1 / 20

Kent County, Michigan

Kent County, Michigan. Multi-Jurisdictional Parks Study. Citizens Committee Meeting November 14, 2011. Project Consultants. Kerry Laycock: Project manager Intergovernmental lead Operations analyst John Kaczor: Cost allocation lead Operations analyst

egil
Télécharger la présentation

Kent County, Michigan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kent County, Michigan Multi-Jurisdictional Parks Study Citizens Committee Meeting November 14, 2011

  2. Project Consultants • Kerry Laycock: Project manager Intergovernmental lead Operations analyst • John Kaczor: Cost allocation lead Operations analyst • Barbara Heller: Parks and Rec lead Operations analyst • Joy Leung: Benchmarking lead Master plan analyst

  3. Purpose of Study Summarize existing parks and recreation services in Kent County. Agencies Programs Assets Budgets Funding mechanisms

  4. Purpose of Study Identify and evaluate models of collaboration, operational efficiency and funding. Make recommendations for strategies for participating P&R agencies to consider.

  5. Tasks and Timeline • Data collection and summary • November and December, 2011 • Report of findings • January, 2011 • Identification and evaluation of models and best practices • November, 2011 – February, 2012 • Recommendations and final report • March, 2012

  6. Work Products • A comprehensive list of assets and liabilities, including parkland, facilities, recreation equipment and other items. • A catalog of current service offerings by jurisdiction and by services provided. • Review of existing public survey data provided by parks and recreation agencies.

  7. Work Products • Summary report of anticipated demand for recreation, open space, events and park services over a 10-year period. • Summary report identifying areas where potential revenues may be established, revised, coordinated, or realigned to support operations, improved utilization, etc. • Summary report on alternative models including success, challenges, etc. and potential application in Kent County.

  8. Work Products • Preliminary set of recommendations to be reviewed by the staff committee. • Presentations to Citizen’s Committee, Board of Commissioners and a public forum.

  9. Role of Citizens Committee • Support the process • Encourage your community to participate • Encourage community dialogue • Provide input to the consultants • Ideas for efficiency, collaboration and funding • Articulate community values and needs • Provide feedback on potential recommendations

  10. Citizens Committee Meetings • 01/9/12 8:00 to 10:00 am Data summaries (Kent County Parks As Is) • 02/??/12 TBD Review of models and best practices • 03/15/12 2:30 to 5:30 pm Consultants’ initial recommendations

  11. Data Collection: Goals • Understand and articulate the assets, systems, programs, services and liabilities of parks and recreation within the boundaries of Kent County • “Paint a picture” of current models of ownership, funding and service delivery • Provide a foundation of information for decision making

  12. Data Collection: Status • Nearly 40 data requests mailed • Townships • Villages • Cities • County • Schools (via ISD) • Joint parks & recreation authorities/associations • Responses requested by Nov. 4 • 20responses to-date • Following up to increase responses

  13. Initial Findings • Public parks & recreation models in Kent County vary substantially in all aspects of finances, operations and programming • Some cooperative efforts already in place • Not all municipalities will participate

  14. Requested Financial Data • Expenditures • Revenue sources • Assets • Liabilities • Capital plans

  15. Requested Operational Data • Organization charts • Pay scales • Inter-agency agreements • Software/technology

  16. Recreation program services Compilation of current service offerings • Review of Website • Program guides; marketing methods • Registration systems • Recreation programming workshop/interview; summary notes • Master list of services

  17. Level of Service • From the completed inventory of park land and amenities, identify current level of service, compare to national standards, and identify gaps • Use for determination of future needs including a summary report of anticipated demand for recreation, open space, events and park services over a 10-year period.

  18. Existing Models • A description of models currently in place throughout the United States • Consolidation between county and municipal governments • Sharing of services • Partnership and reciprocity agreements

  19. QUESTIONS?

  20. Options Matrix High Complexity Low Complexity

More Related