Bentonville pmp supplement 1 final document

BENTONVILLE PARKS & RECREATIO ON TEN YEAR MASTER PLAN Supplement 1: Maintenance & Management Report Adopted: August 22, 2017

P repared For: Bentonville Parks & Recreation

This page intentionally blank

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT ETM Associates, LLC The population of Bentonville is experiencing rapid growth, and is expected to continue to grow throughout the near future. To accommodate this growth, several parks and trails have been added to Bentonville in the past decade, which has increased the acreage Bentonville Parks and Recreation (BPR) needs to maintain. As of the time of this report, BPR maintains approximately 860 acres of parks, including 50 miles of trails and a mountain bike park, and operates two community facilities. BPR estimates that their parks receive roughly 2 million visitors annually. As the population continues to increase, more parks, open spaces, trails, recreation facilities, and services will need to be provided in order to serve the additional population. The Master Plan provides recommendations for how Bentonville may best facilitate this growth, and proposes the creation of a “Grand Loop� for the city that links together the elements of the park and recreation system.

Additionally, an increase in population will mean that parks, facilities, etc. will experience a higher level of use, resulting in more frequent maintenance and thus higher maintenance costs. BPR will need effective maintenance and management practices to address these higher demands and continue to provide quality service.

This section, provided by ETM Associates, LLC, reviews BPR’s current operations and maintenance, and compares their operations to similar organizations around the country. This analysis was coupled with the Master Plan proposals to produce maintenance estimates and recommended strategies for efficient operations, now and into the future.

Aerial Illustration of how the Grand Loop and Park system will work throughout Bentonville 1

R EVIEW OF EXISTING OPERATIONS & M AINTENANCE The BPR maintenance division consists of 18 full-time staff (divided between Sanitation, Athletics, Grounds, Turf, and Horticulture) and 15 seasonal/temporary staff, as well as five full-time and two part-time staff for facilities, with some supplemental contracted trades work. The division is currently facing several challenges including a back log of needed repairs, drive times between locations, and a reduction of temporary staff. The maintenance staff is also a younger workforce, which represents both a challenge and an opportunity: staff will need training, but may bring new ideas and have the potential to stay and grow with the department. Overall, BPR’s younger staff is a plus, as many municipal workforces across the United States are, on average, much older and will soon be retiring without the infusion of new younger staff.

However, BPR is experiencing some staff turnover across the department.

BPR also has twelve full-time recreation staff, with approximately 100 part-time and 40 seasonal recreation staff. Within the past few years, the number of community events and overall programming has increased, requiring more staff. While the majority of participants in recreation programs are from Bentonville, a considerable number of participants come from outside of Bentonville (about 40% of participants in recreation programs in 2016 were non-residents). Non-residents pay a higher membership fee at BPR’s community centers, which are currently the only entities/ programming to have resident-versus-non-resident status/pricing. All community center members receive a discount on BPR programs and classes.

BPR has shared facilities with parks, schools, and private properties across Bentonville, and upholds a good working partnership with the Bentonville School District and

Maintenance staff regrading the landscape next to a new path

BPR has a range of maintenance equipment for their work

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

several other organizations. The City has some contractual arrangements with its partners, but most are informal and are being impacted by the growth of the area.

Other organizations involved with the operations and/or maintenance of Bentonville parks, trails, and open spaces include: •

Bentonville Public Works Department

•

Walton Family Foundations

•

Razorback Greenway

•

Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art

•

Compton Gardens

•

Tree and Landscape Committee

•

Public Arts Advisory Committee

•

Downtown Bentonville, Inc.

•

Visit Bentonville

The operations and maintenance of parks and facilities are generally paid for through sales tax. BPR also receives some funds through parks impact fees collected by the City, and fees from programs (the majority of public programming offered by BPR is fee-based). There is a potential to have additional funding from Walmart and its vendors. As of the time of this report, BPR has about a 65% overall operating cost recovery.

Storage of equipment at BPR’s maintenance facility

Top: Plant grow-out area of City Greenhouse; Bottom: Compost area

3

PARK AND R ECREATION DEPARTMENTS CASE STUDIES ETM conducted a review of four comparable, successful park operations in order to establish a benchmark to compare with Bentonville and inform the operations and maintenance recommendations of the Master Plan. Generally speaking, these case studies were selected with an eye towards the future of Bentonville, looking toward what the city could be, rather than what it currently is. Areas of higher population than the City of Bentonville were used to mimic Bentonville’s projected population.

Three of the four case studies are Gold Medal parks and recreation programs, which reflect BPR’s vision of also becoming an award-winning program.

The four parks and recreation departments chosen as case studies for Bentonville include: •

Fayetteville, AR – chosen as a local case study

•

Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation, IN – chosen as a Gold Medal program

•

Springfield-Greene County Parks and Recreation Board, MO – chosen as a Gold Medal example of a county-wide parks and recreation program that had rapid population growth in the past

•

Grand Junction, CO – chosen as an example of Bentonville’s current condition of being a City that serves a wider surrounding area that matches future population projections for Bentonville

As in Bentonville, all of the parks departments chosen for case studies are responsible for operations, maintenance, and programming of their parks and facilities, with some help from community partners.

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

COMPARISONS & ANALYSIS WĂƌŬ ĐƌĞƐ ƉĞƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ϰϬ͘ϬϬ

ϯϳ͘ϳϴ

ϯϬ͘ϬϬ

Z ^

In terms of population and city area, Grand Junction and its urban area is the most comparable to the current population of Bentonville and the Greater Bentonville area, while Springfield-Greene has the highest population and largest area.

Springfield-Greene also has the most miles of trails (104 miles) and the most recreation and community facilities (8 facilities).

ϮϬ͘ϬϬ

ϭϮ͘ϲϮ ϭϬ͘ϬϬ

In order to establish a consistent comparison for the case studies, the amount of parks and facilities were looked at in terms of a level of service or on a per capita basis. For example, park acreage was compared in terms of park acres per 1,000 residents. Figures 1, 2, and 3 compare the case studies based on park acreage, miles of trails, and square feet of indoor recreation, respectively.

ϭϵ͘ϭϴ

ϭϳ͘ϰϰ

ϲ͘Ϯϴ

ϲ͘ϭϬ

ϱ͘ϵϱ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ &ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ WΘZ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ ĂƌĞĂ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

Figure 1: Park Acreage per 1,000 Residents (Note: acreage does not include trails) DŝůĞƐ ŽĨ dƌĂŝůƐ ƉĞƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ϭ͘ϮϬ

ϭ͘ϭϭ

ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϮ Ϭ͘ϴϬ D/> ^

As these charts show, BPR is responsible for the most amount of trails and indoor space per capita compared to the case studies. BPR is also responsible for an average amount of park acreage.

Ϭ͘ϲϮ Ϭ͘ϲϬ Ϭ͘ϰϬ

Ϭ͘ϯϲ

Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϭϴ

Ϭ͘ϮϬ

Ϭ͘ϭϳ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ &ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ WΘZ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ ĂƌĞĂ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

Figure 2: Miles of Trails per 1,000 Residents

/ŶĚŽŽƌ ZĞĐ ^& ƉĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂ Ϯ͘ϰϬ Ϯ͘Ϭϰ Ϯ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϲϱ ^Yh Z & d

Figure 4 includes additional information on participation and memberships at facilities run by the departments. Of the departments compared, Bentonville is the only one that offers a discount to residents for memberships or programs.

Fayetteville and Grand Junction do not offer any types of memberships. Like Bentonville, Carmel Clay and Springfield-Greene offer memberships for their community centers. If/When additional community centers are added in Bentonville, the City can consider having a combined membership for both centers, as is done by Springfield-Greene.

ϭ͘ϲϬ ϭ͘ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϴϬ

Ϭ͘ϳϰ

Ϭ͘ϴϬ Ϭ͘ϰϬ

Ϭ͘ϭϮ

Ϭ͘ϭϰ

Ϭ͘Ϭϲ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

η ŽĨ WƌŽŐƌĂŵ WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ

DĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĂŶĚ η ŽĨ DĞŵďĞƌƐ

ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ǀƐ EŽŶͲƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ

хϰϵϱ͕ϬϬϬ ƵƐĞĚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ хϭϲϲ͕ϬϬϬ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ ŝŶ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ

ϱ͕Ϭϯϵ ĂĐƚŝǀĞ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉƐ ; ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞŶƚĞƌ͕ ϮϬϭϲͿ

EŽŶͲƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ƉĂLJ Ă ŚŝŐŚĞƌ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĨĞĞ͖ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ Θ ĐůĂƐƐĞƐ ŚĂǀĞ ŚŝŐŚĞƌ ŶŽŶͲŵĞŵďĞƌ ĨĞĞƐ

хϲϵ͕ϬϬϬ ;ϮϬϭϰͿ͖ ϲ͕ϳϭϯ ;ƐŽĐĐĞƌ Θ ďĂƐĞďĂůů ͬ ƐŽĨƚďĂůůͿ

ŶŽ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉƐ

ŶͬĂ

ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ WĂƌŬƐ Θ ZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂƌŵĞů͕ /E

ϱϲ͕Ϭϭϳ ;D ͖ ϮϬϭϰ ƌĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐͿ͖ хϭϯŬ Ăƚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞǀĞŶƚƐ

ϵ͕ϴϵϳ ;D ͖ ϮϬϭϰͿ

ŶͬĂ

^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚͲ'ƌĞĞŶĞ ŽƵŶƚLJ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ͕ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ͕ DK

ϲϵŬ KƵƚĚŽŽƌ ƋƵĂƚŝĐƐ͕ ϰϯϴŬ &ĂŵŝůLJ ĞŶƚĞƌƐ͕ ϮϬϴŬ ŽŽ

ŶŽƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͖ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉ ŝƐ ŐŽŽĚ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ϯ ĨĂŵŝůLJ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ

ŶͬĂ͖ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ ƐŽŵĞ ĨƌĞĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ͕ K

ŶŽƚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ

ŶͬĂ͖ ĂŶŶƵĂů ƉĂƐƐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƵŶĐŚ ĐĂƌĚƐ ŽŶůLJ

ŶͬĂ

ŝƚLJ EĂŵĞ

ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ͕ Z Ͳ WĂƌŬƐ Θ ZĞĐ

&ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ͕ Z

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ &ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ WΘZ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ ĂƌĞĂ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

Figure 3: Square Footage of Indoor Recreation and Community Centers per Capita

Figure 4: Programs and Memberships 5

&d Ɛ ƉĞƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ;ϮϬϭϱͿ Ϯ͘ϱϬ

Ϯ͘Ϯϱ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ &h>>Ͳd/D Yh/s > Ed^

Figures 5, 6, and 7 compare the staffing of Bentonville and the case studies.

Once again, in order to establish a consistent comparison, categories were examined in terms of a level of service. Chart 5 shows the number of total parks department FTEs per 1,000 residents, Chart 6 shows the number of maintenance staff FTEs per 1,000 residents, and Chart 7 compares maintenance staff by the number of acres per one maintenance FTE. It should be noted that many departments contract out some work, which can skew the comparisons between them. For example, one department may contract out only a few small jobs and have more in-house staff, while another department may contract out a significant portion of their work and employ less in-house staff. ETM was unable to get a definitive number of the amount of services contracted out by each department.

ϭ͘ϱϬ

ϭ͘ϯϯ

Ϭ͘ϲϳ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

•

•

Other departments may operate more efficiently than BPR, performing a similar amount of work across a larger area and with less maintenance staff The type of landscapes maintained by the other departments may require different levels of service than BPR, e.g. natural areas typically require less staff to maintain than urban parks Other departments may have staff with different skill sets than BPR, different management structures, and/or different levels of contracted services.

•

As noted in their 2015 Master Plan, many supervisors with Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation are typically working supervisors, which helps to keep administration costs down but contributes to a higher number of FTEs.

Partnerships with schools are popular with Bentonville and the case studies. BPR currently has working agreements with the Bentonville Youth Baseball Organization, Concessions, Ozark Tennis Academy, Boys and Girls Club of Benton County, and Arkansas Sporting Soccer Club.

Through the partnerships Carmel Clay and Springfield-Greene have with their respective school districts, the parks departments provide before- and after-school activities, and are allowed to use some of the school areas.

Grand Junction Parks and Recreation has an intergovernmental agreement with Bookcliff Middle School which allows the department to use the

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ ĂƌĞĂ

&ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ WΘZ

^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

Figure 5: Department FTEs per 1,000 Residents

DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ &d Ɛ ƉĞƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϯϵ

&h>>Ͳd/D Yh/s > Ed^

Ϭ͘ϯϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϴ

Ϭ͘ϯϬ Ϭ͘ϮϬ

Ϭ͘ϭϰ

Ϭ͘ϭϬ Ύ

Ύ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

Ύ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ ĂƌĞĂ

&ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ WΘZ

^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

Figure 6: Maintenance Staff FTEs per 1,000 Residents

ĐƌĞƐ ƉĞƌ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ &d ϭϭϮ͘ϳϲ

ϭϮϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ &h>>Ͳd/D Yh/s > Ed^

•

Ϭ͘ϰϵ

Ϭ͘ϰϴ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϰϬ

Compared to the case studies, Bentonville has a high number of FTEs compared to its population and the lowest acres per maintenance FTE. However, as mentioned previously, interviews with BPR staff revealed that park maintenance is challenged by a small, young workforce and drive time between locations. Several reasons may contribute to this seeming contradiction:

ϭ͘Ϭϰ

Ϭ͘ϵϵ

ϭ͘ϬϬ

ϴϬ͘ϬϬ ϲϬ͘ϬϬ

ϰϵ͘ϯϱ

ϰϰ͘ϴϲ ϰϬ͘ϬϬ ϮϬ͘ϬϬ Ύ

Ύ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ &ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ WΘZ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

Figure 7: Acres per Maintenance Staff FTE * Maintenance FTEs not provided for Carmel Clay P&R or Grand Junction

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

Bookcliff Activity Center gymnasium 24 hours a day and to use the middle school gymnasium after school hours and on non-school days.

Fayetteville has the most partnerships of all of the case studies, including sport clubs, schools, community centers, and a botanical garden. Fayetteville also has a “Working Agreement” with the Boys and Girls Club (BGC) to avoid supplication and competition of programs between the two. Under the agreement, Parks and Recreation offers only outdoor recreation programs, with the exception of programs at the department’s community center, while the BGC offers only indoor programs with the exception of youth football and summer camps. This agreement likely contributes to Fayetteville’s low levels of indoor recreation space compared to the other case studies (see Figure 3).

Some of the departments also have partnerships with non-profits and friends’ groups, who contribute services, money, or both: •

Friends of the Yvonne Richardson Community Center contribute funds and help with programming at the YRCC in Fayetteville;

•

The Carmel Clay Parks Foundation supports the CC Parks Department with projects not funded through taxpayer dollars;

•

Friends of the Zoo of Springfield, MO contribute money to the operation of the Dickerson Park Zoo, which is run by the Park Board;

•

The Senior Recreation Center, Inc. Board operates the Senior Recreation Center in Grand Junction.

Operating expenses for the case studies, standardized to spending per capita, are shown in Figure 8. Compared to the case studies, Bentonville is above average for operational spending per capita. However, when taking into account the population of

^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂ ;ϮϬϭϲͿ ΨϮϱϬ͘ϬϬ

ΨϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ

Ψϯϳ

ΨϭϱϬ͘ϬϬ

ΨϯϮ

Ψϭϱ ΨϭϮϳ

ΨϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ

ΨϱϬ͘ϬϬ

Ψϰ

Ψϭϳϲ

Ψϭϳ

ΨϭϮϴ

ΨϭϮϰ Ψϲ Ψϰϱ

Ψϵϯ

Ψϴϯ

Ψϰϴ

ΨϬ͘ϬϬ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ

'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ &ĂLJĞƚƚĞǀŝůůĞ ĂƌŵĞů ůĂLJ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚ ĞŶƚŽŶǀŝůůĞ WΘZ 'ƌĞĞŶĞ Ž͘ ĂƌĞĂ WĂƌŬ ŽĂƌĚ

KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂů ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

'ƌĂŶĚ :ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ hƌďĂŶ ƌĞĂ

ĂƉŝƚĂů ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂ

Figure 8: Department Spending per Capita 7

the Greater Bentonville area, it has the lowest operational spending per capita. As the population continues to grow, Bentonville will likely be challenged with maintaining a similar level of spending per capita compared to current levels.

Capital expenses can vary widely from year to year based on what projects are being done. For example, Fayetteville had high capital spending in 2015 for developing a new regional park, but its capital spending in 2016 is budgeted at a tenth of the spending from 2015. Looking at the capital spending trends of the different case studies, capital spending is typically higher in communities that are experiencing strong to rapid growth, and lower in Springfield-Greene, which is experiencing steady growth. Given this, Bentonville should expect to increase its levels of capital spending in order to keep pace with the growing population of the area.

Both operations and capital spending require funding. All of the parks and recreation departments generate some revenue on their own and also receive some additional funding from other sources. These revenue and funding sources include: •

Services charges and user fees

•

Taxes (may contribute to the General Fund or a special parks fund)

•

Impact fees

•

Bonds

•

Sponsorships

•

Donations (from individuals and non-profits)

•

Grants

Carmel Clay has also established two “rainy day” reserves – a Park System Capital Maintenance Reserve and the Monon Community Center Operating Reserve – to provide some financial resilience to the department.

All of the departments, including Bentonville, have over 50% operating costs recovery, as seen in Figure 9. Within its overall department, Carmel Clay had 100% operating cost recovery for its Monon Community Center and the Extended School Enrichment program.

Bentonville

Fayetteville

Carmel Clay

Springfield-Greene

Figure 9: Operating Cost Recovery Note: Springfield-Greene did not provide information on cost recovery for parks, but their overall budget shows expenses equaling revenues.

Grand Junction

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

FRISCO PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN While it was not chosen as a detailed case study, ETM also reviewed the Parks and Recreation Master Plan from Frisco, Texas. Though the population of Frisco is significantly greater than Bentonville, the two are both experiencing rapid population growth. As such, the challenges and growing strategies of the two cities’ respective parks and recreation departments will be similar.

General Growth Challenges and Strategies •

The growth of parks, trails, and open space should be matched with the development of real estate and the increasing population, but that comes with several challenges: •

Balancing the use of parks (e.g. active versus passive) and accommodating changing preferences of the current and future communities

•

Meeting the demand for field sports •

•

Potential solutions: joint-use agreements with school districts, and “pay to play” approaches

Balancing new amenities with operational costs •

Operational funding should be addressed during design, not after construction

•

The highest priority should be acquiring land to be used toward future parks and recreation facilities or to be preserved as open space, especially early on when land costs may not be as high and there are less development pressures

•

Another high priority is to determine methods for funding operating costs of new initiatives

•

Challenges are also associated with changing demographics: •

Changing affluence levels can impact cost recovery objectives, e.g. less affluent residents may be less willing to pay for services

•

The expectations and preferences of the community may change as demographics change; parks, open spaces & facilities should be designed to be adaptable to changing needs over time

9

Operations and Maintenance •

Benchmarked communities for the Frisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan were Aurora, CO; Carey, NC; Chandler, AZ; Gilbert, AZ; Plano, TX; and Round Rock, TX (all were or are experiencing high rates of growth)

•

Many communities contract out a significant amount of grounds maintenance, while Frisco does not

•

Joint Use agreements for both program spaces in schools, during after-school hours, and on grounds for after-school use of fields and courts, prove to be a more cost-effective approach than expending capital funds to meet all of the demand for fields and courts

•

Some benchmarks have been aggressive in applying impact fees and processes to ensure that land remaining to be developed are contributing the lands and facilities needed to keep pace with the influx of residents and their recreational demands

•

Though they have a larger travel time radius, larger regional recreation centers can offer more diverse programming, be more convenient for families to recreate together, allow for better staff efficiency, and allow for a reduction in operational costs •

Can also look to combine services, e.g. a senior center or an aquatics area within a larger community center

•

Consider developing a Regional Partnership where the participating cities provide reciprocity for use of facilities or services

•

Consider creating an inventory of assets that need to be maintained, along with a reporting system for maintenance

Implementation Strategies and Funding Sources •

Consider enterprise funds for specific facilities, programs and classes

•

Potential to use some of the premium from proximate tax values for properties adjacent to parks for park maintenance

•

Potential for Public / Private Partnerships to help with funding, maintenance, etc.

•

Utilize shared resources and agreements

•

Identify highest priority needs and work to implement those first

•

Coordinate with other city departments and agencies

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

CASE STUDY SUMMARY Overall, Bentonville seems to be about average compared to the case studies. However, when including the additional population, the Greater Bentonville area is typically toward the bottom of the case studies. As part of the Master Plan, Bentonville is planning to add additional parks and open space to accommodate the future population of the city. Depending on the degree of population growth, these additional parks should either maintain or improve Bentonville’s level of service for its residents.

Though Bentonville has a similar number of total FTEs and maintenance FTEs compared to the other case studies, interviews with staff have revealed that park maintenance is challenged by a small, young workforce and drive time between locations. Bentonville should investigate different strategies to improve their efficiency, which are discussed in the following section.

Moving forward, Bentonville’s challenge will be to maintain, and potentially improve on, their services as the population increases – both in terms of adding additional facilities and programs, and in adequately maintaining these facilities and staffing programs. Bentonville should make it priority to identify and purchase land for future parks and facilities, and to identify sources of funding for purchasing and maintaining the land. Bentonville should also explore partnerships with local organizations that can provide additional parks and recreation opportunities, e.g. facilities and programs, to supplement those provided by the City.

11

M AINTENANCE ESTIMATES & M ANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The Master Plan proposes both improvements to existing parks as well as new parks and facilities within Bentonville, which will add to BPR’s maintenance and operation responsibilities. To accommodate these needs, the City should anticipate a higher annual budget for the Parks and Recreation Department. However, with the expected increase in population, there will also be more ratables (tax revenue) and more people who can participate in fee-based recreation programs. This can help offset some of the increased maintenance costs.

MAINTENANCE ESTIMATES In order to estimate the maintenance needs associated with the proposed improvements and the new parks and facilities of the Master Plan, ETM first created a list of landscape categories that are typically found in parks, such as lawn, athletic fields, and pavilions, and that include new features proposed for Bentonville’s parks.

We included in these categories a “conservation/low-mow lawn” type to reflect BPR’s desire to mow some of their lawns less frequently for operational savings. For each landscape category, we estimated the number of hours it would take to maintain one unit of that category per year. Units vary based on what is most appropriate for that category; for instance, the unit for lawn is one acre while the unit for pavilions is one pavilion.

Figure 10 shows the estimated hours required for maintenance and the estimated associated costs of the proposed improvements. Because the improvements will be done piecemeal and will vary in size, hours and cost and given per unit rather than as a total so that they can be used as needed for each project. It was assumed that the operations and maintenance of any adventure play feature (such as a high ropes course) will be contracted out, and will not be directly performed by BPR.

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

Type of Improvement Parking Lots Paths/Trails Plazas Landscape improvements turf Landscape improvements "low-mow" turf Landscape improvements maintained plantings Ecosystem Enhancements (managed landscapes) Ponds/Water Bodies Multipurpose Fields Athletic Fields (Grass) Athletic Fields (Artificial) Athletic Courts Playground* Water Play Area/Splash Park* Adventure Play* Skate Park Dog Park Restrooms Pavilion/Shelter (Rentable) Pavilion/Shelter (NonRentable) Art Installations*

1 acre 10,000 sf 1 acre

Hours per Unit per Year 70 35 225

Average Hourly Rate $25 $25 $25

Cost per Unit per Year $1,750 $875 $5,625

1 acre

325

$25

$8,125

1 acre

220

$25

$5,500

1 acre

400

$25

$10,000

1 acre

100

$25

$2,500

1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 10,000 sf

78 400 525 375 260 140

$25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $35

$1,950 $10,000 $13,125 $9,375 $6,500 $4,900

10,000 sf

800

$30

$24,000

Units

Assumes contracted service 240 235

$30 $25

Assumes contracted service $7,200 $5,875

450

$25

$11,250

125

$25

$3,125

1 pavilion/shelter

80

$25

$2,000

1 art piece

60

$100

$6,000

n/a 1 acre 1 acre 1 facility/set of restrooms 1 pavilion/shelter

n/a

*hours and costs for these categories can vary widely; numbers here represent an average time and cost for O+M needs Note: landscape improvements will need additional hours for maintenance and thus will have higher costs during the establishment years

Figure 10: Estimated Annual O+M Costs for Proposed Master Plan Improvements

13

New parks and open spaces proposed in the Master Plan fall into four general categories: neighborhood park, community park, regional/destination park, and open space/greenway. For each of the different types of parks, ETM made assumptions of what and how much of the landscape categories would be found in a typical park of that type. Based on these assumptions, we estimated the number of hours it would take to maintain a typical version of each type of park per year. These hours were used to calculate the estimated annual maintenance cost per year. The annual maintenance costs for a typical park were then extrapolated to determine an average cost per acre per year for each type of park.

The average cost per acre per year were then used to determine the operations and maintenance costs associated with new parks proposed in the Master Plan (see Figure 11). It is estimated that the new parks proposed in the Master Plan, including the 25 acre alternative, would require in total an additional $1.4 to $1.7 million per year to maintain.

Note: Maintenance costs for the proposed indoor facilities (the Activity Center expansion and the Indoor Facility and the Environmental Center alternatives) were not estimated.

Park Type Neighborhood Community Regional / Destination Open Space and Greenway

Additional Acres Proposed in Master Plan 4 25

Average Cost Per Acre Per Year

Proposed Cost per Year

$26-32,000 $24,000

$100-128,000 $550-625,000

50

$15-20,000

$750-1,000,000

0

$6,500 (open space) $3,000 (trails)

$0

Totals

Figure 11: Master Plan New Parks Estimated Annual O+M Costs

$1,400,000 - $1,753,000

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

O+M RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES In order to accommodate the increased maintenance needs and costs associated with the Master Plan proposals, BPR should consider a number of maintenance strategies and recommendations in order to increase efficiencies, reduce costs, and ensure adequate funding for operations and maintenance: Maintenance Practices •

Continue to evaluate maintenance operations (e.g. routes taken by vehicles, locations of maintenance facilities, etc.) for opportunities to improve efficiencies •

As the Master Plan improvements are implemented, BPR may look to establish satellite maintenance facilities in each of the four quadrants in order to meet maintenance needs; see Table 1 comparing a centralized maintenance facility to satellite maintenance facilities and Figure 12 showing a sample yard layout

•

Develop and adjust maintenance standards for different types of parks to reflect level of use and desired aesthetic, i.e. as downtown continues to grow, it may need a higher level of maintenance compared to other areas of Bentonville since it will experience higher levels of use and will be a highly visible area

•

Investigate alternative maintenance strategies and less maintenance-intense landscapes that can reduce maintenance needs and costs

•

•

BPR can convert unused and minimally used turf areas into “conservation lawns” (also referred to as “low-mow lawns”), which receive less frequent mowing compared to traditional turf

•

BPR can also consider incorporating artificial turf in high-demand areas of existing and new parks; see Table 2 comparing Natural Turf and Artificial Turf

Utilize data collected by the department to inform maintenance needs (e.g. a facility with a high volume of program participants will need more frequent maintenance than a facility with few program participants)

Table 1: Maintenance Facility Comparison

Central Maintenance Facility

Pros

• • • •

One building to maintain Can store lots of equipment and supplies Can store large equipment Can offer full-service staff facilities more easily

Satellite Maintenance Facilities • • •

Cons

• • •

Longer drive times to and from work locations Inefficient for a large, spread-out park system Larger site is required, so you can be limited for site locations

•

• • •

Shorter drive times to and from work locations in the associated maintenance zone Smaller footprint needed, so there is greater flexibility for where the facilities can be located May have to buy additional equipment and materials for the satellite facilities May need to coordinate equipment needs between satellite facilities based on the different needs of the different zones Multiple buildings to maintain and secure Infrastructure/utility costs for multiple buildings More difficult to accommodate large equipment 15

Material Storage Bins

Yard

Park Restrooms Garage

Office

Parking

Figure 12: Satellite Maintenance Sample Yard Layout

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017

Internal & External Relationships •

Formalize agreements and contracts with partners

•

Facilitate a sense of ownership and stewardship among residents for the care of parks and facilities

•

•

Encourage volunteer opportunities

•

If there is strong enough community interest, consider implementing an “Adopt-a-Park” program to assist park maintenance staff

Increase investment in staff in order to retain employees and attract new employees

Funding & Revenue •

Because land cost in downtown Bentonville is quickly rising, the City should strategically invest in acquiring and keeping several parcels of open space within downtown and the rest of the City in order to have space to construct more parks and facilities in the future to adequately serve the growing population

•

Consider the maintenance and operations impact of implementing all plans for Bentonville: for elements that will be maintained by the City, will need to consider how this will impact BPR; for elements that will be maintained by another entity, will need to consider how to ensure these elements will be maintained to an adequate standard, e.g. a contract or agreement, as well as who will program them and how that may affect the City •

Investigate opportunities to incorporate an operating reserve (operations and maintenance costs for the first two to five years post-construction) into the budget for privately-funded capital projects, in order to ensure that there are some funds available for maintenance of the project in its early years

•

Investigate changing the pay structure for community centers and programs: community centers would still keep the residential/non-residential fees for membership and membership at the community centers would still give you discounts on the programs that are offered at those centers; however, programs that are not offered at the community center would also have a resident/nonresident fee

•

As the city continues to grow, Bentonville should strive to increase its operating cost recovery. Like Carmel Clay, Bentonville can try to achieve 100% cost recovery for some of its individual programs or facilities within the Parks and Recreation department.

•

Institutionalize the newly created 501(c)(3) entity to help sustain the park system

17

If the City decides to install artificial turf fields, the City can consider implementing a variable fee structure for renting athletic fields – artificial turf fields would have a higher hourly rental rate compared to natural turf fields in order to help fund future replacement of the artificial fields. Similar fee differences can be found in the cities of Vancouver, B.C. and Syracuse, as well as in several private school districts around the country. Rental rates for artificial turf fields are typically three times greater than the rental fee for natural grass fields.

Example of turf brush

Multi-use artificial turf field

Testing artificial turf field compaction

ADOPTED: AUGUST 22, 2017 Table 2

Natural Turf Installation Costs

Artificial Turf

$120,000 - 250,000 per sports field1 (approximately $700,000 - $1.2 million per sports field (approximately $8 $1.50 - $3 per sf ) $15 per sf ), plus equipment costs if applicable

Maintenance Needs

Ongoing maintenance: mowing, litter/debris/leaf removal, fertilization, watering, pest and weed control, reline fields for sports, irrigation system maintenance Semi-annual to annual maintenance: reseeding, renovation As needed maintenance: top-dress, aerate

Ongoing maintenance: litter/debris/leaf removal, watering/ misting, brushing, inspection for hazards/damage and proper infill levels, minor repairs, spot releveling/refilling, keeping a maintenance and activity log, maintaining drainage system Semi-annual to annual maintenance: pest control, professional inspection, decompacting infill, deep cleaning, refilling and leveling infill; As needed maintenance: removal of contaminated infill, untangling artificial fibers, and re-installing infill

Maintenance Costs

$20,000-50,000 per sports field per year

$5,000-20,000 per sports field per year

Equipment Needs

Lawn mower, leaf blower, fertilizer applicator, rollers/line painter, aerator, top dresser

Specialized equipment needed for sweeping the turf clean of debris, for brushing turf, and for decompaction, repairs, and deep cleaning; special paint for creating temporary markings •

•

Pros

• • • •

Lower renovation/replacement costs Natural cooling effect Filters stormwater/pollutants Does not contain petroleum products

• • • • •

• •

•

Cons

•

• •

Compared to artificial turf, can only withstand a low level of use before experiencing stress Turf needs a resting period between moderate to high levels of use, as well as after reseeding/ resodding Turf should not be used during or after heavy rain in order to minimize damage Needs to be watered during periods of drought to keep the field in playable condition (needs 1.7 to 2.3 million gallons of water per year) Fertilizers and pesticides used on lawns can pollute the environment Emissions and fuel costs of lawn mowers (about 215 gallons, or $430 - $650 per year)

• •

• • • • • •

Can achieve more use: can be played on in the rain with no to minimal adverse effects and does not need as long of a “resting period” as natural turf Consistent: can be maintained at a consistent quality year-round (e.g. can be played on in subzero temperatures without the ground being frozen or turf in poor quality) Can be used in locations with minimal to no sun Newer artificial turf technology better mimics natural turf Reduces use of fertilizers and pesticides, as well as emissions from lawn mowers Less water use than natural turf Replacement every 6-12 years (depending on level of use and care), which can be costly and the typical crumbrubber material may require special disposal High temperature build-up on warm sunny days (cooling with irrigation only provides a short-term effect) For older artificial turf technology, injuries are more common and sports play is noticeably different from playing on natural turf Conflicting studies on if/how artificial turf may contribute to player injuries Different sports have different artificial turf needs2 Not suitable for sloped areas Can be damaged by petroleum-based products, e.g. motor oil and hydraulic fluid The rubber granulate of artificial turf infill can be a significant source of rubber pollution Concerns over the health impact of carcinogenic substances in the infill of fields (many studies found no evidence of health risks, though several additional studies are ongoing)

1

Sports field assumed to be 80,000 sf Rugby and football/soccer typically use an artificial field with rubber infill and long pile synthetic grass to provide a softer surface, while field hockey and tennis typically use one with sand infill and a short pile synthetic grass to provide a more responsive surface

2

19