dallas parks and recreation...a renaissance plan - dallas park and recreation budgetary malaise...

for

Dallas Parks and Recreationin the 21st Century

Dallas Park and Recreation Department Long Range Development Plan

A Renaissance Plan

Leon Younger & PROSNational Service Research

Baker Consulting AssociatesDay & Associates

ArchiTexasGarcia & Associates

Bowman - Melton AssociatesHNB Consulting Engineers

August 2002

© 2002 Carter & Burgess, Inc. All Rights Reserved

President’s Preface

Executive Summary

Project Purpose

Long Range Planning Process

Our Current System…Evaluating theStrengths and Weaknesses of theDallas Park System

Park FacilitiesInventory and Condition AssessmentHistoric Parks Documentation

Service and Equity LevelsDemographic AnalysisPark ReclassificationsFacility StandardsService Area Analysis

Programs, Operations, and MaintenanceEnvironmental Scan of DepartmentProgram AnalysisMaintenance Operations AssessmentManagement Information Systems

BenchmarkingStandards ComparisonBest Practices

Capital Needs InventoryDevelopment Process2002 Needs Inventory

Appendices – Reports under Separate Cover (Not Available Online)

Volume 1i. Vision Strategy Matrix

Volume 2ii. Community Input

Community Leaders InterviewSummaries

Staff Focus Group Summaries

Public Focus Group Summaries

Public Forum Results

Citizen Survey

Community Values Model –Principles

Public Information/Media Coverage

Table of ContentsOur Community Values… Defining theAspirations of Dallas Citizens

Community and Stakeholder InputKey Community Leaders InterviewsPublic Input - Focus Groups and Public ForumsStaff Focus GroupsCitizen Survey

Community Values Model

Our Strategic Plan… Setting a New CourseVision and Mission StatementsCommunity Value Statements and GoalsVision Strategy MatrixThe Big MovesCapital Implementation Plan

Park District Action PlansPark District 1Park District 2Park District 3Park District 4Park District 5Park District 6

Funding and FinancingRevenue GenerationPartnership DevelopmentFunding SourcesGrant Analysis

Launching the Plan

Volume 3iii. Park Inventory/Condition

Assessment/Capital NeedsCondition Assessment Summary

Park Re-Classification

Facility Standards and Gap Analysis

Service Area Maps

Historic Parks Documentation

Capital Needs Inventory

iv. Implementation Plan

District Action Plans

The Big Moves Map

Volume 4 v.Demographic Analysis

vi.Benchmarking

vii.Environmental Scan of Department

viii. Program Analysis

ix.Maintenance Operations Review

x.Management Information SystemNeeds Assessment

xi.PIDS User Manual and Maintenance Plan

xii. Revenue Development

xiii. Partnership Development

xiv. Funding Sources

xv. Grant Sources

Volume 5 xvi. Aquatics Master Plan

xvii. Downtown Parks Master Plan

Cover Photo: Lake Cliff Park

1

3

7

9

11

12121415151717181919202122232324242426

29

303030313232

35353638404040424344454647484849495051

President’s Preface

Great cities are known for their great parks. These cities are widely recognized as distinct urban destinations withsignature parks and grand public places. Of equal importance are the basic elements of a park system, includingrecreational programs, greenways and trail systems, and neighborhood parks. These provide valuableconnections within the community and fulfill citizen aspirations for a better quality of life. In this way, a greatpark system becomes integral in creating an economically vibrant and dynamic city.

Over the past 25 years, the Dallas Park and Recreation Department has conducted studies and individual parkmaster plans for various components and facilities within the park system. During this time, various needs andrequests have been addressed, ranging from playground equipment and recreation centers to complete park sitedevelopment. However, a comprehensive master plan for the entire park system has not been prepared in overtwenty years.

At last, a Long Range Development Plan has been developed by a consultant team lead by Carter & Burgess,with thoughtful guidance and input from Park staff and the Dallas Park and Recreation Board. Dallas now has afar-reaching strategic plan to address needs in the current system and emerging trends for the future. As acomprehensive study, the plan provides specific direction for more than 400 park facilities across the city.

The Long Range Development Plan is the result of 18 months of research, comparison, analysis, and public inputfor parks and recreation in our great city. This plan will guide and direct the Board and staff over the next 10 to20 years. It is designed to remain interactive, dynamic, and viable with measurable results of progress andsuccess along the way.

The lessons learned and experience shared during the past 18 months have given us the resolve to remainconstant to our mission to recover the quality and prestige of the Dallas park system, regain the confidence andenthusiasm of our citizens, and reposition Dallas Park and Recreation as a recognized state and national leader.

I thank those who share in this vision to be a premier park and recreation system. I am grateful to thecommunity and stakeholders whose input was so valuable. I applaud the courage it will take to make thishappen. I am deeply appreciative of the many hours of dedicated work in producing this comprehensive visionfor the park system…and the future of Dallas.

Dianne Curry, PresidentDallas Park and Recreation Board

Executive Summary

renaissance is dawning for the Dallas park system.With the initiation of a new century, Dallas is launching aplan that will re-establish its park system as a model in

the United States. Having gone more than 20 years since theprevious strategic planning effort, this Renaissance Plan ushers ina new course that will guide the Dallas park system forgenerations to come.

Dating back to the mid-1980s, the Dallas Park Department wasdramatically effected by the economic recession in Texas andsubsequent city budget cuts. In only a few short years, Dallaswent from being a National Recreation and Park Association(NRPA) National Gold Medal Award city to a park system caughtin a downward spiral. The Park Department has now undertakena visionary step to engage upon a long-range plan for the nation’sfourth largest park system. The Park Board enthusiasticallyendorsed and approved this comprehensive study that was laterratified by the City Council. As one of the most comprehensiveurban park studies ever commissioned, this Renaissance Planmarks a commitment to re-establish Dallas as a premier parksystem in the country. The vision is for Dallas to be recognizedby residents and visitors as a city with a great park system.

In order to guide the future direction of the department, this planneeded to clearly articulate future capital needs based upon acomprehensive evaluation of the existing conditions, understandthe historical context of the park system, evaluate the ability ofthe Department to deliver services and programs, and definestrategies for meeting the needs of the community based upon thevalues expressed through extensive community and stakeholderinput.

The result of this planning process is a strategic plan based uponcommunity needs, which addresses park and open space planning,and recreation program development, along with operations andmaintenance stategies, and funding/revenue/partnership

Lake Cliff Park

A opportunities. The approach to this plan was organized toaddress three critical questions:

• What is the Dallas park system today?• What should the Dallas park system be?• How do we get there?

Although Dallas has an extensive park system in terms of itsphysical size and diversity, the current budgetary limitations andoperational inefficiencies cause the department to fall woefullyshort of maintaining a premier system. In short, Dallas simplyhas too much to manage based upon current capital andoperating budgets. The on-going effects of this prolonged

Executive Summary

A Renaissance Plan - Dallas Park and Recreation

budgetary malaise include deteriorating parksimpacted by limited maintenance levels and capitalinvestment, lack of citizen satisfaction, and a poorimage for the city as a whole.

Along with a dated infrastructure, Dallas is behindother major cities in creative programming inrecreation. Existing programs lack customizationto meet changing demographics as well as therecreational needs of citizens. Citizens are alsofrustrated over the lack of equity in both programsand facilities. Closing these equity gaps willgenerate new users and regain participation in thepark system.

In developing the overall capital needs for theDallas park system, three distinct levels ofimprovements were established as presented inFigure 1. These levels describe the type of capitalimprovements and the comprehensive investmentnecessary for the entire park system.

From the beginning of the planning process, theLong Range Development Plan involved a majorcampaign to engage citizens and stakeholders ofDallas in the overall visioning process. Thisprocess included five major steps: interviews withkey community leaders; public focus groups withdiverse users; public forums across Dallas withcitizens at large; staff focus groups withrepresentatives from throughout the department;and a citizen survey distributed randomlythroughout the city.

This comprehensive community and stakeholderinput process identified what Dallas communityvalues and expectations are for parks andrecreation. This input was organized using theCommunity Values Model™ methodology, whichsynthesizes and arranges citizen and stakeholderinput into categories that then drive thedevelopment of the vision and mission andorganize a framework for the strategic plan. Thebenefit of the Community Values Modelmethodology is the resulting balance among avariety of perspectives and values held by thecommunity, and the organization of a businessmodel that facilitates the implementation ofstrategies.

There were five community values identified:• Community Mandates• Consistent Standards• Tiered Programs and Facilities• Revenue Development• Partnership Development

Using the Community Values Model methodologyas the framework, goals, strategies, and actions aredefined to fulfill a particular community value.The strategic plan takes form as a Vision StrategyMatrix. This matrix will serve as a livingdocument and strategy implementation tool,providing guidance for all aspects of the ParkDepartment’s operations and governance by thePark and Recreation Board. The Vision StrategyMatrix enables accountability by linking goals,strategies, and actions to responsibilities,performance measures, and timelines for results,creating a living document and decision-makingtool.

White Rock Lake Park

Recovers System $565,693,000Level 1

Expands andEnhances System $843,994,000

Level 2

Responds to Trendsand New Visions $454,154,000

Level 3

Total $1,863,841,000

Figure 1 – Capital Needs

In addition to community values, the vision andmission became cornerstones of the overallstrategic plan as presented in Figure 2.

The true test of a successful plan is measured byits results. The Long Range Development Plan isaimed at this — a strategic plan that will guide theDallas park system over the next 10 to 20 years.Recovering the system will not happen overnight.It will take many years of concerted effort toaccomplish specific goals and strategies that willproduce the desired results. In order for success tobe achieved, each management decision must begrounded in the bigger vision for the Dallas parksystem. This is the purpose of the strategic plan.

To be a premier park system in the United States,Dallas will need to make some “big moves”throughout the city in addition to major shifts inoperational philosophy. The fulfillment of themission to “recover, regain, and reposition” thepark system will be supported by the following:

• Upgrade current parks in the system• Provide new facilities and services• Build new sports complexes• Build new multi-generational centers across

Dallas• Implement a regional trail network throughout

the city• Enhance signature park destinations• Showcase historic parks across the city• Build family aquatic centers throughout the

city

This fulfillment also requires agressivedevelopment of permanent funding sourcesincluding the creation of a Parks Foundation, aswell as establishing a Revenue Division within thePark Department.

A renaissance requires a new way of thinking andapplying creative ideas to generate renewedinterest and excitement. Becoming a “premierpark system in the United States” will not happenquickly or easily. It will require personal andpolitical determination on the part of the city’sleaders. The City of Dallas has a tremendousrange of assets in its park system. Equallyimportant are the abilities of its citizens as well asthe financial resources of its corporate community.Dallas is synonymous with success. This planprovides the tools necessary to implementstrategies that will leverage and maximize allresources available to achieve success.

Today marks an opportunity for Dallas to recoverthe quality and prestige of its park system, regainthe confidence and enthusiasm of its citizens, andreposition the Park and Recreation Department asa recognized state and national leader…truly, amodern day renaissance.

Our vision is for Dallas to be a premierPark and Recreation system in the UnitedStates.

Vision

MissionOur mission is to:

• Recover the quality and prestige ofthe Dallas park system

• Regain the confidence andenthusiasm of our citizens

• Reposition the Dallas Park andRecreation Department as a

recognized state and national leader

Figure 2 – Vision and Mission Statements

Fair Park

Project Purpose

allas is the seventh largest city in the UnitedStates with a year 2000 population exceeding 1.1million citizens. Dallas also boasts the fourth largest

park system in the United States with more than 21,000 acres ofparkland. Commenting on the sizable land holdings of the DallasPark Department, noted researcher and author Peter Harnik said,“The only problem is that much of the land can be described as adiamond in the rough, land waiting to be developed into auseable, coherent system.” With 30% growth in acreage in thelast two decades, the needs have outpaced the ability to keep up.Added to this is the increased demand from citizens for new andexpanded park facilities, recreation programs, open space areas,and unique recreational amenities. Keeping up with emergingtrends is virtually impossible.

Since over 20 years have elapsed since the last master plan effort,the City of Dallas took a bold step toward a visionary plan for itspark system. The desire was to incorporate a business strategyapproach for the Park Department in addition to retaining moretraditional park and open space planning. Upon soliciting interestfrom planning firms nationwide, the Park and RecreationDepartment commissioned a team led by Carter & Burgess, Inc. toconduct a comprehensive study to identify the future needs of thepark system and to develop a Long Range Development Plan.

The overall purpose of the plan is to develop an “innovative,interactive, creative, environmentally sensitive, and state-of-the-art” Long Range Development Plan for the Dallas Park andRecreation Department. To guide the future direction of theDepartment, this plan was needed to clearly articulate futurecapital needs based upon a comprehensive evaluation of theexisting conditions, understand the historical context of the ParkSystem, evaluate the ability of the Department to deliver servicesand programs, and define strategies for meeting the needs of thecommunity based on the values expressed through extensivecommunity and stakeholder input.

Craddock Park

D

Long Range Planning Process

he Carter & Burgess Team initiated the Long RangeDevelopment Plan in December of 2000. The studytook 18 months to complete and represents one of the most

comprehensive urban park system studies ever commissioned in theUnited States. The Team was a collaboration of nationally recognizedexperts in park planning, strategic planning, management consulting,market research, public involvement, operations and maintenance,and recreational programming.

The Long Range Development Plan involved 19 major tasksperformed over an 18-month planning process. These tasksincluded the following:

• Interviews with key community leaders• Public focus groups• Pubic forums• Staff focus groups• Inventory and condition assessment of Dallas’ parks,

including historic parks documentation• Maintenance operations review• Demographic analysis• Benchmark comparisons• Citizen survey• Program area analysis• Grant analysis• Environmental/departmental scan• Revenue development• Vision action strategies – strategic plan• Implementation/Capital Improvement Plan• Funding sources• Partnerships• Management information system• Client meetings/work sessions/presentations

The result of this Long Range Development Plan is a strategicplan based upon community needs, that addresses park and openspace planning, recreation program development, operations and

maintenance issues, and funding/revenue/partnershipopportunities. The approach to this project was organized toaddress three critical questions:

• What is the Dallas park system today?• What should the Dallas park system be?• How do we get there?

This approach required in-depth analysis of the Department’sstrengths and weaknesses, opportunities and vision, and strategydevelopment. This plan was led by objective consultants throughextensive interaction with both the Park Board and Departmentstaff during the review process and strategy development,therefore ensuring Department ownership and consensus.

This final report represents a summary of findings andrecommendations. Supporting data, detailed findings, andtechnical reports and master plans for other major park facilitiesare organized into five volumes of Appendices under separatecover.

T

Trinity Park (Crow Lake Park)

Our Current System…Evaluating the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dallas Park System

lthough Dallas has an extensive system in terms of itsphysical size and diversity, the current budget limitationsand operational inefficiencies cause Dallas to fall

woefully short of maintaining a premier park system. To theeveryday user of parks, current facilities are dated and appearneglected. In short, Dallas simply has too much to manage basedupon current capital and operating budgets. The on-going effectsof this include deteriorating parks impacted by limitedmaintenance levels and capital investment, lack of citizensatisfaction, and a poor image for the city as a whole.

Along with a dated infrastructure, Dallas is behind in terms ofcreative programming in recreation. Existing programs lackcustomization to meet changing demographics and recreationalneeds of the citizens. Dallas citizens are also frustrated over thelack of equity in both programs and facilities. Closing these gapsin equity will generate new users and regain participation in thepark system.

When benchmarking Dallas against other major cities in the U.S.,Dallas is considered a low-density city with 4.8 people per acre.Dallas has 20.73 acres of park land per 1,000 residents,substantially above the national average. Dallas is also above theaverage for low-density cities for number of recreation centers,albeit these facilities tend to be small by national standards. Interms of neighborhood parks, Dallas is slightly under the averagefor low-density cities. For sports fields, Dallas is right at theaverage for low-density cities. However, because of a climateoffering almost year-round outdoor recreation, Dallas is missingout on one of the nation’s most successful recreational features —sports complexes. These year-round facilities are not available tosports groups in the City of Dallas, much less the sports tourismmarket for national events. These complexes also generaterevenue that can provide another funding source for long-termsustainability.

Bel-Aire Park

A On the positive side, Dallas does have noteworthy strengthsbeyond the pure size of its park system. These include a widevariety of facilities throughout the city aimed to serve all agegroups. Along with this are the ‘signature’ destinations in Dallasas showcased by the Dallas Zoo, the Dallas Arboretum, TurtleCreek Greenbelt, White Rock Lake Park, and Fair Park. Theseare the high profile components of the park system that give adistinct identity to the city and North Texas region.

Team Work Session

capital improvements in the future. The inventoryand condition assessment of each park andrecreation facility ensured that every park assetwas evaluated during each site visit (excludingFair Park, the Dallas Zoo, and the DallasArboretum). It is important to note however, thatthe needs inventories (and capital improvements)for these major park facilities, completed underseparate master plan efforts, were incorporatedinto the Long Range Development Plan. As partof this asset evaluation, over 6,000 digitalphotographs were taken of the park features andincluded in PIDS with supporting information inappendix Volume 3.

The inventory and condition assessment strategyentailed establishing asset categories, organizingdata to be collected, outlining field procedures forcapturing data, and designing and testing thedatabase. This work was performed in closecoordination with Park staff to ensure consistencywith other planning efforts and to facilitate futureapplication. Asset categories were organized toprovide the ability to narrow down from the mainasset category (i.e., Sports Field), to asset type(i.e., Soccer Field), to attributes (i.e., turf, lights,irrigation). Each attribute was ranked on a scaleof 1 to 4, (where “1” = immediate repair neededand “4” = above standards). The asset type wasthen ranked using the same scale for an overallprioritization.

A multi-disciplined team of landscape architects,architects, engineers, park planners, historians,and maintenance personnel performed theinventory and condition assessment during an 11-week period. The team started the site reviews inmid-March 2001 and continued until early June2001.


Park FacilitiesDallas has a vast park system, containing 21,526acres of dedicated parkland. Only Phoenix, NewYork, and San Diego have more acreage thanDallas. Across this enormous system is a widespectrum of park facilities to serve the citizens.A profile of these facilities is presented in Figure 3.


Inventory and ConditionAssessmentWith more than 400 park facilities spread acrossthe city, the consultant team developed a strategyto evaluate every park site in the field. Thisstrategy included designing a state-of-the-art,web-based database system to capture findingsand recommendations during the individual sitevisits. The database, known as the Park InventoryDatabase System (PIDS), became the centralizedinformation warehouse for the conditionassessment task and provides a tool to manage

Figure 3 – Dallas Park Facilities

Park Facilities

46130

308111

254154

19267104146

Recreational Facilities

26125

9618

622

668

624

4

Mini ParksNeighborhood ParksCommunity ParksMetropolitan ParksRegional ParksLinear ParksConservancy ParksSpecial Use ParksGolf CoursesCommunity PoolsSpraygrounds

Recreation CentersSoccer FieldsBaseball FieldsSoftball FieldsFootball FieldsTennis CourtsOutdoor Basketball CourtsVolleyball CourtsPlaygroundsPicnic PavilionsTrail Miles

The sites were divided into park classificationssuch as neighborhood parks and community parksin order to group common park types together. Inaddition to the condition of assets, otherinformation captured in the field included: access/connectivity; design, maintenance, and aesthetics;program analysis; safety/security; partneringopportunities; revenue opportunities;neighborhood compatibility; and historicalsignificance. Field recommendations wererecorded to assist in preparing the capital needsinventory.

A summary of findings includes the following:

Neighborhood and Community Parks• Parks are dated, with older equipment and

structures• Maintenance regularity is substandard,

giving a poor image overall• Many neighborhood parks are overcrowded

and need to be reclassified and programmedas community parks

• There is limited accessibility to parkfeatures

• Many community parks do not accommodatecurrent recreational use (sports fields, etc.)

• The quality and maintenance of sports fieldsare very poor (turf condition, irrigation, etc.)

• Community parks need more area lightingthroughout, particularly at parking areas andaround recreation centers

Metropolitan and Regional Parks• Sports fields are overused, with limited

maintenance and upkeep• The current layout of sports fields is

inefficient

• The image of parks is poor overall and lacksa unique theme or identity

• There are limited parking facilities and poorrestroom facilities

• Opportunities exist for new and extendedtrail systems

• Older parks have mature tree canopies• Beautification is limited due to budget

cutbacks

Recreation Centers• Most centers are dated and very small

(average of 15,200 sf in size)• Many of the centers need more meetingrooms, staff areas, and storage space• Most centers have an entry control problem• Many of the centers have restrooms that do

not meet accessibility requirements• There is a strong need for preventive

maintenance and inspection programs toavoid many small problems getting worse

• Older centers have limited programmingpotential for various activities

All findings associated with the inventory,condition assessment, and observations for each

park facility are located in PIDS for use by DallasPark and Recreation staff. Access to PIDS iscontrolled through an assigned password. A ParkInventory Database System Maintenance Plan hasbeen developed to assign ownership, procedures,responsibilities, and frequency of datamaintenance to ensure the investment in this effortis maintained. This maintenance plan is located inAppendix Volume 4-xi.

Condition Assessment

Churchill Recreation Center

Historic ParksDocumentationAnother unique component of the conditionassessment of parks included research of historicparks in Dallas. Of the 400+ park facilities withinthe city, 100 are over fifty years old and havepotential historic significance. The overallprocess for evaluating historic parks involved fourtasks as follows:

Research and Data Collection• Confirm the number of historic parks and

cemeteries• Collect historic data including plans,

drawings, and historic photographs• Determine the period of development and

significance of park

Survey and Inventory• Develop a survey instrument for the site

surveys• Tour historic parks and record existing

features• Assess changes that have occurred over time• Develop a ranking criteria based on historical

significance

Recommendations• Determine the appropriate treatment for each

historic park and cemetery (i.e., preservation,rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction)


Integration of HistoricParks into Plan• Prepare a historic parks plan component

identifying conditions, improvements, needs,future changes and opportunities to preservethe historic parks and cemeteries and theirprominence within the park system (i.e.,capital improvements, landmark designation,public education, funding)

• The research uncovered a rich historywithin the Dallas park system dating back tothe late 1800s and early 1900s. Three of themost significant time periods were:

• George Kessler’s A City Plan for Dallas in1911

• Works Progress Administration (WPA) andCivilian Conservation Corps (CCC) era of the1930s – 1940s

• Post World War II park designs by Hare &Hare based upon 1944 Master Plan


Historic Documentation Review

Original Rendering of Dealey Plaza from 1939

Historic Park Sites

• Bachman Lake Park• Buckner Park• City Park• Cole Park• J.J. Craft Park• Dealey Plaza• M.L. Dunn Park• Exall Park• Exline Park• Ferris Plaza• Garrett Park• Grauwyler Park• Griggs Park• Kessler Parkway• Kiest Park• Lake Cliff Park• Lee Park• Munger Park• Pike Park• Randall Park• Reverchon Park• Samuell Grand Park• Stevens Golf Course• Swiss Avenue• Tenison Park• Tokalon Park• Turner Plaza• Turtle Creek Parkway• Martin Weiss Park• White Rock Lake Park

• Beeman Cemetery• La Reunion Cemetery• Merrifield Cemetery• Pioneer Cemetery• Pleasant Mound Cemetery

Historic Cemeteries

Final documentation was provided for 30 parksites and 5 cemeteries and is presented in Figure4. Recommendations for improvement andrestoration were also included in the overallCapital Needs Inventory.

Service and Equity LevelsExisting service and equity levels were evaluatedto determine how well Dallas is meeting the needsof its citizens from a demographic and geographicstandpoint. This evaluation consisted of fourseparate components:

• Demographic Analysis• Park Reclassifications• Facility Standards• Service Area Analysis

Demographic AnalysisAn analysis of the demographic data profile ofDallas was conducted to give better insight inmeeting citizen needs for park facilities andprograms. Understanding the demographicenvironment is important for the followingreasons:

• To understand the market areas being servedand to distinguish customer groups

• To determine changes that are occurring inareas and make proactive decisions toaccommodate these shifts

• To consider the Department’s own objectivesand resources in relation to the demographicmakeup of the City

The demographic data was provided by the U.S.Census Bureau and Claritas Inc., a national firmspecializing in population projections and markettrend reports. The data provided was based oninformation released from the Census 2000,including total population figures, racial/ethnicpopulation, and general demographiccharacteristics of the City. The income figuresused in this report are estimates. Populationdensities of various demographic characteristicswere mapped by census tract and by the six parkdistricts. This enables planning for futureprogramming, parks, and facilities to be alongnon-political boundaries, and within geographicareas consistent with Park Department operations.

Figure 4 – Historic Parks and Cemeteries

United States. From 1998 to 2003, the fastestgrowing Hispanic youth population is in theDallas-Fort Worth area, with a projected increaseof 21%. This is a faster growth rate than in theother top ten metropolitan areas including LosAngeles, New York, Chicago, Miami, and SanFrancisco/Oakland/San Jose.

A detailed Demographic Analysis report can befound in Appendix Volume 4-v.

This analysis indicated that the Dallas populationis experiencing dramatic change and becomingmore diverse and equal among races andethnicities as presented in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 7 – 2005 Hispanic Population Density

Figure 8 – 2005 African American Population Density

The Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan StatisticalArea had a population increase of 29.3%, thelargest among the top ten US metropolitan areasduring 1990s. The white population has beendecreasing since 1990 and is projected to continueto decline through 2005, while the Hispanicpopulation has been increasing over the years andis projected to represent 37% of the population by2005. The African American population hasdecreased slightly over the past ten years and isprojected to remain stable through 2005. Theother ethnicities are projected to remain somewhatstable or increase slightly by the year 2005 asshown in Figures 7, 8 and 9 Race/EthnicityPopulation Density Maps.

According to an article in AmericanDemographics, April 2001, Hispanic youth by2005 will overtake African- American youth tobecome the largest ethnic youth population in the



Figure 6 – 2005 Projected Race/Ethnic Population

Dallas Population

1990 Population2000 Population2005 Projection

1,006,8771,188,5801,250,016

Figure 5 – Dallas Population

Park ReclassificationsWhen defining different types of parks, parkclassifications are used to define size, service areaby geography and population, length of stay, andprogrammed activities. During the Inventory andCondition Assessment task, inconsistencies wereidentified in current park classifications. Itbecame necessary to evaluate all parks todetermine accurate classifications according topublished National Recreation and ParkAssociation (NRPA) definitions. The newclassifications include:

• Mini-Park• Neighborhood Park• Community Park• Metropolitan Park• Regional Park• Special Use Area• Linear Park/Linkage• Conservancy

The new park classifications were used to evaluateservice areas for mini, neighborhood, community,and linear/linkage parks. Park ClassificationDefinitions, including a list of re-classified parks,are provided in Appendix Volume 3-iii.

Facility StandardsThe adequacy of existing parks, recreationfacilities, and open spaces were evaluated bycomparing the needs of present and forecastedpopulations to specific facility standards.Historically, NRPA has published facilitystandards in documents such as Recreation, Parksand Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Thesestandards provide recommendations for parkfacilities per thousand (1,000) population.However, these standards are normalized acrossthe United States and do not take into accountclimate, population diversity, and recreation trendsin specific regions of the country. Using NRPAstandards as a reference combined withbenchmarking of comparable cities, an analysiswas performed to develop facility standards toguide the planning of park and recreation facilitiesin Dallas. Facility standards, customized to theneeds of Dallas, were developed by the consultantteam in conjunction with Department staff andadopted by the Dallas Park Board1 as presented inFigure 10.

Establishing and applying park and recreationfacility standards achieves the following:

• Expresses minimum acceptable facilities forcitizens of urban and rural communities

• Guides land requirements for various kinds ofpark and recreation areas and facilities

• Relates recreation needs to spatial analysiswithin a community-wide system of parks andopen space areas

• Becomes a major structuring element that canbe used to guide and assist regionaldevelopment

Figure 9 – 2005 White Population Density

Facility Standards Review

Footnote:1 Formally adopted by the Dallas Park and Recreation Board, 10/25/01.

• Justifies the need for parks and open spacewithin the overall land use pattern of a regionor community

These facility standards should be viewed as aguide. They address goals to be achieved. Thestandards are to be coupled with conventionalwisdom and judgment related to the particularsituation and needs of the community.

By applying these facility standards to theprojected population in 2005, significant gaps inmajor facility types are revealed and presented inFigure 10. This analysis was used in thedevelopment of the Capital Needs Inventory,described later in this section.

Service Area AnalysisService areas of major facility types were mappedto graphically depict gaps and overlaps in serviceareas for each facility type. Using 2005population projections by census tract, parkfacilities were mapped based on the approvedfacility standards. Citywide service area mapsincluded:

• Neighborhood parks• Community parks• Linear/linkage parks• Recreation centers


Note: Gaps in facility needs will be met through a variety of providers along with the City of Dallas. These providers includeschool districts, churches, community colleges, private school facilities, Dallas County, not-for-profits, etc.

Soccer Fields

Baseball, Youth

Baseball, Adults

Softball, Youth

Softball, Adults

Football

Outdoor Basketball

Volleyball

Playground

Pavilions

Trails

Recreation Centers

Tennis

Facility

RecommendedFacilities perPopulation

Existing Facilitiesin Dallas Park& Recreation

RecommendedFacilities for 2005

Population of 1,250,016

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 per

1 mi per

1 sf per person

5,000

7,000

15,000

5,000

8,000

20,000

4,000

4,000

5,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

130

9

21

37

44

11

254

154

19

267

104

146

699,649 sf

250

179

83

250

156

63

313

313

250

417

313

250

1,250,016 sf

Figure 10 – Facility Standards


All other major park facilities were mapped by thesix park maintenance districts to provide a moredetailed analysis by planning area. Figure 11provides a sample service area map forneighborhood parks. These maps are presented inAppendix Volume 3-iii and within PIDS.

These service area maps were used during theCapital Needs Inventory development describedlater in this section. In addition to planning forcapital improvements, these maps allow forinformed decision-making on park facility andprogram planning.

Programs, Operations, andMaintenanceThe Dallas Park and Recreation Department hassuffered from several significant economicdownturns. While the park system has grownmore than 30% in acreage since the 1980s,staffing levels and operating budgets have notgrown to match this increase.

During the development of the Long RangeDevelopment Plan, operations and maintenanceactivities were evaluated through anEnvironmental Scan of the Department, aRecreation Programs Analysis, a detailed

Maintenance Operations Review, and aManagement Information System needsassessment. These reviews focused on the abilityand readiness of the Department to implement theLong Range Development Plan.

Environmental Scan of DepartmentAn environmental scan of the Dallas Park andRecreation Department was performed todetermine the “organizational readiness” andability to implement the strategicrecommendations outlined in the Long RangeDevelopment Plan. The Team developed anevaluation process that focused on managementpractices and systems aimed to reducebureaucracy, increase efficiency, and maximizeinternal and external resources. Theenvironmental scan is divided into sections thatfocus on key management strategies that should beaddressed by the Park Board and leadership of theDepartment, including:

• Staffing levels• Policy management• Bureaucracy• Standards management• Funding• Marketing• Core business development• Technology• Tax subsidy levels• Outsourcing and contract management

Key findings include:• The Dallas Park and Recreation Department

is over-extended and extremely under funded.The Department has excellent leadership atthe top of the organization but needs to bestrengthened throughout the organization tofully implement the Long RangeDevelopment Plan recommendations.

• Overall systems management must be refinedand changed to simplify operations, reducebureaucracy, and bring decision-making downto the lower levels of the organization. TheDepartment must become much moreentrepreneurial in its thinking and approachto business. The Department operates inan outdated mindset regarding facilitymanagement, program development, andmaintenance. This mindset will not allow the

Figure 11 – Parks Service Area Analysis

organization to move forward unlesseveryone in the organization embraces thegoals and strategies outlined in the plan.

The Environmental Scan of the Departmentlocated in Appendix 4-vii includes details on eachmanagement component. This analysis providesdirection on managing the organization differentlyin order to implement the Long RangeDevelopment Plan.

Program AnalysisAn analysis of existing programs was performedto assess the strengths and weaknesses of majorprogramming areas, opportunities in the marketand potential threats to resolve. The evaluationincorporated the following:

• Customer Service Plan• Marketing and Market Share• Capacity Utilization• Revenue History• Program Life Cycles• Contractual Instructor Standards• Pricing• Program Facilities• Partnerships and Sponsorships• ADA Compliance• Seasonal Program Capabilities• Service Gaps – Activities not currently offered• Trends Analysis

The following programs were evaluated:

• Aerobics• Baseball• Basketball• Wellness/Fitness• Exercise Walking• Exercise with Equipment• Football – Touch• Golf• Martial Arts• Rollerblading• Running and Jogging• Summer Playground Program• Skateboarding• Soccer• Softball• Swimming• Tennis• Volleyball• Performing Arts

• Contract Fee Classes• Bridge• Day Camps• Arts and Crafts• After School Programs• Meditation

This analysis was based on a survey used toevaluate current recreation program businessplans. This process required a clearunderstanding of each business planningcomponent and how it applied to the delivery ofservice to the community.

A summary of the findings revealed thefollowing:

• A clearer definition of core programs vs. non-core programs is needed

• Most of the programs are targeted at specificages or groups

• There is a gap in structured programming forage six and under

• Lack of tracking customer participation levelslimits understanding of market share

• Most recreation programs do not have a well-defined vision and mission

• Limited marketing of programs causes thecommunity to be unaware of programs offered


Larry Johnson Recreation Center


• Need to utilize technology for web site andemail capabilities for expanding marketingoutreach

• Most programs do not have a customerservice plan to monitor success or problems

• The majority of programs do not have adefined theme for customer appreciation• Most facilities need upgrades, renovations,

expansions, new equipment, and ADAcompliance to better serve and broaden theprogramming potential

• Almost none of the current programs arebenchmarked against competitor’s programs

• The majority of programs are 100% subsidized• The majority of programs are undervalued

Detailed findings are presented in AppendixVolume 4-viii.

Maintenance OperationsAssessmentOne of the core businesses of the Dallas Park andRecreation Department involves the maintenanceof all park facilities. This does not includerecreation centers, which are maintained by theEquipment and Building Services Department. AMaintenance Operations Assessment wasperformed to evaluate the current services andpractices regarding the care of park and recreationassets.

To accomplish this assessment, field reviews of allsix maintenance districts and the FacilitiesServices Division were conducted during thesummer of 2001. On-site interviews withpersonnel, observations of current managementpractices, and review of various documents wereincluded in this phase. The Team then developeda series of findings and recommendations based

upon industry norms and best managementpractices. Many of the recommendations are tiedto management practices, while otherrecommendations involve the need to invest incapital infrastructure.

General observations include:

• The Department is currently organized intosix maintenance districts, with three of thosedistricts operating a satellite facility and aFacility Services Division that providesconstruction and maintenance support to allDepartment-owned infrastructure. This

district approach was developed many yearsago in order to effectively address thegeographic diversity of the Dallas parksystem. However, a large disparity in thedistribution of work and the excessiveamount of travel time for District 6 presentsthe need to create another maintenancedistrict, or sub district, above District 6 in farNorth Dallas. There are also opportunitiesthat some operational issues could be solvedusing contract maintenance.

• The Department has experienced significantdownsizing and budget cuts over the past15 years, thus the ability to manage thecurrent demand with existing resources hasnoticeably taken its toll.

• The maintenance operations system isworking from a dated model that does notencourage entrepreneurial thinking. Eachdistrict operates very independent of oneanother and typically only coordinates itemswhen they need to borrow equipment,supplies, or personnel. There are manysuccesses that can be shared with each other.Each district has developed a portion of thebusiness that makes them unique. A fewdistricts have found substantial efficiencies,while others are very inefficient in the samelines of business.

• Most maintenance districts are lacking in theuse of current technology and are doing verylittle with regard to the management ofworkflow, work processes, measuring outputs,and measuring resource allocation. A single,system-wide work order management systemshould be implemented, and integrated withthe Park Inventory Database System forinventory and condition assessment datamaintenance.

District Five Maintenance Headquarters

• Inconsistencies exist in the use of equipmentbetween districts. Performance standardsshould be developed and implemented infuture equipment selection.

Details of the Maintenance Operations Assessmentare located in Appendix Volume 4-ix.

Management InformationSystemA needs assessment of the Department’smanagement information systems was performedto evaluate flow of information andcommunication, and to provide input into thedevelopment of the Park Inventory DatabaseSystem (PIDS). Tasks included:

• Inventory and characterization of existinginformation and communication resources ofthe Department

• Identification of areas where the Departmentwould like to improve its informationmanagement

• General plan to help the Department use itsexisting resources to improve informationmanagement as well as identify newtechnology and resources to meet unmet needs

• Guidance for the development of PIDS toensure flexibility and expandability

The team conducted interviews with keyDepartment personnel to gain a perspective oninformation management within the Department.The following list summarizes the needs orexpectations that were expressed:

• Improve the process of providing reports byCouncil District

• Prioritize facility improvement needs withbudget and facility inventory

• Provide real-time financial data• Improve human resources tracking to

streamline the hiring process• Use on-line forms and workflow• Increase the amount of data storage• Increase the use of imaging• Provide better information to improve

decision making• Communicate planned projects and initiatives• Improve customer feedback• Use demographic data and customer

information to improve customer service

• Be able to measure processes (humanresources and purchasing)

• Improve ability to coordinate information• Improve information flow between the Park

Department and other city departments• Provide better planning information• Use and track performance measures

(examples: number of reservations, event andclass attendance, number of ticket sales, etc.)

• Eliminate double-entry or duplication of effort

To improve management of information fordecision-making and improved responsiveness tocustomer needs, the Park Department needs todeploy technology that consolidates data andprovides access to all parties. Completing Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) connections to allDepartment facilities including recreation centers,maintenance facilities, and regional headquartersshould be a priority. Because of the rapidadvancement of the world wide web andassociated applications, it is stronglyrecommended that all future systems developedand deployed by the Park Department either beweb-based or have the ability to interface withweb technology. Additional findings andrecommendations are presented in theManagement Information System NeedsAssessment in Appendix 4-x.

As a foundation of the Management InformationSystem needs assessment and the conditionassessment task, the Team designed and developedthe Park Inventory Database System . PIDS wasdesigned as a web-based database tool formanaging information and data related to parkfacilities. PIDS provides the ability to centralizeall information related to park facilities includinggeneral information, inventory and condition ofassets, proposed capital improvements, andtechnical scoring. Additional features of PIDSinclude on-line geographic information system(GIS), demographic maps, links to supportingdocuments, and a reporting module.

While PIDS is available over the world wide web,its primary purpose is for internal use by City staffand other designated persons. Access to PIDS isprovided through password protection for securityand protection of data. PIDS was designed toallow extensive flexibility and expandability fortying other information systems within theDepartment together. These include interface



Standards ComparisonThe benchmark analysis includes comparisonsagainst the national average and low-density citiesin the multiple categories2 as presented inFigure 12.

Generally, the Dallas park system ranked verywell against average benchmark standards forfacility-related factors, due in part to the largenumber of acres of parks. Dallas is considered alow-density city with 4.8 people per acre. Dallashas 20.73 acres of park land per 1,000 residents,which is substantially above the national average.Dallas is also above the average for low-densitycities for number of recreation centers, albeit thesefacilities tend to be small by industry standards.In terms of neighborhood parks, Dallas is slightlyunder the average for low-density cities. Forsports fields, Dallas is right at the average for low-density cities.

Dallas ranked substantially below the nationalaverage for other low-density cities inexpenditures per resident: Dallas - $47, comparedto $71 average for all cities. This below-averagerating extends to number of full-time employeesper 1,000 residents and per square mile of cityarea. These comparisons support findings relatedto the Park Department’s inability to fullymaintain park facilities at desirable levels.

Park Inventory Database System (PIDS)

with a work order management system, on-linereservation system, and capital projectmanagement system. A PIDS User Manual isprovided in Appendix Volume 4-xi.

BenchmarkingBenchmarking was performed to compare theDallas Park and Recreation Department againstother national peer cities based on industrystandards appropriate to parks and recreationagencies. In addition, a “Best Practices”evaluation of five key areas was performed. Thisbenchmarking provides key insights into strengthsand weaknesses of how Dallas compares to othermajor cities.

Footnote:2 Source: Inside City Parks, Peter Harnik, 2000

Park area as a percent of city areaPark acres per 1,000 residentsExpenditure per residentNumber of full-time employees per 1,000 residentsNumber of seasonal employees per 1,000 residentsNumber of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residentsNumber of neighborhood parks per square mile of city areaNumber of recreation centers per 1,000 residentsNumber of recreation centers per square mile of city areaNumber of golf courses per 1,000 residentsNumber of sports fields per 1,000 residentsNumber of sports fields per square mile

NationalAverage

AverageLow

DensityCities Dallas

Figure 12 – Standards Comparison Benchmarking

8.111.0$751.01.0.301.6

.053.33

.006.30

2.07

7.417.3$71.94.62.23.64

.039.12

.008.37

1.00

10.020.7$47.85.38.21.67

.042.13

.005.38

1.19

Best PracticesBenchmarking also included a documentation ofbest practices for five different areas important tothe Dallas system from leading park systems in theUnited States. These five areas and a summary offindings include:

PartnershipsPhoenix, Arizona was used as the benchmarkcity for effective use of partnerships.Effectiveness is equated to the quality ofservices rendered to the community; use ofcommunity resources managed by the city andthe entities they create the partnership with; andthe diversity of the partnership organizations.Phoenix has partner relationships with morethan 325 groups and organizations in thecommunity organized by: public/public, public/private, and public/not-for-profit. They are ableto generate funds and recruit volunteers foractivities, with many relationships designed toenhance tourism through sport events such asadult and youth softball tournaments, and tennisand golf events.

Revenue GenerationThe Maryland National Planning Commissionexcels in best practices in revenue generationfor large urban parks and recreation systems.The Planning Commission earns approximately40% of its total operational budget of $65million from earned income, which is comprisedof user fees, sponsorships, grants, foundationsupport, partnerships, and other creativefinancing methods. The Planning Commission’sefforts support a population of over one millionresidents in the Washington D.C. area.

Contracting ServicesMesa, Arizona is a leader in the area of contractservices with 80% of their park maintenanceefforts outsourced to private contractors. Theresult is impeccable park conditions. Mesa alsofocuses on playground safety best practices withweekly inspection efforts.

Maintenance OperationsThe Maryland National Planning Commissionalso excells in maintenance operations. Bestpractice in maintenance operations starts withhaving written maintenance standards in placeas well as the cost to produce a standard. ThePlanning Commission follows the standards and

tracks the results. These same standards applyto both contractors and staff and both receiveroutine inspections against the expectedoutcomes. Work plans are developed formaintenance crews, and the results are postedweekly.

Marketing/Customer ServicePhoenix, Arizona has the best managementpractice in terms of marketing and promotingparks and recreation programs, with four to fivepercent of their total operating budget dedicatedto marketing and developing customer feedbackto improve operations.

Capital Needs InventoryThe Capital Needs Inventory consists of totalcapital improvements required for all park andrecreation facilities. From this Capital NeedsInventory, prioritized capital implementation plansand bond programs are developed. The processfor developing the Capital Needs Inventory for theDallas Park and Recreation Department and theresultant capital needs follows.

Development ProcessUtilizing the information and data collectedthroughout the review of the Dallas park system, athorough process was implemented to identify andquantify the total capital needs inventory. Thefour-step process included the following:

Step 1 – Physical Evaluation / ConditionAssessment

• Inventory and condition assessment in field• General observations from park site reviews• Input from park planning staff• Input from recreation and maintenance staff• Preliminary recommendations made by Team

during site reviews


Condition Assessment


Step 2 – Citizen and Stakeholder Input• Input from interviews with key community

leaders• Input from public focus groups• Input from public forums• Input from staff focus groups• Input from citizen survey findings

Step 3 – Analytical Evaluation• Demographic analysis• Benchmarking analysis• Trends analysis• Service area analysis

Service Area Analysis

Public Forum

Step 4 – Project Scoring and Ranking• Technical scoring• Ranking of priority needs

This process was applied by the Team withsupport from Park Department staff during reviewof the recommended capital improvements andtechnical scoring. The result of this process was acomprehensive list of improvements for parkfacilities, based on physical and analyticalevaluations, and scored and ranked by categoriesconsistent with City of Dallas bond formatsprovided in Appendix Volume 3-iii. All capitalimprovements were developed within the ParkInventory Database System for future use. Alldata is compatible with the City’s bond programdatabase system, allowing roll-up of informationinto the City’s bond packages.

Technical Scoring



2002 Needs InventoryIn developing the overall capital needs for thepark system, three distinct levels of improvementswere established to define the type of needs.These levels describe the type of capitalimprovements and investment necessary for thepark system:

Level 1 – Recovers System $565,693,000

• Focuses on current infrastructure due todecline and decay• Addresses repair, renovation, and restoration

of existing facilities• Has minimal or no change in operation and

maintenance costs

Improvements to include:• Upgrade playgrounds• Upgrade pavilions and picnic facilities• Upgrade walkways and trails• Upgrade furnishings (tables, drinking

fountains, other)• Renovation of recreation centers

Level 2 – Expands and Enhances System $843,994,000

• Provides expansion and enhancement ofexisting parks

• Adds new facilities to address standards ofservice

• Adds operation and maintenance costs

Improvements to include:• New playgrounds, pavilions and picnic

facilities• New trails and pedestrian walkways• New sports fields (lighted fields for league

play)• New play courts (in-line hockey, basketball,

other)• New landscaping and beautification within

parks• Expansion of parking areas• New restrooms at sports complexes• Expansion of recreation centers

Craddock Park


Kiest Park

Level 3 – Responds to Trends andNew Visions $454,154,000

• Responds to national trends and new visionsin park and recreational activities

• Adds significant operations and maintenancecosts

• Adds new revenues to potentially offsetoperations and maintenance costs

Improvements to include:• New sports complexes• New multi-generation recreation centers• New family aquatic centers• New regional trail network

TOTAL $1,863,841,000

rom the beginning of the planning process, the LongRange Development Plan involved a major campaign toengage citizens and stakeholders of Dallas. The

stakeholders were eager to express their frustrations about thecurrent park system, but were equally willing to share theiraspirations for parks and recreation. In the early months of theproject, the Team brought citizens and stakeholders into theoverall visioning process. This process included five major steps:interviews with key community leaders; public focus groups withdiverse users; public forums across Dallas with citizens at large;staff focus groups with representatives from throughout thedepartment; and a citizen survey distributed randomly throughoutthe city.

The leaders and citizens of Dallas realize that a great park systemis foundational to a great city and its quality of life. This wasexpressed in many ways— from the desire for great neighborhoodparks to the desire for state-of-the-art sports complexes andrecreation centers. Most of the citizens expressed that Dallasmust take an aggressive approach to recover the declining parksystem. When asked about the strengths of the park system,citizens frequently mentioned Dallas’ destination facilities such asFair Park, the Dallas Arboretum, and White Rock Lake Park.Other strengths mentioned included the large amount of landavailable within the park system as well as how recreationprograms bring the city together. In terms of weaknesses, thecitizens were quite vocal. Concerns over poor maintenance andoutdated parks were repeatedly raised. Other weaknessesmentioned were the lack of equity, funding, and consistentstandards for parks. Safety and security were frequentlymentioned as a deterrent to people wanting to use Dallas parksand park facilities.

When discussing opportunities, Dallas leaders and citizens werevery enthusiastic. Participants were excited that the City wasembarking upon the Long Range Development Plan and felt this

Our Community Values…Defining the Aspirations of Dallas Citizens

F would stimulate new vision and action. Many expressed theopportunity to respond to trends such as providing sportscomplexes, multi-generation centers, and family aquatic centers.Leaders recognize how this could generate revenue andpartnerships to support operations. Stakeholders were also eagerto implement beautification across Dallas to enhance the City’simage, as well as a network of trails that link parks to majordestinations throughout the City.

The comprehensive community and stakeholder input processidentified what Dallas community values and expectations are forparks and recreation. This input was organized using theCommunity Values Model methodology. Developed by Carter &Burgess and Leon Younger & PROS, the Community ValuesModel synthesizes and arranges citizen and stakeholder input intocategories, which drive the development of the vision and missionand organizes a framework for the strategic plan. The primarybenefit of the Community Values Model methodology is that ofbalance among the variety of perspectives and values held by thecommunity that can be organized into a business model thatfacilitates implementation of strategies.

Public Forum


Community andStakeholder InputThe Team used a diverse means of qualitative andquantitative research to define the aspirations ofDallas citizens and stakeholders. The qualitativeresearch involved a series of interviews with keycommunity leaders, public focus groups withdiverse user groups, public forums with citizens atlarge, and staff focus groups with a wide-range ofpersonnel from throughout the Department.These interviews and focus groups led to thequantitative research that was obtained through acitizen survey distributed randomly across theDallas community. The findings from thisresearch provided the principles definingcommunity values and the vision for the Dallaspark system.

Key CommunityLeaders InterviewsForty-six interviews with key community leaderswere conducted. These included interviews withCity Council members, Park and Recreation Boardmembers, Dallas Area Rapid Transit boardmembers and staff, business leaders, schooldistrict representatives, chamber of commercerepresentatives, and representatives from otherCity departments. The following issues wereexpressed through these interviews:

Strengths• Amount of park acreage in Dallas• Signature destinations such as Fair Park,

Dallas Zoo, White Rock Lake Park, etc.• Parks and recreation programs that link the

city together• Improvement of golf courses

Weaknesses• Park maintenance• Lack of equity: north-south-east-west• Safety and security• Lack of consistent standards• Lack of funding• Undervalued programs• Lack of focus on economic development• Poor image in parks and lack of beautification• Marketing of programs and services

Opportunities• Long Range Development Plan as a stimulus

to vision and action• Ability to respond to recreational trends• Establishment of creative funding

mechanisms• Retention of new revenues• Beautification plan for entire City• Establishment of greenways and a trail

network• Sports tourism• Youth programming for 12–18 year-old age

group• Widespread demographic appeal• Broader partnerships with the community

Public Input - Focus Groupsand Public ForumsForty public focus groups were conducted withdiverse user groups from across the city. Thesegroups included 17 sports organizations, sevenneighborhood districts, 12 special interest groups,random citizen groups, and a random group ofSpanish-speaking citizens.

Additionally, a series of public forums were heldacross Dallas with citizens at-large. The openforums allowed citizens to share their desires forparks, recreation programs, and trends in Dallas.These forums were held in local high schoolsdispersed throughout the city. Four of theseforums were scheduled early in the process to gaininput and five forums were held one year later topresent findings and recommendations. Thisinteractive process gave the citizens anunderstanding of the system today and the overallimportance of preparing a Long RangeDevelopment Plan for the Department.

The following comments were expressed throughthe public focus groups and public forums:

Community Leader Interview


Strengths• Signature destination facilities such as Fair

Park, Dallas Zoo, Dallas Arboretum, etc.• Amount of park land – more than 20,000

acres• Professional staff in the Park Department

Weaknesses• Park maintenance and infrastructure

management• Equity of parks throughout city• Lack of program consistency at recreation

centers• Limited game fields• Outdated neighborhood parks• Safety and security• Poor image value in parks• Underfunded department with too much to

manage• Understaffed• Too bureaucratic• Lack of technology

Opportunities• Update parks to be more productive• Potential trail network and linkages• Partnering with other groups and

organizations• Revenue producing facilities• Pricing programs to customer’s ability to pay• Historic parks in city• More cultural sensitivity to changing

demographics• Managing against budget• Transferal of parks to other groups to manage• More signature parks• Development of the Trinity River Corridor as

a premier recreation corridor• New multi-generational centers and aquatic

centers

Staff Focus GroupsAnother major stakeholder group interviewedincluded staff representatives from throughout thePark Department. Ten staff focus groups wereconducted to glean insight into the day-to-dayactivities as well as opportunities for thedepartment. Focus groups included recreationcenter managers, program specialists, districtmanagers, park maintenance supervisors, planningand design staff, and community programcoordinators. The following items werementioned in the Staff Focus Groups:

Strengths• Staff feels public is satisfied with services

provided• Volunteers feel good about the park system• Enthusiastic staff in the Department

Weaknesses• Lack of game fields• Need staff training for working with

volunteers• Facility design is not program driven• Lack of program budget for services provided• Staff has no authority at recreation centers• City programs do not have priority on sports

field usage• Too much entitlement exists• More aquatic facilities are needed• Lack of service equity• Safety is a major problem• Lack of standards for recreation programs• Bureaucracy• Lack of staff• Lack of information technology• Lack of communication

Public Forum

Staff Focus Group

• Lack of equipment• Reactive versus proactive

Opportunities• Coordinated effort on pursuing grant funding• Increasing revenue through facilities and

programs• Better able to manage large facilities than

small facilities• Partnerships are the key to the future• Establishing more equitable partnerships

with sports organizations• Improving partnerships with school districts

Key Barriers• Lack of funding• Conflicts between City departments• A system that is too political and keeps the

Park Department from improving• Too much entitlement in the system• The development of signature parks

at the expense of other parks• Lack of leadership citywide for parks• Lack of code enforcement• Inability of the Department to control

management of its own buildings due to thecurrent responsibility of the Equipment &Building Services Department

• Lack of funding alternatives

Citizen SurveyBased upon stakeholder input from the interviews,focus groups and public forums, a citizen surveywas designed to provide quantitative research ofpark needs in Dallas. The survey was distributedto over 20,000 randomly selected householdsacross Dallas in proportion to the populationwithin each zip code. The ability to processresults from zip code areas provided detailedcitizen needs for park and recreation priorities.The survey was prepared in both English andSpanish. Of the mailing list, 50% were Spanishsurnames. Twenty percent of the surveys weredistributed within multi-family units. A total of800 surveys were processed.

From the responses, 25% used the park system atleast once a week. More than 56% stated that thepark system needed some, or much, improvement.Over 70% of respondents learn about parks andprograms from friends or the newspaper. Priority

of needs for programs and facilities identified bycitizens is provided in Figure 13.

The citizens clearly realize the pressing need toimprove the current system. Approximately 55%of respondents stated that Dallas must make it ahigh priority to improve existing parks andfacilities. For funding, almost 70% expressed awillingness to vote in favor of a new bond issuefor parks.

Community Values ModelThe comprehensive community and stakeholderinput process identified a very broad range ofideas, principles, and values held by the citizensand leaders of Dallas. The Team assimilated all ofthe input collected and developed a CommunityValues Model, a process of arranging communityvalues into groups or perspectives, which thenorganizes the framework for the strategic plan.There were five community values identified:

• Community Mandates• Consistent Standards• Tiered Programs and Facilities• Revenue Development• Partnership Development

The Community Values Model for the Dallas Parkand Recreation Department creates a balanced,sustainable approach to guide decisions andallocation of resources. Within this Community


• Concerts• Adult fitness/health• Youth day programs• Youth sports• Youth swim lessons

• Hike/bike trails• Playgrounds• Recreation centers• Golf courses• Soccer fields

Programs – First Choice

Facilities – First Choice

Figure 13 – Citizen Survey Priorities


Values Model, a clear definition of communitymandates is provided, allowing the Department tomore effectively manage its resources for all areasof need. Consistent standards are established sothat a baseline of service and quality exists. Witha baseline established, appropriate resources canbe applied to developing new sources of fundingincluding facilities that are sustainable throughself-generated revenue to offset and/or coveroperating and maintenance costs. Equitablepartnerships provide the ability to leverage theCity’s investment and resources to help deliverpark facilities and program services at all levels.

The Community Values Model was developed tocreate the framework of a strategic plan that iscustom to the Park Department and founded incommunity values. Using this framework, goals,strategies, and actions are defined to fulfill therespective community value. The strategic plantakes form as a Vision Strategy Matrix. Thismatrix will serve as a “living document andstrategy implementation tool,” providing guidancefor all aspects of the Park Board and Departmentoperations. This matrix is described in detailunder Our Strategic Plan…Vision Strategy Matrixsection of this report.

The Community Values Model was presented to,and consensus gained by, the Dallas Park andRecreation Board and Department staff through aseries of workshops. It was also presented to thecitizens of Dallas at five public forums held in2002 throughout the City. Statements describingeach of these community values are presented inOur Strategic Plan…Community Value Statementsand Goals section of this report.

Park Board Retreat

Our Strategic Plan...Setting a New Course

T he true test of a successful plan is measured by itsresults. With this in mind the Long Range DevelopmentPlan is a strategic planning initiative that will guide the

Dallas Park System over the next 10 to 20 years. Recovering thesystem will not happen overnight. It will take many years of aconcerted effort to accomplish specific goals and strategies thatwill produce results. For success, each management decisionmust be grounded in the bigger vision for the Dallas park system.This is the purpose of the strategic plan.

In developing the strategic plan, the community values became itsfoundation. This ensured that the plan was tailored to the uniqueneeds and aspirations of Dallas citizens. In addition tocommunity values, the vision and mission are cornerstones of theoverall strategic plan. Bringing the plan to life is the VisionStrategy Matrix, a strategy implementation tool that presentsdetailed goals, strategies, actions, responsibilities, performancemeasures, and timelines for best results.

Vision and Mission StatementsFollowing (Figure 14) is the vision and mission for the DallasPark and Recreation Department.

VisionOur vision is for Dallas to be a premier park and recreationsystem in the United States.

MissionOur mission is to:

• Recover the quality and prestige of the Dallas parksystem

• Regain the confidence and enthusiasm of our citizens• Reposition the Dallas Park and Recreation Department

as a recognized state and national leader

Figure 14 – Vision and Mission Statements

Downtown Dallas Skyline

Our Strategic Plan... Setting a New Course

Community Value Statementsand Goals

Following are descriptions of each communityvalue and supporting goals. These goals arebroadly defined objectives to achieve and fulfillthe value statements.

Community MandatesValue Statement: Fulfill the communitymandates by providing all citizens with qualityprograms and access to safe and well-maintainedpark facilities throughout Dallas, while protectingand managing the Department’s natural resources,and implementing the citizens’ vision for qualityrecreational amenities.

Goal 1 – Be recognized in Dallas and nationwidefor maintaining a high quality parksystem that creates value for the citizens.

Goal 2 – Provide safe and secure park facilitiesand programs throughout the City ofDallas that offer citizens a positiveexperience.

Goal 3 – Provide equity in the delivery of parkfacilities and programs that are dispersedthroughout the city of Dallas.

Goal 4 – Develop connectivity throughout theDallas park system through a diversecitywide trail network that links parks,neighborhoods, and major destinations.

Goal 5 – Demonstrate environmentalstewardship and sustainability that willbuild public advocacy and supportthrough the management of naturalresources, open space, and parkfacilities.

Goal 6 – Plan and implement the recreationalamenities within the Trinity RiverCorridor Plan to fulfill Dallas citizens’vision for a premier recreationalcorridor.

Consistent StandardsValue Statement: Provide consistent standards inthe design, construction, operations, andmaintenance of park facilities including historicparks and the delivery of core program services.

Goal 1 – Be recognized in Dallas and nationwidefor the design, development, andmaintenance of new and existing parkfacilities to a baseline standard ofquality.

Goal 2 – Designate core and non-core services asthey apply to park facilities andprograms in order to increase coreservice capacity while reducing cityinvolvement in non-core services.

Goal 3 – Achieve cost savings throughorganizational efficiency, accountability,and innovative thinking in the deliveryof services.

Goal 4 – Employ effective maintenancemanagement practices recognizingbaseline standards, to support thecommunity mandate for well-maintainedpark facilities by achieving maximumproductivity of people, equipment, andservice facilities.

Goal 5 – Preserve and showcase the city’shistoric park facilities for citizeneducation, appreciation, and enjoyment.

Goal 6 – Establish policies and procedures relatedto the Park Board’s role in theimplementation of the Long RangeDevelopment Plan.

Craddock Park



Tiered Programs and FacilitiesValue Statement: Provide citizens withopportunities for choice-driven levels ofrecreational experiences that are sustainablethrough effective pricing, thus creating lifetimecustomers.

Goal 1 – Develop a series of park facility typesand programs that will expand the userbase, increase revenue capacity, andbuild advocacy.

Goal 2 – Operate tiered park facilities andprograms at no less than 50 percent costrecovery within three years afteropening.

Goal 3 – Identify and develop service providerswho can deliver expanded tieredprogram services beyond the City’scapacity, ensuring lifetime patronage,enjoyment, and fulfillment.

Revenue DevelopmentValue Statement: Design and develop signaturepark facilities and programs that generateoperating revenue and maximize tax dollars fordeveloping consistent standards for neighborhoodand community parks.

Goal 1 – Establish policies, procedures, andmechanisms for the management ofrevenues that do not reduce existing orfuture operating budgets.

Goal 2 – Increase revenue generation by 50percent of current (FY 2001) revenuesfrom outside sources by 2007.

Goal 3 – Develop permanent funding sources tosupport operating and capital budgets.

Partnership DevelopmentValue Statement: Establish and expand effective,equitable partnerships that maximize the City’sinvestment and resources as it applies to thedelivery of park facilities and program services.

Goal 1 – Establish policies, procedures, andmechanisms to direct and managepartnerships.

Goal 2 – Expand public/public partnerships tomaximize the development and use ofpublic facilities and programs.

Goal 3 – Expand public/not-for-profitpartnerships that provide equity in theinvestment for capital, sharing ofoperational costs, and use of facilities.

Goal 4 – Expand public/private partnerships toenhance revenue, reduce operating costs,and/or develop recreation facilities thatprovide core and non-core services.

Reverchon Park

Dallas Arboretum

Tenison Highlands Golf Course

Vision Strategy MatrixIt is estimated that nine out of ten organizationsfail to execute their strategies. To avoid this all toocommon outcome, a Vision Strategy Matrix, basedon a “balanced scorecard concept,”1 was created toorganize the strategic plan. The balancedscorecard concept is a strategy implementationtool for describing, implementing, and managingstrategies associated with complex programs ofchange for organizations. The Vision StrategyMatrix enables accountability by linking goals,strategies, and actions to responsibilities,performance measures, and timelines for results.This creates a living document and decision-making tool. Figure 15 presents a page from theVision Strategy Matrix showing organization andstructure.

Using the Community Values Model as theframework, the Vision Strategy Matrix is


organized into five sections representing each ofthe five community values. As a “livingdocument,” the Vision Strategy Matrix is intendedto be used daily to guide the actions and decisionsof staff and Park Board members alike.Department staff is responsible for implementingthe plan and reporting results on a scheduled basisto the Park Board. The Park Board is responsiblefor providing support and guidance to staff relatedto overall goals and strategies. It is critical thatboth the Park Board and staff work consistentlywithin the plan for ultimate success.

The Vision Strategy Matrix has more than 120major strategies within the 22 goals. Eachstrategy is supported by specific action plans withassigned action teams responsible forimplementation. Annual operating and capitalbudgets should be tied directly to the Vision

Figure 15 – Vision Strategy Matrix

Footnote:1 Concept developed by Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton, 1992.


Strategy Matrix, prioritizing goals and strategies.Each strategy has a performance measure and atimeline for results. Performance measuresshould be prepared by staff and approved by theDirector. The Director’s goals, performancemeasures and results should be reviewed quarterlyand evaluated annually by the Park Board.Performance results for the entire departmentshould be reviewed quarterly to ensure progress isbeing made, and if not, appropriate corrections oradjustments should be made. These performancemeasures should lay the foundation for staffperformance evaluations.

The establishment of action teams will drive theimplementation of the plan. Teams shouldinclude five to seven members led by an AssistantDirector, District Manager, or other designatedmanagers. No individual should lead two teams.These team leaders should assemble a multi-disciplined team from throughout the Department.Their responsibility is to organize and facilitatemeetings, delegate and monitor task assignments,manage schedules, and report results.

The complete Vision Strategy Matrix is containedin Appendix Volume 1-i.

Mildred L. Dunn Sprayground

The Big MovesTo be a premier park system in the country, Dallaswill need to make some “big moves” across thecity in addition to major shifts in operationalphilosophies. The fulfillment of the mission to“recover, regain, and reposition” the Dallas parksystem will be supported by the following:

• Upgrade current parks in the system – Bringneighborhood parks and community parks upto a standard that elevates user satisfaction.

• Provide new facilities and services – Closeequity gaps across the city by providing newparks and recreation facilities in underservedareas.

• Build new sports complexes – Provide newmulti-purpose athletic facilities for leagueactivities and to attract sports tourism events.

• Build new multi-generational centers acrossDallas – Create large multi-generationalcenters (minimum size: 100,000 sf) tailored toall age groups and range of programs, and re-evaluate the use of smaller recreation centers.

• Implement a regional trail networkthroughout the city – Establish a diversenetwork of trails to link communities togetherand to provide alternative transportationcorridors.


• Enhance signature park destinations –Continue investment and partnering in high-profile pieces of Dallas’ park system.

• Showcase historic parks across the city –Preserve and restore historic parks for theirenduring legacy and appreciation.

• Build new family aquatic centers –Provide new state-of-the-art aquatic centersfor leisure pool recreation.

Reverchon Park

Capital Implementation PlanThe Capital Implementation Plan for the DallasPark and Recreation Department is based on thecapital needs inventory identified in “Our CurrentSystem…Park Facilities.” The CapitalImplementation Plan has been organizedaccording to the six park maintenance districtsacross the city.

Park District Action PlansThe Capital Implementation Plan has beensummarized and organized by each of the sixDallas park maintenance districts. These ParkDistrict Action Plans present proposed capitalimprovements for each park based upon the topten facility needs identified in the citizen survey.This format is consistent with the Texas Parks andWildlife grant requirements. A comprehensive listis provided in Appendix Volume 3-iv. A summaryof each Park District Action Plan is provided inFigures 17-22.



Figure 16 – Big Moves Map

Big Moves in Park System



Figure 17 – Park District 1 Action Plan


Funding and FinancingThe Dallas Park and Recreation Department willnot successfully implement this Long RangeDevelopment Plan without a fundamental shift inits approach to funding and financing ofoperations and capital investments. The Planpresents strategies that will guide this major shiftthrough entrepreneurial practices. Continued cutsin the Department’s general fund due to the City’srevenue shortfalls forces the Department to lookfor new sources and methods of funding andfinancing to keep from falling further behind indelivering quality park facilities and services tothe citizens of Dallas. It is strongly recommendedthat the Department develop permanent fundingsources including the creation of a ParksFoundation and a Revenue Division to focus onrevenue generation, partnership development,funding sources, and grants.

General observations of this assessment include:

• Generally, all recreation centers operate in asimilar management approach regardinghours, budget, staffing, and program content.A similar management approach also appliesto youth sports, adult sports, after-schoolprograms, and summer day camps.

• The recreation centers operate with an out-of-date operational style.

• All programs are highly subsidized with themajority of core recreation programsundervalued.

• Most recreation centers are highly subsidizedwith very little earned income generated.

• The tennis center and golf course reviewedare both recovering the City’s operationalcosts, with some money available for capitalimprovements.

• The majority of the recreation centersanalyzed were older and not maintained at alevel that would warrant the kind of earnedincome they are capable of generating. Mostrecreation centers have one custodian tomaintain buildings that operate 50 to 65 hoursper week. They are not able to keep up.

• There is very little incentive for staff toprovide programs with fees except forcontract classes. Key managers at most of thesites are dispirited and very frustrated due tolack of control of the buildings they manage.

The following presents a summary of funding andfinancing opportunities. Details for each of theseis provided in Appendix Volume 4-xii-xv.

Revenue GenerationRevenue generation offers a significantopportunity for the Department to increase internalfunding and sustainability of facilities. Anassessment of revenue generating facilities wasperformed to determine strategies for theDepartment to operate in an improved, moreefficient manner and generate increased revenuesto offset operational costs. The results of thisassessment are mini-business plans for eightrecreation centers, one golf course, and one tenniscenter. These plans are provided in AppendixVolume 4-xii.

Cedar Crest Golf Course


Fair Park Band Shell

Overall, recommendations include:

• Dallas needs to re-evaluate its approach tomanaging recreation centers. The currentmethod of managing recreation centers is tokeep limited hours and continue to heavilysubsidize programs. Ideally, the City hasmany options to increase revenue atrecreation centers. Some key policies must bechanged to support entrepreneurial philosophies.

• Policies should be changed to price servicesaccording to the benefits received and todiscount for prime times and non-prime

times. This would include increasing activitycard fees and prices for fitness facilities andspecial programs.

• The staff must develop a full activity-basedcosting approach for programs and facilitiesand make pricing decisions accordingly. Allfacilities in the Dallas parks system arecurrently priced the same. The level ofexperience at each facility is not the same, soa more customized approach to pricing isneeded.

Partnership DevelopmentPartnership development will be critical to successfor the Department. Partnerships will leverageDepartment resources and maximize the City’sinvestment and resources as it applies to thedelivery of park facilities and program services. Itis paramount that policies, procedures, andmechanisms to direct and manage partnerships beput in place early to implement the Plan. Asprovided in the Community Values Model,partnership development should be focused onthree categories:

• Public-Public• Public-Not for Profit• Public-Private

A matrix of existing partnerships was developedto establish a framework for creating action plansfor expanding and enhancing partnerships. Thismatrix is presented in Appendix Volume 4-xiii.Formal agreements should be established with allpartners with agreed-upon levels of equity foreach party.

A formal summit of existing and potential partnersshould be held early in the implementation phaseof this Plan. This summit will present the plan forpartnerships and their role in making the Plan asuccess.

Funding SourcesFigure 23 provides a summary of potentialfunding sources to be utilized for implementationof projects. The first priority should be theestablishment of a Parks Foundation to provide apermanent funding source to the Department.Also, development of a Revenue Division foraggressive pursuit of these and other fundingsources is critical. Details on each of these areprovided in Appendix Volume 4-xiv.

Dallas Childrens Zoo

Womens Museum

Grants AnalysisThe Dallas Park and Recreation Department hasmany opportunities to seek grants to offset theircapital and operational costs in implementing theLong Range Development Plan. Ideally, the Cityshould establish a grants coordinator to guide theDepartment in this area. Since the downturn ofthe economy, federal grants have slowedconsiderably. However, as the economy rebounds,it is imperative that the City have applicationsready to move forward with. In terms of stategrants, the City and Team have met with TexasParks and Wildlife Department grant officialsregarding how the Long Range Development Planconforms to State guidelines.

In addition, with the development of a ParksFoundation, the City will have the opportunity toapply for not-for-profit grants normally notavailable to public agencies. The grant outlinefocuses on those grants for which the city wouldqualify for approval and have an excellentopportunity to submit for funding.

Figure 24 identifies potential grant programs forthe Dallas Park and Recreation Department tostrategically pursue.


Potential Funding Sources

Parks FoundationCorporate Sponsorships

Dedication/Development FeesFoundation/Gifts

Recreation Service FeesLand and Water Conservation Fund

General Obligation BondsRevenue Bonds

Hotel, Motel and Restaurant TaxSpecial Improvement District/Benefit DistrictAnnual Appropriation/Leasehold Financing

Interlocal AgreementsPrivate Concessionaires

Bond ReferendumsFees/Charges

Cost AvoidanceReal Estate Transfer Fees

Land TrustEstablishment of a Greenway Utility

Naming RightsRental Car Tax

Designated License Plate for ParksCell Towers

Private DevelopersBenefit Assessment Act of 1982

Facilities Benefit AssessmentThe Mello-Roos Act

Licensing RightsSales Tax (Dedication)Food and Beverage Tax

Capital Improvement FeesMerchandising Sales

Concession ManagementFriends Associations

Advertising SalesEasements

Irrevocable Remainder TrustsLife Estates

Permits (Special Use Permits)Reservations

Catering Permits and ServicesVolunteerism

Integrated Financing ActBusiness Excise Tax

Wheel Tax on Cars/VehiclesParking Fee

Equipment RentalEntertainment Tax

Boulevard TaxTicket Sales/Admissions

Special FundraisersUtility Roundup Programs

Figure 23 – Potential Funding Sources


Dallas Nature Center

Figure 24 – Potential Grant Programs

Potential Grant Programs

Federal• Urban Park & Recreation Recovery

(UPARR) Grant Program• Conservation and Reinvestment Act

(CARA)• Economic Development Grants for

Public Works and InfrastructureDevelopment

• Rivers, Trails, and ConservationAssistance

• Outdoor Recreation Acquisition,Development, and Planning

• Watershed Protection and FloodProtection

• Americorps• Resource Conservation and

Development• National Recreation Trails Program

State• Indoor Recreation Grants• Outdoor Recreation Grants• Boat Ramp Construction• Texas Recreational Trails Fund

Tenison Highlands Golf Course

Appendix Volume 4-xv includes a detaileddescription for each of these grants.



Launching the PlanA renaissance requires a new way of thinking, andapplying new and creative ideas to generaterenewed interest and excitement. Becoming a“premiere park system in the United States” willnot happen quickly or easily. It will requirepersonal and political determination on the part ofCity leaders. Dallas has a tremendous range ofassets in its park system. Equally important arethe abilities of its citizens and the financialresources of its corporate community. Dallas issynonymous with success. This Plan provides thetools necessary to implement strategies that willleverage and maximize all resources available toachieve the desired success.

Today marks an opportunity for Dallas to recoverthe quality and prestige of its park system, regainthe confidence and enthusiasm of its citizens, andreposition the Park and Recreation Department asa recognized state and national leader…truly, amodern day renaissance. Reverchon Park

dallas parks and recreation...a renaissance plan - dallas park and recreation budgetary malaise...

Documents