ELMHURST PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS ... · key Vision 2020 Plan and voter survey data. At the February 24, 2020 meeting, the Park Board determined which project and

Agenda #7a

E L M H U R S T P A R K D I S T R I C T

B O A R D O F P A R K C O M M I S S I O N E R S M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30, 2020 TO: Board of Park Commissioners FROM: James W. Rogers, Executive Director Laura Guttman, Division Manager - Strategy and Planning RE: VISION 2020 FOCUS GROUP REPORT AND FINDINGS ISSUE To gather feedback on the level of support for Vision 2020 large-scale projects still under consideration by the Park Board for a potential future referendum, the District held two focus groups with registered voters in early March that were facilitated by Public Communications, Inc. (PCI). At the March 30, 2020 Park Board meeting, Amanda ReCupido from PCI will present the focus group findings and answer any questions. DISCUSSION On January 27 and February 10, 2020, the Park Board began the first step towards considering a potential future smaller-scale referendum to fund some of the Vision 2020 large-scale projects, including reviewing project and funding options, the District’s future capital funding outlook, and key Vision 2020 Plan and voter survey data. At the February 24, 2020 meeting, the Park Board determined which project and financial options to bring to focus groups to gather feedback on the potential support for a smaller scale referendum before conducting another voter survey. On March 3 and 11, 2020, PCI facilitated two focus group discussions with seven (7) and eight (8) participants respectively. The optimum number of focus group participants is around eight (8) for an engaged, productive discussion. Since focus groups allow facilitators to ask questions in an interactive setting and participants are encouraged to discuss thoughts freely with other participants, it provides an open forum to generate candid feedback regarding specific topics in greater depth than a one-way engagement tool such as a survey. Using this format, PCI facilitators were able to test potential voter reaction to the Vision 2020 projects under consideration and the associated potential costs. For example, they recorded the participants ranking of the relative importance of each project and the project’s associated funding and asked follow-up questions about the specific reasons participants ranked each project with a higher/lower of importance than the others. PCI’s report in Attachment A, Research Results: Elmhurst Park District Community Discussions of Proposed Park District Projects, provides an overview of the focus group format, top-line results, representative feedback, and conclusions along with the discussion guide and handouts in the Appendix. At the March 30, 2020 Park Board meeting, Amanda ReCupido from PCI will

present the report findings and answer any questions. Additionally, staff prepared the slides in Attachment B to supplement and visually illustrate the focus group results provided in the report. Along with Ms. ReCupido, staff will answer the Park Board’s questions regarding the focus group findings. RECOMMENDATION That the Park Board reviews and discusses the Vision 2020 Focus Group findings. Thank you. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Communications Inc. Research Results: Elmhurst Park District Community

Discussions of Proposed Park District Projects (March 20, 2020) B. Supplemental Vision 2020 Focus Group Slides

2

1

Public Communications Inc. • One East Wacker Drive • 24th Floor • Chicago, Illinois 60601 • 312.558.1770 • pcipr.com

Research Results:Elmhurst Park DistrictCommunity Discussions of ProposedPark District ProjectsMarch 3 and March 11, 2020PREPARED BY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS INC.

MARCH 20, 2020

Attachment A

2


CONTENTS3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 BACKGROUND

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3 LINES OF QUESTIONING

4 TOP-LINE RESULTS

6 RANKING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

8 REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK

8 ALL PROJECTS

10 WHERE PARTICIPANTS RECEIVE NEWS

11 FINAL THOUGHTS

12 CONCLUSION

14 APPENDIX

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Vision 2020 feedback illuminated several needs and priorities that are important to the community. The Elmhurst Park District (EPD) listened to residents and community stakeholders and used the key findings from that input to guide future planning efforts. After identifying six potential projects that were chosen as high priorities for the community, EPD conducted a registered voter survey about a tax increase that would cover the total proposed for all six projects.

The results of the voter survey illustrated that voters do not support a tax increase to cover the cost proposed for all six projects and that EPD needed to review and refine project plans based on community priorities.

To further engage community members, the Park District convened two groups of Elmhurst residents – 15 people in all – to discuss and prioritize projects that require additional funding and are still being considered for a potential referendum. EPD also invited specific feedback on the costs associated with each of these projects so that each project was meeting the needs of the community within the financial/cost parameters supported by the community. [Appendix III-IV]

OBJECTIVES

• To assess community reaction to projects that require additional funding and the associated costs being considered by EPD

• To record what participants reported as the relative importance of each project within both of the above categories

• To evaluate participants’ general opinions and use of EPD

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

EPD held two community discussion groups: the first on March 3 and the second on March 11, 2020. All participants were Park District residents, with seven taking part in the first session and eight in the second. PCI facilitated both discussions. (Participants’ anonymous demographic data, scoring, comments and suggestions have been combined in this report.)

LINES OF QUESTIONING

Participants were asked about:• The frequency with which they and their families visit Elmhurst parks or participate in Park District

programs

4


• Their opinions of the five projects that require additional funding proposed by EPD and the relative importance of each

• Their opinions of the cost associated with each of the projects that require additional funding proposed by EPD and the relative importance of each element considered

• Their general comments about the Elmhurst Park District

For specific questions asked, please see the Community Discussion Facilitator’s Guide. [Appendix I]

TOP-LINE RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

Attendees received a handout to record their demographic information. [Appendix II] All 15 of them completed all or most of the questionnaire. Respondents:

• Consisted of eleven females and four males. » Group 1: 4 females, 3 males » Group 2: 7 females, 1 male

• Range in age from 25 to 65 and above. Of 15 respondents to this question, five (33%) were 35-44, four (27%) were 55-64, three (20%) were 45-54, two (13%) were 65 and older, and one (7%) was 25-34. [Median age range was between 45-54.] » Group 1

› 25-34: 1 › 35-44: 1 › 55-64: 4 › 65+: 1

» Group 2 › 35-44: 4 › 45-54: 3 › 65+: 1

• Are married (87%) or divorced (13%). » Married: 13 » Divorced: 2

• Live in households with children (67%) or all-adult households (33%). » With Children: 10 » All-adults: 5

• Are homeowners (100%).• Have annual household incomes ranging from the $75,000 - $99,999 bracket to $150,000 or more,

with a median income of $150,000 or more. [Notably, 54% of respondents earn $150,000 or more annually, and three people declined to answer.] » 75-99K: 2 » 100-149K: 3

5


» 150K+: 7 » Declined: 3

• Have lived in Elmhurst for more than 10 years (67%), 1 to 5 years (20%), or 5 to 10 years (7%). [Note one respondent declined to answer this question.] » 1-5 years: 3 » 5-10 years: 1 » 10+ years: 10

PERCEPTION OF PARK DISTRICT

Residents were asked to write on a Post-it® notes three words or brief phrases that come to mind when they think of EPD parks or programs. Here are their responses:

• Child- and Family-Oriented• Open Space• Playgrounds• Outdated• Community-Driven• Green Parks• Refuge• Robust• Joyful• Wet Fields• Lagging• Innovative

FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION IN PARK DISTRICT PARKS AND PROGRAMS

Residents were asked (by a show of hands) how often they or their families visit EPD parks or participate in Park District programs:Parks:

• Visited within the past week: 86%• In the past month: 100%• In the past year: 100%

Programs:• Participated in the past week: 43%• In the past month: 71%• In the past year: 100%

6


RANKING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

Participants received a handout listing the five projects that EPD has identified as requiring additional funding and are still being considered for a potential referendum. [Appendix III] Attendees were asked to rank the projects from 1 to 5, with 1 being their highest priority and 5 their lowest. For the Adult Center and the 837 S. Riverside Drive projects, participants were able to sub-rank possible project choices from 1 to 2 with 1 being their highest priority and 2 their lowest. One participant did not complete the rankings.

Overall rankings were as follows:• Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities

» [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 87%. Median* ranking 1.5.]• New Adult Center

» [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 73%. Median ranking 2.] › Option #2: Build New Facility

› [Ranked 1 by 60% of all participants.] › Option #1: Renovate Facility

› [Ranked 1 by 40% of all participants.]• Wagner Community Center

» [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 67%. Median ranking 3.]• Acquire More Open Space

» [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 47%. Median ranking 4.]• 837 S. Riverside Drive Property

» [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 20%. Median ranking 5.] › Option #2: Acquire and develop

› [Ranked 1 by 67% of all participants.] › Option #1: Acquire

› [Ranked 1 by 33% of all participants.]

Participants then received a handout listing the same projects, but this time listing the cost associated with each project. [Appendix IV]

• Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 80%. Median ranking 1.]

• New Adult Center – Build New Facility (tie) » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 67%. Median ranking 3.]

• Wagner Community Center (tie) » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 67%. Median ranking 3.]

• New Adult Center - Renovate Facility » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 47%. Median ranking 5.]

*The median ranking is the number at the halfway point of a set ordered lowest to highest.

7


• Acquire More Open Space » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 20%. Median ranking 5.]

• 837 S. Riverside Drive Property – Acquire (tie) » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 7%. Median ranking 6.]

• 837 S. Riverside Drive Property – Acquire and Develop (tie) » [Ranked 1, 2 or 3 by 7%. Median ranking 6.]

8


REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACKALL PROJECTS

Following is a summary of participants’ scoring and views of the projects that require additional funding, with 1 ranking as the highest priority.

PRIORITY #1 : IMPROVE CONDITION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND AMENITIESRepresentative comments:

Because this impacts so many people - kids, parents, grandparents - something needs to be done.

It would be foolish not to maintain what we already have.

If we can’t make use of the assets we have, that’s where I would put money first.

This is the most efficient spending for the benefits, maximizing facilities for the community.

The current parks are not what a community like Elmhurst should have. We should be more proud, striving for above average.

If we had this money, I would want to be sure it goes toward the flooding issue at the fields and playgrounds because that’s where the clamoring is, but we’re not sure this would address the flooding.

PRIORITY #2: ADULT CENTERRepresentative comments on renovating the existing facility identified for the Adult Center:

It’s less of a cost to renovate.

If we can make the current structure work, let’s make it work but we don’t know if the Park District can or not.

If there’s a safety or compliance issue or an actual community need, that’s a different consideration than simply making it prettier.

It’s hard for me to understand how many people in the community would use this type of center. Having some demographics when this is presented, such as a percent of residents who are in the target audience for the facility and how much the current center is being used, would be helpful.

9


Representative comments on building a new Adult Center:

I don’t see a big cost difference, so if we’re going to address this, we might as well do it right and with purpose.

You’ll have to renovate or redo it again in a number of years anyway.

Building new will make it easier to expand offerings.

PRIORITY #3: WAGNER COMMUNITY CENTERRepresentative comments:

For the first five years of your child’s life, you spend many days here at Wagner. There are so many fantastic programs, but the location doesn’t really support the programming.

It’s a busy building with a high amount of use, so it could use some attention.

I expect more from Elmhurst than this facility.

It should be brighter, more modern, offer more opportunities for performing arts.

PRIORITY #4: ACQUIRE MORE OPEN SPACERepresentative comments:

Open spaces are places for people to gather.

Being close to a park is a luxury and I want others to have that same luxury.

With all of this building going on, we need to preserve open space when we can.

If developing park land/open space means doing so in an area that is not easily accessible by Elmhurst residents or that is not providing space to residents previously lacking it, then it doesn’t make sense to acquire that land. Access is the main issue.

Fix what we have before adding more land to take care of.

I would be curious to know how many communities around us meet the recommendation for park space. How many residents in other western suburbs have as much open space as they’re supposed to?

10


PRIORITY #5: 837 S. RIVERSIDE DRIVE PROPERTYRepresentative comments on only acquiring the property:

If it is a good price, why don’t we give it time and figure out what to do with it?

We’re never going to have the opportunity to buy 60 acres of land in Elmhurst for space again. It’s not walkable, and you couldn’t even ride your bike there.

It’s not a great area. There’s a lot of congestion over there.

Representative comments on acquiring and developing the property:

If you acquire the land, we might as well develop it.

The whole area is just a hodgepodge of businesses and mixed uses. Developing the property could be a huge economic driver and a jumping off point to beautify the area.

I don’t want my Park District to be in the landlord business and spending $15M just to sit on it - if we’re buying it, we should do something for the residents.

WHERE PARTICIPANTS RECEIVE NEWS

Below are representative comments when asked where participants receive their news about Elmhurst Park District.

• EPD channels: » Social Media » Quarterly mail-out/brochure » Email » Website

• Media: » Elmhurst Independent » Elmhurst Patch

• Advertising: » Road underpass signage

11


FINAL THOUGHTS

Participants were asked to share final thoughts if they were to address the Park District Board.

Keep up the good work and continue seeking community input for proposed projects so improvements are made where we need them most.

Stress to community members that you need to improve the community in order to have benefits to property value.

Try to find ways to simplify information about proposed projects so it is easily shared with and digestible for residents.

Look for possible opportunities to collaborate with the City of Elmhurst and the Elmhurst School District to create synergies and best utilize resources serving Elmhurst residents.

12


Attendees at both discussion groups were engaged, articulate, and open-minded, with many voicing support for their community and the Park District’s offerings and properties. It’s clear that these residents value Elmhurst’s high quality of life, made possible by involved residents, thoughtful planning, and the Park District’s array of recreational and natural resources.

Participants demonstrated good community stewardship and financial savvy in their comments on cost-benefit considerations, return on investment, and establishing priorities that best meet the needs of the widest range of Elmhurst residents.

They recognize the importance of these projects, both as a way to protect current assets and to look toward the future of Elmhurst. This is notably represented in the high ranking of support for both improved condition and maintenance of parks and amenities and a new adult center. Many understood the value of improving maintenance of existing parks and amenities to invest in what the Park District already has and affects the widest swath of residents, and messaging surrounding this project should stress these points. Residents voiced that if such maintenance improvements move forward, it should be “done right” and focus on a handful of high-priority needs, including flooding and drainage issues.

Residents view the adult center as an opportunity to create an improved facility for a wider variety of programming, and messaging should highlight the structural needs of the existing facility and the modest price difference between renovating the current building and building a new one.

As for the Wagner Community Center, participants acknowledge the need for upgrades to the facility to expand its programming, but indicated that the cost for a new facility was on the higher end and many weren’t sure if it was needed if they had to draw a line.

While residents recognize the importance and responsibility of the Park District to maintain a certain amount of green space in an ever-developing community, the overall sentiment is that the land acquisitions be strategic, accessible to a wide variety of residents, and financially responsible to provide the most benefit for the community at an efficient cost. Many expressed concern that the areas identified for acquisition did not meet these requirements. Similarly, residents view the 837 S. Riverside Drive Property with hesitancy, with some acknowledging the value of the opportunity to acquire the land but expressing concerns about its location and accessibility (and the disappointment that the community does not support an indoor sports facility).

It is important to note too that future messaging should highlight all that the Park District does and how it collaborates closely with the City of Elmhurst and other civic organizations to share knowledge and resources to best serve residents. Participants spoke highly of their experience with Park District

CONCLUSION

13


amenities and facilities and commended Park District staff for their commitment to preserving and improving Elmhurst for future generations, which should also be highlighted in future communications.

In sum, Elmhurst Park District board members, administrators, instructors, maintenance staff, and others should be encouraged by the community’s support, and by their own work improving and expanding Park District assets and engaging the community in this important process.

We’re grateful for the opportunity to conduct research for you and the Elmhurst Park District, and to provide you this summary report.

14


APPENDIX

I. FACILITATOR’S GUIDE

II. QUESTIONNAIRE

III. PROJECT HANDOUT

IV. PROJECT WITH FUNDING HANDOUT

15

21

23

24

15


1

ELMHURST PARK DISTRICT DRAFT from PCI to EPD

Community Discussion Facilitator’s Guide March 3 from 7-8:30 p.m. and March 11 from 9:45-11:15 a.m.

Prepared by Public Communications Inc.

Goal To determine the community’s priorities for the Park District’s proposed projects for a potential referendum. This will aid the Park District in prioritizing the projects to meet the needs of the community. Introduction (7-7:10 p.m. / 9:45-9:55 a.m.) As participants sit down at the table, they will be asked to complete a short series of questions, such as how long they’ve lived in Elmhurst, as well as fill out a post-it with three things that come to mind when they think of Elmhurst Park District. Members of Park District staff will be in attendance at the start of the discussions to say brief remarks to welcome the participants and explain the purpose of the groups. Here are suggested talking points:

• Welcome, everyone. My name is [NAME] and I’m [TITLE] at Elmhurst Park District.

• Thanks to all of you for participating in this discussion group. We are thrilled that so many residents are so eager to offer input on how to improve our community that you volunteered your time. The fact that there are so many of you here demonstrates how important you believe the Park District is to our quality of life.

• Elmhurst is continually growing and changing, and we want to ensure that the Park District continues to meet your needs. That’s why we developed Vision 2020, a collaborative community-wide effort to organize the community’s priorities and leverage Park District resources to make a plan and put it into action.

• Research conducted to help develop Vision 2020 confirmed Elmhurst’s residents love their parks and want to ensure the facilities and opportunities they enjoy are preserved and improved for current and future generations.

• Community input has and will continue to directly inform priorities for the community. You can check for updates on Vision 2020, and encourage your friends and neighbors to give their feedback on our website at: https://vision2020.epd.org/

• You can help us today by telling us how important these projects are to you and your family. This will enable us to prioritize the projects to reflect the priorities of our community. It will also help us continue to act as responsible stewards of tax dollars.

• We are conducting two of these discussion groups this month. Once we’ve analyzed all the feedback you give us tonight, we’ll present our findings to the Park District board.

• To ensure that these community discussions and the survey are rigorous and thorough, the Park District is working with a firm called Public Communications Inc. Today Amanda and (Craig/Kevin) from PCI are facilitating the discussion. I will leave so you can have an

16


2

open conversation. I’ll now hand you over to them. Again, we really appreciate your interest and involvement tonight – thank you.

Representatives from Elmhurst Park District leave. The facilitators introduce themselves, explain the purpose of the community discussion and the ground rules (for example, location of restrooms, cellphone use, allowing open discussion), and thank participants for volunteering their time.

• Purpose: The Park District is holding this discussion group to gain valuable input from community members on how important you feel these project options are so they can prioritize them to meet the needs of the community.

Current Perceptions and Current Park District Use (7:10-7:20 p.m. / 9:55-10:05 a.m.) Facilitators will begin by sharing some of the words used to describe current perceptions of the Park District and ask why those were chosen and whether they resonate with the rest of the group.

• I’m going to ask for a show of hands. o Who has gone to an Elmhurst Park District park or facility within the past week? o In the past month? o In the past year? o How many of you rarely or never go to an Elmhurst Park District park or facility? o Which park(s) and/or facility(ies) did you visit?

• I’m going to ask for a show of hands.

o Who has participated in an Elmhurst Park District program or a community event within the past week, or had a member of your immediate family participate?

o In the past month? o In the past year? o How many of you rarely or never go to an Elmhurst Park District program? o Which program(s) did you and/or your family members participate in?

Vision 2020 Background and Resident Priorities (7:20-7:50 p.m. / 10:05-10:35 a.m.) Facilitators walk through presentation and describe the project options, after which they will distribute the handout, telling the group that they will discuss it shortly.

17


3

Elmhurst Park District Vision 2020 project options

On this handout, you’ll see five projects Elmhurst Park District is considering as priorities based on findings from various community surveys. Please rank these projects from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning this project is the most important to you and your family, and 5 meaning this project is the least important. Two projects have two options for how to move forward – the Adult Center and the 837 S. Riverside Drive property. Those will be sub-ranked on a scale of 1 to 2, with 1 being important and 2 being least important. When you are done, please turn the sheet face down so I know you’re finished.

• Let’s discuss how you ranked the projects.

o First up is Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities – More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities _____ More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets Wagner Community Center _____ New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium Adult Center _____ _____ Option #1: Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility _____ Option #2: Build new facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by building a new facility Acquire More Open Space _____ Provide parks in neighborhoods lacking park space 837 S. Riverside Drive Property _____ _____ Option #1: Acquire – Acquisition of the property for future development _____ Option #2: Acquire AND Develop – Acquisition of the property and development into natural turf fields

18


4

o The next project is Wagner Community Center – New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o Next on our list is the Adult Center.

− How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o Now let’s discuss each option for the Adult Center facility, starting with option #1:

Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?

o Now for option #2: Build new facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming

and existing senior programming by building a new facility − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?

o Now let’s discuss the next project on the list: Acquire More Open Space – Provide

parks in neighborhoods lacking park space − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o Finally, there’s the 837 S. Riverside Drive Property.


o Now let’s discuss each option for the property. Let’s start with option #1: Acquisition of

the property for future development − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?

o And option #2: Acquire AND Develop – Acquisition of the property and development

into natural turf fields − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?

• Do you agree that all of these projects are necessary? Why or why not?

Funding Priorities (7:50-8:20 p.m. / 10:35-11:05 a.m.) Facilitator thanks participants and shares slide noting the cost per project, then distributes the same handout, telling the group that they will discuss it shortly.

19


4

o The next project is Wagner Community Center – New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o Next on our list is the Adult Center.


o Now let’s discuss each option for the Adult Center facility, starting with option #1:

Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?


and existing senior programming by building a new facility − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?



o Finally, there’s the 837 S. Riverside Drive Property.


o Now let’s discuss each option for the property. Let’s start with option #1: Acquisition of

the property for future development − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?


into natural turf fields − How many of you ranked this first? Why? − How many of you rated this second? Why?

• Do you agree that all of these projects are necessary? Why or why not?

Funding Priorities (7:50-8:20 p.m. / 10:35-11:05 a.m.) Facilitator thanks participants and shares slide noting the cost per project, then distributes the same handout, telling the group that they will discuss it shortly.

5

Elmhurst Park District Vision 2020 funding options

Now that you know the associated cost per project, please rank these projects again from 1 to 7, with 1 meaning this project is the most important to you and your family based on the cost, and 7 meaning this project is the least important based on the cost. When you are done, please turn the sheet face down so I know you’re finished. Let’s discuss how you ranked the projects.

Please rank these projects from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most important project to you and your family and 7 being the least important project based on cost.

Community Priority

Large Scale Project 2020 Potential Referendum Cost

Cost Per Household

Ranking

Improve Park Condition & Maintenance

More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets

$1,800,000 $49 (rate increase)

Wagner Community Center

New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium

$19,500,000 $58 (bond)

Adult Center

Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility

$3,300,000 $20 (bond)

Build new facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by building a new facility

$6,600,000 $20 (bond)

Acquire More Open Space

Provide parks in neighborhoods lacking park space

$5,000,000

$15 (bond)

837 S. Riverside Drive Property

Acquire – Acquisition of the property for future development

$15,000,000 $45 (bond)

Acquire AND Develop – Acquisition of the property and development into natural turf fields

$18,400,000 $55 (bond)

20


6

• First up is Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities – More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets


o The next project is Wagner Community Center – New facility with

enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o Next on our list is the Adult Center. Let’s start with option #1: Renovate facility –

Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?


and existing senior programming by building a new facility − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?



o Finally, there’s the 837 S. Riverside Drive Property. Let’s start with option #1:

Acquisition of the property for future development − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?


into natural turf fields − How many of you ranked this as one of your top three priorities? Why? − How many of you rated this as a lower priority? Why?

o What are your thoughts about the District (if it were to purchase the 837 S. Riverside

Drive property for future development) potentially leasing the land for a few years to generate revenue to develop the land in the future?

• If you had to draw a line among these projects, what is your preferred cut-off? In other

words, what is the cost threshold you are willing to support in order to see all or some of these projects come to life?

Conclusion (8:20–8:30 p.m. / 11:05-11:15 a.m.) Facilitator thanks participants for their time and concludes the discussion.

END

21


Community Discussion Questionnaire

Please tell us about yourself.

Gender

___ Female ___ Male

Your age

___ 18 to 24 years ___ 25 to 34 years ___ 35 to 44 years ___ 45 to 54 years ___ 55 to 64 years ___ Age 65 or older

Marital status

___ Single (never married) ___ Married ___ Widowed ___ Divorced

Number of persons in household

__ Adults __ Children Residence ___ I own my home ___ I rent my home ___ Other (please describe) _______________________________________________

[Please complete the other side.]

22


Total annual household income

___ Less than $25,000 ___ $25,000 to $34,999 ___ $35,000 to $49,999 ___ $50,000 to $74,999 ___ $75,000 to $99,999 ___100,000 to $149,999 ___ $150,000 or more ___ I prefer not to answer Time living in Elmhurst ___ Less than 1 year ___ 1-5 years ___ 6-10 years ___ More than 10 years Comments (optional) Thank you for completing our questionnaire.

23


Elmhurst Park District Vision 2020 project options

Please rank these projects from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most important project to you and your family and 5 being the least important project. Two projects have two options for how to move forward – the Adult Center and the 837 S. Riverside Drive property. Those will be sub-ranked on a scale of 1 to 2, with 1 being important and 2 being least important. Improve Condition and Maintenance of Parks and Amenities _____ More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets Wagner Community Center _____ New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium Adult Center _____ _____ Option #1: Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility _____ Option #2: Build new facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by building a new facility Acquire More Open Space _____ Provide parks in neighborhoods lacking park space 837 S. Riverside Drive Property _____ _____ Option #1: Acquire – Acquisition of the property for future development _____ Option #2: Acquire AND Develop – Acquisition of the property and development into natural turf fields

24


Elmhurst Park District Vision 2020 funding options

Please rank these projects from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most important project to you and your family and 7 being the least important project based on cost.

Community Priority

Large Scale Project 2020 Potential Referendum Cost

Cost Per Household

Ranking

Improve Park Condition & Maintenance

More frequent and improved maintenance to protect vital assets

$780,000 $49 (rate increase)

Wagner Community Center

New facility with enhanced/additional preschool/early childhood classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, music classrooms, and dance studios along with new enhanced gymnastics center space and conversion of current gymnastics center into gymnasium

$19,500,000 $58 (bond)

Adult Center

Renovate facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by making improvements to existing facility

$3,300,000 $10 (bond)

Build new facility – Provide space for expanded adult programming and existing senior programming by building a new facility

$6,600,000 $20 (bond)

Acquire More Open Space

Provide parks in neighborhoods lacking park space

$5,000,000

$15 (bond)

837 S. Riverside Drive Property

Acquire – Acquisition of the property for future development

$15,000,000 $45 (bond)

Acquire AND Develop – Acquisition of the property and development into natural turf fields

$18,400,000 $55 (bond)

Attachment B

Vision 2020 Projects and Related Costs Ranked by Focus Group Participants

Large Scale Project 2020 Potential Referendum Cost Cost Per Household**based on $400,000 household

Improve Park Maintenance $780,000 $49 (rate increase)

New Wagner Community Center $19,500,000 $58 (bond)

New Adult Center Renovated: $3,300,000New: $6,600,000

Renovated: $10 (bond)New: $20 (bond)

Acquire More Open Space $5,000,000 $15 (bond)

New Riverside Drive Property Acquisition: $15,000,000With natural turf fields: $18,400,000

Acquisition: $45 (bond)With natural turf fields: $55 (bond)

2

Vision 2020 Focus Group Participant Project Rankings% of Participants Ranking Projects as 1, 2, or 31

1

Improve Park Maintenance

Overall – 87%

2

New Adult Center

Overall – 73%

3New WCC

Overall – 67%

4Acquire More Open Space

Overall – 47%

5 New Riverside Property

Overall – 20%1Relative heights based on overall percentage of focus group results and five project options (March 2020) 3

Vision 2020 Focus Group Participant Project Rankings% of Participants Ranking Options for

New Adult Center & Riverside Drive Property Projects as 1 or 2

New Adult Center

NewRiverside Drive Property

Ranked #2 Overall (73%)

(as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd

priority)

Ranked #5Overall (20%)

(as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd

priority)

Which is the higher priority of the two options for this project (1-highest or 2-lowest)?

• Build New Facility – 60% (1)

• Renovate Facility – 40% (2)

Which is the higher priority of the two options for this project (1-highest or 2-lowest)?

• Acquire and Develop – 67% (1)

• Acquire – 33% (2)

4

1Improve Park Maintenance

Overall – 80%

2New Adult

Center-

Build New Facility

Overall – 67%

2New WCC

Overall – 67%

4New Adult

Center-

Renovate Facility

Overall – 47%

5Acquire More Open Space

Overall – 20%

6New Riverside

Property -

Acquire

Overall – 7%

Vision 2020 Focus Group Participant Project Rankings% of Participants Ranking Projects with Costs as 1, 2, or 31

1Ranking and relative percentage lines based on overall percentage for the focus group results and seven project options (March 2020)

6New Riverside

Property -

Acquire & Develop

Overall – 7%5

Documents

ELMHURST PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS ... · key Vision 2020 Plan and voter survey data. At the February 24, 2020 meeting, the Park Board determined which project and