,000.00
C. Site Work/Demolition
$200,000.00
D. New Open Space Parking
$75,000.00
E. Landscape
$150,000.00
F. Picnic Facilities/Pavilion
$150,000.00
$1,425,000.00
PHASE VII — TENNIS FACILITY EXPANSION
A. Lighted Courts (8)
$300,000.00
B. Pro —Shop Facility
$150,000.00
C. Miscellaneous/Landscape
$100,000.00
D. Championship Court
$100,000.00
$650,000.00
PHASE VIII — SOUND BUFFER DEVELOPMENT
A. Land Acquisition (?) $300,000.00
?rm/Landscape j $250 000.00 $550,000.00;
Page 1
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
MESA DESIGN GROUP
Bicentennial Park July 8, 1996
"sl Expenditure Phasing Recommendations
DESCRIPTION
COST I SUBTOTAL
PHASE IX — LAND ACQUISITION
Evans Tract ' $1,500,000.00
(?) $1,500,000.00
j PHASE X — SWIMMING POOL FACILITY
A. Outdoor Pool Facility
7 $750.000.00
B. Parking
$150,000.001
C. Utilities/Lighting
$150,000.00
D. Restrooms/Changing Rooms
$100,000.00
E. Landscape
$100,000.00
$1,250,000.00
PHASE XI — FOUR BASEBALL FIELDS
A. Four Lighted Baseball Fields
$750,000.00
B. Parking Facilities
$300,000.00
C. Utilities/Grading/Miscellaneous
$300,000.00
D. Restroom/Concessions
$300,000.00
E. Playground
$75,000.00
F. Landscape
$100,000.00
$1,825,000.00
PHASE XII — RECREATION CENTER
udget Range
$6,000,000.00
$6.000,000.00
L
TOTAL PARK BUILD OUT $15,405,000.00
All unit prices, allowances, and total costs are valid for thirty (30) days. MESA Design Group
reserves the right to revise this estimate after such time.
c;\123R24\CO3TBS7\ 96020
31
Page 2
'PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
MESA DESIGN GROUP
Southlake City Park July S. 1996
Capital Expenditure Phasing Recommendations
PHASE I. - SOCCER COMPLEX
A.
Eleven Soccer Fields
$330.000.00
B.
Irrigation
$100,000.00.
I
C.
Restrooms/Shade Pavilion
$250.000.00'
,
0.
Parking Facilities ;
$250,000.00
,
E.
Utilities/Miscellaneous
S100,000.00
i
F.
Landscape ;
$100,000.00
:
G.
Playground
S50.000.00
,
H.
Add. Land Acquisition
(?) $50.000.00
' $1,230,000.00
PHASE II — HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL
i
j A.
Land Acquisition I
(?) $200.000.00
B.
3 Miles 10' Concrete Trail
$500.000.00
i�
C.
Creek Crossings (3)
$150,000.00'
D.
Tree Replacements/Culverts, Etc. i
$150.000.00
i
E.
Signage
$25,000.00
,
F.
Restrooms
$150,000.00
G.
H.
Phase One Road/Parking
White Chapel Parking
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
i
i 1.
White Chapel Trail Development
ROW Expansion I
$300.000.00 i
i $1,775.000.00 j
SE III - EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES
A.
B.
Trail Head Parking
Restroom
$150,000.001 i
$150,000.00:
C.
Utilities/Miscellaneous
$100.000.00'
jD.
Trail Signage
$25,000.00,
E.
Landscape
$75.000.00 ! $500,000.00
PHASE IV - NATURE FACILITIES
A.
B.
Loop Road Expansion
Utilities
$300,000.00,
I $100,000.00 .I
C.
Parking (50)
$50.000.00
D.
Day Camp/Restroom
$100,000.00'
E.
78001.f. Nature Trail — 6' Wide
$100.000.00! ;
F.
Minor Amphitheater Development
I $50.000.00
G.
Nature Trail Graphics
$30,000.00
. ;
j H.
Picnic Tables/Pavilions
i $50,000.00 $780.000.00,)
A
Page t
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
MESA DESIGN GROUP
Southlake City Park July 8, 1996
Capital Expenditure Phasing Recommendations
IPHASE•V — BALL FIELDS/LAKE DEVELOPMENT
A. Lake Development
$550,000.00.
B. Softball Practice Fielcs
$75,000.00
C. Lighted Soccer Fields (4)
i
$200,000.00 ! j
D. Bridge/Fishing Pier
$50.000.00'
E. Water Well
$100,000.00 !1. i
i F. Landscape
$100.000.00.
$1,075.000.00
PHASE VI — EQUESTRIAN FACILITY EXPANSION
A. Multi —Use Arena (?)
B. Parking Facilities
$175,000.00;
i C. Stables (?)
D. Utilities
$175.000.00i $350.000.00
PHASE VII - PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT
A. Land Acquisition (?)
$500,000.00
B. Park Road Development
$350,000.00
j
C. Tree Relocation
$100,000.00:
I
D. Utilities
$100,000.00
I E. Parking Facilities
$200.000.001
I
F. Pavilion/Restroom
'
$300.000.00
I
Beach/Swimming
$100.000.00
j
Fishing Pier
$100.000.001
j 1. Picnic Facilities
$100.000.001
J. Sand Volleyball
$50.000.001
�I
K. Casual Open Play Fie d
$100.000.00 j
tI
L. Landscape
$100,000.00
$2.100,000.00;
PHASE VIII - BASEBALL EXPANSION
A. Four Lighted Fields
'.$750,000.00
B. Concession s/Restroc -ns
$200,000.00
C. Playground
$50,000.00
$1,000,000.00;
PHASE IX — NATURE CENTER/OUTDOOR EDUCATION
A. Nature Center Buildirg ;
$2,000,000.00 ;
$2,000,000.00
PHASE X - AMPHITHEATER DEVELOPMENT
A. Outdoor Am phitheate • Facilities
$250,000.00 i
$250,000.00;
TOTAL PARK BUILD OUT
$11.060.000.00 i
All unit prices, allowances and total costs are valid for thirty (30) days. MESA Design Group
reserves the right to revise :his estimate after such time.
C: 41COSrESI' 96019
Page 2
City of Southlake, Texas
July 12, 1996
TO: Southlake Park Development Corporation Board of Directors
FROM: Kim McAdams Lenoir, Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Bicentennial Park Phase I - Turf Grass Report
In April, SPDC approved a $35,000 allocation to turf, topsoil, irrigation and shade
structures for Adventure Alley and the expansion of Bicentennial Park. The following has
been accomplished and programmed for this summer.
Solid Sod: Entrance ways and islands of the four-plex $ 4871
Outfield of Field #6 5000
Sprigging: Soccer Fields 6500
Irrigation: Adventure Alley 4772
Fringe areas up to entrance sign 2597
Sub -Total of work completed: 23,740
Work scheduled for next week:
Sod: Adventure Alley 4320
Slopes between F#2 & #3 1440
Outfield of Field #7 5000
Irrigation: Slopes between F#2 & #3, estimate 3000
Hydroseeding: Fields #8 & #9, by contractor no charge
Parking lot islands, outside fences asking contractor
Sub -total of work scheduled: 13,760
Donation from Southlake Baseball for 50% costs of sod for F#6 & F#7 (5,000)
Grand Total: $32,500
The item remaining to be done is shade structures. In April, Friends of the Playground
did not plan to raise funds for a pavilion at Adventure Alley. At the time my intention
was to purchase shade cloth structures if complaints were high during the summer (see
copy attached). We have received a only a couple of requests for shade. MESA Design
and the Park Board have programmed shade structures and pavilions in the future phases
of Bicentennial Park for the playground and the four-plex. Now Friends of the
Playground is raising funds for a pavilion at Adventure Alley. There has been some talk
of some of this money going to Friends of the Playground for a pavilion at Adventure
Alley. The Southlake Baseball Association is requesting that we match funds that they
raise for sodding Field #9. The Board needs to discuss your intentions for the remaining
$2500.
F-
LLI
Z
LLI
m
o >
m Z'
a
0 m L N 7
v c co ro
V C L
aci Z' m v — E
N ? O
C_ > >+ VO
E a1 aJ L E
N
E >_ > a m U v
L 0 E"a o N v N
CL aJ m
v M s O v- O D u m
0. cn 0 > W aJ
a, c `" —
vs =.o o� C ` �' v
-o cn u 3 N v ca o o .c
ivi
o. ovu] cc c'_o<:°•v vc"n>CL m
. . .
C
v
73
VI
N
-
L
U
U
L
`J
Ul
u,
N
(
x
m
c
O
N
�n
y
0
O
OP
OP
•�
C
LL
Y cfl
a)
N
V
¢
a!
a
C
O
E
c�
Y
m
aaj
�
O
o:
U
aa)
�c
E
a
v
E
V
>
>
a) �
-0
E
o
f
._
aui
n
M>
•N
c>1
v
c
Y
¢cnto330m¢co
S
om¢oo
_v
CL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
N
o
_0
cu
o
y
= CL
O
V L J
'D
(ncu
v
C
Vi
N
-a
N
O
v
_
N-34 C 5
c
cn
V
a�
N
o
-p
c°
W
0.
c
M
.0
3 0
_
ccu
0
4;
3
c>o
°A
m v 3
0
O
C
°°
aJ
C
>, G ° -p
n.
-p
LClw
a�
N
o
].� L
cu
fV
v
E zy
0
5u
CU
c
o -0
�.
-- C
V
C
N .G
C
V
N
'p 0 o
M
V
o
p
cn
a�
C
V (A
C O N
co Fua
V
aJ
>
? aJ .�
.0
w
o¢
mime,
aa3i:--0"n>am.
o
C
C
vicu
i
N c9 (n
O
C
d
rp a; cn
0.
O
C
c0
>, (A O
C
C ►
Z
co
`!
ca
_
OP0
u
cl
a
c^Co
v
0
°
V)
V)
'� c�a
E
X
ob
.. 0
cu ccu °mw-0
-x
a
a�
E
o cn
C C
cC G
Vf
'-
w
M
C
C
O
�o E
a)
� "D � 'D
YV Q)
C
C
cp
++
Q
40
cC .N
C
V
a' C -a 3
o°
N
u
n
�c c`o cU a)
c cA
In
+,
cc
a
o v
co
ai
cr
CU
D
o
'
°iw3��
=....am
.
. . .
. . .
.
.
.
.
z
0
z
>6z
zm
2
W F
m3
0
0
W
3
14
WE: ARE
AT IT
A6AjN !»
Adventure a '. Fries I
Ad a
PIC
PAVILIONS
Call to find out how
you can help.
488-3759
Larry Abernathy
City of Southlake, Texas
July 19, 1996
TO: Southlake Park Development Corporation Board
FROM: Kim McAdams Lenoir, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: On Road Bike Routes with Wide Outside Lanes
From the May meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board had requested that SPDC consider
paying for the extra two foot of pavement needed on Kirkwood to develop the on -road bike
route outlined on the Southlake City Trail System Master Plan.
Cost received from the City Engineer are as follows:
12,000 if for north & south bound lanes
2 to 3 year project
$96,000 total
Phase I - 1h mile north from Dove
starts late summer
$3.50/ sq ft plus re -engineering, use budget figure of $4/ sq. ft.
$20, 800 total of phase I
SPDC, asked the staff to bring options to the Board. As we discussed with the Board in
May there are many projects on the list that SPDC has not been able to fund to date, (ie.
Phase II of Bicentennial Park, Bob Jones Park construction and Durham Gym). Knowing
this options are limited, one option is to agree to pay for the first phase only ($20,800)
with the understanding that Maguire Thomas must add the trail at their cost to all future
phases. The other options are to ask the City Council to fund out of the general fund or
park dedication fees or not to fund, setting the precedent that Kirkwood will not have an
on road bike route.
If you have any questions please call me at 481-5581 ext 757.
, � �M' cv, ,
KML
To: Kim McAdams
Fax #: 421-2175 FOIN'
L
(,I CRe: Kirkwood Boulevard
Date: May 17, 1996
Pages: I, including this cover sheet.
I have some inforrnation kir you on Kirkwood Boulevard as we previously discussed. Sorry
that I took so long in responding. I spoke with Larry Hoffman of Lee Engineering. our
consultant on the thoroughfare plan update. Following is a summary of our discussion.
The ultimate traffic projections for Kirkwood indicate approximately 5000 to 7000 vehicles per
day. At the acceptable level of congestion (level of service 'D) that was used in the traffic
projection model, and as was used in the past models. a fox lam divided thoroughfare will
carry 18.850 to 23,200 vehicles per day. Since the ultimate traffic vokrne is projected to be
less than half the design capadty. IGrkwood Boulevard should be Ounder utilized,' and,
therefore. Kirkwood should be We to accommodate bicycle traffic without widening the
Outside lanes.
The concern for bicy� use is car tic during the peak traffic hours. Kirkwood will be heavily
traveled for a couple of hours in the morning and evening Monday through Friday. The off.
peak times, however, should not have much vehicular traffic and are probably the times that
tydists will use the road.
From the desk of...
Tom Elgin
Planner
City of Southlake
66T N. Cartoll Road
Soulhleke. TX 76M
(817) 481-5581. ext. 753
Fax. (517) 4W9370
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 1996 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY
Prepared by:
Richard L. Cole
James J. Glass
Darcy Imm
of
Glass and Associates
June1996
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 l
A
M
I. INTRODUCTION
During the months of May and June 1996, a park and recreation survey was
designed and administered by Glass and Associates (GA) for the City of Southlake. The
1996 survey is the first park and recreation survey conducted for the city. The results of
the survey provide the city council and staff with a data base that is representative of
attitudes of the citizens of Southlake. The information identifies the extent of park
facility and recreation program use, citizen perceptions regarding various aspects of park
facilities and recreation programs, and the degree of citizen interest in expanded or new
facilities and programs. The report is divided into six sections: introduction,
methodology, sample characteristics, park and recreation ratings, preferences for
expanded or new facilities and programs, and conclusions.
_ Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996
II. METHODOLOGY
A simple random sample was selected as the most appropriate design for the
study. To obtain a representative sample of all adult residents with a -;'- 4 percent margin
of error at the 95 percent confidence level 600 completed interviews were needed. A
total of 637 useable interviews was obtained. GA's trained interviewers administered the
survey. Training for all interviewers consisted of three basic elements. First,
interviewers were informed about details of the survey. Such items as the reasons for
doing the survey, the concept of a random sample, and the administration of the survey
were discussed. Second, telephone interviewing methods were presented. The
interviewer's attitude, methods of conducting an interview, interviewing problems, and
standard procedures were covered. Finally, the trainees were familiarized with the
questionnaire. Each question was discussed and the specific instructions on the
questionnaire were explained. The interviewers were provided with written material on
the interviewing process, and they were instructed to conduct several practice interviews.
The survey instrument for the 1996 survey was designed after consultation with
city staff. In future surveys, the 1996 instrument should be used as a base so that
comparisons across time can be made.
Using the latest state-of-the-art statistical software (SPSS MS Windows 6.1), the
raw data file was analyzed. A sample of cases was checked for accuracy and any
discrepancies were corrected. Complete protection and confidentiality of the survey data
Glass and associates _
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 4
The seven characteristics comprise a set of independent variables that could help to
explain variations among the responses of the residents. Several of the characteristics
proved useful in selected instances.
31
Glass and Associates
C r. of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 5
III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
60°e
so%
4014e
36.8%
32.3%
30%
20%
15.7%
1
10°/.
7.3%
7.9%
=
0%
Lz
.11
-- -V� I
0
39.6%
0
e
29.5%
0
et
H j16.6%
7.1 %
4.0% 2.49i6
°
O O O O
B m 10 0 10
0 0
51.8%
40%.
30%
25J.8%
20°/.
15.90%
10%
5.9%
0.6%
0%
O -1
0
-i
?
-n
of
3 CD
MCn
O
C
x
O
Glass and .associates
Income
The largest percentage of
respondents (36.8 percent) had
incomes between S 100,000-
S200,000 and a majority (77.0
percent) had incomes of S75,000
or more.
AGE
The majority of respondents were
in the 30-49 age group.
PEOPLE IN
HOUSEHOLD
A majority of respondents (51.8
percent) reported having three or
four people living in the
household.
?ark and Recreation Survey - 1996
6
A
31
I Yes
63.8%
No
36 2%
Less than 1
year
3.5%
1 to 5 years
49.3%
More than 10
years
24.2% Y`
s
6 to 10 years
23.0%
Glass and Associates
CHILDREN IN
HOUSEHOLD
A majority of respondents (63.3
percent) indicated that they had
children under the age of 13 living
at home.
Length of Residence
The largest percentage of
respondents (49.3 percent) lived in
Southlake for 1-5 years, with 472
percent reporting length of
residence as 6 years or more.
Gender
Sixty-two percent of the
respondents were female, and 38.4
percent were male.
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996
m
31
Between 114
and 1709
43.7%
North of 114
29.1 %
South of 1709
27.3%
Glass and Associates
Location of Residence
The largest percentage of
respondents (43.7 percent) live
between Highway 114 and
Highway 1709.
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996
IV. PARK AND RECREATION RATINGS
All respondents ,vere asked to rate the city's park and recreation facilities and, as
Figure 1 shows, a majority (64.1 percent) rate the facilities as good, with 19.3 percent
offering a rating of excellent, for a combined excellent/good rating of 33.4 percent.
Respondents were then asked if they had used a park facility in the past year, and 61.1
percent responded that they or a family member had used a Southlake park. As Table 1
shows, park use declined as length of residence and age increased, increased as income
and the number of people in the household increased, was higher among families with
children and females than among families without children and males, and was lowest
among respondents living north of Highway 114.
Respondents who had used park facilities were then asked to rate them in terms of
hours of operation, personal safety, location, cleanliness, and overall quality. As may be
seen in Table 2, 96 percent or more of the respondents reported being very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with all aspects of the park facilities being rated.
Turning to recreation programs, respondents were asked if they or a family
member had participated in a recreation program in the past year and 22.4 percent said
yes. The pattern of participation in recreation programs among respondent subgroups
was similar to that of park use. Participation generally declined as length of residence
and age increased and increased with income and number of persons in the household.
Participation rates were greater among families with children than among those without
children and were lowest among respondents living north of Highway 114 (see Table 3).
Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996
Figure 1
Ratings of Park and Recreation Facilities aw
Excellent
19.30i
Good
Poor 64.1 %
1.2%
Fair
15.4%
Glass and Associates
Citv of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1096 10
N
A
Table 1
Park Use by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Length of Residence
Response 3-1 months 1-5 years 6-10 years I More than 10
years
Yes I 72.7 68.9 ( 64.0 38.0
Age
Response
j
under 20
20-29 30-39
I
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older
Yes
60.0
64.0 73.9
71.5
35.0
23.3
26.7 I
i
Income
Response
Less than
$50,000
$50,000-
$75.000
$75,001-
$100,000
$100,001-
$200,000
Over
$200,000
Yes
30.0
45.5
66.7
68.7
81.8 '
Number of People in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
Yes
21.6
41.9
68.1
83.0
100.0
Response
Children
No Children
Yes
75.6
36.6
Gender
Response
Female
Male
Yes
64.2
55.6
Response
North 114
Between 114 and
1709
South of 1709
Yes
52.8
65.5
65.9 11
Glass and associates
Cite of Southlake Park ant R.-creation Survey - 1996 I 1
M
Table 2
Satisfaction with Facilities
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Hours of operation 63.7
1 34.7
1.1
Personal safety ! 6 7. 5
29.8
0.3
Location
71.4 27.0
1.1 � 0.5
Cleanliness
69.2
26.8
3.2 0.8
Overall quality
67.1
30.8
1.9 0.3 j
Table 3
Recreation Program Use by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Length of Residence
Response
3-12 months
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10
years
Yes
27.7
26.0
24.1
12.1
Age:-
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older
Yeas
0 0
8.0
26.8
28.5
14.7
2.3
13.3
µ
Response
Less than
$50,000
$50,000-
$75.000
$75,001-
$100,000
$100,001-
$200,000
Over
$200,000
Yes
9.8
14.9
19.8
28.7
38.1
_.:Number of People in.Househ_ old - . � r
Response
1~
2
3-4
5-6 :::[!or
more
Yes
13.5
4.5
-25.2
43.0
50.0
�^ y
Response
Children
No Children
Yes
32.2
6.8
Response
North 114
Between 114 and
1709
South of 1709
Yes
17.6
26.1
25.2
Glass and Associaies
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 12
Respondents who had participated in a recreation program were asked to indicate
their level of satisfaction with the following factors: instructor or staff, program class
met expectations, efficiency of registration, and overall quality. As was the case with
park facilities, a majority of respondents indicated they were very satisfied with each
recreation program factor (see Table 4). Instructors or staff recorded the largest "very
satisfied" percentage (71.5 percent).
Glass and .-Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 13
Table 4
0
A
Satisfaction with Participation
j
Very,
Satisfied
Somewhat "
Satisfied
Somewhat '.'
Dissatisfied
"-Very : �- `
Dissatisfied .
j Instructor or staff
71.5
24.1
4.4
0.0
Program/ class
met expectations
67.7
25.0
6.6
i
0.7
Efficiency of
registration
64.7
30.2
3.6
1.4
Overall quality
65.9
29.0
5.1 10.0
Glass and associates
Ciry of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996 14
V. EXPANDED OR NEW PROGRAMS
This section of the report focuses on respondent preferences for new or expanded
park facilities and recreation programs. Respondents were first asked about their level of
interest in developing or expanding recreational activities for persons in the following age
,groups: under 4 years of age, 5-11, 12-15, 16-60, and over age 60. Respondents then
were asked about their preferences for new or expanded park and recreation facilities.
Program Expansion by Age Group
Table 5 displays the overall level of interest respondents had for programs for
each age group. As may be seen in Table 5, respondents were most interested in more
programs for adults age 16-60 (55.9 percent very interested) followed by programs for
(4XV1
children age 12-15 (39.9 percent very interested).
Support for program development or expansion did vary among respondent
subgroups. Looking first at programs for children age 4 and under, the percentage of
those who were very interested declined as length of residence and age increased. The
percentage of those who were very interested increased with number of people in the
household and was larger among families with children and females than among families
without children and males (see Table 6).
In the 5-11 age group support again declined as age increased and increased with
the number of people in the household. More support for such program expansion was
Glass and 'associales
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 I
Table 5
A
31
Expanding Recreational Activities for Various Age Groups
Age Group VeryInterested
Somewhat Interested Not Interested
A,_, - 4 and under ! ? 1.7
11.3 67. t
-11 i 39.4
14.3
� 46.3
12-15 31.9
17.5
50.6
16-60
55.9 21.6
22.5
Over 60
15.0 13.7
71.3 I
Table 6
Percentage Very Interested in Programs for Children Four and Under
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Length of Residence
Response
3-12 months
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10!
years
Very Interested
25.0
25.8
20.8
11.5
Age -
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older
Very
Interested
50.0
55.0
43.2
9.2
9.5
7.1
0.0
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
Very
Interested
7.7
9.9
26.8
26.7
66.7
Children'atHome
Response
Children
No Children
Very
28.8 .
9.3
;Intreres�ted
,mot?srw
Response
Female
Male
Very Interested
26.0
15.1
Glass and .-associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996
16
found among families with children and in residents living between highways 114 and
1709 and south of 1709 (see Table 7). For children age 12-15 support for program
development and expansion declined with age and increased with number of people in
household and among families with children (see Table 8).
For adults age 16-60 the support pattern changed somewhat. The decline in
support was less pronounced when length of residence is examined and support increased
with age up to age group 60-69. Support for program expansion for this age group was
higher among females than males, among residents living south of Highway 114, and
generally increased with income (see Table 9).
Finally, for adults over the age of 60 support increased with length of residence
and age, declined with income, and varied with number of people in the household.
Support for increased activities was higher among families without children and among
respondents living north of Highway 114 (see Table 10).
For each age group, those respondents who indicated they were very interested in
expanded activities were then asked about their level of support for specific activities.
The responses to these questions are displayed in Tables 11-15. As may be seen in the
tables, the percentages of respondents who were very interested in all types of programs
were slightly higher for children through the age of 15 than they were for adults age 16
and older.
31
Glass and Associates
Citv of South lake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 17
Table 7
A
Percentage Very Interested in Programs for Children Age 5-11
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Age
'Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older''
Very
Interested
50.0
45.0
55.2
40.9
16.9
14.3
0.0
Number of People inHousehold
Response
1
2
34
5-6
7 or more
Very
Interested
8.3
9.7
44.8
69.0
75.0
RChUdren at Home =:,= ;,�F �►,, .��
Response
Children
No Children
Very Interested
54.9
8.0
L`ocation:o�Resideace:,�„��;�.�
Response
North 114
Between 114 and
1709
South of 1709
Very Interested
32.1
45.2
42.9
Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996 13
M
Table 8
Percentage Very Interested in Programs for Children Age 12-15
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Age
fResponse
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older '
Very
Interested
66.7
9.5
34.5
44.6
13.9
0.0
11.1
Number of People in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
Very
Interested
4.2
6.7
39.4
49.4
75.0
V
Response
Children
No Children
Very Interested
44.5
1 7.1
Glass and associates
Citv of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996 ig
Table 9
(48W, Percentage Very Interested in Programs for Adults Age 16-60
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
NJ
Length of Residence
Response
3-12 months
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10
years
Very Interested
66.7
61.0
55.9
46.7
Age
Response
i
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-
59
60-69
70 and older
Very
Interested
50.0
52.2
58.1
56.4
68.1
24.1
0.0
Income - -
, YOver
Response
Less than
$50,000
$50,000-
$75.000
$75,001-
$100,000
$100,001-
$200,000
$200,000
Very
Interested
29.0
46.9
62.4
60.0
52.9
r�:Gender .
Response
Female
Male
Very Interested
60.9
47.2
OCati6h Of ReS1deII i.... _-
Response
North 114
Between 114 and
1709
South of 1709
Very Interested
45.1
61.0
59.9
Glass and .-Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996 ? I
31
Table 11
Expanding Recreational Activities for Children Age 4 and Under
Program
Very Interested
Somewhat
Not Interested
Interested
Educational programs
64.6
16.2
19.2^
Athletic programs
52.3
26.9
20.8
Arts and crafts
63.5
15.4
20.8
Table 12
Expanding Recreational Activities for Children Age 5-11
Program t
t k-.. R �
-� "`'� ;}`� ,►�,
Very Interested h
fi fqr{^-L Y,:` .�,.`"`ti S
- ,"tom
Somewhat t
7 --T l �-7.. ��`��
.�. _Interested
:-�Not Interested:::
^� Y-•:_t v7 'n`i'��.
Educational programs
63.2�
24.4
12.4
Athletic leagues
71.5
20.9
7.7
Arts and crafts
50.9
31.6
17.5
Sports Instruction
67.1
20.5
12.4
Special Events (Festivals,
Holiday activities)
62.2
23.6
14.2
Table: 13
Expanding Recreational Activities for
Children Age 12-15
�rggra
VecyInterested
fvke�tSomewhW '
TTofiIn"teieste
Educational program
62.3
24.1
13.6
Athletic leagues
71.5
18.1
10.4
Arts and Crafts
44.8
32.3
22.9
Self development/self
esteem classes
57.2
24.2
18.6
Volunteer opportunity
47.7
28.0
24.4
Sports instruction
(golf, tennis)
53.9
25.7
20.4
Special Events
57.6
27.2
15.2
Trips
54.7
27.9
17.4
s and associates
Table: 14
Expanding Recreational Activities for Adults Age 16-60
Program
-
Very Interested
-
°Somewhat
Interested
-..Not In
. __,
Educational program
44.6
36.7
18.7
Athletic leagues
38.5
31.9
29.6
.arts and Crafts
35.5
32.5
32.0
Self development/self
esteem classes
40.1
29.7
30.2
i
Volunteer opportunity
39.2
34.9
26.0 j
Sports instruction
(golf, tennis)
43.5
31.2
25.;
Special Events
4 7. 3)
25.6
27.1
Table 15
Expanding Recreational Activities for Adults Over Age 60
Program n
_ S ,i✓i 1-y, FS ' 1J e„i.'y7f
�� Veryjpterested
�Y�.r § 4
i - <LSome�whpat�4
y#i! •;S�y�.,�,r x;.
J!;rll ltedeLL_�j„�'
Notinterest
'x
Educational program
37.7
21.3�
41.0
Arts and Crafts
41.3
23.9
34.9
Self development/self
esteem classes
3 0. 2
26.4
43.4
Volunteer opportunity
31.4
29.5
39.0
Sports instruction
(golf, tennis)
27.8
25.9
46.3
Special Events
44.6
22.3
33.0
Trips
41.4
18.9
39.6
Glass and Associates
Expansion or Development of Facilities
The final questions on the survey addressed the expansion or development of park
and recreational facilities in Southlake. First, respondents were read a list of 17 facilities
and they were asked if they placed a high, medium, or low priority on each for
themselves and their family. As Table 16 shows, the facility that received the largest
high priority percentage was access to library services (74.1 percent). Other facilities that
recorded a 50 percent or better high priority percentage were: undeveloped/natural open
space (58.8 percent), neighborhood parks (53.1 percent), and city-wide trails (50.5
percent). Facilities that recorded high priority percentages in the 40 percent range were:
access to Lake Grapevine (47.8 percent), general recreation open space (42.5 percent),
and an educational nature center (40.1 percent). The remaining facilities recorded high
priority percentage from 39.4 percent for a multi -purpose fitness center to 16.6 percent
for a roller hockey rink.
High priority support for library access increased with income and number of
people in the household. Support declined with age and was stronger among families
with children and females than among families without children and males (see Table
17).
High priority support for open space for general recreation uses increased with
length of residence and number of people in the household. Again, families with children
and females also recorded larger high priority percentages than did their counterparts (see
Table 18).
Glass and .Associates
Table 16
Support for Expanding Recreational Facilities
Facility
High
-Medium
Low
.access to library
74.1
14.5
11.4
.services
Undeveloped/natural
58.9
27.9
13.2
open space
': Neighborhood parks
53.1
29.7
17.2
City wide hiking,
biking, and equestrian
50.5
29.4
20.1
trials
Nearby access to
47.8
30.4
21.7
Lake Grapevine
Open space for
42.5
41.8
15.7
general recreation
Educational Nature
40.1
35.9
24.0
Center
Multi -purpose fitness
center (gym, weights,
39.4
30.5
30.1
indoor swimming
pool)
Baseball/softball
37.3
30.0
32.7
fields
Open air animal arena
for horse and
36.3
27.9
35.8
livestock use
Soccer fields
35.4
30.9
33.7
Large family special
use park (pavilion,
32.2
33.6
34.2
play fields,
playgrounds
Arts Center (craft
rooms, little theater,
29.6
35.2
35.2
Dance studios)
Public golf course
29.0
29.3
41.6
Tennis courts/ center
27.5
38.4
34.0
Outdoor swimming
25.4
26.4
48.3
pool
Roller hockey rink
16.6
27.6
60.8
Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 25
Table 17
Percentage High Priority for Access to Library Services
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Age " .
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
1 40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older
High
Priority
100.0
72.0
77.7
79.1
68.0
48.8
45.5 F'
Income _ - ---
Response
Less than
$50,000
$50,000-
$75.000
575,001-
$100,000
5100,001-
$200,000
Over
$200,000
High Priority
57.6
63.9
74.7
79.0
76.2
Number of People in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
High Priority
55.9
61.8
78.1
84.4
100.0
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
51.4
22.6
eiidefU
Response
Female
Male
High Priority
80.2
63.6
Glass and Associates
Table 18
N
Percentage High Priority for Open Space for General Recreation
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Length of Residence
Response
3-12 months
1-5 years
6-10 years More than 10
years
High Priority
27.3
43.6
4 1. 1 44.5 j
- Number of People in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
High Priority
30.3
42.8
39.9
5 3. 7
100.0 j
Children at Home
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
28.9
13.9
�•_ ' `y _`',r'�'' r i- -_ Gender
Response
Female
Male
High Priority
47.7
34.2
and Associates
A
As shown in Table 19, high priority ratings for an educational nature center
increased with the number of people in the household and were higher among families
� ith children. High priority support for a fitness center declined with length of residence
and age, except in the 70 and over age category, and was higher among families with
children (see Table 20).
In keeping with the pattern for other facilities, support for baseball/softball fields
declined with age and was greater among families with children and in households with
more people (see Table 21). Conversely from some of the other facilities, support for an
open air animal arena generally increased with length of residence and age. Support of
the arena also was stronger among residents who lived north of Highway 114 (see Table
22).
Placing a high priority on soccer fields generally declined with age, increased as
the number of people in the household increased, and was stronger in families with
children (see Table 23). Support for a family park declined with age and increased with
the number of people in the household. Again, families with children offered more
support than families without children (see Table 24).
Families with children and females offered more support for an arts center than
did their counterparts (see Table 25). Support for a tennis center declined with age and
was greater among families with children (see Table 26). Similarly, support for an
outdoor swimming pool declined with age and was greater among families with children.
In addition, females offered more support for a pool than did males (see Table 27).
Glass and Asfociates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survev - 1996 28
A
Table 19
Percentage High Priority for Educational Nature Center
ep t3l
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Number of People in Household
Response
i
2 4 5-6 7 or more i
High Priority
52.4
38.0 38.8 52.1 50.0
Children at Home.
Response
Children
No Children
Hiah Priority
2 6. 5
13.5
Table 20
Percentage High Priority for Multi -Purpose Fitness Center
k5
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
,Lenith of Resi - nq
Response
3-12 months
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10
years
High Priority
57.1
43.9
336.2
29.2 —
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older
High
Priority
60.0
68.0
47.8
39.4
25.0
19.0
36.4
Response
Children
No Children
[—High Priority
26.2
-�
I_3.2
Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 ,g
0
Table 21
Percentage High Priority for Baseball and Softball Fields
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Age
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older
High
Priority
20.0
44.0
51.6
38.1
19.4
16.3
16.7
Number of People in Household
Response
1T
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
High Priority
24.2
18.0
42.3
53.7
75.0
Children at Home
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
31.0
6.6
Table 22
Percentage High Priority for Outdoor Animal Arena
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
4049
50-59
60-69
70 and older
High
Priority
0.0
24.0
5.1
8.7
14.3
14.3
[---25.0
.:.:- Gender _
Response
Female
Male
High Priority
12.2
6.2
Response
North 114
Between 114 and 1709
South of 1709
High Priority
17.0
7.4
8.3
Glass and Associates
Table 23
Percentage High Priority for Soccer Fields
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Age
Response under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older I
High 20.0
Priority
36.0
50.0
37.7
16.3
9.5
18.2
Number of People in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
High Priority
18.8
15.4
40.3
53.1
75.0 i
Children at Home -
:-
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
30.8
4.8
Table 24
Percentage High Priority for Large Family Park
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
sponse
FF20.0
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older
High
Priority
36.0
42.1
32.0
23.2
14.3
10.0
`r`Nuinber. 6f People'in Household
Response
1
2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
High Priority
18.2
21.5
32.1
53.1
50.0
Children
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
24.8
7.5
and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 31
Table 25
A
Percentage High Priority for Arts Center
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Children at Home
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
20.2
9.4
Gender
Response
Female
Male
High Priority
34.5
21.2
Table 26
Percentage High Priority for Tennis Center
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
Response
tinder 20
20-29
3 0-3 9
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and older+
High
20.0
48.0
38.4
24.0
17.3
14.3
18.2
Priority
Children_atHome'.
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
20.3
7.4
Table 27
Percentage High Priority for Outdoor Swimming Pool
by Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics
r70rolderHigh
Response
under 20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
Priority
40.0
44.0
28.4
24.9
18.6
19.0
} M 49. &N
X� Rhildien_atHome
Response
Children
No Children
High Priority
19.8
5.6
Glass and Associates
Table 28
Support for Expanding Recreational Facilities: Ranking the Three
(raw
Most Important From Those Listed as High Priority
Facility
First
Second _ -
Third :.. .
1: Access to library
40.9(4)
33.2
25.9 i
services
2. Undeveloped/natural
42.8(2)
33.3
23.9
open space
3. Neighborhood parks
22.6 (15)
40.2
37.4
4. City wide hiking,
biking, and equestrian
47.8 (1)
30.4
21.7
trials
5. Nearby access to Lake
22.3 (10)
28.7
48.9
Grapevine
6. Open space for general
31.0 (7)
34.5
34.5
recreation
7. Educational Nature
23.1 (14)
26.9
50.0
Center
8. Multi -purpose fitness
center (gym, weights,
29.5(9)
29.5
41.0
indoor swimming pool)
9. Baseball/softball fields
40.0(5)
37.5
22.5
10. Open air animal arena
for horse and livestock
23.5 (13)
41.2
35.3
use
11. Soccer fields
40.0(5)
37.3
22.7
12. Large family special
use park (pavilion, play
27.1 (11)
37.3
35.6
fields, playgrounds
27.1
13. Arts Center (craft
rooms, little theater,
17.9 (16)
32.1
50.0
Dance studios)
14. Public golf course
33.8(6)
35.2
31.0
15. Tennis courts/ center
41.7(3)
35.0
23.3
16.Outdoor swimming
31.8(7)
37.9
30.3
pool
17. Roller hockey rink
26.8 (12)
29.3
43.9
�We
Glass and .Associates
The final question asked respondents to rank from one to three the three most
important facilities from among all those they had named as high priority. In Table 28,
facilities are listed in order of their rank based on the percentage of respondents who
identified the facility as a high priority (the same rankings as in Table 16). The number
in parenthesis in the first column is the ranking the facility received when respondents
were asked to rank their first three choices. Some changes in rankings did occur.
Neighborhood parks dropped from 3rd in the rankings to 15th, access to Lake Grapevine
dropped from 5th to 1 Oth, an educational nature center dropped from 7th to 14th, baseball
(9th) and soccer fields (1 Ith) rose to a tie for 5th, a public golf course rose from 13th to
6th, a tennis center rose from 15th to 3rd, and an outdoor swimming pool rose from 16th
to 7th. While changes did occur in the rankings from Table 16 to Table 28, it must be
noted that access to library services, undeveloped open space, and a city-wide trail system
remained in the top four in both rankings.
Glass and associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey - 1996 34
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the 1996 Southlake park and recreation survev indicate a high
overall level of citizen satisfaction with park facilities and recreational programs. Eighty-
three percent of those surveyed rated park and recreation facilities as excellent or good.
Satisfaction ratings for specific aspects of both park facilities and recreation programs
were all over 90 percent when the very satisfied and somewhat satisfied percentages were
combined.
Overall interest in expanded programs for various ages was highest for the 16-60
age group (55.9 percent very interested), followed by those age 5-11 (39.4 percent very
interested) and 12-15 (31.9 percent very interested). In terms of specific programs, the
largest percentages were recorded for athletic leagues for children 5-11 (71.5 percent very
interested) and 12-15 (71.5 percent very interested).
Access to library services recorded the largest high priority percentage (74.1
percent) among 17 recreational facilities listed. The next highest percentage was
recorded by undeveloped open space (58.9 percent). Library access, undeveloped open
space and a city-wide trail system were among the top four choices both in the high
priority rankings and in a second ranking where respondents were asked to select and
rank only three facilities from among those they rated as high priorities.
The results of the 1996 survey indicate that the City of Southlake is doing a good
job in providing quality park facilities and recreational program to residents. The results
Glass and Associates
City of Southlake Park and Recreation Survey 1996 35
further provide an indication of citizen preferences for future development and expansion
of facilities and programs.
A
Glass and Associates
N
A
Wp:south3
SOUTHLAKE PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY
1996
Hello, my name is The City of Southlake is conducting a survey of its citizens on
park and recreational facilities and I would like to talk with any person age 18 or older. (TO
RESPONDENT) The city is conducting a survey to determine the perceptions citizens have of
existing park and recreational facilities and preferences they might have for future facilities. I
want to stress that this survey is being conducted by the City of Southlake and not by a candidate
for political office. The questions that I want to ask you will take only a few minutes and your
answers will be useful to city staff and council as they consider decisions about future park and
recreational facilities. All of your answers will be kept confidential.
1. First, do you receive a water bill from the City of Southlake or do you live in
the City of Southlake?
1. Yes (ASK IA-B) 2. NO (TERMINATE)
IA. How long have you lived in Southlake? (DO NOT READ
RESPONSES WHEN ALL IN CAPS)
1. LESS THAN 3 MONTHS (TERMINATE INTERVIEW)
2. NO LONGER LIVE IN Southlake (TERMINATE INTERVIEW)
3. 3 TO 12 MONTHS
4. 1-5 YEARS
5. 6-10 YEARS
6. MORE THAN 10 YEARS
9. NO RESPONSE/DON'T KNOW (NRMK). (TERMINATE INTERVIEW)
2. Overall, would you rate Southlake's park and recreation facilities as excellent, good,
fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
3. Have you or any members of you family used any of Southlake's park facilities in the
past 12 months?
1. YES (ASK 3A) 2. NO (GO TO 4)
A
3 A. Regarding the facilities you have used, are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with each of the following?
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very NR/DK
sat sat dissat dissat
a. Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 9
b. Personal safety 1 2 3 4 9
c. Location 1 2 3 4 9
d. Cleanliness 1 2 3 4 9
e. Overall quality 1 2 3 4 9
4. Have you or any members of you family participated in any of Southlake's recreational
programs or classes in the past 12 months?
1. YES (ASK 4A) 2. NO (GO TO 5) 9. NR/DK
4A. Regarding the programs or classes you have participated in, are you very satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with each of the following?
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very NR/DK
sat sat dissat dissat
a. Instructor or staff 1 2 3 4 9
b. Program/class met
expectations 1 2 3 4 9
c. Efficiency of registration 1 2 3 4 9
d. Overall quality 1 2 3 4 9
2
5. Would you or members of your family be very interested, somewhat interested, or not
' interested in developing or expanding recreational activities for persons in the following
age groups?
Very
Somewhat
Not
NR/DK
int
int
int
a. Children age 4 and under
1
2
3
9
If "very interested," how
interetested would you be in each
of the following specific activities?
1. Educational programs
1
2
3
9
2. Athletic programs
1
2
3
9
3. Arts and crafts
1
2
3
9
b. Children age 5 -11
1
2
3
9
If "very interested," how
interetested would you be in each
of the following specific activities?
1. Educational programs
1
2
3
9
2. Athletic leagues
1
2
3
9
3. Arts and crafts
1
2
3
9
4. Sports Instruction
1
2
3
9
5. Special Events (Festivals,
Holiday Activities)
1
2
3
9
c. Children age 12-15
1
•2
3
9
If "very interested," how
interetested would you be in each
of the following specific activities?
1. Educational programs
1
2
3
9
2. Athletic leagues
1
2
3
9
3. Arts and Crafts
1
2
3
9
4. Self development/self
esteem classes
1
2
3
9
s
5. Volunteer opportunities
1
2
3
9
6. Sports instruction (golf,
tennis)
1
2
3
9
7. Special Events
1
2
3
9
8 Trips
1
2
3
9
d. Adults age 16-60
1
2
3
9
If "very interested," how
interetested would you be in each
of the following specific activities?
1. Educational programs
1
2
3
9
2. Athletic leagues
1
2
3
9
3. Arts and Crafts
1
2
3
9
4. Self development/self
esteem classes
1
2
3
9
5. Volunteer opportunities
1
2
3
9
6. Sports instruction (golf,
tennis)
1
2
3
9
7. Special Events
1
2
3
9
e. Adults over age 60
1
2
3
9
If "very interested," how
interetested would you be in each
of the following specific activities?
1. Educational programs
1
2
3
9
2. Arts and Crafts
1
2
3
9
3. Self development/self
esteem classes
1
2
3
9
5. Volunteer opportunities
1
2
3
9
6. Sports instruction (golf,
tennis)
1
2
3
9
L
7. Special Events 1
2
3
9
8. Trips 1
2
3
9
6A. I'm going to read a list of park and
recreation facilities that
might be
expanded or
developed in Southlake. As I read each
one,
please tell me whether the facility
or program
is a high, medium or low priority for you and
your family.
High
Medium
Low
NR/DK
a. City wide hiking, biking,
and equestrian
trail system
1
2
3
9
b. Undeveloped/natural
open space
1
2
3
9
c. Open space for general
recreation/picnics
1
2
3
9
d. Soccer fields
1
2
3
9
e. Baseball/softball fields
1
2
3
9
f. Tennis courts/center
1
2
3
9
g. Outdoor swimming pool
1
2
3
9
h. Neighborhood parks
1
2
3
9
i. Public golf course
1
2
3
9
j. Access to library services
1
2
3
9
k. Large family special use
park (pavilion, playfields,
playgrounds)
1
2
3
9
I. Multi -purpose fitness center
(gym, weights, indoor swimming
pool)
1
2
3
9
m. Arts Center (craft rooms,
little theater, Dance studios)
1
2
3
9
n. Roller hockey rink
1
2
;
9
5
o. Educational Nature Center 1
2
3
9
p. Open air animal arena for
horse and livestock use 1
2
3
9
q. nearby access to Lake Grapevine
for swimming, picnicking, or
fishing (no boat ramps) 1
2
3
9
6B. You gave a high priority ranking to (INTERVIEWER REPEAT FACILITIES
RANKED AS HIGH PRIORITY). Of those facilities, which three are the most important
to you and your family?
Mentioned
Not mentioned
NR/DK
a. City wide hiking, biking,
and equestrian
trail system 1
2
3
9
b. Undeveloped/natural
open space 1
2
9
c. Open space for general
-3
recreation/picnics 1
2
3
9
d. Soccer fields 1
2
3
9
e. Baseball/softball fields 1
2
3
9
f. Tennis courts/center 1
2
3
9
g. Outdoor swimming pool 1
-2
3
9
h. Neighborhood parks 1
2
3
9
i. Public golf course 1
2
3
9
j. Access to library services 1
2
3
9
k. Large family special use
park (pavilion, playfields,
playgrounds) 1
2
3
9
6
I. Multi -purpose fitness center
(gym, weights, indoor pool 1
2 3
9
m. Arts Center (craftrooms, little
theater, dance studios) 1
2 ;
9
n. Roller hockey rink 1
2 3
9
o. Educational Nature Center 1
2 3
9
p. Open air animal arena for
horse and livestock use 1
2 3
9
q. Nearby access to Lake Grapevine
for swimming, picnicking or
fishing (no boat ramps) 1
2 3
9
7. Now for the last several questions I would like
to ask you some things about yourself
so that we may develop a profile of our sample.
Into which of the following age groups
do you fall?
1. under 20 3. 30-39 5. 50-59
7. 70 or over
2. 20-29 4. 40-49 6. 60-69
9. NR/DK
8. I am going to read several different income categories. Without telling me your exact
income, into which category did your total household income for the past year fall?
1. Less than $50,000 3. 75,001-100,000 5. Over 200,000
2. 50,000-$75,000 4. 100,001-200,000 9. NR/DK
9. How many people live in your household?
1. 1 2.2 3. 3-4 4. 5-6 5. 7 or more 9 DR/DK
10. Do you have any children age 18 or younger living in your household?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
(4� 1 7
11. Do you reside north of Highway 114, between highway 114 and FM 1709, or sough
of FM 1709?
1. North 114 2. Between 114 and 1709 3. South 1709 9. NR/DK
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. We believe that this
roject will help city officials provide better services to all citizens.
12. INTERVIEWER: RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT
1. FEMALE 2. MALE 9. NR/DK
8