HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-1273 04-22-2008RESOLUTION NO. 08 -1273
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND SUPPORTING THE
CITY OF EULESS PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN
SPACE MASTER PLAN — 2008
WHEREAS, the City of Euless believes that parks and leisure services are a vital
and important part of the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Euless believes that planning is an important catalyst in
guiding the development of the parks in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Euless first adopted a Parks Master Plan in 1976 and
believes in systematic updates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Euless, Texas, hereby adopts and supports the City of Euless Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Master Plan — 2008.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED at the regular meeting of the Euless City Council
on the 22nd day of April, 2008, by a vote of 6 ayes, o nays, and 0
abstentions.
APPROVED:
Mary Litleh, Mayor
ATTEST:
4
Susan Crim, RMC, City Secretary
�r
i.-
6H I Saturday, AprH .12, 2008
Garage Sales -Area 3
•76008 76028 76031
76036 76103 76104
76105 76109 76" 0
76112 76115 76119
76123 76126 76132
76133 76134 76140
76140 - 1416 Castle
Ridge: Lots Of Hshld
Items Sat/Sun
76140 - 213 N RaceSt:
Everrnan Garden Club,
Plant / Sake / Garage
Sale, Sat Sa-40,
Garage Sales -Area 4
75050 75051 75052
75249 76001 76002
76006 76007 76009
76010 76011 76012
76013 76014 76015,
76016 76017 76018
76060 76063
75052 - 2739 Sierra
Springs Dr: Fri/Sat
Baby DVDs toys more
76002 - 404 Camp
Creek Dr: Sat Sa-26,
lots of Turn, hshid
76002 - 6734 Oregon:
Garage Sate,
Sat Ontyr. Sam
76002 - 3101 Mansa-
nillo Ct Fri & Sat,
Multi Family Sale
76009 - 8800 Walnut
Creek Ln: off CR519,
-- Fri -Sat -Sun
Air -
3-i.,�+Gi�
Jewelry
Jewelry &
Stones
P r SE, bra
25 YR High, Highest
$ .00, $17�F
Cash Paid for Gold,
Diamonds, Jewelry,
3 90, OTHI
Coins, Rolex Wat-
steel Tram
ches, Silver, Plati-
f tire 682-2F
num,GoldPocketWat- I
IN
ches, Class Rings,
TRAILER
Wedding Rings, Fine
5000 lb, A
Watches, Estates,
817-44'or
Oid Paper Money,
"'-
Bullion, Dental Gofd,
ONIEDA +ed
Rare Coins & Sterling
Rose 4 she
Flatware.Call Ronnie �
extrs. (812?-
817-2G6-5145
b-
ispiH
2oUFay s
Lawn & Garden
th(817)1
WROUGHT IRON Or-
nate 7' Garden TrellPs,
$50. 817-229-8550
WE POVVDFR COAT
PATIO FURNITURE
(817) 759-2224
Lawnmower
Sales & Service
1 Day Blow-
M
OOK OluttSale
T Grasshopper
ZTRs. $$$ Discount.
Sat Apr 12, 9-2.
Casper Tractor 3456
S. 135 W. Alvarado
817-783-5757
SEARS RIDING
mower LT2000, 17.5
OH Kohler, 6 spd
auto, used 1 season.
w/access. S350
(817) 306-9527
21" TORO Comm.
mower, 6.5 hp, Excel
cond! $425; Comm.
fert. spreader $75
817-683-3840
10HP CRAFTSMAN
riding mower, 30" cut
b'375 (317) 731-2905
8FT & 6ft aluminum
ladders $30 each
(817) 731-2905
POULAN 6HP SP
w/Bagger, $160.00,
817-563-7574
I BUY & SELL Riding
Lawn Mowers 817-
676-3615,cZ37-7353s
2 MICRWL
Tires,
$100. 617 1W
be
Musical In:a'
C
GIBSON, Ho
Rich, Epi,
Ibanez, Ca01
Sword's ;IN
Now 817-VD
DM2 MIXfIIE
Firm usb be
software 7g,
9228 at
KORG TRITor
screen, e,of
$800 (9)12)NAVAJO 101
Wood FItAB
817-975-ZIS
KUSTOM be
$79.95, 1?7S•
866 4280f�r
of��01
n
�b ,
for
�BUSFi of
Movir
office {.W-
April 13NT
2100FtE.�fi I
817-8 m
CHEAP 6ce
4000T of
.r
Legal o Ices
CITY OF EULESS
PUBLIC HEARING
The Euless City
Council will hold a
public hearing on
Tuesday, April 22,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., in
the Councif Cham-
bers located in City
Hall, Euiess Munfa-
al Complex, 201 N.
ctor Drive, Euiess,
-Texas, to receive
comments regarding
the approval of the
City of Euless Parks
Recreation, anti
Open Space Master
Plan.
/s/ Susan Crim, City
Secretary
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
Legal Notices
CITY OF
BEDFORD
(CIUDAD DE BED -
FORD)
NOTICE OF
GENERAL AND SPE-
CIAL ELECTION
(AVISO DE
FLECCIONES GEN-
ERALCS Y ELEC-
CIONES ESPECIAL -
ELECTION DAY,
10, 2008: (DIP
LAS ELECCM
10 DE MAYO
2008):
To the ReoFst
V(A los vo-
�rSS registrados
la Ciudad de
7rd, y dei
ado de Tarrant
be held by the Zoning
t
e
f
Texas):
Board of Adjustment
Notice is hereby
of Euless, Texas, on
given that the
Thursday April 24,
2008, at 9:30 in
polling place listed
o.m.,
the Council Chain-
below will be open
from 7:00 a.m. to
bars of the Euless
7:00 p.m., Satur-
Municipal building
day, May 10, 2008,
(City Hall) at 201
for voting in a
North Ector Drive, '
General Election
Euiess, Texas, at
for the purpose of
which time inter-
electing two (2)
ested parties and
Council Members
citizens will have an
to Places 4 and
opportunity to be
Place 6, to be filled
heard concerning a
fora three (3) year
request for a Zoning
term or until -their
Variance on Morris-
successors are
dale Addition, Block
duly elected and
5, Lot 6,1106 Penoak
qualified, and for
Court.
voting in a Special
ISSUED April 12,
Election to con-
2008
Sider amendments
by Direction of the
to the City Charter.
DEPARTMENT OF
This election is
PLANNING AND
being held Jointly
DEVELOPMENT
with the HEB In-
EULESS, TEXAS
dependent Schoof
District Board of
NOTICE
Trustees Election
TO BIDDERS
to elect Trustee
Sealed bids will be
Members to Place
received by the City
6 and Place 7. (Par
of Bedford, Texas in
este media se in -
the Office of the City
forma a la ciudadania
Secretary at City
que at lugar de vot-
Hall, 2000 Forest
acion que a contm-
Ridge, Bedford,
uacion mencfonamos
Texas -76021 until
estari abierto desde
10:00 a.m.,
las 7:00 a.m. a to 7:00
Wednesday , April
p.m, el sabado 10 de
23rd,-��2008,w for
mayo de 2008 par.
Legal Notices
Legal Notices
Legal Notices
2.17 is
word "city"
L I C A T F O N S
changed by eli mi-
' moved in.
BALLOTS TO
nating the language'
places beforeVOTED
BY
requiring that an
word 'council,
L: (Soficitud
ordinance be de-
Propuesta N
JASection
papeleta de
clared an emergency
Actualization
cion via corre-
measure and by
cambios o
adding language al-
cation del signcations
for
lowing ordinances
de artfculosy
voting bar-
by
and resolutions to be
tatutos.
ma71 must
received by
passed at any regular,i
or speciaI meeting as
Artfculo 11.09,
ulado 'Cando
ant County at
ailowed by the
estructuras p
the following ad-
Charter or state law.
sas" es madi
dress no later than
Propuesta No. 2
eliminando [as
Friday, May 2,2008!
Actualization de
bras "es {{hope
by 5.00 p.m.: (Las
cambios o ciarifi-
caer y rosier
solicitudes de pa-
canon del significado
personas
peletas par media de
de artfculos en Es-
propiedad"
correos para la vot-',
tatutos.
tuyendo las pa
acion per adelantado
Articuto 2.11 refer-
"determinado
deberan serrecibidas
ente a los requisites
peiigroso V la
an el Condado de
qua los miembros del
encia de la p
Tarrant a no mas �
Concejo de la Ciudad
- idad de lesioi
tardar de la fecha del'
manejan a traves del
personas o
viernes, 2 de mayo
Administrador/a de
propiedad'; to
de 2003 ppara las 5:00 .
la Ciudad. Los cam-
bra "Conoejo
p.m. a la siguiente
bios son: (1) ariadir
substituidapor'
direction):
las palabras "Para el
po gubernamer
Steve Raborn, Early
Administrador/a de
ias palabras "n
Voting Clerk
la Ciudad" a una
o" son anad€de
PO Box 961011
frase. Para clarificar
tes de ias pa
Fort Worth, TX
a quien son dirigidas
"derribar y rerr
76161-0011
las con sultas; (2)
y la palabra "ci
Each of the fallow-
camUiando la palabra
as eliminada e�
Inv. propositions
on lengua mglesa
lugares antes
will appear on the
willful deliberado"
palabra "Conte
ballot to consider
a so ortografia ap-
amendments to
rop€ada; (3) cambi-
Proposition N
the City Charter:
ando la palabra an
Changes updat
(Cady una de las
lengua inglesa expel
clarify the ME
siguientes propues-
"expulsar" par la
of the Charter
tas aparecera an la
palabra "remover";
tinn.
Papeleta Oficial de
(4) cambiando las
Section 13.06,
Votacian para can-
palabras on lengua
Action
siderar enmiendas al
mglesa offending
petitions"-
EStatuto de is
member "miembro
Changes to i
Ciudad):
agresor" par las
"proposed
If you are in favor
palabras • miembro
tive" to "pro
of the changes,
clue infringe"; (5) y
initiative
deletions or sub-
cambiando la palabra
referendum"; G
stitutions, vote
On lengua inglesa
deletes Ian!
FOR the Proposi-
guilty culpable" par
about the elt
tion. If you are
tali palabras "en
dates and 5,against
the
violation.^
totes the word
changes, deletions
Articu€o 2,15 tiene
the first aw
or substitutions,
cambias on relation
general electior
vote AGAINST the
a las minutas de las
as estahlishe-
Proposition. (Si
reuniones dei Con-
state law"; ar
usted esta a favor
cejo de to Ciudad. Lo
the language
de Ios cambios, su-
que requi ere que: (1)
corning the
presiones v sustitu-
las minutas sean
draw of a petit
crones, vote A FA-
registradas an el
changed fron
- VOP de la Propuesta.
minutorio en 48 ho-
days prior tc
Si usted e5ta en
ray; (2) y el requer-
election to an
contra de ias cam-
imiento de due se
prior to the dal
bios, supresiones y
provea un indite fue
election is call
sustituciones, vote
suprimido. Las Pala-
Propuesta Ni
CONTRA Ia. -..-Pr -„-,
bras En 12ny-ua. ,n--/jCt—llza[iUn
T H E C I T Y 0 F
PARKS9) REctREATION AND OPEN SPACE
MAST ERR PLA
Parks & Community Services Dep , artment
2007
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
T H E C I T Y O F
EtJIESS
1) A - ifel'i
i OT" i:j 4 �' 4 :4 Ik' i i'l
RESOLUTION
4
RECOMMENDATION
6
CHARLES MOORE'S - AN INTELLIGENT PLAN
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
8
CREDITS
10
PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES MISSION STATEMENT
11
INTRODUCTION ;
12
Commitment to Beautification
14
COMMUNITY PROFILE
17
Table I -Demographic Characteristics and Population
18
Table 2-Population from 2000 through Build -out
19
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
20
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
21
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING
23
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
25
CITY OF EULESS PARKS AND RECREATIONAL SYSTEM
30
Outdoor Recreational Areas
30
Inventory of Outdoor Recreation Areas, Facilities and Amenities
31
Table 3-Each Park Site
31
Table 4-Site Area by Parlc Classification
31
Table 5 Parlc Site, Flood Plain, Wetlands & Natural Area
32
Table 6-Recreational Facility by Parlc Site
32
Table 7-Support Facilities by Parlc Site
33
Table 8-Amenities by Park Site
33
Table 9-Outdoor Recreational Facilities & Responsibilities
34
Outdoor Recreation Improvements since Document Dated 2002
36
Indoor Recreational Facilities
39
Table 10-Inventory of Indoor Recreation Facilities, Pavilions
39
and Gazebos
Indoor Recreational Improvements since Document Dated 2002
40
Trail Improvements since Document Dated 2002
41
Area and Facility Concepts and Standards
42
APPLICATION OF PROPERTY & RECREATIONAL FACILITY STANDARDS ;
47
Outdoor Standard for each Park Classification
48
Table 11-Par1c Classification Relative to Population
48
Indoor Center Standard
48
Table 12-Centers Relative to Population
49
Recreational Facility Standard
49
Table 13-Outdoor Standards Relative To Population
49
Parks & Community Services Alaster Plan
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION
Method
Approaches
The City of Euless Needs Assessment
1. Outdoor
2. Indoor
3. Open Space
Proposed Improvement Projects
Table 14-Participation in Youth Soccer
Table 15-Participation in Plag Pootball
Table 16-Participation in Youth Baseball
Table 17-Participation in Girls Softball
Table I8-Participation in Adult Basketball
Table 19-Participation at Softball World
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
Indoor Recreation Priority of Needs
Table 20-Inventory of Participation at Simmons Senior Center
Table 21-Inventory of Participation at Midway Recreation Center
Table 22-Inventory of Participation at Ruth Millican Center
Indoor Priority of Needs
Outdoor Recreation Priority of Needs
Table 23-Season Attendance & Average Daily Attendance -Pools
Table 24-Demographic Information on Other City Pools
City of Euless Trail System Needs
RESOURCES
Table 25-Parks and Recreation Bonds
APPENDIX
Map of Scientific Survey Respondent Area Boundaries
Map of Existing Parks, Facilities and Schools
Map of Neighborhood and Community Park Service Zones
Map of Master Plan
Survey Summary and Analysis
T H E C I T Y O F
EULESS
50
50
50
52
52
53
53
54
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
73
77
78
79
81
81
82
83
84
85
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
T � �" f:_4 _'# $-I- V 4
T H E C I T Y O F
ET JI.E S
RECOMMENDING THE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN, OUT-
DOOR RECREATIONAL PRIORITIES AND INDOOR RECREATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR
THE CITY OF EULESS, TEXAS, IN 2008.
WHEREAS, the duties and responsibilities of the Parks and Leisure Services Board shall be
to act as an advisory body to the City Council of the City of Euless, Texas, Tarrant
County; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Leisure Services Board has heard the comments of citizens, has
been briefed by the staff and the consultants for the purpose of providing information
and opinions; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Leisure Services Board has held a public meeting for the
purpose of receiving information and comments; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Leisure Services Board has taken into consideration the
desires of the citizens of Euless and the in-depth study conducted by the
staff and consultants to be appropriate and reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND LEISURE SERVICES
BOARD OF THE CITY OF EULESS, TEXAS:
Section I.
That the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Euless, Texas be recom-
mended to the City Council of the City of Euless, as enumerated on Exhibit 1, attached hereto
and incorporated herein for all intents and purposes.
PRESENTED AND APPROVED on this the _4 day of
,�),,fi OR , by a vote of 6 ayes, D nays and D abstentions at a regular meet-
ing of the Parks and Leisure Services Board of the City of Euless, Texas.
Chairman Attest
Parks & Community Services Master- Plan _ 7 " E ' Y o F
EULESS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Manor: Mary Lib Saleh
Place 1: Tim Stinneford
Place 2: Mayor Pro -Tern Leon Hogg
Place 3: Linda Martin
Place 4: Charlie Miller
Place 5: Glenn Porterfield
Place 6: Perry Bynum
PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES BOARD
Eric Owens, Chairman
Randy Jones
John Raab
Everett Hartzler
Carroll Scott
John Elder
Jeremy Tompkins, Alternate 1
Alex Horton, Alternate 2
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
Gary McKamie
Loretta Getchell
Susan Crim
Ray McDonald
Randy Smith
Johnnie Green
Terry Boaz
Jeff Towne
Linda Lux
T H E C I T Y O F
ELILESS
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
City Secretary
Director of Parks and
Community Services
Recreation Superintendent
Manager of Parks
Parks Superintendent
Graphic Artist
Administrative Secretary
ASSISTING CONSULTANTS
DFL Group, LLC
Hershel R. Lindly
John Fain
Elaine Dill
Jason Hodges
Raymond Turco & Associates
Raymond Turco
10
Parrs & Community Services Master Plan
•
T H E C I T Y O F
EULESS
Eu-ess
�'ab�ul
Parks &
Community
Services ,
sse
Parks do Community
Services Mission
Stateinent.
"To Provide and Promote Opportunities That Enhance the
Quality of Life for All Euless Citizens"
11
Parks & Community Services Alaster Plan T H E c i T r o f
EUIESS
The City of Euless is in the very beginning stages of one of the most exciting times in its history. It is
rapidly becoming a destination city because of the quality of life it provides its citizens and the hun-
dreds of thousands of annual visitors. Residential and commercial development has reached an all-
time high with even more development on the horizon. The future is indeed brighter than ever.
Quality of life is becoming more and more important to people throughout our country and, more
specifically, for the over 50,000 residents that call Euless home. Quality of life encompasses many
aspects including the ability to find good jobs, the ability to get around the city, the feeling that the
city is a safe place to live, and the availability of quality homes and neighborhoods as well as schools
and churches.
One of the most important aspects of quality of life is the availability of high quality parks and recre-
ational opportunities in the city. The benefits of parks and recreation influence every aspect of our
lives. These benefits allow our citizens to experience new activities, live healthier lifestyles, socialize
and interact with others and, most importantly, to strengthen our sense of pride in our community.
Attractive parks and natural areas are often the first place that visitors view in our community. Our
parks provide a very visible and constant reminder of the beautiful landscape that our city provides.
Our parks are also one of the most visible elements of a city government at work. A good park system
lets both the citizens and visitors know that the leadership of the city is interested in the well-being
of its citizens.
The parks and recreation system should especially impact our young citizens. The experiences that
we can provide for our young citizens will have a direct impact on the intensity with which children
become active citizens and contributors to the city in the future.
BACKGROUND
In 1867 Elisha Adam Euless, along with many of his Tennessee
neighbors, settled in Northeastern Tarrant County. They estab-
lished their new homes among farmers who had come earlier with
the Peters Colony. Anglo-American settlement had been made
possible by the establishment of nearby Bird's Fort and a treaty
with local Indians in the 1840's.
Mr. Euless purchased land in 1879 and 1881 in the northwest cor-
ner of present North Main Street and West Euless Boulevard, where he farmed. He also constructed
a cotton gin and a multipurpose building that housed a school, a church and a Grange Hall. The com-
munity that developed at the site came to be known as Euless, although it had several other names at
different times. Mr. Euless served two terms as Tarrant County sheriff in the 1890's.
12
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " ` °' T Y ° F
EUI;ESS
A post office opened in 1886, erroneously named "Enless." In 1888, Euless became a Tarrant County
voting precinct. However, the community declined after 1903, when the Rock Island Railroad
bypassed it. The settlement even lost its misnamed post office in 1910.
The community of Euless survived, nevertheless, and in the 1920's a few new businesses opened, serv-
ing local residents, mostly truck and dairy farmers. In the 1930's, a new highway linking Dallas and
Fort Worth passed through Euless. After World War II, Fort Worth built its municipal airport nearby.
Euless grew slowly, and in 1949 the post office reopened. The following year residents incorporated
the town, then disincorporated it in 1953 and immediately reincorporated. The city adopted a home -
rule charter with a council-manager form of government in 1962, which, with amendments, is still
the city's basic governing document.
The City of Euless is 16.9 square miles and is located 16 miles west of Dallas and 16 miles east of Fort
Worth in the northeast corner of Tarrant County within what is identified as North Central Texas. It
is served by several major highways, which include State Highway 183 in an east/west alignment and
passes through the center of the city, State Highway 360 in a north/south alignment to the east, and
State Highway 121 in a north/south alignment to the west. Other major thoroughfares that serve
Euless include FM 157 in a north/south alignment as well as State Highway 10 which dissects our city
at an angle in an east/west alignment.
The City of Euless lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the Hurst -Euless -Bedford
Independent School District and the Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District. Schools
located within these jurisdictional boundaries include one (1) high school, two (2) junior high schools
and seven (7) elementary schools.
With its dynamic location in the heart of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, adjacent to one of the
world's busiest airports, and with a myriad of convenient highways, Euless is positioned for continued
growth and excitement.
13
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " E °' T Y o F
EJLESS
THE COMMITMENT TO BEAUTIFICATION
The roots of Euless' commitment to beautification run deep. For over fifty years the City of Euless
staff and citizens have worked hard to preserve our heritage through beautification efforts. Initially it
included garden clubs, neighborhood groups and community volunteer groups working together with
the city on tree and bed planting projects in various parks, medians and around city buildings. The
City of Euless formally recognized the importance of the beautification efforts in September of 1982
when the City Council adopted a resolution to formalize the efforts as an endeavor to stimulate city
pride and recognition with the "Beautify Euless Everyday" (BEE) committee. Spearheaded by volun-
teers with assistance from the Euless Parks Department, BEE initiated an aggressive beautification
campaign. Through the efforts of the BEE Committee, the City of Euless received two first -place
"Keep Texas Beautiful" awards in 1983 and 1987. Additionally, the City of Euless received two second
and one third place award. Euless quickly earned statewide praise and rapidly became one of the lead-
ing cities participating in the campaign. In fact, 2008 will be our 12th year participating in the annu-
al Texas Trash Off with an average of nearly 300 community volunteers.
Euless has also been a proud member of the National Arbor Day Foundation and one of only seven
cities in the state with the distinction of being recognized as a 20 year Tree City USA member. The
City has also received the Growth Award from the National Arbor Day Foundation for 16 consecutive
years, an award which recognizes excellence in the field of tree planting, preservation and continued
commitment to beautify our community through the many programs we proudly promote. Some
examples include the following:
DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMS
NeighborWoods — A cooperative program between the City of Euless Parks Department and
neighborhood associations related to tree planting projects.
Euless' 1+1=2 Program —A program to plant one tree for every one resident by the year 2000
and which far exceeded the expectations as we nearly doubled our target.
TreeWays — A tree planting effort to plant trees in city maintained street medians and right-of-
ways.
HEB Summer Youth Work Program — A partner program with the Hurst -Euless -Bedford
School District where physically and mentally challenged students work during the summer
planting and maintaining flower beds, preparing trees to give away at Arbor Daze, potting
plants in the City of Euless Parks Department greenhouse and performing other beautification
projects as assigned by the Foreman of the Parks Horticulture Crew.
Adopt -A -Park — A cooperative program between the City of Euless and various volunteer
groups; neighborhood associations and individuals volunteer six times a year picking up trash
and performing various other duties to help beautify our park system.
14
Parks & Community Services Master Plan r ri e c t r r o f
EULESS
CITY-WIDE PROGRAMS
Arbor Daze - The Euless Parks and Community Services Department, along with the Euless
Tree Board and Euless Parks and Leisure Services Board, founded a special event originally
named the "How to Grow Lawn and Garden Show" with the intention of educating the public
about the value of tree planting and beautification. The annual event, entering its nineteenth
year and now called Arbor Daze has garnered national recognition, being recognized as the best
Arbor Day celebration in America two times (1994 and 2001) and given the prestigious distinc-
tion as being the Official State of Texas Arbor Day Celebration in 1987 and again in 2000. Since
its inception, the City of Euless and Arbor Daze has given away over 150,000 trees at the event.
Euless Pride - In 2006, the Euless City Council allocated funds to support a program called
"Euless Pride." The program, which is under the direction of the City Manager and with staff
support, works with a group of citizens to identify specific properties or projects where the City
allocates necessary funding and/or resources to promote community pride through enhance-
ment of those properties or projects.
Texas Trash Off - Held each year in April, the City of Euless staff and volunteers cover the city
limits picking up trash and debris to help beautify our city as part of a statewide initiative to
"Keep Texas Beautiful."
The strong commitment of our Council, citizens and staff to beautify the City of Euless has
translated into many programs, events and projects over the years. The following list of awards
and accomplishments demonstrates this commitment and highlights those efforts on local,
state and international levels.
Texas Festivals and Events Association
Best Environmental Festival - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
Best New Sponsorship Solicitation Package - 1999
Best Radio Announcement - 1999, 2005
Best Environmental/Recycling Program - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2007
Best New Sponsorship Idea - 1998
Best Newspaper Advertisement - 1998, 2005
Best New Idea - 1996, 2003
Best Educational Program - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
Best Volunteer Program - 2004, 2007
Best New Fund -Raising Idea - 2004
Best Promotional Poster - 2003
Best Promotional Brochure - 2003, 2007
Best New Event — 2005
Best Festival Brochure - 1997, 2003
Best Company Image Piece - 2005
Best Event Photograph - 2006
Best Event Organizational Newsletter — 2006
Best Event Cover Design — 2007
Best Children's Program - 2007
Texas Community Forestry Awards:
Governmental Project Award Winner - 2001
15
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T ++ e C, T Y o f
EtJLESS
International Festivals and Events Association
Best Environmental Program - Silver Award 1997, 2006
Best Educational Program - Silver Award 1997
Best Volunteer Program - Silver Award 2004
Best Street Banner - Bronze Award 2004
Best Organizational Website — 2005
Best Educational Program - 2005
Best Community Outreach Program — 2005
Best Miscellaneous Printed Material — 2005
Best Event Program — 2005
Best Company Image Piece — 2005
Best Sponsor — 2006
Best Event Organizational Newsletter — 2006
Best Children's Programming - 2006
Texas Recreation & Parks Society
Excellence in Programming - 1996
Excellence in Programming - 2003
Arts & Humanities Award Class III — 2001
Innovations in Park Development — 2004
Maintenance Award - 2004
International Society of Arboriculture
Gold Leaf Award — Arbor Daze, 1994
National Arbor Day Foundation
The Official State of Texas Arbor Day Celebration - 1987, 2000
Best Arbor Day Celebration in America- 1994, 2001 (Only two-time winner ever awarded)
Texas Amateur Athletic Federation
TAAF Gold Member City Award — 2000
TAAF Silver Member City Award — 2001
TAAF Bronze Member City Award — 2002
TAAF Bronze Member City Award — 2005
Other Parks & Community Services Awards
DFW Metro Area Directors Association Innovation Award - Facility Design/Construction,
The Preserve at McCormick Park, 2006
Merit Award, Texas Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects —
Parks at Texas Star, 1999
DFW Metro Area Directors Association Innovation Award — Facility Design/Construction, Parks
at Texas Star, 1998
Best New Park Design in Texas - Villages of Bear Creek Park, Texas Forest Service, 1993
Governor's Community Achievement Award - First Place, Keep Texas Beautiful, 1987
Governor's Community Achievement Award - First Place, Keep Texas Beautiful, 1983
Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council Municipal Award for the Famous and Historical
Tree Grove, 2006
16
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
THE CITY OF
EUIESS
population changes in the City of Euless, planning within the Parks & Community Services
Department remains a constant. It remains a high priority that we, as parks and recreation profes-
sionals, keep focused on serving all age groups and providing exceptional parks and recreational expe-
riences for the citizens of Euless.
The population total as prepared by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in
the "Needs Assessment" section in 2002 was 44,700. This more than likely resulted in lower land
and/or facility requirements or needs.
This document uses 52,900 populations for the City of Euless. This population was prepared by the
North Central Texas Council of Governments.
Table 1, "Demographic Characteristics and Population" indicates this information.
TABLE l
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND POPULATION
Demographic Number Number Percent
Characteristics &
Population 2000 2006
Under 5 years
3421
3,915
7.4
5 to 9 years
3197
3,650
6.9
10 to 14 years
3095
3,544
6.7
15 to 19 years
2849
3,280
6.2
20 to 24 years
3446
3,967
7.5
25 to 34 years
9448
10,844
20.5
35 to 44 years
8,814
10,157
19.2
45 to 54 years
5,734
6,612
12.5
55 to 59 years
1,921
2,222
4.2
60 to 64 years
1,425
1,640
3.1
65 to 74 years
1,755
2,010
3.8
75 to 84 years
706
794
1.5
85 + years
218
265
0.5
White *
34,743
75.5
Black
2,987
6.5
American Indian/Alaska
294
0.6
Asian
3,288
7.1
Hawaiian/Pacific
856
1.9
Hispanic/Latino *
6,125
13.3
Median Age 2000 - 32.20 and 2006 — 33.70
Average Household Size 2.38
Average Family Size 3.05
A portion of this population is two or more races
Euless, Texas Population (7/1/1999) - 45,911
A total population of 52,900 is used as the existing population for this document dated 2007.
A population of 67,200 is used for 2017 (or a 10-year park plan). A population of 52,900 will be used
to develop the existing standards.
18
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
Table 2, " Population fi-onr 2000 Through Build-Oul " indicates this infor°rnation.
TABLE 2
POPULATION FROM 2000 THROUGH BUILD -OUT
Year
Population
Source
July 1, 2000
46,205
2000 U.S. Census
2002
44,700
Parks Master Plan — 2002
2007 (Dec. 31, 2006)
52,900
2006 Demographic Update
2008 (Dec. 31, 2007)
54,330
**
2009 (Dec. 31, 2008)
55,760
**
2010 (Dec. 31, 2009)
57,190
**
2011 (Dec. 31, 2010)
58,621
2006 Demographic Update
2012 (Dec. 31, 2011)
60,050
**
2017 (Dec. 31, 2016)
67,200
**
City Build -Out
69,000
Comprehensive Land
Development Plan - 1993
T H E C I T Y O E
EUIESS
* North Central Texas Council of Governments estimate adjusted from 2000 US Census
** Straight line projections from the population estimates as of December 31, 2006, and 2010
as taken from the 2006 Demographic Update.
19
Parks & Community Services Master Plan ' " e 01 T Y 0 F
EULFSS
i 4-ij 0 1 y
The purpose of the "Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan" is to provide a guide or
direction for the Euless City Council and the Parks & Leisure Services Board relative to outdoor recre-
ation, indoor recreation and open space for the existing and future citizens of the City of Euless, Texas.
This document in no way commits existing or future City Councils to funding or appropriation of
funds to be used for parks, recreation and open space.
The following are examples of specific nurnoses of this document:
1. Prepare a guide for the Euless City Council when making decisions relative to parks, recreation
and open space.
2. Prepare a guide for the Parks and Leisure Services Board when making decisions relative to:
(1) parks, recreation and open space; and (2) recommendations transmitted to the Euless City,
Council.
3. Prepare a guide that encourages the proper use of local and non -local financial resources.
4. Prepare a guide for the orderly acquisition and development of parks, recreation and.open
space.
5. Prepare a master park plan which includes the elements adopted by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department.
6. Prepare a guide for the revitalization of parks, recreation and open space.
7. Prepare a guide for the preservation of the environment by the public sector and/or the private
sector.
8. Prepare a guide for the City of Euless development which attracts those who do not reside in
the city.
9. Prepare a guide which encourages and promotes economic development in the City of Euless.
PERIOD OF DOCUMENT
This document "Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan" was prepared during the year of
2007. The period of this document is from 2008 through 2017, or a ten-year period. Population for the
City of Euless was projected for the years 2007 through 2017. Population for the first five years and the
tenth year was projected. The year 2007 is considered the existing year of this document. The recommen-
dation of the Parks and Leisure Services Board and adoption by the Euless City Council occurred during
2008. This plan was prepared so as to conform to the goals of the City of Euless as well as those of the
Texas Recreation and Parks Account.
It is anticipated that this document will be updated annually by the City Council of Euless. The
update will include, among other things, what happened the previous year.
In order to comply with existing guidelines of the Texas Recreation and Parks Account, this plan
must be updated every two years. At a minimum, updates will include a summary of accomplishments,
current public input, most recent inventory, dated needs, priorities and an implementation plan. Other
information should be updated if it is available. After the second update and information is available from
the 2010 U.S. census the next updated document should contain the new population information.
The scientific survey prepared by Raymond Turco & Associates represented the opinions of persons
residing in the City of Euless. These opinions were incorporated into the document and significantly
impacted its contents. The firm of DFL Group, LLC assisted the staff in the preparation of the document.
The Euless City Council and the Parks and Leisure Services Board heard presentations from the citizens,
staff and consultants.
20
T II E C I T Y O F
Parks & Community Services Maslen Plan
EtJLESS
TIME PERIOD OF DOCUMENT PREPARATION
The time period of preparation of this document, "Parks Recreation and Open Space Master
Plan," began in 2006 and extended through the spring of 2008. The city council included the funds
to prepare this document in the 2006-2007 Budget. The City of Euless and the DFL Group, LLC signed
a service agreement in October 2006.
The first action taken was the preparation of the scientific survey by Raymond Turco in
December 2006. In the spring of 2008 the Parks and Leisure Services Board recommended that this
document be adopted by the City Council of the City of Euless. After this recommendation was
received by the City Council of the City of Euless, it was adopted by resolution. The document was
then submitted to the Recreation Grants Branch of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department for com-
ment and approval.
PLANNING COMMUNITIES UTILIZED
Elected Officials
The City Council of the City of Euless at a regular meeting passed and adopted a
resolution adopting this document, "Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan."
Appointed Officials
The Parks and Leisure Services Board at workshops and at regular meetings studied
this document, "Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan," and recommended
to the City Council of the City of Euless that this document be adopted by resolution.
22
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " ° ` Y ° F
EJJLESS
I AL
The City of Euless has for many years recognized the importance of planning for parks, recre-
ation and open space. This formally began in 1976 with the preparation of the city's first park plan.
The following identifies and describes each of the formal park plans prepared.
Park Plan for the City of Euless - 1976
The City of Euless prepared and published the first park plan under the direction of the City
Council and the Park and Recreation Board in May 1976. The city manager was W.M. Sustaire and the
Director of Parks & Recreation was Frank Lindsey. This plan established the basis for the acquisition
and development of land and facilities. This plan contained the following elements; (1) goals and
objectives; (2) comprehensive planning elements; (3) park and recreation standards; (4) proposed
parks and recreation facilities; (5) beautification; and (6) acquisition and development priorities. This
plan pinpointed the Villages of Bear Creek more than twelve years before it actually became reality.
Euless Parks Plan Update - 1988
City officials determined that the 1976 plan needed updating. The Parks and Leisure Services
Board prepared and published the Euless Parks Plan Update. This document was intended to serve as
an addendum and supplement to the 1976 Euless Park Plan.
The impetus to prepare the 1988 document was (1) the previously prepared document; (2) the
challenge of providing adequate athletic fields for soccer and baseball; (3) the impact of private devel-
opment on floodplains and related natural areas; (4) the need for a multipurpose community center;
and (5) the interest of citizens and public agencies in establishing an outdoor area for educational pro-
grams related to native Texas flora and fauna.
The updated document dealt primarily with (1) the inventory and analysis of recreational facil-
ities and park land; (2) the establishment of standards for parks and athletic facilities; and (3) the iden-
tification and development of natural areas.
Euless Parks Needs Assessment Update - 1992
With the advent of the Half -Cent Sales Tax election, the City of Euless revised the Parks Master
Plan. This plan emphasized a comprehensive needs program for Parks and Recreation opportunities
for the city. This was accomplished by (1) citizen evaluation through scientific research; (2) informa-
tion gathered at Parks and Leisure Services Board meetings; (3) sports associations comments to the
Parks and Leisure Services Board meetings; (4) input from social clubs, neighborhood associations,
Parks and Leisure Services staff; and (5) neighborhood user groups.
Euless Parks Master Plan Update — 1995
The plan reviewed progress of providing additional facilities for the residents of Euless. This
document proved to be a valuable tool in obtaining the grant from Texas Parks & Wildlife Department,
which assisted in the funding of Phase one of the Parks at Texas Star. The 1995 update involved citi-
zen surveys, interviews and meetings with sports associations and other organized user groups.
23
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T H E G T Y o f
EL7T
Leill- ir Ju WL
Goals and objectives reflect how the organization is going to carry out its mission to achieve
its vision. They become the connection between the mission and the vision, or how the organization
intends to organize work in advancing toward the preferred future. Thus, the programs and/or serv-
ices of the Parks and Community Services Department are based upon our strategic plan — our vision,
mission, goals and objectives.
These goals and objectives were formulated from information gathered from the scientific sur-
vey, the previous update to the plan, public hearings, the Parks and Leisure Services Board, and from
input by the Parks and Community Services staff,
DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Listed below are the goals and objectives for parks, recreation and open space of the Parks and
Leisure Services Department.
Goal No. 1 — To continue to develop a system of parks, recreation facilities, trails, open space and
leisure services to meet the needs of an expanding and diverse community
Objective: The City of Euless should respond to public input and continue to develop the high qual-
ity and wide variety of park and recreation facilities available to residents and visitors by
• Continuing to support and fund Capital Improvement Programs for parks and recre-
ation projects.
• Continuing to provide high -quality leisure programs to meet the needs of a diverse
demographic and geographic population.
• Reviewing and updating the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
• Encouraging and cultivating citizen input and expression of opinion as it relates to this
document.
• Continuing to incorporate public art into the park system where appropriate.
• Continuing to update and/or renovate existing parks and recreational facilities, struc-
tures, fixtures and amenities.
Goal No. 2 — To continue to work to expand economic growth, improve the quality of life for our cit-
izens and promote economic development opportunities through parks, recreation and open space
planning and programming
Objective: The Parks and Community Services Department should continue to aggressively promote
the benefits of parks and recreation through creative planning and programming realizing that these
benefits can be an effective tool for increasing property values, promoting economic development by
attracting new businesses, improving the city's image and stimulating tourism by
Planning and designing parks and recreational facilities that are accessible to all
individuals and meets the needs of the community it serves.
25
Parrs & Community Services rlaste• Plan T " e s V o `
-- -- I ---
EULESS
• Preserving areas within the existing and proposed park system for passive recreation.
• Supporting the development and implementation of a park, recreation, trails and open
space master plan that encourages environmental awareness.
• Where feasible, using materials in the construction of future parks and recreational
facilities that respect the environment.
• Implementing a plan to preserve the limited amount of natural resources located with-
in the City of Euless.
• Supporting the adoption of a local historical marker program that would identify local
structures of historical significance and preserve its heritage through carefully written
interpretive signage that would be installed at the site.
Goal No. 5 — To develop a high quality system of park trails and corridors that access public facili-
ties, parks, neighborhoods and business districts
Objective: The City of Euless should acquire adequate funding for the development and construc-
tion of a city-wide trail system to include long-term maintenance costs within future budgets. This
can be accomplished by
• Supporting the implementation of a trail improvement plan to construct or make
improvements to trails located in Blessing Branch Park, Kiddie Carr Park, The Villages
of Bear Creek Park, Heritage Park, West Park, South Euless Park and J.A. Carr Park.
• Implementing and supporting a plan that would include identifying and creating on -
road bicycle routes, widening city sidewalks to trail width in certain areas and dedicat-
ing certain areas as trail easements.
• Developing a trails master plan that connects residential neighborhoods, parks, green
belts, schools, activity centers, public buildings and business districts, airport property
and adjoining cities.
• Creating trailhead improvements that furnish trail systems with appropriate support-
ing services including interpretive and directory signage, rest areas, drinking fountains,
landscaping, restrooms, parking and other services.
• Installing trail lighting, telephones, or emergency call boxes at major trailheads or
other appropriate locations by which trail users can summon fire, emergency aid,
or police.
Goal No. 6 — To develop a high quality, diversified recreation system that provides for all age and
interest groups, and enhances neighborhood parks, resources and facilities equitably across the city
Objective: With the general aging of many of our current recreational facilities, both indoor and
outdoor, the City of Euless should implement and approve a Capital Improvement Program to address
the following
Indoor Recreation Facilities
• Implementing a plan to develop or re -develop a senior activities center that will serve
our current active senior group as well as provide for future expansion of an ever grow-
ing population of our city.
• Implementing a plan to expand the Midway Recreation Center to allow for more
programmable space to meet the general social, educational, health, physical fitness,
intellectual, recreation and leisure needs of the growing population and users of the
current facility.
27
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T F E c i v o F
EtJLESS
• Developing a comprehensive turf management plan that incorporates all city -owned
grounds including facility grounds, parks, medians and right-of-ways.
• Continuing beautification efforts through landscape design and general maintenance
with qualified staff personnel and/or third party contractors where feasible.
• Working with other departments within the city and with developers on landscape selec-
tion to include manageable trees, location of planted trees, shrubs, etc., in medians and
right-of-ways where feasible.
• Continuing to look for additional funding opportunities for beautification efforts through
donations, grants and pilot programs, other public or private agencies and/or internal
plant propagation.
Goal No. 9 — To identify and select certain areas within the City of Euless as locations for displaying
public art ,
Objective: In order to become a more well-rounded city, it is imperative that Euless seek out more
expression of the fine arts. An increase in public art can be an effective toot for attracting more attention
to parks and recreation, as well as helping improve the image of the city. This can be accomplished by
• Identifying and designating areas within parks and/or facilities for the display of public
art pieces, concentrating on high traffic areas for maximum exposure.
• Deciding what topics and subject matter would be relevant, such as historical or cultural
significance.
• Procuring ideas or pitches from local artists and sculptors based on subject matter
decisions.
• Encouraging public input on selection of the art pieces and locations for placement.
Goal No. 10 — To continue to hire and develop a professional staff of Park and Recreational, profession-
als that work to meet the needs of the citizens of Euless while creating opportunities that enhance the
overall vision and presence of the organization
Objective: The Parks & Community Services Department has many varying responsibilities that serve
an ever changing demographic. It is important that the organization frequently reviews current policies,
procedures and the overall vision of the department and takes the necessary steps to serve the citizens
and each other in the most professional manner possible. This will be accomplished by
• Implementing a personnel development plan for staff.
• Conducting an efficiency and effectiveness review of the organization's programs and
services.
• Reviewing and improving all departmental safety policies and procedures.
• Providing staff with continuing education and training.
• Encouraging staff and Board Members to participate in local, state and national confer-
ences and seminars.
• Identifying and assessing the latest technological advancements that may assist in more
efficient park maintenance development.
• Identifying and assessing computer and/or electronic technology that can more
efficiently and effectively assist in programming and management improvements.
29
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS,
FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
THECITY OF
EULESS
TABLE 3
INVENTORY OF EACH PARK SITE
Park Name
Water Corridor
Park Classification
Site Area (Acres)
Heritage
None
Neighborhood
4.1
Trailwood
Little Bear Creek
Linear/Neighborhood
11.0
Wilshire
Hurricane Creek
Linear/Neighborhood
5.6
J.A. Carr
Boyd Branch
Linear/Neighborhood
8.7
Kiddie Carr
Boyd Branch
Linear/Neighborhood
4.0
South Euless
Fuller Branch
Linear/Neighborhood
5.0
Blessing
Blessing Branch
Linear/Neighborhood
7.3
Preserve
Little Bear Creek
Linear/Neighborhood
27.0
McCormick
Little Bear Creek
Linear/Neighborhood
12.0
Bob Eden
Little Bear Creek
Linear/Community
73.0
West
Hurricane Creek
Linear/Community
21.0
Villages
Little Bear Creels
Linear/Community
46.5
Midway
Blessing Branch
Linear/Major City 1
21.2
PATS
None
Major City 1
82
Softball World
None
Special Purpose (
16.7
Total Area (all park sites listed above) 345.1
* The tennis courts that are located at Lakewood Elementary are owned by the city.
* Note that Reflection Park has been reclassified as a beautification site (0.5 acres)
TABLE 4
INVENTORY SUMMARY OF SITE AREA
BY PARK CLASSIFICATION
Neighborhood
( (N 4.1) 1
4.1 acres
Linear/Neighborhood
(L 26.0 + N 54.6) 1
80.6 acres
Linear/Community
(L 46.8 + C 93.7) 1
140.5 acres
Linear/Major City
I (L 7.0 + M 14.2) (
21.2 acres
Major City
I (M 82.0) 1
82.0 acres
Special Purpose
1 (16.7)
16.7 acres
Total Area(all park sites listed
above)
345.1 acres
This results in the following when compared to the document dated 2002: (1) Neighborhood Park -
58.7 acres vs. 72.5 acres; (2) Community Park - 93.7 acres vs.114.8 acres; (3) Major City Park - 96.2
acres vs. 120.0 acres; (4) Linear/Greenbelt Park - 79.8 acres vs. 20.3 acres; and (5) Special Purpose
Park - 16.7 vs. 239.9 acres (before the golf course with 220.0 acres was removed).
Each park site or property was evaluated on the presence of flood plain, wetlands and/or natural area.
For a definition of each type, please refer to the "Area and Facility Concepts and Standards" section.
31
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
T H E C I T Y O F
EUL;ESS
TABLE 7
INVENTORY OF SUPPORT FACILITIES BY PARK SITE
e
m
m
! G A
m U
t
W I
m
'o
V
I
f� ~
m
eC
szp
?
0
U
0
1
1
I
m
a Q 9
Y
V 9
-
m
0
W
4
N
�S
, L
F
3:i
a
it
Benches
4 10
- -
5
1 6 12
5
3
-
1
--
1
-
27 : 2
76
Concession Bldg. - --_ ---
-
-
-I
2
1
! i
3 -
Concession Stand
-
- --
-
-
i- -
---
Exercise Stations _
5
6 j
11
22
Grills
--- - - --
4 10
5
1 5 11
2
6
7
19 5
5 j
80
Parking Spaces -
!
(Paved)
-- - - -
6
160I 39 4
51
10 1 220 69311
49
245
41
211 111
23-
1863
Pedestrian Bridges
----- -- - -- -
1 -1
-
- -
3
1
5
Port-o•lets
2-; 1
-
-
6
2
6 4_
2
-23
Restrooms
-
- -
-
-
3
Tables
1
11 12
6
8 1 14 49
2
31
6
7
41 10
7
205
Trash Cans
- - ...
1
17 10 1
5
2
13 ! 43 57
9
1
42
7
7_
44 21
10
290
Water Fountains
3
2
2
!
31
17
* Located within the pool area
- - I - - - --
TABLE 8
INVENTORY OF AMENITIES
i BY PARK SITE
N 1
W (qQ� Ill
N J Zz = JV
U 0 Z 9 S �Ji lv4{t 2
PARK E a0
Blessing Branch I I I 11
Bob Eden 11 14 117 14 I 1 I 11 15 I 131 2 I 12 11 I I 12 1
J.A. Carr I 12 I 10 I 10 I 10 I t 11 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1
Kiddie Carr ( I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I
1.501
0.501 I
Heritage 1 6 1 5 15 1 5 1, I I I I I I I I I I I I I0.251
Lakewood I I I 2, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 I I I I I I I I
McCormick 16 11 1 13 11 I, 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 10.501
Midway I14I514316I2I 1 I5I 1 1 12I I6I 11 1 I6I I
Pks. At Tex. Star I 49 I 11 I 57 I 12 I 1
Preserve 12 12 19 15 I 1
Reflection I I 11 I 3
Softball World I 31 I 142 , 11 1 1 2
South Euless 16 16 17 I I 1 I 1
Trailwood 17 17 17 I 11 1 I 1
Villages 141 119 144 127 12 I 1 13
West I 10 15( 21 12 I 1 I I
Wilshire 17 15 110 I 1 1 1
TOTALS 1203.01 80.01290.01 76.0116.01 6.0 1 18.0
3I6I
21
1
I
I16j1 12
I 10.901
I I I
I4I I
I
I 10.50I I
11 ( I I I 1 6 14 1 I 17 12.001 I
I I I I 1 I I 131
I2
1 1 1 I 10.251 I
22.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 23.0 6.0 3.0 1 1.0 1 38.01 6,401 3.0 1 2.0
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Parks & Community Services Hasler Plan
LANDSCAPE BED MAINTENANCE
Areas
Square Footage
Main Street medians & greenbelt
9,662
Harwood medians
6,111
Mid -Cities medians
1,662
Bob Eden Memorial
147
North Ector Drive medians
340
Villages of Bear Creek (1951 Bear Creek Pkwy.)
2,990
Reflection Park
2,248
Fire Hall #1 ( 201 E Ash Lane)
100
Fire Hall 43 (202 S. Euless Main Street)
1,828
Mack Drive medians
816
Holly Drive medians
275
McCormick Park (2190 Joyce Court)
360
Dr Pepper StarCenter (1400 S. Pipeline Rd.)
13,447
East Midway medians
6,996
Main Street (aD, Mid -Cities Boulevard
147
Euless Junior High median
540
Raider Drive medians
170
Parks at Texas Star (1400 Texas Star Pkwy.)
8,671
West Park
443
Sulpher Branch
360
Wilshire Pool
143
Parks & Community Services
889
J.A. Carr Park
1,962
South Euless Park
589
Ruth Millican Center
409
Heritage Park
714
Midway Park entrance bed & rec center
1,812
Fair Oaks cap bed
117
Midway (a, Main Street — southeast corner
1,822
Westpark Way
4,777
TOTAL
65,770
T H E C I T Y O F
EULESS
35
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
OUTDOOR RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS
SINCE THE DOCUMENT DATED 2002
T H E C I T Y O F
EULE5S
Improvements made since the preparation of the City of Euless Master Plan dated 2002 are
significant. The following improvements have been made in each park:
Bob Eden Park
1. Constructed 1.9 mile paved walking and jogging trail (paved) that links Bob
Eden to Trailwood Park and McCormick Park
2. Added irrigation system
3. Relocated three, lighted sand volleyball courts from Parks at Texas Star
4. Added additional parking
S. Lighted parking lot �aawo.
6. Added remote lighting for field rentals
7. Added foot shower by volleyball courts
8. Added two water fountains with pet bowls along trail
9. Added two doggie "bag -it" stations in park
10. Restroom upgraded to meet ADA standards
McCormick Park
1. Added irrigation system
2. Added doggie "bag -it" station along trail
n
3. Added water fountain with pet bowl along trail
4. Installed erosion control and retaining wall for bank
stabilization along creek
5. Renovated gazebo
Villages of Bear Creek Park
1. Added port -a -potty restroom enclosures
2. Installed new playground unit and swing set
3. Added three doggie "bag -it" stations in park
4. Construction of a Dog Park FY `08
Midway Park
1. Added remote lighting for field rental to four fields o
2. Installed new playground unit
3. Installed new park lights W
4. Installed marquee on east end of park entrance
5. Constructed new, paved trail connecting park to neighborhood
6. Added two doggie "bag -it" stations
7. Installed water slides at pool
8. Retiled decorative wall outside recreation center
Heritage Park ,a
1. Relocated Himes Log House to park
2. Installed windmill
3. Relocated McCormick barn to park
4. Added one doggie "bag -it" station
5. Constructed & installed four natural log benches using fallen trees within the
park system
36
Parks & Community Services Master Plan r " e °' T Y ° F
EUI;ESS
Wilshire Park
1. Eliminated tennis courts (on school property) 183
2. Added doggie "bag -it" station
3. Installed .25 miles of paved trails
4. Added fishing pier and two fountains
5. Added concrete picnic pads with tables
J.A. Carr Park Z
1. Installed new playground unit and swing set
2. Added additional park lighting W y
3. Added water fountain along trail R
4. Added port -a -potty restroom enclosure $
5. Renovated gazebo and rose garden
South Euless Park I
1. Eliminated tennis courts N
2. Constructed an aquatic playground (splash pad) z
3. Installed new swing set 31
4. Added additional irrigation
5. Added additional parking
6. Added doggie "bag -it" station
7. Added irrigation around splash pad
8. Replaced swing set
Kiddie Carr Park lei
1. Constructed BMX track io
a
3.
West Park m�
1. Installed new irrigation system
2. Added additional paved parking
3. Added two doggie "bag -it" stations
4. Painted bleachers
5. Installed new player benches y
6. Replaced one new field light pole
7. Added additional lighting by the playground
Softball World at Texas Star
1.
Installed new irrigation system
2.
Installed new scoreboards
3.
Repaired roof of main building
4.
Constructed and installed serving counter in concession area
5.
Installed lights above concession area
3
6.
Installed HVAC in main building
to
7.
Carpeted flooring upstairs
8.
Painted upstairs
9.
Reclaimed operation of pro shop
o
PIPELINE RD 8 3'
37
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " E °' T Y ° F
EUI;ESS
The Parks at Texas Star PIPRUNE RO S
1. Constructed two new T-ball / coach -pitch fields
2. Constructed new 12U baseball field
3. Constructed six new youth soccer fields
4. Installed new shade canopies over seating area on
previously constructed T-ball field
5. Installed two new batting cages
6. Installed new art piece (statue) at Veterans Field
7. Added additional pedestrian lights
8. Installed two manually operated scoreboards on T-ball / coach -pitch fields
9. Installed irrigation on new fields
10. Installed lights on 12U baseball field
11. Installed electronic scoreboard on 12U baseball field
Trailwood Park �4��g�4V0
tS�1p"
1. Added sidewalk on "park side" of street
2. Installed irrigation system throughout park
3. Added a pedestrian bridge over low water crossing on trail Z
4. Installed log benches along trail
The Preserve at McCormick Park
1.
Constructed 27-acre nature preserve
2.
Installed new playground
3.
Installed new benches
4.
Installed trail that links McCormick Park to Villages of Bear Creek Park
5.
Installed bird watching area with bird watching blind with unpaved trail
6.
Added three ponds
7.
Installed boardwalk and fishing pier
8.
Installed Famous/Historic Tree Grove and an unpaved trail
9.
Installed outdoor classroom
10.
Installed gazebo MID -CITIES BLVD
11.
Installed park signs
N
12.
Installed parking lot
3
13.
Installed unpaved species trail ' }
14.
Installed pedestrian bridge
15.
Installed picnic area
16.
Installed two water fountains with pet bowls
17.
Installed two doggie "bag -it" stations
18.
Installed irrigation system
19.
Installed port -a -potty enclosures
38
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " E G' T Y o F
ELTIESS
INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
The City of Euless has several indoor facilities that serve the recreational needs of the citizens. The
Parks & Community Services Department currently operates one dedicated recreational activity cen-
ter, one dedicated senior activity center and one multi -purpose facility used primarily for passive
recreational programming. Other facilities that would be classified as indoor recreation facilities
include the Fuller House, the Himes Log House and the various pavilions and gazebos. These are
detailed by location and size in the following table.
TABLE 10
Inventory of Indoor Recreation Facilities, Pavilions and Gazebos
Facility
Location
Size — Sq. Feet
Midway
Midway Park
27,300
Recreation
Center
Simmons
J.A. Carr Park
5,600
Senior Center
Ruth Millican
Heritage Park
5,000
Center
Dr Pepper
Parks at
95,000
StarCenter
Texas Star
Fuller House
Heritage Park
2,000
Museum
Himes Log
Heritage Park
1,500
House
Pavilions
Location
Size-Sq. Feet
Villages of
Villages of
2,300
Bear Creek
Bear Creels
Bear's Den
Villages of
1,900
Bear Creek
Parks at Texas
Parks at Texas
2,600
Star
Star
Bob Eden
Bob Eden
1,850
Gazebos
Location
Size-Sq. Feet
Simmons
J.A. Carr Park
500
Preserve at
Preserve at
600
McCormick
McCormick
Park
Park
McCormick
McCormick
500
Park
Park
39
Parks & Community Services Master Plan THE CITY OF
EULESS
INDOOR RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
SINCE THE DOCUMENT DATED 2002
Improvements made to indoor recreational facilities since the document dated 2002 are significant and
important to the senior citizen. The following recreational facilities were made to the centers located
in the City of Euless:
Ruth Millican Center
1. Re -painted outside of building
2. Re -painted inside of building
Simmons Senior Center
1. New flooring in main room
2. New countertops in kitchen
3. New drainage project in front of building
4. New paint inside building
Midway Recreation Center
1. HVAC System — replaced chilled water system with roof mounted units
2. Replaced all classroom tables and chairs
3. Fitness Center expansion
4. Construction of two new offices
5. Re -carpet all interior areas to include gym walls
6. Re -paint all interior areas including hand rails as well as replacing wallpaper areas with
paint
7. Replace all countertops
8. Replace lower roof section to include isomeric coating and damaged roof decking
9. Replaced all game area and lobby furniture
10. Replaced flooring in fitness center
11. Added four cardio machines and two weight machines to the Fitness Center
12. Gym Floor —'/a of the wood floor was torn out and replaced due to damage by other con-
tractors — entire floor was sanded down and all new lines and logos were re -painted
13. Added new slide to Midway Pool
14. Security cameras added
15. Locker replacement
16. Fitness Center equipment upgrades
17. Track resurfaced with Mondo Sports Flooring
18. New countertops in front office
19. Upgrade of TV's in Fitness Center
20. Outside walls in front & back
21. Installed new mondo flooring throughout facility
40
Parks & Community Services Master Plan r " e °' T Y o F
EULESS
TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
SINCE THE DOCUMENT DATED 2002
Trail improvements installed in each park are significant because of their desire by the citizens
of the City of Euless. Trail installation by park site is listed below.
The following are trail and related improvements made to each park:
Bob Eden Park
1. Constructed a 1.9 mile trail connecting Trailwood Park to McCormick Park
2. Added two water fountains (one with pet station)
3. Added landscaping along trail
4. Added benches along trail
McCormick Park
1. Added a water fountain with pet station
2. Added lights along trail under Main Street bridge
Villages of Bear Creek Park
1. Reconfigured trail to avoid further damage due to erosion along creek bank
Midway Park
1. Added tie-in to trail/sidewalk along Main Street greenbelt (right-of-way) through
Midway Park
The Preserve at McCormick Park
1. Constructed'/ mile of concrete walking/jogging trail which connected McCormick
Park on the west and Villages of Bear Creek Park on the east
2. Constructed an unpaved looped "species" trail off of the main trail
3. Constructed a trail through the Famous and Historic Tree Grove
North Main Street
Constructed trail on west side of North Main Street
from Harwood Road south to Midway Park
41
Parks & Community Services Master Plat?' " e ` T Y o F
EULSSS
AREA AND FACILITY
CONCEPTS AND STANDARDS
WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAIN AND NATURAL AREA DEFINED
The terms wetland, flood plain and natural area describe significant characteristics located on
park property. Each term impacts the functions or use of the property as a park site or property. Table
5, "INVENTORY OF EACH PARK SITE, FLOOD PLAIN, and WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREA" shows
these characteristic for each park site.
Wetlands
Property or land which is generally identified as wetlands has three characteristics: These
include: (1) soils which 'are saturated for at least part of the year; (2) plants which have adapted to life
in the wet environment; and (3) special soils that are created under depleted oxygen conditions.
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department defines wetland as "those areas that are inundated or sat-
urated by surface or ground water at a frequency sufficient to support, under normal conditions, a
prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions
for growth and reproduction."
In the City of Euless an example of wetlands is the existing ponds located within the "Preserve
at McCormick Park."
Flood Plain
Flood plains are located in a lowland, generally flat, adjoining a creek or waterway and may be
referred to as a flood -prone area. Normally the flood plain is identified as the "100-year flood plain."
The 100-year flood plain is divided into two parts. One is the floodway which is generally located in
the center of the 100-year flood plain and may be referred to as the creek or water way. The second
part of the 100-year flood plain is the floodway fringe. This area is normally divided into two parts,
one on each side of the floodway. These two floodway fringe areas may receive manmade improve-
ments with some restrictions. Within the floodway no development is normally permitted except the
flow of storm water. Examples of flood plains in the City of Euless are (1) Little Bear Creek, (2)
Blessing Branch, (3) Fuller Branch, (4) Boyd Branch, (5) Hurricane Creek, and (6) Sulfur Branch.
Natural Area
A natural area is property or land that is located within the aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem and
has retained its natural characteristics or has recovered its pre -urbanized conditions. This area may
include flood plains, wetlands, stands of trees, stands of under -story plants, grasses and/or other char-
acteristics. In many instances these areas are a habitat for wildlife, both plant and animal. A natural
area may be located along a creek or waterway corridor or adjacent to these areas. Likewise, a natural
area may be located outside of these areas. In order to use a natural area with manmade
development(s), it is normally limited and/or restricted in some way. Examples of natural areas
include the areas dominated by trees and /or under story plants located in Trailwood, Wilshire, J.A.
Carr, Villages of Bear Creek parks and the Preserve at McCormick Park.
42
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T t, E c i r v o f
EtJLESS
• Playgrounds
• Multi -purpose athletic fields for practice
• Tennis and/or multi -purpose courts
• Picnic stations
• Landscaping
• Natural areas
• Trails
• Support facilities
Examples of Euless neighborhood parks include Heritage, Trailwood and Wilshire parks.
COMMUNITY PARK CLASSIFICATION
Community Park Definition — A typical community park serves several neighbor-
hoods located within a service radius of approximately 2 miles. While the neighborhood park serves
young age groups, the family unit and non -organized group activities, the primary function of the
community park is to provide more specialized facilities such as those required for competitive sports.
The community park often provides a neighborhood park service level for those residential neighbor-
hoods immediately adjacent to it.
A typical community park is reached by automobile, except those residences that are adjacent
to the community park with a destination to neighborhood recreational facilities. Therefore, the com-
munity park should provide parking spaces for those in vehicles. The site should be adequate in size
to handle numerous recreational facilities and have open space with limited slopes. Good orientation
and landscaped buffers are needed to minimize disturbance of neighboring residential areas.
Size and Location — The size of a typical community park is 20 to 80 acres. A minimum
size of 25 acres should be considered. The typical radius for a community park ranges from 1 to 2
miles. It is desirable to locate a community park adjacent to a middle school, high school, or church.
In this way the park users may take advantage of the parking spaces. The community park should be
located on or near a major thoroughfare or via trails so as to impact the adjoining residential neigh-
borhoods. A community park may also be located in combination with school athletic facilities.
Facilities — Community parks typically contain many of the same recreational facilities as
neighborhood parks. The community park often has larger recreational facilities for competitive
sports and space for large crowds of people. The following recreational facilities are typically located
in community parks:
• Lighted athletic fields for sports
• Lighted courts for sports
• Natural areas and open space for free or unorganized activities
• Recreation or senior citizen building
• Unique natural areas
• Ponds
• Shelters or picnic pavilions
• Picnic stations
• Support facilities and recreational facilities typically located in a neighborhood park
Examples of Euless community parks include Bob Eden, West and Midway parks.
44
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T H E C i T Y o c
EULESS
Size and Location— A linear park or greenbelt park has no particular size require-
ments. A length of 1/ mile is often considered a minimum length. The shape of this property is usu-
ally long and narrow because the property commonly follows a drainage way, easement or other nat-
ural feature. When these features are not available, liner parks or greenbelt parks may follow along
existing street right-of-way. The standard width sidewalk should be replaced with a wider "pedes-
trian pathway" of 6 to 8 feet in order to accomplish this objective.
Facilities — Site improvements in these parks are often limited to trail functions, picnic
stations, landscaping and natural characteristics. Utilities, drainage of storm water and topography
often limit the development of this park.
Linear/Greenbelt parks with large areas of open space and/or gentle slopes may contain
recreational facilities typically located in a neighborhood park. The recreational facilities found in
this park are determined by the physical characteristics of the property. Some of the recreational
facilities that may be suitable in this park include the following:
• Trails
• Landscaping and beautification
• Playgrounds
• Picnic stations
• Unlighted multi -purpose practice fields
Examples of Euless linear/greenbelt parks include a portion of Trailwood, Bob Eden, McCormick and
the Villages of Bear Creek Park.
SPECIAL PURPOSE PARK CLASSIFICATION
Special Purpose Park Definition — A special purpose park is usually intended to
provide one or two specialized or limited use recreational facilities. At the time of preparation of the
document dated 2002 Texas Star Golf Course was within the responsibility of the Parks and
Community Services Department. Since 2002, this facility is not considered park land nor is the Parks
and Community Services Department responsible for its management and maintenance. The facility
is under a new management system. Thus, this facility is not a part of this document dated 2008. It
is not uncommon or unusual for municipal golf courses to be an independent management and oper-
ation because of the specialized demands of the facility.
Size and Location — Its size and location are dependent on the recreational facility
intended for the property. These parks are commonly located relative to unique environmental or his-
toric characteristics. They may be adjacent to major thoroughfares.
Facilities — The recreational facilities located in a special purpose park are based on the
desires of the citizens. Examples of Euless special purpose parks would include Softball World.
46
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T 11 e C I T Y o f
EUUESS
CITY OF EULESS OUTDOOR STANDARD
FOR EACH PARK CLASSIFICATION
Standards have been developed for each park classification within the City of Euless expressed
in terms of "acres of park land per 1,000 populations." This applies to all park classifications located
within the City of Euless.
A total of 8 1/2 to 13 acres of park property per 1000 population should be devoted to vari-
ous park classifications within the City of Euless. This standard is in line with the acres per 1000
population in some other communities listed above. The standard will result in 450 acres to 689
acres of park property for the City of Euless. The property presently devoted to recreation within
the City of Euless is 345.1 acres or 6 1/2 acres of park property per 1000 population. There is a
minimum deficiency of 104.9 acres (450.0 less 345.1) in the City of Euless. The most deficient
park classification is linear/greenbelt which requires 79.2 acres of property in order to conform to
the standard.
Table 11 "Outdoor- Standards for Each Park Classification Relative to Population " contains the
standards for each of the 5 park classifications located within the City of Euless.
TABLE 11
OUTDOOR STANDARDS FOR EACH PARK CLASSIFICATION RELATIVE TO
POPULATION
Park Classification I
Per 1,000
Based on 52,900
and Existing Acres
Population
I Existing population
Neighborhood (58.7)
1 — 2 acres
53 — 106 acres
Community (93.7)
2 — 3 acres
106 — 159 acres
Major City (96.2)
2 — 3 acres
106 — 159 acres
Linear/Greenbelt (79.8)
3 — 4 acres
159 — 212 acres
Special Purpose (16.5)
'/2 - 1 acres
26 — 53 acres
TOTAL (345.1)
8 '/2 - 13 acres
450 — 689 acres
CITY OF EULESS INDOOR CENTER STANDARD
Standards for centers or buildings within the City of Euless have been developed. These stan-
dards, along with the following information, should be used to determine the characteristics of cen-
ters in the City of Euless: (1) the programs sponsored by the city or community; (2) the availabil-
ity, size and function of facilities; (3) goals and objectives of the community; and (4) the desires of
the citizens. Standards are expressed in terms of the building areas in square feet per 1,000 per-
sons or population.
Centers or buildings with a specific purpose within the community or city should have the fol-
lowing: (1) parking, (2) parking and security lighting, (3) outdoor recreational facilities which are
compatible with the site and will be used by the participants, (4) special purpose building, (5) aesthet-
ic site improvements, (6) environmental characteristics, (7) service access, (8) size of site which is ade-
quate for all uses, (9) vehicle and pedestrian access, and (10) access to the city trail system.
48
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T H e c i T v o f
EtJLESS
A", 1 Al _114.
� � Q __4 �&', 14 �4 - C 94-T, V 1 4
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The City of Euless has completed an extensive needs assessment evaluation to address the park, recre-
ation, and open space needs for Euless residents for the next ten years. This assessment defines the
City's role in future land acquisition, facility and park renovation and new capital improvements.
A unique and valuable aspect of this Needs Assessment is that the results of citizen input forms the
basis of this section of the plan. The plan is a guide for Parks & Community Services staff, Parks and
Leisure Services Board members and the Euless City Council to use in presenting and developing
future budgets to address these needs. Presently, the capital funding needed to implement this Capital
Improvement Plan as it relates to the Needs Assessment far exceeds present available and projected
funding. To help address the gap between anticipated funding available and the needs reflected in the
plan, several funding options were identified in the "Resources" section of this document.
METHOD
The City of Euless has developed a method to determine the active and passive recreational needs for
both indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. This method includes a number of ways to identify the
activities within the City of Euless.
The first method was the preparation of a Recreation Needs Assessment and Attitude Survey. This
public opinion poll captured attitudes on parks and recreational issues in the community from respon-
dents randomly selected from phone -matched households.
The second method was to hold public hearings by the City Council or the Parks and Leisure Services
Board. At these meetings, presentations were made by staff and consultants, opinions were expressed
by elected and appointed officials, and the citizens expressed their opinions regarding parks and recre-
ational issues.
The third method was to receive the recommendations of elected and appointed officials as well as
from the Parks & Community Services Staff.
The fourth method included (1) the evaluation of programs and activities sponsored by the city, (2)
inventory of the property owned by the city, (3) inventory of recreational facilities owned by the city,
(4) comparison of standards with other cities and the National Recreation Parks Association, and (5)
the goals and objectives of the city.
APPROACHES
The City of Euless employed three different approaches to determine the recreational Needs
Assessment. These included the demand -based approach, the standard -based approach, and the
resource -based approach. Each of the methods was used in the evaluation of parks and recreational
issues. It should be noted that the classification of a park may influence the employment of these
50
Parks & Community Services Master Plan --- - c i r Y o f
EtULESS
• Jogging/biking trails, aquatic facility, children's water playground and a senior center were con-
sidered the most important recreational facilities to construct out of the 28 facility types presented.
Others that received favorable consideration included a dog park, recreation center, playgrounds, nat-
ural habitat/nature areas, skateboard park and tennis courts.
• In city parks (88%), connecting to neighborhoods (85%), close to my house (77%), and connect-
ing to trails from other cities (76%,) were the most popular location or destination choices among res-
idents for where they would like to see trails connected in Euless. A majority would also like trails
connected to schools (68%) and along utility rights -of -way (53%).
• Renovate/Redevelop neighborhood parks (92%), expand the city's trail system (89%), and reno-
vate/reconstruct an additional senior center (80%) were the most popular projects for the city to fund
in the next five to ten years among the six tested. The other three items were also popularly support-
ed, but at a lower ratio were support for constructing an additional recreation center (77%), construct-
ing an aquatic park (74%), and constructing a dog park (62%)_
• A large family aquatic facility, which would include both pools and children's spray play areas
(81%), was the aquatic facility option tested that secured the most support from survey participants.
A single outdoor aquatic facility, which would include several water features, ranked second (74%).
THE CITY OF EULESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Analysis of the survey and the other public input data, combined with the expertise of the consultant
and staff, resulted in the determination of community needs. To help create a more balanced park sys-
tem with equitable access to public parks and recreation facilities, Area and Facility Concepts and
Standards were created for both indoor and outdoor recreational needs. These standards were cus-
tomized for the City of Euless and based on citizen demand, compared with the existing public facili-
ty inventories and coupled with population projections through 2017 to determine needs over the next
ten years. This list of "needs" includes the acquisition of property, future development of park prop-
erty, construction of new or renovation of existing recreational facilities for both indoor and outdoor
recreation, and also addressing the needs for future trails in the Euless Trails System section.
City of Euless Outdoor Recreational Facilities Needs
• preservation and/or construction of additional habitat/natural areas
• construction of a family aquatic facility
• construction of dog park
• construction of additional playgrounds
• construction of additional and/or new aquatic playgrounds
• construction of outdoor basketball courts
• construction of additional baseball fields
• construction of additional amphitheater
• construction of additional parking at the Parks at Texas Star
• construction of new and/or renovate neighborhood pools
• construction of football fields
• construction of BMX bicycle course
• construction of disc golf course
• construction of horseshoe pits
• construction of in -line hockey rink
• construction of additional pavilions
• construction of additional gazebos
• addition of park signage, trail maps, directional signage
52
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T 11 t C I T Y o f
EJI;ESS
Ideally, a city's trail system will provide connectivity in and around the city as identified in the "Trails
Map." The Euless City Council has allocated monies over the past several years to facilitate a "Multi -
Year Sidewalk Plan". It is recommended that the Public Works and Parks & Community Services
Departments work together on this plan as well as the citywide trails system plan to identify those
areas where resources could be combined to fulfill the need of additional trails as identified by the cit-
izens in the Scientific Survey. See attached "Trails Map" for proposed future trails, trail connections,
and locations for proposed sidewalks and sidewalk connections.
Included in the overall Needs Assessment is a more detailed list of specific needs for each existing park
and/or facility. Although this list is thorough, it is in no means an all -encompassing list of needs. As
stated previously in this report, the general and specific needs recommended in this report may
change depending on many contributing factors such as changes in population, availability of funds,
property or grants, changes in priorities and/or management within the city and/or department, Parks
and Leisure Services Board members and City Council members. Six main factors were given consid-
eration when defining specific needs for existing parks. These included Property Acquisition,
Construction, Redevelopment, Renovation, Maintenance and Additional Amenities. These factors
determined the necessary requirements to meet park standards as previously defined.
NEEDS BY PARK SITE
The following is a list of individual parks, facilities, locations, current amenities, list of needs (current
and future) and proposed improvement projects as it relates to the timeline that this plan covers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Eden Park
901 W. Mid -Cities Boulevard
73 Acres
Current amenities: One flag football/ practice soccer field, one lighted softball field, playground, 1.9
mile hike/bike trail, pavilion, two lighted tennis courts, three lighted sand volleyball courts and rest -
rooms
Construction —
• Little Bear Creek bank stabilization
• Trail connection to residential and commercial developments to the north
• Gabion reinforcement under trail bridge east of ballfield
Renovation —
• Resurface tennis courts
• Playground
• Provide ADA access to tennis court area
• Install new exercise equipment along trail
• Renovate "Road to Nowhere" with additional paved parking and trail connections
Maintenance —
• Drainage work around playground and volleyball court areas
• Drainage work along trail system
• Re -paint pavilion and restroom building
54
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
T H E C I T Y C F
EULESS
Additional amenities -
• Installation of emergency call boxes along trail system
• Installation of trail lighting
• General upgrade of park signage
• Installation of additional benches and/or covered seating areas or "stopping sta-
tions" along trail
• Install benches by volleyball courts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCormick Park
2190 Joyce Court
12 Acres
Current amenities: 1/3 mile hike/bike trail, gazebo and playground
Construction -
• Little Bear Creek bank stabilization
• Install trail lighting
• Install new gazebo
Renovation -
• Provide paved access from trail to playground area
• Provide ADA access into playground area
• Replace existing light poles around gazebo area with new decorative poles
Maintenance -
• Drainage work around playground area
• Re -paint existing gazebo
Additional amenities -
• Installation of additional trail lighting
• Installation of emergency call boxes along trail
• Installation of additional benches and/or covered seating areas or "stopping sta-
tions" along trail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Villages of Bear Creek Park
1951 Bear Creek Parkway
46.5 acres
Current amenities: Seven practice soccer fields, three-mile hike/bike trail, in -ground tree farm,
amphitheater, two pavilions and one practice baseball field
Acquisition -
• Property in northeast corner of park for dog park
Construction -
• Little Bear Creek bank stabilization
• Dog park
• Permanent restrooms by amphitheater
• Roof system over amphitheater
• New irrigation system
• Outdoor basketball courts by parking lot on southeast side
55
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T E CITY o F
EtJLESS
Redevelopment —
• Convert from non -paved trail to paved trail
Renovation —
• Provide paved access from parking lot to playground area
• Install new foot bridge to nature area by Bear's Den Pavilion
Maintenance —
• Drainage work around amphitheater
• Re -locate portions of the trail along creek
• Re -paint roof structures of pavilions
• Re -paint wooden benches along trail
• Trail signage throughout park (paint poles, replace plaques)
Additional amenities —
• Installation of emergency call boxes along trail
• Installation of trail lighting
• Pavilion by dog park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blessin¢ Branch Park
408 E. Denton Drive
7.3 acres
Current amenities: swing set
Construction —
• Paved trail connection from Main Street to Fuller -Wiser Road
• Playground
• Picnic pad(s) with grills
• Pavilion and/or gazebo
• Installation of trail lighting
• Installation of irrigation system
• Installation of drinking fountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwav Park
300 E. Midway Drive
21.2 acres
Current amenities: Four lighted baseball fields, two lighted tennis courts, playgrounds, swimming
pool.
Construction —
• Construction of family aquatic facility
• Expansion of Midway Recreation Center
• Install additional picnic pads
• Shade canopies over dugouts
• Installation of irrigation system
• Installation of trail lighting
56
Parks & Community Services Master Plan THE CI T Y OF
EUT .-PqS
Renovation —
• Upgrade playground
• New park entrance sign
Additional amenities —
• Install drinking fountain(s)
• Install trail lighting along trail
• Install additional benches along trail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.A. Carr Park
508 Simmons Drive
8.7 acres
Current amenities: '/a mile walking trail, gazebo, playground, sand volleyball
court and Simmons Senior Center
Construction —
• Boyd Branch Creek bank stabilization
• Trail connection to Kiddie Carr Park
• Install fence along west end of park next to creek
• Reconstruct volleyball courts to current standards
Renovation —
• Install new gazebo
• Renovate/construct new volleyball courts
• Convert from non -paved to paved trail surface
Maintenance —
• Drainage work near creek on west side of park
Additional amenities —�1
• Install additional benches along trailty
`
• Install trail lighting along trail
• Install emergency call box
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiddie Carr Park
800 Pauline
4 acres
Current amenities: Greenhouse and outdoor basketball courts
Construction —
• Boyd Branch Creek bank stabilization
• Install small pavilion
• Construct trail system to connect to JA Carr Park
• Playground area
• Park lighting
• Concrete picnic stations with grills
• Irrigation system within park
• Irrigation system within greenhouse/tree farm area
Redevelopment —
• Parking lot
58
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T" E C I T Y o f
EtJIESS
Renovation —
• Green house and potted tree farm for programming with recreation division
• Expand in -ground tree farm by removing existing fence on north side and relocate
it within a few feet of the creek bank
Maintenance —
• Rework park drainage towards creek
• Address drainage issues within greenhouse area
• Address fence issues, possibly with bollards
Additional amenities —
• Install benches within park by playground
• Trail lighting
• Drinking fountain(s)
• Bulk storage bins at greenhouse
• Container storage for chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Euless Park
600 S. Main Street
5 acres
Current amenities: Swimming pool, Splash Island, Old North Main Bridge, swing set and outdoor bas-
ketball court
Construction —
• Remove pool and expand current aquatic playground
• Provide paved access to park or through easement on south side of park from
neighborhood
Renovation —
• Install additional concrete picnic stations with grills
• Resurface basketball court
• Add landscape features along creek (rocks and/or water feature)
Maintenance —
• Repaint/resurface aquatic playground
• Repaint/resurface iron bridge
Additional amenities —
• Install park lighting
• Install benches around playground area
• Install bench by basketball court
• Install additional drinking fountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Park
600 Westpark Way
21 acres
Current amenities: Two youth lighted softball fields/soccer field, one dedicated youth softball field and
a playground
Construction —
• Construct BMX (bicycle) trails on north end of park in nature area
• Trail to connect park to neighborhood to the east
• Install pavilion on east end of park 59
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " E °' T Y o F
EULESS
Redevelopment —
• Redevelop fields for fastpitch softball use
Renovation —
• Provide paved, ADA access from parking lot to playground
• Upgrade field lighting (fixtures)
Additional amenities —
• Install additional water fountain(s)
• Install metal shade covers for dugouts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lakewood Tennis Courts
1600 Donley Drive
Current amenities: Two lighted tennis courts
Renovation —
• Resurface tennis courts
• Provide ADA access into tennis courts
Maintenance —
• Upgrade tennis court lighting
• Install new wind screen around tennis courts
OV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trailwood Park
500 Trailwood Drive
11 acres
Current amenities: Playground, '/a mile hike/bike trail
Construction —
• Install new gazebo/pavilion
• Parking lot
• Non -paved nature trail on east end of park
Renovation —
• Upgrade playground area
• Provide paved, ADA access into playground area
Maintenance —
• Upgrade park lighting
• Address erosion problems along retaining wall on back side of houses that back
up to the trail
Additional amenities —
• Install new park signage at park entrance
• Install benches along trail
• Install trail lighting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Preserve at McCormick Park
2005 Fuller -Wiser Road
27 acres
Current amenities: �/z mile hike/bike trails, nature trail, historic tree grove, playground, fishing pier,
three ponds, boardwalk, outdoor classroom and a gazebo 60
Parks & Cornntunity Services Master Plan T " e °' T v ° `
EtJLESS
Construction —
• Little Bear Creek bank stabilization
• Construct trail connection along north side of west pond
Renovation —
• Drainage near playground
• Drainage along trail
Additional amenities —
• Install trail lighting
• Install emergency call boxes
TEXAS STAR SPORTS CENTRE
The Texas Star Sports Centre includes (1) Texas Star Golf Course and Conference Centre, (2) Softball
World at Texas Star, (3) The Parks at Texas Star and (4) The Dr Pepper StarCenter. The Texas Star
Sports Centre has brought a tremendous amount of prestige to the City of Euless. Providing year-
round active and passive recreational opportunities to the residents of Euless, state of Texas and
across the nation, the Texas Star Sports Centre has been the site of numerous district, state, nation-
al and world championships in baseball, soccer, golf and hockey. It is estimated that more than
500,000 players, visitors, patrons and spectators are brought to the City of Euless because of these
outstanding facilities.
Softball World at Texas Star
1375 West Euless Boulevard
16.7 acres
Originally constructed in 1982, the City of Euless bought Softball World in 1996 and has operated the
softball complex as an enterprise fund since that time. Twice recognized as the Softball Complex of
the year, Softball World is recognized for creating a premier softball experience for both the player
and spectator. Featuring four lighted softball fields with electronic scoreboards, a full service pro
shop and concession stand, indoor restrooms, office space, an upstairs rest area for the umpires, a 245
space paved parking lot, and a covered playground, this facility plays host to both league and tourna-
ment play 10 months of the year. Since its inception, Softball World has been known for its level of
play and competition. Since 2003, there have been many improvements to the facility that include
(1) rebuilding all four infields, (2) adding on irrigation system, (3) adding a full-time maintenance
position, (4) updating the concession area, (5) re -sodding the area around the infields, (6) repairing
the roof, (7) re -opening the pro -shop, and (8) re -landscaping the front entry.
Acquisition —
• Property to the northeast for additional parking
Construction —
• Maintenance storage building for equipment
• Expansion of parking lot
• Pavilion near parking lot
61
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T" e C I T Y o f
EULESS
Construction —
• Additional parking on south side of park
• Additional baseball fields (IOU and 12U)
• Shade shelter for spectators and umpires by soccer fields
• Additional storage building in conjunction with parking lot
• Grade undeveloped area of park for future practice fields
• Pedestrian access from south side of park
Renovation —
• Batting cage machines (from ATEC to Iron Mike)
• Permanent pitching mounds (upon completion of additional fields)
• Additional drainage in amphitheater, north of pavilion
• Electronic scoreboards on Shea and Fenway
• Field lights on Shea and Fenway
• Metal dugout covers on Shea and Fenway
Maintenance —
• Repaint/replace wooden outfield fences
• Replace shade canopies by batting cages
• Replace batting cage netting
Additional amenities —
• Install shade covers for benches around playground
• Install new exercise equipment
• Install shade covers for picnic stations
Dr Penner StarCenter
Home of the 1999 Stanley Cup Champions, the Dr
Pepper StarCenter in Euless opened in April 2000.
The center, which features two sheets of ice, offers
general skating, hockey lessons, figure skating les-
sons, hockey leagues for all ages and skill levels as
well as meeting space for parties, private functions
and a full -line pro shop. The city of Euless Parks
and Community Services Department partners
with the Dr Pepper StarCenter on several events
throughout the year including IceFest, the nation-
ally recognized 4-Sport Challenge, Arbor Daze and many other events for the citizens of Euless.
The Needs Assessment is comprehensive and has extensive data to support capital improvement needs
and key recommendations. Additional documented inventories are included in this report to demon-
strate the importance of meeting the needs of our citizens.
Please refer to the participation inventories shown in the following tables as it directly relates to some
of the recommendations contained within this plan.
63
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
TABLE 14
THE' CITY OF
Et JL;ESS
Inventory of Participation in Youth Soccer
(Participation numbers
are for both boys and girls teams
registered for that season)
Youth
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Soccer
Teams
Teams
Teams
Teams
Teams
{ U6 Fall
19
18
20
18
22
{ U6 Spring
24
25
24
23
22
{ Total
43
43
44
41
44
{ U8 Fall
20
18
I 20
18
20
{ U8 Spring
25
20
y 23
21
19
{ Total
45
38
I 43
39
39
{ U10 Fall
28
21
` 19
18
17
{ U10 Spring
30
31
27
18
17
{ Total
58
52
46
36
34
{ U12 Fall
14
12
10
10
9
{ U12 Spring
12
14
11
12
10
{ Total
26
26
21
22
19
{ U14 Fall
7
5
6
7
7
{ U14 Spring
4
7
7
6
7
{ Total
11
12
13
13
14
{ U16 Fall
3
4
3
2
3
{ U16 Spring
2
4
3
2
2
{ Total
5
8
6
4
5
U18 Fall
1
1
2
3
3
U18 Spring
1
1
2
2
2
{ Total
2
2
4
5
5
{
Total 4 of
190
181
177
160
160
Soccer
Teams
TABLE 15
Inventory of Participation in Flag Football
Flag
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Football
Teams
Teams
Teams
Teams
Teams
Adult 8 on 8
5
10
8
9
14
Fall
Adult 8 on 8
NA
6
NA
NA
7
Winter
i Adult 4 on 4
NA
NA
NA
7
7
Fall
Adult 4 on 4
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
Winter
Total # of
5
16
8
16
35
Teams
* 4 on
4 Flag Football
Leagues were not offered until 2005
GYM
Parks & Community Services Alaster Plan THE. °' T Y OF
EULESS
TABLE 18
Inventory of Participation in Adult Basketball
Adult 2002 Teams 2003 Teams 2004 Teams 2005 Teams 2006 Teams
Basketball
Men's 6 NA NA 4 NA
Winter
Women's 16 16 15 18 12
Summer
Total # of 22 16 15 18 12
Teams
TABLE 19
Inventory of Participation at Softball World
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1
Leagues 1,034 935 896 939 846
Tournaments 1,670 1,471 1,840 1,980 1,980
The Parks and Leisure Services Board and staff recognize that the resident's recreation needs exceed
current available funding. It is important for the readers of this report to keep in mind that these
unmet needs will continue to exist and grow even if funding is available or developed. This report will
guide park planners, operators and managers to most efficiently use the funding that is available to
best deliver park and recreation facilities and services in the most appropriate and equitable manner.
1
"PC
66
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T " ° ` T Y °
EULESS
This update to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan was developed to serve as the guide
for public policy and as an aide for decision -making related to the availability, quality, type and loca-
tion of passive and active recreation opportunities for the residents of Euless. A primary focus of this
Plan is the identification of priorities for improvements and the means of implementation. Two sep-
arate lists of priority needs have been prepared for the City of Euless. One list is for outdoor recre-
ation, and the other list is for indoor recreation.
Perhaps the most important aspect of an implementation program is the commitment required from
elected and appointed officials, City staff and citizens. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master
Plan must reflect the needs and desires of these individuals in order to be considered a useful tool in
directing future decision -making pertaining to the acquisition, development and management of an
adequate parks and recreation system.
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan should be periodically reviewed to ensure that the
goals, objectives and recommended actions reflect the changing demographics and expected future
growth of the City of Euless. Additionally, the Director of Parks & Community Services should pro-
vide a progress briefing to the Parks and Leisure Services Board as well as the City Council on an
annual basis to allow monitoring of the steps taken toward implementation and the impact of the
improvements.
Prioritization of Projects —
Based on the goals, needs and desires that have evolved through the research, standards development
and public input in the Plan, the priorities in ranked order are listed below. The funding for the proj-
ects should be a combination of current fund expenditures, bond funds, reserve funds, grants, dona-
tions, in -kind services, partnerships and volunteer participation.
INDOOR RECREATION PRIORITY OF NEEDS
Project: Construction of new Senior Center
Priority: High
Project Description: The City of Euless has served the senior population with many programs, trips,
classes and special events since the Senior Services division of the Parks and Recreation Department
was created. The building located within J.A. Carr Park, which was originally constructed as a place
of worship, was acquired by the City of Euless around 1975 and was used primarily for recreational
classes and for preschool activities. At that time, the senior population in the City of Euless met at
the recreation center, which is now Euless City Hall, one time per week. In 1989 the City of Euless
opened the new Midway Recreation Center and the building at J.A. Carr Park became the Simmons
Senior Center, dedicated exclusively for senior programming.
67
Parks & Community Services Master- Plan
T H E C I T Y O F
EIJL;ESS
Refer to the following table, "Inventory of Participation at Midway Recreation Center"
TABLE 21
Activity
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
Racquetball
2,434
4,904
3,903
3,972
4,810
Track
9,826
14,353
12,794
14,696
13,464
Game Area
15,994
12,122
9,667
9,034
9,124
Gymnasium
37,620
53,253
44,201
43,825
50,592
Fitness
29,433
44,535
42,333
44,090
41,392
Center
Youth
14,691
11,478
15,903
15,880
15,319
Classes
Adult
7,509
6,054
8,619
8,695
8,599
Classes
Rentals
7,171
4,964
5,162
3,418
4,299
Memberships
3,649
4,427
4,123
4,231
4,160
Note: In 2006 the track was closed for several weeks for installation of the rubberized floor.
Within this expansion project, other needs that have been identified should be realized such as a ded-
icated teen area, computer lab, additional meeting space, and additional storage. This need was also
realized in the update to the 2002 Plan. It is recommended by staff that a master plan should be devel-
oped for Midway Park to include Midway Recreation Center renovation/expansion, an outdoor family
aquatic facility, additional parking, lighting upgrades, tennis court resurfacing, field modifications as
well as additional amenities as identified in this plan. By realizing and satisfying this particular need,
additional needs as, identified by this plan could be eliminated such as the recommendation to rebuild
and/or renovate the Ruth Millican Center at Heritage Park.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, G.O. Bonds, C.O. Bonds,
TPWD Grant Funds
Project: Additional Recreation Center to serve Sections III and IV
Priority: Moderate to High
Project Description: The Midway Recreation Center is established as the City's only recreational com-
munity center. Prior to that building the recreation center was located in what is now City Hall. The
residents in south Euless (Sections III and IV) have never had a community recreation center that
more closely served them. Constructing a community recreation center in south Euless would satis-
fy a demand that was clearly identified in the scientific survey. Presently, those citizens that live in
south Euless must travel across major thoroughfares in order to participate in any recreational activ-
ities and/or programs that necessitate an indoor setting or that are programmed at Midway Park.
Current memberships at the Midway Recreation Center would substantiate the claim that the resi-
dents in south Euless will not travel north to participate in recreational activities. A computer -gener-
ated report proved that of the 2,576 current members, 1,892 of them live in the 76039 zip code as com-
pared to 684 in the 76040 zip code.
Project Acquisition: Acquisition of property will be needed to satisfy the implementation of this need.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, G.O. Bonds, C.O. Bonds,
TPWD Grant Funds, In -Kind Land or Facility Donation
69
Parks & Community Services MPlat? Plar H e o i r r o f
EULF,SS
INDOOR PRIORITY OF NEEDS
The following is a list of the first 15 priority needs:
Senior Center Project
• Priority 1 -
Acquisition of additional property for Midway Park
• Priority 2 -
Construction of classroom(s)
• Priority 3 -
Construction of fitness center
• Priority 4 -
Construction of kitchen(s)
• Priority 5 -
Construction of assembly area
Expansion of Midway Recreation
Center Project
• Priority G -
Expansion/Construction of the fitness center
• Priority 7 -
Expansion/Construction of additional programmable space
• Priority 8 -
Expansion/Construction of appropriately -sized assembly area(s)
• Priority 9 -
Expansion/Construction of a "teen room"
• Priority 10 -
Expansion/Construction of additional classroom space
Recreation Center to serve respondent area boundaries III and IV
• Priority 11 -
Acquisition of property
• Priority 12 -
Construction of classroom(s)
• Priority 13 -
Construction of assembly area
• Priority 14 -
Construction of gymnasium
• Priority 15 -
Construction of indoor walking/jogging track
71
Parks & Community Services Master Plan
T H E C I T Y O F
EULESS
For the season, assuming a user will attend the pool 15 times, the population of Euless served was
2.13%. This does not include the population of the surrounding area which includes potential users,
thus lowering the percentage served.
This user information indicates that the pools are not meeting the recreational aquatic needs of the
City of Euless. The condition of the pools and support facilities, coupled with the pool not offering the
types of amenities that recreational swimmers expect and demand, will factor into the low daily atten-
dance.
Communities that have replaced aging pools with a family aquatic center provide information for
comparison with the City of Euless pools. The following table provides demographic information on
other communities, pools attendance, residents served, and percent of residents served.
TABLE 24
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON OTHER COMMUNITIES
Community with
Population
Community
Community
Aquatic
Total Patrons
% of
Family Aquatic
Per Capita
Median Household
Center
Served
Residents
Center
Income
Income
Attendance
(15 visits)
Served
City of Edmond
74,954
$32,382
$65,834
59,758
3,984
5.3%
City of Rowlett
55,403
$30,164
$82,398
89,524
5,968
10.8%
City of Rolla
17,539
$18,781
$30,546
23,000
1,533
8.7%
City of
47,195
$50,480
$93,870
40,844
2,723
5.8%
Chesterfield
City of
25,441
$24,734
$48,398
62,016
4 4,134
16.3%
j Collinsville
1
Jefferson City
38,017
$25,376
$45,568
60,403
4,027
10.6%
City of Kirksville
16,623
$16,337
$26,234
35,000
2,333
14.0%
City of Kirkwood
26,825
$38,108
$64,301
91,701
6,113
22.8%
l City of Euless
52,168
$28,042
$56,824
16,696
1,113
2.1%
The City population is sufficient to support an outdoor family aquatic center. A contemporary outdoor
swimming pool opportunity would be in demand and very well could pay its operating costs as other
outdoor pools have demonstrated across the country. The existing pools are currently operating at a
subsidy; this is common for older pools with declining attendance. Many new outdoor aquatic facili-
ties today are paying for their operational costs despite the increase in operating expenses, especially
labor expenses. Setting an appropriate fee structure for daily passes as well as family memberships is
important as the City defines its goals for a new aquatic facility.
A family aquatic facility was one of three facilities most frequently mentioned from the survey as recre-
ational facilities that the city is lacking. It was also identified as the second most important recre-
ational facility to construct out of the twenty-eight facility types presented. As far as meeting the
aquatic needs of the community, the family aquatic facility secured the most support from survey par-
ticipants. Given the fact that two of our neighborhood pools are over thirty years old and the cost to
renovate, repair or replace them is estimated at over one million dollars each, it is recommended that
the city concentrates its efforts and resources towards the family aquatic facility to serve the citizens
of Euless.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, G.O. Bonds, C.O. Bonds,
TPWD Grant Funds
73
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T H e c I T r o f
EULESS
Project: Construction of Football Field(s)
Priority: Moderate
Project Description: With the continued growth and success of our flag football league and elimina-
tion of field availability due to the construction of the dog park at the Villages of Bear Creek Park, foot-
ball or multi -use fields have become even more of a necessity. This need could possibly be addressed
in a future expansion or additional phase at the Parks at Texas Star, but the wear and tear that football
has on a field as compared to soccer might present a maintenance problem. Therefore, dedicated fields
would be ideal and could be maintained as such either at the Parks at Texas Star or another park such
as West Park if girl's softball were to be moved to the Parks at Texas Star with a dedicated field for their
use.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, G.O. Bonds, C.O. Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project: Construction of BMX Bicycle Trails
Priority: Moderate
Project Description: Although this individual item didn't receive a very high priority ranking from
the survey, it would fall into the hike and bike category which did receive a very high priority ranking
and was specifically identified as a project that our citizens would support. We would propose to locate
this particular amenity in the natural area just north of West Park. This location is currently being
utilized by mountain bikers and with very little work, it could be upgraded and dedicated as an off -
road bicycle trail for our citizens.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, TPWD Grant Funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project: Construction of a Playground Specifically for Physically Challenged Citizens
Priority: Moderate
Project Description: Identified in the plan was to construct more playgrounds within our parks sys-
tem. Staff recommends that we target those citizens with physical limitations and construct a play-
ground that would enable them to participate and experience the same recreational experience that
our more able-bodied citizens do. Site specifics would be determined as funding became available.
Source of funds to support project: Half -penny Sales Tax, Rental Car Tax, TPWD Grant Funds, Private
Donations.
75
Parks & Community Services Master Plan T" E C I T V O F
EULESS_
CITY OF EULESS TRAIL SYSTEM NEEDS
Project: Construction of Trail Connections
• Between existing and/or future park developments
• Connecting to neighborhoods
• To other cities
• To schools
• Along rights-of-way/utility easements
• Along major thoroughfares
• To churches
• To shopping centers
Priority: High
Project Description: There was a very high interest in trails and trail connectivity as identified in the
Scientific Survey. Eighty-eight percent of those who participated in the survey singled out trail con-
nections between existing and/or future park developments as a high priority.
Examples are highlighted on the trails map which can be found in the Needs Assessment and
Identification section of this Plan.
Source of funds to support project: Half penny sales tax, Rental Car tax, TPWD Grant funds,
Developers agreements, Texas Department of Transportation Grant funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project: Little Bear Creek Bank Stabilization
Priority: High
Project Description: The citizens of Euless recognize the importance of preserving and maintaining
what we currently have in our parks system. Each year the City of Euless loses valuable park land due
to ongoing erosion along the Little Bear Creek corridor. The update to the Plan in 2002 also pinpoint-
ed this as a major concern. If the erosion problems aren't addressed within the timeframe that this
Plan covers, the City stands to lose even more park land, trails, trees, and additional amenities cur-
rently found in our parks system. It is recommended that funding be allocated to a "Creek Bank
Stabilization" program to address these problems either on a yearly basis or in a phased project. It is
important to remember that the park land lost to erosion will never be gained back.
Source of funds to support project: Half penny sales tax, Rental Car tax, Developers agreements, G.O.
Bonds, C.O. Bonds
TRAIL PRIORITY OF NEEDS
• Priority 1 -
Acquisition of property and/or easement(s)
• Priority 2 -
Construction of trail(s)
• Priority 3 -
Construction of trail -related improvement(s)
• Priority 4 -
Construction of parking and related facilities
• Priority 5 -
Construction of shade shelters and related facilities
77
Parks & Community Services Master Plan -THE CITY OF
-------------
EUT `PQS
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IN -KIND ASSETS
Donations may be made by individuals, corporations, civic organizations or institutions in the
form of labor, equipment, materials, land and even cash as part of a local match in an application for
a grant from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The sponsor or city's own personnel or equip-
ment may qualify as part of the local match through in -kind or force account work records.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Bond funds may be used for outdoor or indoor parks, recreation and open space acquisition
and/or construction of recreational facilities. The general obligation bonds related to parks and recre-
ation opportunities in the past include those listed in Table 6.1 "Park and Recreation Bonds."
TABLE 25
PARK AND RECREATION
Date
I Amount
Purpose
05-01-1988
$430,000
Park & Recreation Improvements
09-11-1979
$200,000
Parks
10-21-1975
$300,000
Parks
01-08-1974
$300,000
Purchase Land for Parks
07-23-1968
$100,000
Purchase Land for Parks
07-12-1966
$ 75,000
Park Improvements
06-22-1965
$ 75,000
Park Land
09-01-1964
$100,000
Park Land
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT GRANTS
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission administers a number of grants for the acquisition
and development of local community parks and facilities. Additionally, this commission, through the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), administers a number of Educational and Technical
Assistance Programs. The following only deals with grants for which the City of Euless may be eligi-
ble. These grant programs include (1) the outdoor grant program, (2) indoor recreation grant pro-
gram, and (3) the regional park grant program. These grants are funded through a portion of the
Texas sales tax received on selected sporting goods. The amount received is contained in a bill passed
by the legislature and signed by the governor. Grants are processed by the TPWD Recreation Grants
Branch, referred to as the Texas Recreation and Parks Account (TRPA).
The other grant program for which the City of Euless may be eligible is a Recreational Trail
Grant. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) administers the National Recreational Trails
Fund with the approval of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This fund receives funding
from a portion of the federal gas taxes paid on fuel from non -highway recreational vehicles.
The following describes these grant programs:
(1) Outdoor Recreation Grants - This program provides a 50% matching grant to acquire
or to renovate existing public recreation areas. The deadline for an application is July
31 of each year. A total of $400,000.00 is the maximum amount in each application. The
program is a reimbursement program.
79
z
wQdd
8=
o
so
�Ma�
z P4
UW CD
Orp4�LE-+IN
-Z E'_ l•�
Q
W
gq
a
U 4 "
>'r, O�
ag
U
a
a
�P
b og
I g
81
V1 0
ra 0
V
u
W
z
82
Z
Al
p7 H
wvwxoE•;
o
Z V C*0
t6"
ME -Xvrs"n
rx
!I Am
83
v�0w >^ 3
wr.d� 8U9 v �
rJ.t�aa .•. � �•aa @ 6�A
w
Fy�nj e •� � � � m o uA,/�
o '7a g" R E' 1Q ` ^L� y zom� Ogy
U d �. °� o o dS °
b
f11W1-I �I�uiNL�,
U V
IT, IN
HU
so?EE BiEll
1G+IgII
n
9
84
11
i
I
7
l
11
F-11
11
CITY OF EULESS
2007 PARKS AND RECREATION ATTITUDE
SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
Table Of Contents
METHODOLOGY........................................................3
SURVEY ACCURACY ....................................................
4
2007 RESPONDENT PROFILE ............................................
6
CONTACTPROFILE ......................................................
7
AREA DESIGNATION MAP: CITY OF EULESS ............................
8
OVERVIEW..................................... ........................
9
KEYFINDINGS ........................................................
11
SECTION ONE: Parks And Recreation: Utilization and Opinions ...
26
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION ......
26
PARKS AND -RECREATION IMPROVEMENT RATING .......................
29
SATISFACTION WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY EULESS
FOR VARIOUS AGE GROUPS ...........................................
31
GENERAL PARK, FACILITY, AND PROGRAM UTILIZATION ..................
35
ASSESSING VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES............................................................
39
VALUE RATING FOR SERVICES PROVIDED VERSUS MONEY PAID ...........
48
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH RECREATION -RELATED STATEMENTS ..........
50
FREQUENCY OF VISITING PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WEB
PAGE ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE ..........................................
54
SECTION TWO: Parks And Recreation: Assessing Future Needs ...
56
RECREATION FACILITY LACKING IN RESPONDENT PART OF TOWN .........
56
IMPORTANCE OF CONSTRUCTING NEW OR ADDITIONAL
RECREATIONAL FACILITY TYPES ........................................
60
MOST IMPORTANT RECREATIONAL FACILITY FOR CITY TO CONSTRUCT .....
68
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH BEAUTIFICATION -RELATED STATEMENTS .......
71
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH TRAIL -RELATED STATEMENTS .................
75
PREFERRED LOCATIONS OR DESTINATIONS FOR TRAILS IN EULESS ..........
79
SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS BEING FUNDED BY CITY IN NEXT FIVE
TOTEN YEARS ........................................................
82
METHODOLOGY
The techniques used in this survey adhere to statistical standards used in the
survey industry. The points to keep in mind when evaluating this report are:
(1) The sample for the telephone survey was composed of 400 randomly
selected households from the city of Euless. The sample was drawn using a
geographical segmentation scheme that divided the study region into four
major geographic areas, with each assigned a quota proportional to the
number of households with available telephone numbers. A survey with a
random sample size of 400 respondents is accurate to within 5% at the 95%
confidence level. This means there is only one chance in twenty that the survey
results may vary by as much as plus or minus 5% from the results that would be
obtained by polling the entire population of the study area.
(2) All telephone interviews were conducted by professional interviewers under
close professional supervision by Raymond Turco & Associates from our Grand
Prairie, Texas telephone call center. Interviews were recorded under controlled
situations to minimize measurement error. The length of interviews varied with
the average survey lasting approximately 15 minutes.
(3) Only complete surveys were accepted as part of the sample for the
telephone survey, and interviewers were required to confirm the respondent's
name and telephone number.
(4) Questions were written to permit the respondent to answer "no opinion." This
was done so as to avoid the artificial creation of attitudes on issues where the
interviewee may not have had an opinion.
(5) Telephone interviewing began on December 23, 2006. The 400 interviews
were completed by January 8. The survey was in the field for 17 days, a time
period short enough to make this an accurate reading during the time period
the study was being implemented.
(6) Completed questionnaires were checked for compliance with interviewing
and sampling specifications. All editing and validation of interviews, coding of
open-ended responses, data processing and computer analysis were processed
by Raymond Turco & Associates of Arlington, Texas. The survey analysis was
prepared by Ray Turco, President.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 3
confidence interval for various proportions responding in a given way and for
various numbers in the full sample responding are given in the following table:
TABLE #1: SAMPLING ERROR AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL
'
NUMBER RESPONDING TO QUESTION l�
PERCENTAGE GIVING
50
100
250
500
600
ANSWER
150%
14.1 %
10.0%
6.3%
4.5%
4.1 % f
140% or 60%
13.9%
9.8%
6.2%
4.4%
4.0%
30% or 70%
13.0%
9.2%
5.8%
4.1%
3.7%
1
20% or 80%
10%
8%
5%
4%
3%
10% or 90%
9%
6%
4%
3%
2%
In actual practice, survey results are frequently somewhat better than is
indicated by the 95% confidence level sampling error estimate.
rRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 5
CONTACT PROFILE
The sample contact universe was composed of households in the city of Euless
with an available telephone number. The list was purchased from Experian, a
nationally recognized list management firm. The list was then divided into four
sectors, in order to develop statistically valid sampling areas. The following table
summarizes the effectiveness of telephone contact.
II TYPE OF CONTACT
%
(N=)
Illl
TOTAL POSSIBLE CONTACTS
100%
8,581
TOTAL CONTACTS MADE
14,417
I�
f
COMPLETED
3%
400
ANSWERING MACHINE
42%
f
6,070)
REFUSE TO ANSWER
7%
1,028
NO ANSWER
24%
3,468
WRONG NUMBER (13% of possible
1,1491
contacts)
CALL BACK
15%
2,166 1
LANGUAGE BARRIER
1 %
941
DISCONTINUED INTERVIEW
0%
431
tRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 7
OVERVIEW
The City of Euless retained the firm of Lindley & Associates to assist the Parks and
Recreation Department in updating the city parks and recreation master plan.
One of the objectives of the development plan is to allow for maximum citizen
input in development of the update. As a component of the citizen
involvement strategies, the public opinion research firm Raymond Turco &
Associates was retained to conduct a scientifically valid sampling of residents in
the community to generate an analysis of their attitudes and how they relate to
recreation in the city. The survey was designed to examine residents'
participation in recreational activities, as well as to assess recreational needs in
the community, especially as they relate to the master plan. The information
gathered in this report will allow elected officials and city staff to better
understand the recreational needs and desires of the citizenry.
The survey investigated the following areas of interest:
1. Utilization and General Opinions
o Overall level of satisfaction with quality of parks and recreation in Euless
o Quality of parks and recreation improvement ratings
o Level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with services provided by Euless for
specific age groupings
o Frequency of attending or participation in city recreation facilities and
activities
o Quality rating of various characteristics (number, location, quality, and
maintenance) of parks and recreation facilities and programs
o Grading of services provided versus fees paid
o Level of agreement or disagreement with recreation -related statements
o Frequency of visiting the parks and recreation department web page on
the city's web site
2. Assessing Future Needs
o Recreational facility lacking in respondent part of city
o Importance of constructing new or additional park and recreational
amenities
o Prioritization of most important recreational facility to construct
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks dnd Recreation Survey Report Page 9
KEY FINDINGS
Over an 17-day period in December of 2006 and January of 2007, Raymond
Turco & Associates conducted the city's 2007 Recreation Needs and Attitude
Survey. This public opinion poll captured attitudes on parks and recreational
issues in the community from respondents randomly selected from
phone -matched households. The full sample of 400 respondents was
interviewed with a comprehensive questionnaire (see Appendix) that collected
attitudinal data on a variety of recreational issues including quality ratings of
facilities, need for construction of additional amenities and satisfaction with
recreational characteristics. The resulting tabulations were analyzed to assist city
staff, and elected and appointed officials in understanding public sentiment
concerning these subjects. Additionally, these findings will be used in the
development of the city's comprehensive parks and recreation master plan
update.
The telephone survey included the responses of 400 individuals. Below is our
analysis of the project:
Parks And Recreation: Utilization and Opinions
+ Better than nine of ten residents sampled (94%) are satisfied (56%) or very
satisfied (38%) with the quality of. parks and recreation in Euless.
Comparatively, just five percent are dissatisfied (4%) or very dissatisfied
(1 %), with the remaining 2% choosing the no opinion response. The ratio of
satisfied to dissatisfied respondents was better than 18 positive opinions to
one critical comment (18.8:1). Additionally, the ratio of very satisfied to
very dissatisfied responses was even higher than the general consensus
(38%-1 %, 38.0:1), indicating the level of pride residents hold relative to parks
and recreation. When comparing the satisfaction to dissatisfaction rates,
we note the ratios to be highest in Area IV (93-6%, 15.5:1) and lowest in
Area 1 (88-9%. 9.8:1), and between those 13.0:1 (91-7%) in Area II and 11.0:1
(88-8%) in Area 111. Length of residence appeared to slightly influence one's
positive opinions, as the longer the tenure, the higher the overall
satisfaction rate (91 % of 0-7, to 95% of 8-20, to 96% of over 20 years). Tenure
also showed newer city inhabitants to be least proud of the quality
(34%-42%-40%), although not significantly so. Parents were less enthusiastic
about parks and recreational quality (39% of 0-6, to 32% of both 6-12 and
13-18) than people without children, or whose children were over the age
of 18, described in this report as "nonparents" (41 %). The ratio among
%fit RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 11
services provided children, ages 6-12 (67% in Area 111, to 56% in Area 1) and
13-18 (60% in Area 1V, to 48% in Area 111), as well as adults ages 46-65 (74% in
Area I, to 63% in Area 11). When the four parent and nonparent subsets are
compared, residents without children were most positive with services
provided adults ages 46-65 (76%, to 44%-57%-68%) and over age 65 (62%, to
39%-47%-47%). They were less complimentary, in part because of high no
opinion responses, on that provided the youth age groups of young
children (56%, to 79%-85%-74%) and pre -teens (58%, to 59%-80%-68%). The
subset least positive about the services provided teenagers were in fact
parents of young children (54%, to 46%-5017.-74%). (See Tables #2 - #4,
pages 31 - 33.)
• Visiting or using a municipal park or park facility (86%), visiting a city
playground (65%), utilizing a hike and bike trail (61 %), and visiting a city park
pavilion (54%) were the most popular recreational facilities or activities
utilized by area residents in the past 12 months. Other activities drew
participation rates from approximately one in three or fewer, among those
were visiting or using a municipal athletic field (37%) or visiting a city pool
(31%). One in four acknowledged participating in any class or program
offered by the Euless Parks and Recreation Department. The remaining four
facilities or activities were mentioned as being utilized by fewer than one in
five: a municipal facility for a meeting (17%); participating in an adult
athletic league and visiting or using a municipal tennis court (both 14%),
and participating in an adult athletic league (7%), the least mentinoed item
among the 11 tested. Majorities of residents in all four subsectors
acknowledged visiting or using a municipal park or park facility
(83%-95%-92%-93%), utilizing a municipal hike and bike trail
(77%-50%-55%-51 %), and visiting a city playground (65%-56%-76%-65%).
Utilization of a city park pavilion reached the 60 percentile in Areas I and III
(64%-44%-63%-40%) but not elsewhere. Utilization of several facilities
appeared to be impacted by geography, as participation rates were
much higher in one part of the city then in the other subsectors. For
example, utilization of a hike and bike trail was much more likely to have
occurred in Area 1 (77%) than anywhere else (50%-55%-51 %). And it has
already been shown how much more popular a city park pavilion was in
Areas I and III (64% and 63%) than in Areas II and IV (40% and 44%). Other
variances were evident in terms of utilizing a municipal athletic field (40% in
Area 11, to 29% in Area III), a municipal tennis court (19% in Area I, to 7% in
Area IV), a city playground (76% in Area III, to 56% in Area I1), and a city
pool (42% in Area III, to 25% in Area 11). Note that visiting a city pool was
much more popular in the southern part of the city rather than the north.
There were several enormous differences in recreation participation based
on respondents' parental status. For example, only 20% of households with
no children visited a city pool during the past year, compared with
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 13
rated positively by at least 80% in three of four subsectors: the number of
city parks (91 %-88%-86%-76%) and their overall safety (91 %-82%-80%-78%).
Other 80% or better ratings were assigned by people in Area I for the quality
of hike and bike trails, Areas I and II relative to having parks conveniently
located (89% and 88%), and in Areas 111 and IV for the overall quality (84%
and 81 %) and maintenance (84% and 80%) of city athletic fields. Athletic
fields were held in higher regard in the southern portion of the city, Areas III
and IV, then elsewhere. This was true relative to their number (71 % and
72%, to 65% and 62%), quality (84% and 81 %, to 75% and 71 %), and
maintenance (84% and 80%, to 73% and 77%). There were also ten point
variances in terms of negative ratings relative to the number (27% in Area 11,
to 16% in Area IV) and quality (17% in Area 11, to 7% in Area IV) of athletic
fields. And pools were graded more positively in Area III, including number
(52%, to 39% in Area 1), location (56%, to 39% in Area IV), quality (66%, to 40%
in Area 1), safety (73%, to 49% in Area 1), and maintenance (73%, to 49% in
Area 1). Part of the reason for the disparity in percentages were higher no
opinion ratings, especially in Area I. Eleven other characteristics showed
varying degrees of quality ratings, among those the overall quality of the
senior center (49% in Area III, to 27% in Area 1), amount of hike and bike
trails (77% in Area I, to 53% in Area III), having hike and bike trails
conveniently located (69% in Area I, to 37% in Area IV), quality of hike and
bike trails (83% in Area I, to 60% in Area IV), and amount of accessible
natural areas (66% in Area 11, to 48% in Area IV). Also note that more critical
comments on these characteristics came from survey participants in Area
IV. Eighty percent of the three parental subsets were positive about the
number (84%-81 %-81 %), convenient location (86%-82%-84%), quality
(92%-82%-89%), and safety (83%-80%-84%) of city parks. And with the
exception of parents of pre -teens, respondents with children were at least
80% positive about the maintenance of city parks (87%-79%-81 %) and
athletic fields (81 %-76%-81 %), and the quality of playgrounds
(84%-79%-80%). Parents of pre -teens and teenagers were 80%
complimentary of the overall quality of athletic fields (79%-82%-88%), while
those with teenage children were most positive about the quality of the
recreation center (73%-67%-86%). Comparatively, four of five nonparents
were positive about five of the seven park characteristics: quality (90%);
maintenance (88%), number (87%), safety (85%), and convenient location
(83%). Nonparents were as positive, if not more so, than parents, on several
occasions, namely for number (87%, to 84%-81 %-81 %), safety (85%, to
83%-80%-84%), and maintenance (88%, to 87%-79%-81 %), and to a lesser
extent, the amount of public art (38%, to 33%-35%-33%) in parks. This same
trend was evident in terms of the senior center (41 %, to 27%-22%-31 %) and
amount of accessible natural areas (63%, to 57%-56%-55%). Characteristic
grading varied most when comparing nonparents and parents in terms of
the overall quality, of tennis courts (34%, to 55% of young children and
owl
Irt RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 15
preserved (98%-95%-94%-96%) and at least 80% affirmed their satisfaction
with the recreational facilities in Euless (90%-88%-80%-8217o). In addition, at
least 76% affirmed their conviction that they have adequate avenues to
voice my concerns about recreation in Euless (81 %-84%-76%-79%) and they
were satisfied with the programs offered by the recreation department
(80%-81 %-78%-80%). And at the bottom of each area's list was that the city
should improve existing parks and not develop any new ones
(47%-46%-37%-47%). Five statements generated higher agreement in
certain parts of the city. Those were being satisfied with recreational
facilities (90% in Area I, to 80% in Area III), being willing to pay additional
city taxes to see quality upgraded (71 % in Area I, to 59% in Area III), existing
park system is adequate (67% in Area IV, to 57% in Area II), city should
improve existing parks and not develop new ones (47% in Areas I and IV, to
37% in Area III), and being satisfied with current landscaping in city medians
and intersections (75% in Area II, to 64% in Area IV). Ninety -percent or
better of both parents and nonparents agreed that natural areas are
important and should be preserved (99%-97%-98%, to 96%), 80% that they
were satisfied with recreational facilities in the city (90%-82%-81 %, to 86%),
70% that they have adequate avenues to voice concerns about recreation
in Euless (78%-74%-81 %, to 82%), and satisfied with current landscaping in
city parks (87%-78%-83%, to 82%), and satisfied with the programs offered by
the recreation department (78%-85%-82%, to 81%). The only statement that
generated higher agreement from nonparents was having adequate
avenues to voice concerns about recreation (82%, to 78%-74%-81 %). (See
Tables # 11- - # 13, pages 50 - 53.)
• Approximately one out of five residents (6%) said they visited the Parks and
Recreation Department web page on the city's web site either daily (I %) or
weekly (5%). Monthly visitation totaled 21 %, meaning that better than one
of every four (1 %+5%+21 %) residents sampled visited the department web
page on a monthly or more frequent basis. In total, 73% said they rarely or
never visited the web site. In terms of monthly or more frequent visitation,
Area II had the highest rates, at 32%, compared to 27% in Area I, 23% in
Area IV, and 21 % in Area III. Residents who utilized the various facilities or
programs were more likely to access the parks and recreation department
web site than nonusers. This was especially true of people who partici-
pated in youth athletic leagues (42%-25%), had been involved in a parks
and recreation class (39%-22%), utilized city pools (37%-23%), or visited city
parks (29%-17%). Not surprisingly, the age tabulations showed people over
the age of 55 least likely to visit the web page (32%-34%-17%), especially
compared to younger survey participants. Also, parents (39%-43%-21 %, to
21 %) of younger and pre -teen children represented the subsets most likely
to visit the web page.
tRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 17
ratings -- for being constructed in Euless. Rounding out the top eleven in
terms of importance ratios from the comprehensive listing of 28
facility -types were a recreation center (69%-25%, 2.8:1), outdoor basketball
courts (64%-28%, 2.3:1), rental picnic/reunion pavilions (65%-29%, 2.2:1),
soccer fields (57%-29%, 2.0:1), and fishing ponds (64%-32%, 2.0:1). In
addition, importance was nearly two times greater than unimportance for
the city constructing gymnasiums (61 %-32%, 1.9:1), exercise stations along
trails (59%-34%, 1.7:1), and a dog park (61 %-36%, 1.7:1). At the other end of
the attitude spectrum were the seven construction prospects that drew
more negative than positive replies, although there was limited desire:
adult softball fields (41 %-48%, 0.9:1); football fields (42%-47%, 0.9:1); meeting
space (43%-46%, 0.9:1); disc golf course (39%-48%, 0.8:1); BMX bicycle
course (42%-50%, 0.8:1); horseshoe pits (36%-50%, 0.7:1); and in -line hockey
rink (35%-53%, 0.7:1). There was also some interest in the city constructing a
skateboard park (47%-46%, 1.0:1), baseball fields (47%-43%, 1.1:1), an
amphitheater (50%-43%, 1.2:1), and outdoor volleyball courts (481fo-41 %,
1.2:1), although more than two of every five rated these items unimportant.
The facility -types that generated the most excitement (very important
ratings) were limited. Only one item scored above 20% and that was the
24% who said it was very important to construct jogging/biking trails. After
trails came natural habitat/nature areas (19%), a senior center (18%),
aquatic facilities, dog park, and children's water playground (each 15%),
playgrounds (14%), and recreation center and fishing ponds (both 13%).
Note that the top five items rated most important for construction were
passive activities, namely jogging/biking trails (3.9:1), natural habitat/nature
areas (3.8:1), playgrounds (3.7:1), and to a lesser extent, aquatic facilities
(3.3:1) and a senior center (3.0:1). In considering specific athletic facilities,
the rankings were as follows: outdoor basketball courts (2.3:1, 8th), soccer
fields (2.0:1, 10th), youth softball fields (1.3:1, 15th), baseball fields (1.1:1,
20th), adult softball fields (0.9:1, 22nd), football fields (0.9:1, 23rd), and
in -line hockey rink (0.7:1, 28th). Three items were rated important to
construct by at least seven of every ten residents citywide. Those were
jogging/biking trails (81 %-75%-76%-76%), playgrounds (71 %-71 %-80%-76%),
and natural habitat/nature areas (75%-70%-81 %-80%). Other facilities
achieving 70% or better importance were a children's water playground
(74%) and aquatic facilities and a senior center (both 70%) in Area 1,
aquatic facilities (74%) and a senior center (70%) in Area II, aquatic facilities
(80%), children's water playground (76%), outdoor basketball courts (74%),
a recreation center (73%), and gymnasiums and fishing ponds (both 71 %) in
Area III, and a recreation center (70%) in Area IV. Several of the items
listed generated various levels of importance from residents. The most
significant difference focused on a skateboard park, deemed to be
important by a majority of residents in Area III (53%), but by far fewer in
Area 1 (21 %). Some of the other items in which importance ratings varied
SWI
RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 19
recreation center (7%-8%-3%). The age tabulations showed the young to
be most interested in aquatic facilities. (22%-13%-10%) and children's water
playground (12%-15%-9%), both mentioned more often than jogging/biking
trails (10%-20%-19%). Not surprisingly, seniors assigned the highest ranking to
a senior center (2%-4%-11%). Very few parents appeared interested in
having the city construct a senior center (0%-1 %-2%, to 10% of nonparents)
or a dog park (0%-4%-2%, to 9%), as nonparents assigned higher rankings to
both. Parents of young and pre -teen children most frequently mentioned
children's water playground as most important (28%-16%-7%, to 10%), as
well as aquatic facilities (16%-17%-9%, to 12%) . And it was parents of older
children who assigned a higher priority to jogging/biking trails
(14%-16%-24%, to 18%) and their importance for being constructed. (See
Table # 19, page 68.)
• "Improved landscaping of city streets will help to improve our city image"
(91 %-9%, 10.1:1) and "I am satisfied with how streets and intersections are
landscaped in Euless" (87%-13%, 6.7:1) were the statements regarding city
beautification efforts that captured the highest ratios of agreement to
disagreement from survey participants. Comparatively, the ratio was
lowest for the statement, "I do not believe that landscaping city streets and
intersections is all that important" (17%-82%, 0.2:1), an item they soundly
disputed. The remaining two statements generated twice as much agree-
ment as disagreement: "I believe the city should plant more trees and
landscaping along streets and intersections" (72%-27%, 2.7:1) and "I would
like to see more public art in Euless" (62%-31 %, 2.0:1). Residents were most
passionate (strongly agree) in their response to three statements in which
levels were similar. Those were the items about improved landscaping of
city streets helping to improve the city image (18%), believing the city
should plant more trees and landscaping along streets and intersections
(17%), and being satisfied with how streets and intersections are
landscaped in the city (16%). Nearly nine of every ten residents citywide
agreed that improved landscaping of city streets will help to improve the
city image (92%-90%-89%-91 %) and four of five affirmed being satisfied with
how streets and intersections are landscaped in the city
(86%-89%-84%-8717o). Two other statements generated support of 60% or
better: believing the city should plant more trees and landscaping along
streets and intersections (73%-69%-70%-78%) was more popular than liking to
see more public art in Euless (62%-63%-61 %-60%). And very few agreed that
landscaping city streets and intersections was all that important
(15%-19%-21%-13%). Ninety percent of parents agreed that improved
landscaping of city streets will help to improve the city's image
(97%-94%-99%), while satisfaction with how streets and intersections are
landscaped in the city reached no lower than a 78% (88%-78%-80%). Two
statements were nearly interchangeable in the minds of nonparents, as 89%
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 21
along utility right-of-way (537o). From the list of nine destinations, where
most people did not want trails was along main thoroughfares (42%), to
churches (39%), or to shopping (36%). Connecting trails in city parks was
the most popular preferred trail connection no matter where the
respondent resided (91 %-80%-89%-93%), although residents in Area II were
much less likely to mention this potential connection as people in other
parts of the city. Overall, Area II was least likely to prefer trails be
connected to the various destinations. Those included connecting to
neighborhoods (89%-74%-87%-90%), close to their house
(8317.-60%-88%-82%), to trails from other cities (88%-61 %-79%-76%), to schools
(69%-62%-79%-66%), or along utility right-of-way (69%-62%-79%-66%). The
only destination among the top six in which tenure in the community
influenced a response was close to their home (80%-79%-73%), a more
popular choice with newer inhabitants. The oldest portion of the sample
was least likely to prefer trails located close to their home (82%-78%-75%),
although the rate was still better than three of four, no matter one's age.
Older people were also less likely to prefer trails connecting to
neighborhoods (88%-85%-83%) or to schools (76%-68%-67%). However,
where they were significantly more likely to desire trails was along utility
right-of-way (39%-50%-63%). Parents were more likely than nonparents to
prefer trails connecting to neighborhoods (90%-87%-86%, to 83%) and close
to home (88%-82%-81 %, to 75%). At the same time, along utility right-of-way
(58%, to 46%-39%-47%) was the favored connection point of nonparents.
Note that parents were more attuned to connecting future trails to
neighborhoods (90%-87%-86%) rather than city parks (90%-84%-84%),
although the variance between the two was minimal. Nonparents rated
city parks ahead of neighborhoods (88%-83%). (See Figure 4, page 79.)
♦ Renovate/redevelop neighborhood parks (92%-6%, 15.3:1), expand the
city's trail system (89%-9%, 9.9:1) and renovate/reconstruct an additional
senior center (80%-13%, 6.2:1) were the most popular projects for the city to
fund in the next five to 10 years among the six tested, based on their ratios
of support to opposition. The three additional projects were also popularly
supported, at ratios of 4.3:1 (77%-18% for constructing an additional
recreation center); 3.4:1 (74%-22% for constructing an aquatic park); and
1.2:1 (62%-32% for constructing a dog park), the least popular project in the
minds of respondents. Enthusiasm was highest for renovating/redeveloping
neighborhood parks (26%); expanding the city's trail system (23%); and
constructing an aquatic park (20%), with the latter item much higher
ranked in intensity (3rd) when compared to its citywide ratio (5th).
Conversely, there was little enthusiasm for renovating/reconstructing an
additional senior center, as it ranked last in intensity (15%, with construction
of the dog park), although the community considered it the third most
important project to fund of the six tested. Between 87% and 93% of
ItRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 23
11 (50% and 45%). The number one and two most popularly supported
aquatic options to parents were the large family aquatic facility, which
generated between 85% (teenagers) and 95% (young children and
pre -teens) support, followed by the single outdoor aquatic facility, which
scored ratings of either 88% (young children and pre -teens) or 79%
(teenagers). The three parent subsets were each more supportive of the
two options then nonparents, as the two generated 76% and 66% support.
Parents were also more supportive than nonparents of the indoor aquatic
facility (77%-71 %-73%, to 69%), although it is noteworthy that the indoor
aquatic facility was more popular to nonparents than the single outdoor
facility. (See Tables #29 - 31, pages 85 - 87.)
♦ A family aquatic facility (40%) was the number -one preferred facility
according to survey participants, should the city decide to construct
additional aquatics in the city. It was a more popular choice than the
indoor aquatic facility (27%), which ranked second, as well as the outdoor
aquatic facility (12%) or neighborhood pools (9%). One in 10 preferred not
constructing any additional aquatic facilities. The family aquatic center
ranked first citywide (42%-40%-39%-35%), drawing slightly more support in
the northern portion of the city than the south. Areas I and III were the
sectors of the city that assigned the highest rates to the indoor aquatic
facility (30%-21 %-30%-24%), although in each instance, the family aquatic
center was preferred. The family aquatic facility drew more support from
newer residents rather than long-term city inhabitants (45%-41 %-31 %),
although -regardless of tenure, it was the preferred aquatic choice.
Interestingly, no matter how long one had lived in the city, the indoor
aquatic facility was consistently popular (26%-28%-26%). As with tenure the
community, the older the respondent, the less likely they were to choose
family aquatic facility (53%-45%-30%) should the city decide to construct
additional aquatics in the city. Additionally, people over the age of 55
were the only subset to prefer an indoor aquatic facility over the family
aquatic facility (29%-22%-32%). Parents were significantly more likely to
prefer the family aquatic facility (56%-62%-53%). When it came to the
indoor aquatic facility, the older the child, the less likely it was to be
selected as the number one preferred facility (29%-16%-14%). Either facility
was acceptable to nonparents, although by two percent, the family
aquatic facility was the project of choice (327o-30%). (See Figure 5, page
88.)
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 25
overall satisfaction (95%-93%-92%-93%), as the citywide variance was only
three percent. When comparing the satisfaction to dissatisfaction rates, we
note the ratio to be highest in Area IV (93-6%, 15.5:1) and lowest in Area 1
88-9%. 9.8:1), and between those 13.0:1 (91-7%) in Area II and 11.0:1 (88-8%)
in Area ill.
• Male and female respondents were similarly pleased with parks and
recreation quality, both in terms of very satisfied ratings (38%-38%) and
overall satisfaction (93%-94%). Not surprisingly, when this question is
compared with parks and recreation improvement ratings, the more
negative the response (improved -same -decline), the lower the intense
satisfaction level (45%-27%-13%), as well as general positive opinions
(97%-92%-51 %). The 51 % rating came from eight respondents, or 2% of the
full sample. Additionally, the three percent with no opinion regarding
improvement ratings were only 67% positive, although the remaining 33%
had no opinion as to satisfaction with quality.
• People who visited or utilized certain recreational facilities tended to be
more enthusiastic about parks and recreation as well as complimentary in
nature. For example, intense ratings were higher for people who visited
city parks (40%-22%), participated . in parks and recreation classes
(53%-33%), or utilized hike and bike trails (43%-31%). Double-digit variances
were not evident for those who participated in youth athletic leagues
(44%-37%), although participants were more intensely positive, while those
who utilized city pools were no more complimentary than those who did
not (39%-37%), calling into question these facilities as examples of parks
and recreational quality when compared with the others. Overall
satisfaction was more prominent among visitors to city parks (96%-77%),
although individuals who didn't visit .a city park had higher no opinion
responses, which impacted the findings (16%-0%). Whether a respondent
had taken a parks and recreation class (97%-93%), used a city hike and
bike trail (96%-90%), used city pools (96%-90%) or participated in a youth
athletic league (92%-94%) seemed to have little to no bearing on ones
overall satisfaction level, although note that only in the case of youth
athletic league participants was satisfaction higher among
nonparticipants. No significant differences in satisfaction levels were seen
among respondents who agreed with .the statement about being willing to
pay to see the quality of parks upgraded (94%) and those who disputed
this particular statement (92%). Additionally, intensity ratings were similar
whether one agreed or disagreed with the upgrade statement (39%-37%).
The five percent who had no opinion regarding this statement were less
enthusiastic then the other two subsets (24%), although overall satisfaction
was in line with the other findings (91 %).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 27
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT RATING
80 -�
70 -��-
60 -�
50 —/
40 —
Same Declined
❑ Area I
❑ Area II
El Area III
E] Area IV
Figure 2: Past Three Years Parks And Recreation Improvement
Rating By Subsector
• Approximately two of every three residents sampled (63%) felt that in the
past three years, the quality of parks and recreation in the city had
improved. Those who felt quality had stayed the same totaled 31 %, with
the remaining 6% either believing it had declined (2%) or having no
opinion on the matter (4%). Note that the ratio of improved to declined
ratings (63%-2%) was better than 30 to one, a ratio higher than general
satisfaction. Improved ratings stood out in Area 1 (71 %), being between
10% and 16% higher than anywhere else in the city (71 %-60%-55%-61 %). The
higher positive rating led Area I to have the lowest stayed about the same
mark (22%-35%-38%-35%), with Area III being the highest status quo
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 29
rated parks and recreation in the city as having stayed the same
(32%-42%-32%, to 30%). In addition, the higher the value rating for services
provided versus fees paid, the greater the improved grade (79% of great,
to 63% of good, to 42% of fair/poor). People who rated the trade-off of fees
versus services fair or poor were more likely to rate the quality as having
stayed the same (17%-33%-46%), and to a lesser extent, having declined
(1%-1%-7%).
SATISFACTION WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY EULESS
FOR VARIOUS AGE GROUPS
TABLE #2: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES
PROVIDED BY EULESS FOR VARIOUS AGE GROUPS
AGE GROUP VERY I SATISFIED DISSATISFIED VERY NO I RATIO
SATISFIED I DISSATISFIED OPINION
Young children under 6 16% 47% 4% 1 % 33% 12.6:1
Children, ages 6-12
14%1
47%
4%
0%
35%
15.3:1
Children, ages 13-18
12%
4357.
8%
1%
38%
6.1:1
(Adults, ages 19-45
17%
58%
7%
1 %
18%
9.4:1
Adults, ages 46-65
17%
52%
6%
1 %
25%
9.9:1
(Adults over the age of 65
12%
44%
5%
1 %
39%
9.3:1
• Respondents with children, specifically those in the 6-12 (61%-4%, 15.3:1)
and under 6 (63%-517o, 12.6:1) age groups attained the highest ratios of
satisfaction to dissatisfaction relative to the recreational services provided
by the city of Euless. Citizens were very complimentary regarding
recreational services provided adults, ages 19-45 (75%-8%, 9.4:1), 46-65
(69%-7%, 9.9:1), and over the age of 65 (56%-6%, 9.3:1). The lowest ratio,
albeit 6.1:1, was reported for services provided children, ages 13-18
(55%-9%). Therefore, residents who had an opinion were generally satisfied
with the services provided, especially those provided to younger children,
while being positive when it came to teen recreational services.
• One item of note is the large percentage of residents who chose the no
opinion response, indicating -a lack of information or desire to respond to
the question. Except for one age group, at least one in every five residents
sampled had no information to make a judgment on this issue.
Respondents were most unaware when it came to commenting upon
recreational services provided adults over the age of 65 (39%) and
teenagers (38%). After that were no opinion rates of 35% (children ages
6-12), 33% (children 0-6), 25% (adults ages 46-65), and 18% (adults ages
19-45), the only age group in which no opinion comments were below 25%.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 31
• Several of the age groups generated different levels of satisfaction
throughout the city. Among those were services provided children, ages
6-12 (67% in Area 111, to 56% in Area 1) and 13-18 (60% in Area IV, to 48% in
Area III), as well as adults ages 46-65 (74% in Area 1, to 63% in Area 11).
Some of the variances were the result of higher no opinion responses and
not dissatisfaction, with a case in point being children, ages 6-12, in which
negative comments varied by just three percent (6% in Area 111, to 3% in
Area 1). However, relative to dissatisfaction for the services provided
children, ages 13-18 (18% in Area III, to 5% in Area 11) and adults, ages 46-65
(13% in Area 111, to 3% in Area 1) and over the age of 65 (14% in Area 111, to
2% in Area 11), an element of protest was evident in one area of the city,
that being Area ill. Although minimal, there were only five instances in
which the services provided for one of the age groups generated a
double-digit .critical remark, and four of those occurred in Area 111. The
remaining one was the 10% in Area IV negative toward services provided
adults, ages 19-45.
• When the satisfaction levels in the four quadrants were ranked, the
variances in positions were most pronounced relative to the services
provided young children under 6 (2nd in Area IV, to 4th in Area III) and 6-12
(2nd in Area III, to 5th in Area 1). The other four age groups saw rankings
vary citywide by no more than one position. Residents in Area IV were
most pleased with the services provided young children under 6 and
teenagers, compared to Area III being most complimentary toward that
provided pre -teen children and senior citizens, Area II, for adults, ages
19-45, and Area I, adults, ages 46-65.
TABLE #4: SATISFACTION WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY
EULESS FOR VARIOUS AGE GROUPS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT'S
CHILDREN
(AGE GROUP
NO CHILD . UNDER 6
AGE 6-12
AGE 13-18
'
SATIS DISATIS SATIS DISATIS
SATIS DISATIS
SATIS DISATIS
1Young children under 6
56% 3% 79% 7%
85% 5%
74%
5%
Children, ages 6.12
58% 2% 59% 7%
80% 9%
68%
9%
(Children, ages 13-18
54% 7% 46% 8%
50% 17%
74%
11%
Adults, ages 19-45
72% 7% 75% 77o
79% 1 1 %
83%
7%
(Adults, ages 46.65
76% 6% 44% 5%
57% 6%
68%
7%
(Adults over the age of 65
62% 7% 39% 5%
47% 6%
47%
5%J
• A minimum of seven of every ten parents, no matter the age of their
children, were satisfied with the recreational services provided by the city
for children under age 6 (79%-84%-74%) and adults, ages 19-45
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 33
teenagers consisted of parents of young children (54%, to 46%-50%-74%).
Also note that the groups most positive toward the three youth subsets
were parents of pre -teens for both young children and pre -teens and
parents of teenagers for teenagers.
• Nonparents offered higher satisfaction ratios for services provided children
ages 6-12 (29.0:1, to 8.4:1-8.9:1-7.6:1) and 13-18 (7.7:1, to 5.8:1-2.9:1-6.7:1).
Parents of pre -teens were most positive about services provided young
children (17.0:1), when compared with both nonparents (14.0:1) and
parents with children in other age groups (11.3:1-14.8:1). Nonparents were
also most positive in their evaluation of services provided adults ages 46-65
(12.7:1, to 8.8:1-9.5:1-9.7:1).
GENERAL PARK, FACILITY, AND PROGRAM UTILIZATION
TABLE #5: OVERALL PARTICIPATION IN CITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
OR ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY
YES
NO
DON'T
REMEM
Visited or used a municipal park or park facility
86%
14%
0%
Visited or used a municipal athletic field
37%
63%
1%
Participated in a youth athletic league
14%
86%
0%
(Participated in an adult athletic league
8%
9217o
0%
Participated in any class or program offered by the
25%
75%
070
Euless Parks and Recreation Dept.
Used a municipal hike and bike trail
61 %
40%
0%
Utilized a municipal facility for a meeting
177.
837.
0%
Visited and used a municipal tennis court
14%
86%
0%
Visited a city park pavilion
54%
46%
0%
Visited a city playground
65%
35%
0%
Visited a city pool
31%
70%
070
• Visiting or using a municipal park or park facility (86%), visiting a city
playground (65%), utilizing a hike and bike trail (61 %), and visiting a city
park pavilion (54%) were the most popular recreational facilities or
activities utilized by area residents in the past 12 months. Other activities
drew participation rates from approximately one in three or fewer.
Approximately one-third reported visiting or using a municipal athletic field
(37%) or visiting a city pool (31 %), while one in four acknowledged
participating in any class or program offered by the Euless Parks and
Recreation Department. The remaining four facilities or activities were
utilized by fewer than one in five respondents: a municipal facility for a
meeting (17%); participating in an adult athletic league and visiting or using
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOC1ATEs 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 35
all geographic areas, while participating in an adult athletic league (Areas
I and li), youth athletic league (Area 111), and utilization of a municipal tennis
court (Area 1V) ranked last in the various subsectors.
• Residents in Area I assigned the highest percentages to the following
facilities or activities: a municipal park or park facility, a hike and bike trail,
a municipal tennis court, and a city park pavilion. Additionally, Area 1
residents, along with people in Area III voiced the highest usage rate for a
municipal facility for a meeting. Participation in an adult athletic league
and utilizing a city playground and pool also attained their highest ratings in
Area III. The two remaining activities, a municipal athletic field and a youth
athletic league, were assigned their highest frequency levels by individuals
in Area 11. Note that no facility or program received its highest rating from
the Area IV subsector.
TABLE #7: PARTICIPATION IN CITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OR
ACTIVITIES BY AGE OF RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
ACTIVITY I NO CHILD UNDER 6 AGE 6-12 AGE 13-18
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
Visited or used a municipal park or park facility I 83% 17% 95% 5% 92% 8% 93% 77.
(Visited or used a municipal athletic field 31 % 69% 4951. 49% 45% 54% 53% 47%
Participated In a youth athletic league 5% 95% 20% 78% 38% 61% 307. 70%
(Participated in an adult athletic league 6% 94% 12% 86% 13% 86% 14% 86%
(Participated in any class or program offered by the 22% 78% 39% 61 % 32% 67% 21 % 77%
Euless Parks and Recreation Department
Used a municipal hike and bike trail 617o 39% 66% 34% 59% 41% 56% 44%
Utilized a municipal facility for a meeting 19% 81 % 8% 92% 14% 86% 16% 84%
Visited and used a municipal tennis court 11% 89% 25% 75% 16% 84% 18% 82%
(Visited a city park pavilion 507o 50% 63% 37% 59% 417o 63% 37%
Visited a city playground 52% 48% 93% 7% 877o 13% 84% 16%
Visited a city pool 20% 80% 47% 53% 62% 38% 47% 53%
• A majority of parents said they visited or used a municipal park or park
facility (95%-92%-93%), used a municipal hike and bike trail (66%-59%-56%),
a city park pavilion (63%-59%-63%), and a city playground (93%-87%-84%).
Other majority activities were parents of pre -teens visiting a city pool
(47%-62%-47%), and those with teenagers, a municipal athletic field
(49%-45%-53%). A majority of nonparents visited or used a municipal park
(83%), a municipal hike and bike trail (61 %), a city playground (52%), and a
city park pavilion (50%), although at lower rates than those of parents.
• There were several enormous differences in recreation participation based
on respondents' parental status. For example, only 20% of households with
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 37
ASSESSING VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES
TABLE #8: OVERALL ASSESSMENT RATING OF VARIOUS
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
CHARACTERISTIC
EXCEL
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
NO
RATIO
OPINION
MThe number of parks in the city
36%
51%
11%
2%
1%
6.7:1
Having parks conveniently located for people in all areas
31%
52%
12%
2%
3%
5.9:1
`The overall quality of city parks
33%'
57%
9%
0%
1%
10.0:1
IThe overall safety of city parks
27%
58%
11%
27o
3%
6.5:1
IThe maintenance of city parks
30%
56%
11%
1%
2%
7.2:1
The amount of public art in parks
5%
32%
24%
19%
20%
0.9:1
The variety of recreational facilities within parks
13%
52%
24%
6%
7%
2.2:1
IThe number of athletic fields in the city
15%
52%
17%
476
13%
3.2:1
IThe overall quality of city athletic fields
14%
63%
10%
1%
13%
7.0:1
IThe maintenance of city athletic fields
16%
61%
870
1%
14%
8.5:1
IThe number of pools in the city
5%
39%
30%
13%
14%
1.0:1
IHaving pools conveniently located for people in all areas
5%
41%
28%
12%
1576
1.2:1
IThe overall quality of city pools
8%
43%
17%
6%
27%
2.2:1
IThe overall safety of city pools
9%
500/.
10%
276
29%
4.9:1
,The maintenance of city pools
8%
47%
14%
2%
29%
3.4:1
IThe overall quality of the senior center
8%
29%
9%
3176
521/o
3.1:1
IThe variety of classes and programs offered by the Parks
23%
50%
12%
2%
14%
5.2:1
& Recreation Department
IThe overall quality of Parks & Recreation classes and
17%
50%
12%
2%
20%
4.8:1
orgarams
IThe amount of hike and bike trails in city
15%
47%
21%
67o
12%
2.3:1
Having hike and bike trails conveniently located for
13%
4407o
23%
9%
12%
1.8:1
People in all areas
IThe overall quality of hike and bike trails in the city
207o
54%
13%
376
11%
4.6:1
IThe overall quality of playgrounds in city
14%
63%
1070
276
11%
6.4:1
IThe number of city tennis courts
4%
3017o
22%
6%
39%
1.2:1
IThe overall quality of city tennis courts
4%
35%
18%
3%
41%
1.9:1
IThe overall quality of the recreation center
19%
5476
11%
2%
15%
5.6:1
IThe variety of amenities at the recreation center
17%
5070
14%
276
17%
4.2:1
IThe amount of accessible natural areas
I 13%
4817.
22%
6%
11%
2.2:1
♦ The overall quality of parks (907o-97o, 10.0:1), the maintenance of city
athletic fields (77%-9%, 8.5:1), maintenance of city parks (8617o-127o, 7.2:1),
quality of city athletic fields (77%-117o, 7.0:1), and number of parks in the
city (87%-137o, 6.7:1) attained the highest ratios of positive (excellent/good)
to negative (fair/poor) comments when residents were asked to evaluate a
comprehensive list of Euless recreational characteristics. Of the 27 items
tested, residents were also extremely positive about the overall safety of
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 39
courts. While these items failed to impress survey participants, neither did
they draw criticism, as poor ratings for the four were 6%, 2%, and 2% for
pools and 3% for tennis courts.
♦ When the excellent ratings are ranked and compared to how the various
items were prioritized in terms of their ratio, we note the evidence of
constituencies whose assessment of a particular item was at a higher rate
than the general public -- and vice versa. For example, the excellent
ratings were higher for number (1 st, to 5th) and convenient location (3rd, to
8th) of parks than when assessed by the community as a whole. Other
variances focused on the amount of public art in parks (23rd, to 27th),
number of athletic fields (12th, to 16th), variety of classes and programs
(6th, to loth), amount (13th, to 18th), convenient location (13th, to 23rd),
and overall quality (7th, to 13th) of hike and bike trails, and variety of
amenities at the recreation center (loth, to 14th). Note that many of the
items in which the intensity ratings are higher addressed location of certain
facilities, indicating the presence of a minority group more positive about
these characteristics than the general populace. Conversely, reputation
played a major role in how some characteristics tested, especially those
without the same degree or constituency. For example, the overall quality
of city athletic fields had a much higher reputation (4th) than intensity
ranking (l6th), with the same being true relative to its maintenance (2nd, to
11th). Others were overall safety (1lth, to 19th) and maintenance (15th, to
21 st) of city pools, quality of senior center (I 7th, to 22nd), and quality of
playgrounds (7th, to 15th).
Ut RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATEs 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 41
♦ When reviewing park characteristics, note that Area IV was much less
positive, with the exception of one variable. For example, when
comparing their attitudes with those in Area I, there was a significant
difference of opinion when it came to, commenting on their number (76%,
to 91%) and convenient location (70%, to 89%). For these two items, Area II
was near the flop in their evaluations (both 88%), while in Area III, number
was treated more positively (86%) than location (79%). In terms of quality,
Areas III and I were first and second in terms of advocacy (94% and 93%).
That compared with an 86% in Area II, but only an 82% in Area IV, a decline
of more than ten percent. Interestingly, while residents in Area IV were less
positive about number, location, and quality, they were as positive as the
others when it came to the maintenance (88%-84%-87%-87%). Areas III and
IV were evenly divided when it came to discussing the amount of public art
(43%-43% and 39%-39%), whereas, Areas 1 (34%-44%) and II (36%-47%) were
clearly more displeased. The remaining characteristic, the variety of
recreational facilities, was far more likely to be commented upon positively
in Area 1 (71 %) than in Area IV (56%), with levels of 64% and 59% elsewhere.
Note that with the exception of public art, Area I was most complimentary
in its evaluation, with Area IV being the most critical. However, even in
Area IV, the primary items (number, location, quality, safety, and
maintenance) scored no lower than a 70% positive mark.
♦ Athletic fields were held in higher regard in the southern portion of the city,
namely Areas III and IV. This was true relative to their number (71% and
72%, to 65% and 62%), quality (84% and 81 %, to 75% and 71 %), and
maintenance (84% and 80%, to 73% and 77%). There were also ten point
variances in terms of negative ratings relative to the number (27% in Area II,
to 16% in Area IV) and quality (17% in Area II, to 7% in Area IV) of athletic
fields. And pools were graded more positively in Area 111, specifically
number (52%, to 39% in Area 1), location (56%, to 39% in Area IV), quality
(66%, to 40% in Area 1), safety (73%, to 49% in Area 1), and maintenance
(73%, to 49% in Area 1). Part of the reason for the disparity in percentages
were higher no opinion ratings, especially in Area I. For example, while
comments on the overall quality of pools varied 26%, the difference in
levels for fair and poor ratings was only 9% (28% in Area IV, to 19% in Area
II). The same trend was evident relative to safety, as positive comments
varied 24%, compared to a difference of four percent (14% in Area IV, to
10% in Area II) for negative comments.
♦ Eleven other characteristics showed varying degrees of quality ratings.
Those were overall quality of the senior center (49% in Area III, to 27% in
Area 1), variety of classes and programs offered by the parks and
recreation department (75% in Area II, to 65% in Area III), overall quality of
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 43
TABLE #10: ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKS
AND RECREATION FACILITIES BY AGE OF RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
CHARACTERISTIC
NO CHILD
UNDER 6
AGE 6-12
AGE 13-18
EXCEL
FAIR
EXCEL
FAIR
EXCEL
FAIR
EXCEL
FAIR
GOOD
POOR
'GOOD I POOR
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
POOR
The number of parks in the city
87%
13%
84%1
15%
81%
8%
81%
19%
Having parks conveniently located for people in all
8317o
14%
86%1
12%
82%
17%
84%
14%
areas
The overall quality of city parks
900/.
87.
92%I
8%
82%
18%
89%
117.
IThe overall safety of city parks
85%
11%
837.
11%
80%
18%
84%
147.
IThe maintenance of city parks
88%
107.
87%1
127o
7917.
21%
81%
207.
IThe amount of public art in parks
38%
4217.
337o
47%
35%
51%
33%
47%
IThe variety of recreational facilities within parks
65%
27%
68%
28%
56%
42%
65%
34%
The number of athletic fields in the city
67%
17%
75%
17%
66%
32%
66%
31%
The overall quality of city athletic fields
74176
9%
79%
12%
82%
14%
88%
9%
The maintenance of city athletic fields
7717o
6%
81%
10%
76%
18%
81%
12%
IThe number of pools In the city
40%
39%
51%
46%
52%
47%
54%
43%
(Having pools conveniently located for people in all
41%
39%
59%
37%
49%
47%
58%
35%
areas
The overall quality of city pools
48%
15%
59%
27%
61%
30%
53%
33%
IThe overall safety of city pools
5317o
10%
68%
16%
73%
14%
72%
14%
The maintenance of city pools
51%
14%
66%
20%
70%
21%
68%
18%
The overall quality of the senior center
41%
14%
27%
4%
22%
12%
31%
7%
The variety of classes and programs offered by the
72%
12%
74%
13%
66%
21%
72%
18%
Parks & Recreation Department
The overall quality of Parks & Recreation classes and
67%
11%
66%
13%
66%
20%
69%
16%
`programs
The amount of hike and bike trails in city
62%
23%
73%
23%
57%
37%
55%
32%
f Having hike and bike trails conveniently located for
56176
30%
63%
32%
57%
38%
57%
33%
people in all areas
IThe overall quality of hike and bike trails in the city
73%
14%
79%
17%
74%
17%
72%
14%
IThe overall quality of playgrounds in city
747o
8%
84%
16%
79%
21%
80%
20%
IThe number of city tennis courts
31%
26%
46%
29%
34%
44%
39%
33%
IThe overall quality of city tennis courts
34%
19%
55%
24%
44%
27%
55%
16%
IThe overall qualify of the recreation center
73%
8%
73%
21%
67%
29%
86%
11%
IThe variety of amenities at the recreation center
68%
11%
68%
22%
58%
35%
75%
16%
IThe amount of accessible natural areas
I 63%
25%
57%
36%
56%
40%
55%
37%
♦ Eighty percent of the three parental subsets were positive about the
number (847o-81 %-81 %), convenient location (86%-82%-84%), quality
(9217o-8250-89%), and safety (83%-80%-84%) of city parks. And with the
exception of parents of pre -teens, respondents with children were at least
80% positive about the maintenance of city parks (87%-79%-81 %) and
athletic fields (81 %-76%-81 %), and the quality of playgrounds
(84%-79%-80%). Parents of pre -teens and teenagers were 80%
complimentary of the overall quality of athletic fields (79%-82%-88%), while
those with teenage children were most positive about the quality of the
rRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 45
not report the highest negative ratings were the number of parks in the city;
the overall quality and safety of city pools; and the overall quality of the
senior center.
♦ When it came to evaluating the various characteristics of parks, nonparents
were as positive as, if not more so, than parents on several occasions. This
was true relative to number (87%, to 84%-81 %-81 %), safety (85%, to
83%-80%-847o), and maintenance (88%, to 87%-79%-81 %), and to a lesser
extent, the amount of public art (38%, to 33%-35%-33%). This same trend
was evident in terms of the senior center (41 %, to 27%-22%-31 %) and
amount of accessible natural areas (63%, to 57%-56%-55%). Characteristic
grading varied most when comparing nonparents and parents in terms of
the overall quality of tennis courts (34%, to 55% of young children and
teenagers, -21), safety of city pools (53%, to 73% of pre -teens, -20),
maintenance of pools (51 %, to 70% of pre -teens, -19), pools conveniently
located (41 %, to 59% of young children, -18), and number of tennis courts
(31 %, to 46% of young children, -15). Six others varied by rates of between
10% and 1417o.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 47
♦ Male and female respondents reported similar positive value ratings - 77%
of males and 817o of females. And there was only minimal difference in
terms of great value ratings (31%-27%). Those who are satisfied with the
quality of parks and recreation were significantly more likely to assign a
great rating (53%-16%-0%) as well as being more positive about the
trade-off overall (93%-75%-18%). Only the 4% dissatisfied were more
negative (7%-22(Yo-76%). Similarly, those who said parks and recreation
quality has improved were more likely to assign the higher value rating
(87%) than if improvement was the same (69%), or had declined (38%). The
same trend was evident in terms of great value ratings (37%-16%-13%).
♦ Great value ratings were higher among people who visited city parks
(31 %-20%) and hike and bike trails (38%-16%) when compared with
nonusers. Interestingly, the variance was narrower among people who
participated in parks and recreation classes (33%-28%) or youth athletic
leagues (30%-29%). Finally, users of city pools were less likely to assign a
"great" value rating than people who did not visit them (22%-32%). Positive
value ratings showed the greatest variance among those who participated
in parks and recreation classes (90%-76%) or utilized a hike and bike trail
(84%-72%). The difference in ratings was more narrow between users and
nonusers relative to visiting city parks (80%-73%), utilizing city pools
(83%-77%), or participating in youth athletic leagues (78%-79%). There was
also not a lot of differences of opinion when this question is compared with
how agreeable or disagreeable people were to the statement about
willingness, to pay to see quality of parks upgraded. Only six percent
separated the two subsets in terms of great value ratings (31 %-25%) and
only seven percent for overall positive value ratings (82%-75%).
♦ When compared with tenure in the community, intensity ratings were higher
among those who had lived in the city longer (25%-34%-31 %) , although
overall positive levels (78%-82%-80%) showed that length of residence did
not influence trade-off grades. Relative to the age of respondent
tabulations, great ratings were highest among those older (25%-297.-30%),
although the same trend was not evident when comparing the overall
positive responses (84%-7617o-82%) . Nonparents were more apt to grade the
value great (33%, to 247o-18%-26%), especially when compared with
parents of pre -teens. Overall perceptions, however, appeared to decline
as children aged (82%-737,75%), with nonparents falling within those ranges
(79%).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 49
improve existing parks and not any new ones, satisfied with current
landscaping, and satisfied with landscaping in parks).
• When the intensity ratings are ranked ' and compared with the ratios, the
top items fared similarly, as the sentiments graded first in both areas were
natural areas are important and should be preserved, being satisfied with
recreational facilities in Euless, having adequate avenues to voice
concerns about recreation, and satisfied with programs offered by the
department. Only those with the lowest intensity ratings varied differently,
as for example, being satisfied with the current landscaping graded 5th in
terms of the consensus (ratio) ratings but was between 6th and 9th position
relative to intensity. The same was true for the statement scoring a ratio
ranking of 6th (satisfied with current landscaping in city medians and
intersections), 7th (I am willing to pay additional city taxes to see quality of
parks upgraded), 8th (existing park system is adequate), and 9th (city
should improve existing parks and not develop any new ones).
TABLE #12: AGREEMENT WITH RECREATION -RELATED STATEMENTS BY
SUBSECTOR
(STATEMENT AREA I AREA II AREA III AREA IV
AGREE DIS AGREE DIS AGREE DIS AGREE DIS
l AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE
II'm satisfied with the recreational facilities in 90% 8% 8870 11 % 80% 18% 8276 16%
Euless
`I am wilting to pay additional city taxes to see
the quality of parks upgraded
IThe existing park system Is adequate
IThe city should improve existing parks and not
develop anv new ones
II have adequate avenues to voice my
concerns about recreation in Euless
�i am satisfied with the current landscaping in
city medians and intersections
Natural areas are important and should be
preserved where it is available
I am satisfied with the current landscaping in
city parks
Ii am satisfied with the programs offered by the
recreation department
71%
23%
62%
33%
59%
33%
66%
34%
66%
32%
57%
42%
60%
40%
67%
32%
47%
44%
46%
49%
37%
62%
47%
45%
81%
10%
84%
7%
76%
18%
79%
14%
72%
26%
75%
24%
71%
26%
64%
36%
98%
0%
95%
3%
94%
4%
96%
4%
85%
14%
80%
177o
79%
20%
81%
19%
80%
8%
81%
127o
78%
18%
80%
17%
♦ No less than 94% of residents citywide agreed that natural areas are
important and should be preserved (98%-95%-94%-96%) and at least 80%
affirmed their satisfaction with the recreational facilities in Euless
(90%-88%-807,82%). In addition, at least 76% affirmed their conviction that
they have adequate avenues to voice their concerns about recreation in
Euless (81 %-84%-767o-79%) and were satisfied with the programs offered by
the recreation department (80%-81%-78%-80%). And at the bottom of each
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 51
TABLE #13: AGREEMENT WITH RECREATION -RELATED STATEMENTS BY
AGE OF RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
'STATEMENT NO CHILD UNDER 6 AGE 6-12 AGE 13.18 ,
1 AGREE D)S AGREE DIS AGREE DIS AGREE DIS
AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE
I'm satisfied with the recreational facilities in 86%I 12% 90% 10% 827o' 18% 81% 18%
Euless
I am willing to pay additional city taxes to see
the qualify of parks upgraded
,The existing park system is adequate
The city should improve existing parks and not
develop anv new ones
I have adequate avenues to voice my concerns
about recreation in Euless
II am satisfied with the current landscaping in city
medians and intersections
Natural areas are important and should be
preserved where it is available
II am satisfied with the current landscaping in city
parks
II am satisfied with the programs offered by the
recreation department
63%1
32%
66%
28%
74%
24%
74%
21%
62%
37%
79%
21%
57%
42%
63%
35%
45%
49%
45%
52%
41%
54%
52%
41%
82%
11%
78%
14%
74%
14%
81%
14%
73%1
267.
79%
20%
70%
31%
63%
37%
96%
3%
99%
2%
97%
2%
98%
27o
82%
16%
87%
14%
78%
21%
83%
18%
81%
11%
78%
16%
85%
6%
82%
14%
♦ in several instances, parents and nonparents generated similar levels of
agreement. For example, 90% agreed that natural areas are important
and should be preserved (99%-97%-98%, to 96%), 80% that they were
satisfied with recreational facilities in the city (90%-82%-81%, to 86%), 70%
that they have adequate avenues to voice concerns about recreation in
Euless (78%-74%-81 %, to 82%), satisfied with current landscaping in city parks
(87%-78%-83%, to 82%), and satisfied with the programs offered by the
recreation department (78%-85%-82%, to 81%), and 60% that they were
willing to pay additional city taxes to see quality of parks upgraded
(66%-74%-74%, to 63%) and satisfied with current landscaping in city
medians and intersections (79%-70%-63%, to 73%). The only statement that
generated higher agreement from nonparents was having adequate
avenues to voice concerns about recreation (82%, to 78%-74%-81 %) .
♦ Nonparents were often in agreement with parents. Variances in opinion
were evident relative to the statements about being willing to pay
additional taxes to see quality upgraded (74% of parents of pre -teens and
teenagers, to 63% of nonparents), existing park system is adequate (79% of
parents of young children, to 57% of parents of pre -teens), city should
improve existing parks and not develop any new ones (52% of parents of
teenagers, to 41 % of parents of pre -teens), and being satisfied with current
landscaping in city medians and intersections (79% of parents of young
children, to 63% of parents of teenagers).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 53
• People who had lived in Euless the longest period of time formed the
residency subset least likely to visit the department's web page
(30%-24%-25%), although the decline in levels was minimal. And not
surprisingly, the age tabulations showed people over the age of 55 least
likely to visit the web page (32%-34%-17%), especially compared to younger
survey participants. Also, parents (39%-43%-21 %, to 21 %) of younger and
pre -teen children represented the subsets most likely to visit the web page
with frequency. Both parents of teens and nonparents were much less
likely to access the web page. Finally, how respondents assigned value to
the trade-off of services provided versus fees paid had little impact in terms
of visiting the web site, as percentages were fairly similar whether one was
positive or negative in their value rating (25%-30%-27%).
%rt RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 55
query were dog park/skate parks (8%), water park/aquatic facilities (7%),
and basketball/volleyball courts, parks, and playgrounds (each 5%). Six
other responses were mentioned by four percent or less of the sample
group, with the least frequent suggestions being athletic fields, tennis
courts, fishing ponds, and golf/disc golf (each 2%) .
♦ The further south the subsector, the fewer people who offered a suggestion
of a facility lacking (69-49-36-31), numbers that limit the statistical reliability
of the findings. A recreation center/teen center was the most popular
facility noted as lacking in Areas I and 11 (16% and 18%), but not in Area IV,
where it ranked second behind multi -use trails (16%-13%). In Area III,
recreation center/teen center and multi -use trails scored identical rates of
19%. Other popular needs recognized by residents were multi -use trails and
pools/outdoor or non-specific (both 14%), and an indoor pool (10%) in Area
1, multi -use trails (12%) and indoor pool, dog park/skate park, and
playgrounds (each 10%) in Area 11, parks (14%) in Area 111, and any one of
three aquatic options, the indoor pool, pools/outdoor or non-specific, or
water park, as well as parks and tennis courts (each 10%) in Area IV. Some
responses in which percentages varied included pools/outdoor or
non-specific (14% in Area I, to 0% in Area III), parks (14% in Area III, to 1 % in
Area 1), and tennis courts (10% in Area IV, to 0% in Areas I and 111).
♦ Men were more likely to say that their part of the city was lacking a
recreation center/teen center (20%-13%), pools/outdoor or non-specific
(13%-5%), and parks (9%-2%), compared with women, who more frequently
listed an indoor pool (14%-2%) and water park/aquatic features (11%-3%).
Both groups were similarly aware of the need for multi -use trails (14%-16%).
Those most satisfied with parks and recreation quality focused on the city
needing aquatics -- the indoor pool (19%-5%-0%), and to a lesser extent, the
pool/outdoor or non-specific (10%-10%-0%), and water park/aquatic facility
(10%-7%-0%). Comparatively, those more negative focused on facilities
such as a recreation center/teen center (13%-18%-31%), dog park/skate
park (3%-8%-23%), and playgrounds (3%-5%-15%). There was little difference
in terms of need when comparing improved and same park improvement
ratings. That observation was true relative to the recreation center/teen
center (14%-18%), multi -use trails (15%-187%), indoor pool (11%-7%), and
pools/outdoor/non-specific (9%-8%). Only three respondents graded parks
and recreation as having declined, and their three individual needs were a
recreation center/teen center, basketball/volleyball courts, and
playgrounds.
♦ A recreation center/teen center/gym was the prime choice of respondents
who had visited city parks (17%) , slightly more important than multi -use trails
%rt RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 57
park/aquatic facilities (0%-11%-4%). Parents, especially those with pre -teen
children, were most likely to say the city was lacking a recreation
center/teen center (19%-31 %-21 %, to 9%) . Other child -oriented facilities,
based on responses, were water park/aquatic facilities (6%-10%-15%, to 5%)
and basketball/volleyball courts (13%-0%-9%, to 4%). As children aged,
parents were more likely to say the city lacked multi -use trails (3%-10%-18%),
although it was also the top response among nonparents (18%). The poorer
the value rating between services provided and fees paid, the more often
the facility lacking was a recreation/teen center (7%-1717.-26%) or multi -use
trails (12%-15%-17%). It was those most positive who saw the need for an
indoor pool (14%-12%-0%) and to a lesser extent, basketball/volleyball
courts (7%-6%-2%).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 59
(65%-29%, 2.2:1), and soccer fields (57%-29%, 2.0:1) and fishing ponds
(64%-32%, 2.0:1). .In addition, importance was nearly two times greater
than unimportance for the city constructing gymnasiums (61%-32%, 1.9:1),
exercise stations along trails (59%-34%, 1.7:1), and a dog park (61%-36%,
1.7:1). At the other end of the attitude spectrum were the seven
construction prospects that drew more negative than positive replies,
although there was limited desire: adult softball fields (41 %-48%, 0.9:1),
football fields (42%-47%, 0.9:1), meeting space (43%-46%, 0.9:1), disc golf
course (39%-48%, 0.8:1), BMX bicycle course (42%-50%, 0.8:1), horseshoe
pits (36%-50%, 0.7:1), and in -line hockey rink (35%-53%, 0.7:1). There was
also some interest in the city constructing a skateboard park (47%-46%,
1.0:1), baseball fields (47%-43%, 1.1:1), an amphitheater (50%-43%, 1.2:1),
and outdoor volleyball courts (48%-41%, 1.2:1), although more than two of
every five rated these items unimportant.
• The facility -types that generated the most excitement (very important
ratings) were limited. Only one item scored above 20% and that was the
24% who said it was very important to construct jogging/biking trails. After
trails came natural habitat/nature areas (19%), a senior center (18%),
aquatic facilities, dog park, and children's water playground (each 15%),
playgrounds (14%), and recreation center and fishing ponds (both 13%).
All other items generated less than double-digit intense interest from survey
participants. Conversely, the six facilities that drew the least interest were
an in -line hockey rink and horse shoe pits (both 3%), adult softball fields,
football fields, disc golf course, and BMX bicycle course (each 5%).
Additionally, several items were as likely to be considered very unimportant
as very important. Those were baseball fields (7%-9%), adult softball fields
(5%-7%), youth softball fields (K-6%), football fields (5%-4%), horse shoe pits
(3%-5%), disc golf course (5%-517o), in -line hockey rink (3%-3%), BMX bicycle
course (5%-5%), and skateboard park (6%-5%).
• Even with limited intensity ratings, when comparing the facilities in terms of
ranked intensity ratings and ratios, we note several items in which a
constituency existed above and beyond the community consensus which
pushed particular facilities to the forefront. For example, the community
rated a dog park the 14th most important facility to construct based on its
importance ratio. However, it climbed to 5th in intensity based on its
constituency. Other variances of four positions or more were assigned to
baseball fields (16th in intensity, to 20th in ratio) and an amphitheater (15th,
to 19th). Other items lacked a constituency, but had a reputation which
caused them to be ranked higher by the community. Those items
included outdoor basketball courts (8th in ratio, to 14th in intensity), rental
picnic/reunion pavilions (9th, to 18th), and playgrounds (3rd, to 7th).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 61
TABLE #17: IMPORTANCE OF CONSTRUCTING NEW OR ADDITIONAL
RECREATIONAL FACILITY -TYPES BY SUBSECTOR
,ACTIVITY
AREA t
AREA tl
AREA III
AREA IV
IMPORT
UN
IMPORT
UN
IMPORT
UN
IMPORT
UN
IMPORT
IMPORT
IMPORT
IMPORT
Baseball fields
49%
40%
49%
41%
44%
41%
43%
50%
Adult softball fields
46%
42%
38%
49%
37%
52%
39%
55%
Youth softball fields
51 %
37%
52%
36%
51 %
33%
41%
50%
ISoccerfields57%
32%
57%
25%
587o
26%
58%
32%
courts
53%
35%
39%
42%
56%
26%
43%
45%
(Tennis
Football fields
40%
50%
45%
40%
42%
42%
39%
56%
Outdoor volleyball courts
44%
47%
48%
38%
54%
33%
48%
42%
Outdoor basketball court
60%
28%
61 %
29%
74%
19%
64%
29%
Horse shoe pits
39%
49%
32%
50%
38%
40%
34%
55%
Disc golf courses
43%
44%
35%
46%
36%
50%
36%
55%
Jogging / biking trails
81%
18%
75%
20%
76%
15%
76%
22%
Rental picnic / reunion pavilions
66%
28%
67%
26%
60%
29%
67%
29%
In -line hockey rink
30%
57%
34%
50%
42%
45%
34%
59%
Exercise stations along trails
58%
36%
62%
27%
58%
39%
60%
37%
Racquetball / handball courts
57%
34%
52%
35%
47%
43%
45%
50%
Playgrounds
71%
23%
71%
20%
80%
12%
76%
22%
(Aquatic facilities
70%
26%
74%
16%
80%
16%
68%
27%
Amphitheater
54%
40%
45%
42%
49%
42%
50%
47%
Dog Park
63%
33%
55%
40%
64%
30%
60%
39%
Natural habitat / nature areas
75%
22%
70%
22%
81 %
14%
80%
21 %
Gymnasiums
57%
38%
59%
29%
71%
24%
62%
36%
`Senior center
70%
22%
70%
19%
68%
26%
65%
23%
,Recreation center
67%
26%I
65%
26%
73%
20%
70%
26%
IMeetingspace41%
45%1
46%
39%
41%
51%
45%
50%
,BMX bicycle course
42%
50%
42%
44%
37%
53%
46%
50%
Skateboard park
21 %
51 %
47%
41%
53%
40%
47%
48%
Fishing ponds
64%
32%
60%
31%
71%
25%
58%
39%
Children's water playground
74%
23%
69%
23%
76%
19%
66%
32%
• Importance ratings in Area I varied from 81 % (jogging/biking trails) to 21
(skateboard park), with 18 facility -types attaining majority importance
ratings. Comparatively, 16 of 28 items reached that plateau in Area ll, with
the full range of percentages being 75% (jogging/biking trails) to 32%
(horseshoe pits). In Area III, where a majority of residents rated 18 items
important, levels differed from 81 % (natural habitat/nature areas) to 36%
(disc golf course). With scores ranging from 80% (natural habitat/nature
areas) to 3417o (in -line hockey rink), a majority of Area IV residents
considered 15 of the 28 facilities important to construct in Euless. Three
items in all were rated important to construct by at least seven of every ten
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 63
• Among those items that attained a majority importance rating, prioritization
varied at least four positions relative to outdoor basketball courts (6th in
Area 111, to 11 th in Area 1), rental picnic/reunion pavilions (6th in Area IV, to
12th in Area 111), exercise stations along trails (9th in Area 11, to 14th in Area
111), a dog park (loth in Area I, to 14th in Area 11), gymnasiums (8th in Area III,
to 15th in Area I), senior center (5th in Area 11, to loth in Area 111), a
recreation center (4th in Area IV, to 8th in Area 11), fishing ponds (9th in
Areas 1 and 111, to 14th in Area IV), and children's water playground (3rd in
Area I, to 7th in Area IV). In addition, among those where majority
importance ratings were not achieved citywide, 13 varied in priority by at
least four positions. Residents in Area III assigned the highest importance
ratings either outright or identical to another part of the city to 13 items.
That compared with eight, in Area I, seven in Area 11, and three in Area 1V.
Four of the facility types scored identical ratings in two subsectors.
+ Note that the southern part of the city was most interested in natural
habitat/nature areas, as they ranked this item first, compared to 2nd and
4th elsewhere in the city. Comparatively, a similar trend was evident
relative to the item jogging/biking trails, the number one priority in the north
(both 1st) but only 4th and 2nd in the south. Other elements included
baseball fields being more important in the south, along with outdoor
volleyball courts, outdoor basketball courts, gymnasiums, and a
skateboard park. Of greater importance, in terms of prioritization, to
individuals in the two northern city subsectors were such things as exercise
stations along trails and a senior center.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 65
trails (73%), and playgrounds, aquatic facilities, and a senior center (each
69%) .
• Among the three parental subsets, there were significant differences in
ratings based on the age of one's children. The greatest variance was for
adult softball fields (46% of teenagers, to 25% of pre -teens), but ratings also
varied relative to baseball fields (48% of teenagers, to 34% of pre -teens),
playgrounds (83% of young children, to 69% of teenagers), tennis courts
(59% of young children, to 47% of pre -teens), racquetball/handball courts
(68% of young children, to 56% of teenagers), soccer fields (69% of
teenagers, to 5817o of pre -teens), aquatic facilities (81 % of young children, to
70% of teenagers), gymnasiums (78% of pre -teens, to 67% of teenagers),
children's water playground (83% of young children, to 72% of teenagers),
and fishing ponds (67% of young children and pre -teens, to 57% of
teenagers). Youth softball fields (45%-46%-54%) and horseshoe pits
(29%-36%-37%) grew in importance with parents as children aged,
compared to waning interest in outdoor basketball courts (78%-74%-72%),
racquetball/handball courts (68%-66%-56%), playgrounds (83%-80%-69%),
aquatic facilities (81 %-80%-70%), a dog park (61 %-59%-56%), and children's
water playground (83%-80%-72%) based on a child's age.
• When nonparents were included in the comparisons, additional variances
in importance ratings were prominent. For example, there was at least a
20-point difference regarding the importance of constructing an in -line
hockey rink (48% of parents of pre -teens and teenagers, to 28% of
nonparents), outdoor basketball courts (78% of parents of young children,
to 57% of nonparents), racquetball/handball courts (68% of parents of
young children, to 45% of nonparents), gymnasiums (78% of parents of
pre -teens, to 55% of nonparents), and a skateboard park (61 % of parents of
teenagers, to 41 % of nonparents). Additional facility -types in which levels
varied at least ten points when parents and nonparents were taken into
consideration included soccer fields (69% of parents of teenagers, to 54%
of nonparents), tennis courts (59% of parents of young children, to 46% of
nonparents), football fields (49% of parents of young children, to 38% of
nonparents), outdoor volleyball courts (59% of parents of teenagers, to 43%
of nonparents), playgrounds (83% of parents of young children, to 69% of
nonparents), aquatic facilities (81 % of parents of young children, to 69% of
nonparents), recreation center (78% of parents of pre -teens), to 63% of
nonparents), BMX bicycle course (53% of parents of teenagers, to 39% of
nonparents), and a children's water playground (83% of parents of young
children, to 66% of nonparents). Although percentages were not
significant, nonparents placed a higher importance level than parents on
baseball fields, an amphitheater, and a dog park.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATEs 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 67
mentioned least often by residents were the following six facilities:
gymnasiums and in -line hockey rink (both one person), meeting space
and football fields (both two persons), and sand volleyball courts (three
persons). The recreational diversity of the community was reinforced as 27
of the 28 items were listed as most important by at least one person, with
horseshoe pits being the only facility -type not mentioned. Some of the
lesser -mentioned features, each with 2%, were exercise stations along trails,
rental picnic/reunion pavilions, adult softball fields, outdoor basketball
courts, baseball fields, disc golf course, and soccer fields.
• Jogging/biking trails, the most popular choice, was consistent throughout
the city, as rates varied minimally, from a high of 207o in Area I to 16% in
Area IV. Other facility -types showed a much greater variance in
percentages, in part because people in Area IV were less desirous of
aquatics, specifically the aquatics facilities (6%, to 16%-13%-15%) and
children's water playground (6%, to 15%-11%-15%). Some of the secondary
facility -types which were mentioned more frequently in one part of the city
than the other included a senior center (8% in Areas I and 11, to 3% in Area
I11), dog park (9% in Area 11, to 4% in Area IV), soccer fields (6% in Area IV, to
0% in Area 1), disc golf course (5% in Area 1, to 0% in Area IV), and baseball
fields (6% in Area IV, to I % in Areas I and 111).
• Men prioritized jogging/biking trails (19%), a children's water playground
(I A), and aquatic facilities and recreation center (both 8%), while women
ranked aquatic facilities (19%) ahead of jogging/biking trails (17%),
followed by a dog park (10%), and children's water playground and senior
center (both 9%). Among the top items, men more often said the children's
water playground (16%-9%) and recreation center (8%-4%), compared to
women focusing on the aquatic facilities (19%-8%), senior center (9%-5%),
and dog park (10%-31fo). Those most negative about parks and recreation
quality focused on the importance of constructing a children's water
playground (16%-9%-24%) and to a lesser extent, a dog park (8%-5%-12%)
and recreation center (6%-6%-12%). Conversely, it was those most positive
about parks and recreation quality that prioritized jogging/biking trails
(19%-19%-12%) and aquatic facilities (15%-13%-0%). How one rated quality
had little impact on those who identified the senior center (67.-7%-6%) and
playgrounds (5%-4%-6%) as being most important to construct. Only eight
respondents graded parks and recreation quality as having declined and
their number one choice was a children's water playground (33%-three
respondents). Comparatively, whether one was positive or just assigned a
status quo rating, the most important items to construct were
jogging/biking trails (17%-21%), aquatic facilities (14%-13%), a children's
wafer playground (13%-8%), and a senior center (7%-7%).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 69
(0%-1 %-2%, to 10% of nonparents) or a dog park (0%-4%-2%, to 9%), as
nonparents assigned higher rankings to both. Parents of young and
pre -teen children most frequently mentioned children's water playground
as most important (28%-16%-7%, to 10%), as well as aquatic facilities
(16%-17%-9%, to 12%). Parents of older'children assigned a higher priority to
jogging/biking trails (14%-16%-24%, to 18%) and their importance for being
constructed. The lower the value rating, the more frequently respondents
ranked jogging/biking trails (14%-19%-20%) and a senior center (7%-5%-11 %)
as being the most important facilities to construct. Comparatively, it was
those most positive about the trade-off who focused on the possible
construction of aquatic facilities (15%-14%-817.) and a dog park (9%-6%-4%).
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH BEAUTIFICATION -RELATED STATEMENTS
TABLE #20: OVERALL AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT CITY
BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS
STRONGLY
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
NO
RATIO
(STATEMENT
AGREE
DISAGREE
OPINION
4I am satisfied with how streets and
16%
71%
11%
2%
1%
b.7.i
intersections are landscaped in Euless
I believe the city should plant more trees and
17%
55%
26%
1 %
2%,
2.7.1
landscaping along streets and intersections
I do not believe that landscaping city streets
2%
15%
69%
13%
1 %
0.2:1
and intersections is all that important
it would like to see more public art in Euless
8%
54%
29%
27o
8%
2.0:1
IImproved landscaping of city streets will help
18%1
73%
9%
0%
1 %
10.1:1
to improve our city image
• "Improved landscaping of city streets will help to improve our city image"
(91%-9%, 10.1:1) and "1 am satisfied with how streets and intersections are
landscaped in Euless" (87%-13%, 6.7:1) were the statements regarding city
beautification efforts that captured the highest ratios of agreement to
disagreement from survey participants. Comparatively, the ratio was
lowest for the statement, "I do not believe that landscaping city streets and
intersections is all that important" (17%-82%, 0.2:1), an item they soundly
disputed. The remaining two statements generated twice as much
agreement as disagreement: "I believe the city should plant more trees
and landscaping along streets and intersections" (72%-27%, 2.7:1) and "I
would like to see more public art in Euless" (62%-31 %, 2.0:1). Residents
were most passionate (strongly agree) in their response to three statements
in which levels were similar. Those were the items about improved
landscaping of city streets helping to improve the city image (18%),
believing the city should plant more trees and landscaping along streets
and intersections (17%), and being satisfied with how streets and
MAPt RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 71
• The five statements generated similar agreement throughout the city, as
none of the statements exhibited significant disparities in terms of
agreement ratings. For example, only three points separated the high
(92%) and low (89%) marks for agreeing that improved landscaping will
help to improve city image, and liking to see more public art in Euless
(63%-60%). Additionally, ratings for being satisfied with how streets and
intersections are landscaped differed by only five percent (89%-84%). The
variances, although minor, were most significant relative to believing that
the city should plant more trees and landscaping along streets and
intersections (7817o in Area IV, to 69% in Area II) and not believing that
landscaping city streets and intersections is all that important (21% in Area
111, to 13% in Area IV), as the two differed by nine and eight points,
respectively.
• Area 11 voiced the highest agreement in terms of being satisfied with how
streets and intersections are landscaped and liking to see more public art
in the city. Comparatively, Area I was the most positive area relative to
believing that improved landscaping would help to improve city image.
Note that Area IV was the area in the city most committed to believing that
the city should plant more trees and landscaping along streets and
intersections, as well as being least likely to agree that landscaping city
streets and intersections is not all that important, a contention that
generated more agreement in Area III than anywhere else.
TABLE #22: AGREEMENT WITH BEAUTIFICATION -RELATED STATEMENTS
BY AGE OF RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
STATEMENT
I am satisfied with how streets and
intersections are landscaped in Euless
I believe the city should plant more
trees and landscaping along streets
and intersections
I do not believe that landscaping city
streets and intersections is all that
important
I would like to see more public art in
Euless
Improved landscaping of city streets
will help to improve our city image
NO CHILD
UNDER 6
AGE 6-12
AGE 13-18
DIS
AGREE
DIS
DIS
AGREE
AGREEDIS
AGREE
AGREE
AGREE
AGREE
AGREE I
89%
11%
88%
110/0
78%
21%
80%1
167.
70%
27%
73%
27%
74%
24%
76%
21%
19%
82%
12%
84%
15%
84%
17%
80%
60%
32%
62%
32%
64%
29%
65%
29%
88%
11%
97%
37.
94%
5%
99%
2%
• Ninety percent of parents agreed that improved landscaping of city streets
will help to improve the city's image (97%-94%-99%), while satisfaction with
how streets and intersections are landscaped in the city reached no lower
than a 78% (88%-78%-80%). In third position was believing that the city
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 73
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH TRAIL -RELATED STATEMENTS
TABLE #23: OVERALL AGREEMENT WITH TRAIL -RELATED STATEMENTS
(STRONGLY
AGREE
DISAGREE STRONGLY
NO
RATIO
(STATEMENT
AGREE
1
DISAGREE
OPINION
ITrails are close to where I live
21%
50%
21%
4%
4%
2.8:1
The trails are wide enough to handle multiple
13%
62%
15%
1 %
9%
4.7:1
activities (e.g. walking and cvcIIng)
II feel safe when I am on a trail
12%
69%
9%
1 %
9%
8.1:1
There is convenient parking and access
9%
7617o
7%
1%
8%
10.6:1
Trails connect to places I or my family want to
8%
63%
16%
2%
12%
3.9:1
go
Trails should connect to city sidewalks
10%
70%
13%
0%
7%
6.2:1
{1 support the city widening city sidewalks In
1 1 % I
65%
18%
1%
5%
4.0:1
larder to handle multiple activities
♦ "There is convenient parking and access" (85%-8%, 10.6:1), "1 feel safe
when I am on a trail' (81%-10%, 8.1:1), and "trails should connect to city
sidewalks" (80%-13%, 6.2:1) were the statements regarding city trails that
captured the highest ratios of agreement to disagreement from survey
participants. In addition, agreement was a minimum three times the level
of disagreement relative to the statements, "trails are wide enough to
handle multiple activities" (75%-16%, 4.7:1), "1 support the city widening city
sidewalks in order to handle multiple activities" (76%-19%, 4.0:1), and "trails
connect to places I or my family want to go" (71%-18%, 3.9:1). The
statement -that secured the lowest ratio of agreement to disagreement was
"trails are close to where I live" (71%-25%, 2.8:1).
♦ Intense positive ratings (strongly agree) were highest for "trails are close to
where i live" (21 %), which was interesting since it was the lowest rated item
in terms of its community agreement rating. This result would indicate the
presence of a subset of respondents very knowledgeable about this issue,
although it was in contrast with the general perception of the community.
Conversely, near the bottom of the intensify ratings was "there is convenient
parking and access" (917o), which was the fop rated item from the
standpoint of its ratio. This disparity suggests that the reputation of this
statement holds true throughout the community, although few were totally
convinced of this notion. Grouped together were rates of 13% (trails are
wide enough), 12% (feel safe on trail), 11 % (support city widening
sidewalks), and 10% (trails should connect). Note that the consensus in
most cases did not match the intensify ratings set by respondents in terms of
the two ranked findings. For example, the second highest rated statement
in terms of intensity, trails are wide enough, was fourth in terms of the
agreement ratio.
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 75
(89%-78%-751Y,68%) by 21 %, feeling safe when on a trail (89%-78%-8217o-70%),
dropping 19%, and supporting the city widening city sidewalks
(78%-7817,75%-67%), diminishing by only 11%. The only statement in which
findings did not decline by more than 10% was relative to the convenient
parking and access statement (86%-86%-8217,80%), indicating that although
residents in Area IV feel deprived relative to trails, there is convenient
parking for those they do use.
• As agreement declined, disagreement increased. The increases were most
significant relative to trails being close to where people live
(4%-21 %-48%-54%), trails connect to places i or my family want to go
(10%-17%-25%-28%), and trails should connect to city sidewalks
(8%-11%-20%-22%). Several statements were influenced by higher no
opinion responses in certain areas of the city. For example, while
agreement with the statement about feeling safe on a trail declined 19%,
disagreement varied by only seven points. And also note that Area I was
not only most positive about there being convenient parking and access,
but also most apt to dispute this statement, at 11 %, compared to 4%, 8%,
and 7% elsewhere. Another item in which disagreement ratings varied
minimally was for supporting the city widening city sidewalks, from a low of
18% in Areas i and 11., to 24% in Area iV.
TABLE #25: AGREEMENT WITH TRAIL -RELATED STATEMENTS BY AGE OF
RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
(STATEMENT NO CHILD UNDER 6 AGE 6-12 AGE 13-18
AGREE DIS AGREE DIS AGREE DIS AGREE DIS
AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE
Trails are close to where I live 70% 25% 73% 27% 76% 22% 70% 26%
The trails are wide enough to handle
multiple activities (e.g. walking and 75% 15% 73% 22% 75% 19% 77% 16%
cvcling)
11 feel safe when I am on a trail 80% 10% 84% 8% 87% 5% 81 % 1 1 %
(There is convenient parking and access 84% 8% 92% 5% 83% 12% 79% 11%
(Trails connect to places I or my family 69% 19% 78% 16% 69% 19% 68% 18%
want to go
ITralls should connect to city sidewalks 77% 14% 79% 17% 827o 137o 85% 7%
ll support the city widening city sidewalks 72% 23% 81 % 14% 79% 14% 77% 16%
in order to handle multiple activities
• Six of the seven statements tested attained a minimum 70% agreement
from all parental and nonparental subsets. They were at least 80%
agreeable to feeling safe when on a trail (84%-87%-81%, to 80%), and with
the exception of parents of teenage children, that there is convenient
parking and access (92%-83%-79%, to 84%). Additionally, excluding parents
of young children and nonparents, 80% or better agreed with the thought
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 77
PREFERRED LOCATIONS OR DESTINATIONS FOR TRAILS IN EULESS
City parks
f.
I
To neighborhoods
I
Colose to house j I.❑
Trails from other cities kl
I i
To schools I j
i I
Utility ROW
Main thoroughfares
I I
To churches I. -.: •,
hA..:
I I
To shopping
0 20 40 60 80 100
10 30 50 70 90
❑ Area l
El Area It
,. Area III
■ Area IV
Figure 4: Preferred Location For Trails To Be Connected By Subsector
City parks (88), connecting to neighborhoods (8517o), close to my house
(77%), and connecting to trails from other cities (76%) were the most
popular locations or destinations to which residents would like to see
additional hike and bike trails connected, if developed in Euless. There
was also significant interest in having trails connected to schools (68%) and
along utility right-of-way (53176). from the list of nine destinations, where
most people did not want trails was along main thoroughfares (42%), to
churches (39%), or to shopping (36%).
%t RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 79
a lesser degree, to schools (69%-64%). Individuals who utilized hike and
bike trails were less hesitant than nonusers to prefer trails in nearly every
location. The variances were most significant relative to locating trails
connecting to trails from other cities (82%-68%) and along utility
right-of-way (58%-46%). The differences in preferences were less relative to
having trails in city parks (92%-81 %), connecting to neighborhoods
(87%-81 %), close to home (81 %-72%), and to schools (71 %-64%), although
the highest rates came from trail users and not nonusers. People who
participated in parks and recreation classes were also more likely than
nonparticipants to want trails connected to the various destinations,
although the variance in percentages was less than seven percent in each
instance. The same was true when comparing the ratings of pool users
and nonusers and youth athletic league participants, with the exception of
along main thoroughfares, a location more acceptable to people who did
participate in a youth athletic league. Survey participants who agreed
with the statement about one's willingness to pay to see the quality of parks
upgraded were more open than those who did not to trails close to their
house (82%-69%) and along main thoroughfares (45%-32%). Other locations
were more frequently mentioned by those who agreed with the statement,
although the variance in percentages was minor.
• The only destination among the top six in which tenure in the community
influenced a response was close to their home (80%-79%-73%), a more
popular choice with newer inhabitants. Attitudes were similar in terms of
locating trails in city parks (89%-89%-86%), connecting to neighborhoods
(82%-90%-83%), trails from other cities (78%-77%-73%), to schools
(64%-75%-67%), or along utility right-of-way (48%-61%-53%). The oldest
portion of the sample was least likely to prefer trails located close to their
home (82%-78%-75%), although the rate was still better than three of four,
no matter one's age. Older people were also less likely to prefer trails
connecting to neighborhoods (88%-85%-83%) or to schools (76%-68%-67%).
However, where they were significantly more likely to desire trails was
along utility right-of-way (39%-50%-637o). Age had minimal influence on
preferring trail connectivity in city parks (88%-89%-87%) or to trails from other
cities (75%-78%-76%). Parents were more likely than nonparents to prefer
trails connect to neighborhoods (90%-87%-86%, to 83%) and close to home
(88%-82%-81 %, to 75%). At the some time, along utility right-of-way (58%, to
46%-39%-47%) was the favored connection point of nonparents. Note that
parents were more attuned to connecting future trails to neighborhoods
(90%-87%-86%) rather than city parks (90%-84%-84%), although the variance
between the two was minimal. Nonparents rated city parks ahead of
neighborhoods (88%-83%). No matter how positive or negative one was in
terms of the value rating for services provided versus fees paid, the most
popular destinations were in city parks (89%-88%-87%) or connecting to
%rt RAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 81
0
♦ In terms of opposition, the highest levels were 36% for the dog park,
followed by 22% for the aquatic park and 18% for the additional recreation
center.
TABLE #27: SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS BEING FUNDED BY THE
CITY BY SUBSECTOR
(PROJECT AREA 1 AREA II AREA III AREA IV
SUPPORT OPPOSE SUPPORT,OPPOSE SUPPORT OPPOSE SUPPORT OPPOSE
Renovate/redevelop neighborhood 93% 5% 89% 7% 90% 6% 93% 7%
Parks
Construct an additional recreation 73% 20% 81 % 16% 74% 18% 81 % 17%
center
(Construct an aquatic park 77% 20% 71% 24% 76% 19% 71% 26%
(Construct a dog park 69% 28% 57% 38% 57% 41 % 57% 43%
IRenovate/reconstruct an additional 77% 13% 81% 11% 77% 15% 87% 11%
senior center
(Expand the city's trail system 89% 10% 87% I 12% 88% 7% 92% 6%
♦ Between 87% and 93% of residents citywide supported the city funding the
renovation/redevelopment of neighborhood parks (93%-89%-90%-93%) and
expanding the city's trail system (89%-87%-88%-92%). Note that although the
neighborhood park projects were most popular, both facilities were nearly
interchangeable, as the variance in rates in the various subsectors was no
more than the four percent in Area 1 (93%-89%). Areas 11 and IV were more
supportive_ than Areas I and III of the additional recreation center (81 % and
81 %, to 73% and 74%) as well as the additional senior center (81 % and 87%,
to 77% and 77%). At the same time, the aquatic park, which was
consistently popular throughout the city, generated more support in Areas I
and Ill (77% and 76%) than Areas II and IV (71% and 71%), the opposite of
the two previous projects. And the dog park, the least popular facility in
terms of support, was more likely to be endorsed in Area 1 (69%) than
elsewhere in the city (each 57%).
♦ Area IV gave the highest support to four of the seven projects listed:
renovating/redeveloping neighborhood parks; constructing an additional
recreation center; renovating/reconstructing an additional senior center;
and expanding the city's trail system. Note that the neighborhood parks
project was also most popular in Area 1, as levels were identical. Area I was
most supportive of the aquatic park and dog park. Area II respondents
gave the highest support for constructing an additional recreation center,
with a percentage that was identical to that in Area II. In terms of
opposition, the most significant variances focused on the dog park, a
project that drew most of its opposition from Area IV (43%, to 28% in Area 1).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 83
SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL AQUATIC FACILITIES
TABLE #29: OVERALL SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL AQUATIC FACILITIES
{FACILITY OPTION
STRONGLY
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
STRONGLY
NO
POS TO
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
OPINION
NEG RATIO
(Single outdoor aquatic facility, which
18%
56%
20%
4%
3%
3.1:1
(would include several water features
Large family aquatic facility, which
25%
56%
14%
20/a
2%
5.1:1
would include both pools and children's
spray areas
An Indoor aquatic facility
26%
46%
23%
4%
3%
1.6:1
Several smaller neighborhood pools, but
6%
46%
34%
6%
4%
1.2:1
with fewer amenities
Not constructing any further aquatic
3%
14%
66%
14%
4%
0.2:1
facilities in the city
♦ A large family aquatic facility, which would include both pools and
children's spray play areas (81%-16%, 5.1:1) was the aquatic facility option
tested that secured the most support from survey participants for meeting
the needs of aquatic programming in the city, although significant
percentages also endorsed the single outdoor aquatic facility, which would
include several water features (74%-24%, 3.1:1). Also popular, but with
varying degrees of opposition, were an indoor aquatic facility (72%-27%,
2.7:1) and several smaller neighborhood pools (52%-45%, 1.2:1). What was
not popularly supported was the fifth option tested, not constructing
additional aquatic facilities (17%-80%, 0.2:1) .
♦ Survey participants were most enthusiastic about the indoor aquatic facility
(26%) and the large family aquatic facility (25%). There was also some
intense interest in the single outdoor aquatic facility (18%), although less
than the two more popular options. There was little enthusiasm for several
smaller neighborhood pools (6%), as the only instance in which strong
support was lower was for the option not constructing any further aquatic
facilities (3%). The indoor aquatic facility possessed a committed
constituency above and beyond its community consensus, as it scored the
highest intensity ratings (26%) while ranking third of four in terms of its ratio.
Conversely, the neighborhood pool concept ranked last in both intensity
ratings as well as its community consensus ratio.
♦ At least one of every four sampled opposed three of the four aquatic
options, those being the smaller neighborhood pools (45%), the indoor
aquatic facility (27%), and the single outdoor facility (24%). The only option
more likely to be opposed was not constructing any further aquatic
facilities in the city, an item opposed by four of five survey participants
(80%).
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 85
TABLE #31: SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL AQUATIC FACILITIES
BY AGE OF RESPONDENT'S CHILDREN
FACILITY OPTION
NO CHILD UNDER 6 AGE 6-12 I
AGE 13.18
'
SUPPORT OPPOSE SUPPORT OPPOSE SUPPORT OPPOSE
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
Single outdoor aquatic facility, which
66% 30%, 88% 10% 88% 11 %
79%
20%
would include several water features
family aquatic facility, which
76% 20% 95% 5% 95% 6%
85%
16%
ILarge
would Include both pools and
children's snrav areas
I An indoor aquatic facility
69% 27% 77% 22% 71 % 27%
73%
27%
smaller neighborhood pools,
49% 47% 54% 44% 49% 50%
56%
44%
(Several
but with fewer amenities
11
1Not constructing any further aquatic
I 18% 79% 10%) 85%13% 84%
11%
82%
facilities in the city
♦ The number one and two most popularly supported aquatic options to
parents were the large family aquatic facility, which generated between
85% (teenagers) and 95% (young children and pre -teens) support, followed
by the single outdoor aquatic facility, which scored ratings of either 88%
(young children and pre -teens) or 79% (teenagers). Note that parents of
teenagers were least supportive of both options. However, the three
parent subsets were each more supportive of the two options then
nonparents, as the two generated 76% and 66% support. Parents were also
more supportive than nonparents of the indoor aquatic facility
(77%-71 %-73%, to 69%), although it is noteworthy that the indoor aquatic
facility was more popular to nonparents than the single outdoor facility.
This was not the case with parents. Nonparents were 49% supportive of the
neighborhood pool concept, compared to 47% opposed. Parents of
young children (54%-44%) and teenagers (56%-44%) were more definitive in
their support for this option, while those with pre -teens (49%-50%) were one
percent more likely to oppose this option. Finally, nonparents were the
subset most supportive of not constructing anything (18%, to 10%-13%-11%),
although that level was less than one in five.
♦ Parents of children under 6 were most intense in their support of new
aquatic facilities, reporting the highest support ratings for three of the four
potential projects, while parents of children ages 6-12 tied for the highest
support on two of those items: the single outdoor aquatic facility and the
large family aquatic facility. Parents of teenagers reported the highest
support for several smaller neighborhood pools.
♦ Only one item varied relative to support among parents and that was for
the large family aquatic facility, already noted as less popular among
parents of teenagers than others. And in comparing the opinions of
parents and nonparents, support varied most between the two entities
relative to the single outdoor aquatic facility (66%, to 88% of parents of
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 87
(13%-9%), and IV (17%-11%). Not constructing anything was more popular in
Areas II and IV (14% and 13%) than elsewhere (6% and 9%). Additionally, in
Areas II, not constructing anything was a more popular position than either
the outdoor aquatic facility or neighborhood pool. In Areas III and IV, not
constructing anything was the fourth most popular option, being assigned
higher percentages than neighborhood pools.
♦ Men and women assigned identicai percentages of 40% to the family
aquatic facility, making it their top choice. In both instances, the indoor
aquatic facility ranked second, although it was more popular with female
survey participants (32%-21%). And neighborhood pools drew more interest
from male respondents (13%-5%). The final two options, outdoor aquatic
facility (13%-11 %) and not constructing anything (12%-8%) were both more
frequent choices of men rather than women, although both ranked below
the more popular options. The family aquatic facility selection grew in
importance as dissatisfaction with parks and recreation increased, to the
point where over half of the respondents dissatisfied preferred that choice
(39%-40%-53%). Percentages fluctuated relative to the second choice, as it
appeared that satisfaction did not influence this choice to the same
degree as the first selection (30%-24%-3517o). One choice that did correlate
was the outdoor aquatic facility (13%-11 %-6%), a selection most popular
with people very satisfied with parks and recreation. When comparing
improved and same ratings, there was only minimal variances in the
primary selections of the family aquatic facility (39%-41%) or indoor aquatic
facility (29%-25%). Interestingly, those who assigned a status quo rating to
the direction of parks and recreation improvements more often preferred
not constructing anything (7%-16%), to the point that they chose this option
ahead of the outdoor aquatic facility (13%-9%) or neighborhood pools
(10%-6%), something that those believing quality had improved did not do.
♦ The family aquatic facility was the number one choice, followed -by the
indoor aquatic facility, whether or not respondents had participated or
utilized the different facilities or chose to not participate. The range of
percentages in terms of the family aquatic facility was 48% (youth athletic
league participant) to 38% (non pool utilizer and non youth athletic league
participant). In fact, when comparing those who did or did not utilize a
particular variable, the difference in levels was most significant in terms of
youth athletic league participants (48%-387o). All others were five percent
or less. Residents who visited city parks (28%-16%) or participated in parks
and recreation classes (36%-23%) clearly preferred the indoor aquatic
facility over those who chose to not visit or not participate. It should also be
stated that people who participated in parks and recreation classes were
the subset with the most narrow margin in terms of preferring the family
aquatic facility over the indoor aquatic facility (43%-36%), with all others
rtRAYMOND TURCO and ASSOCIATES 2007 Euless Parks and Recreation Survey Report Page 89
PROJECT 12012006 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES DECEMBER 2006
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH RAYMAR RESEARCH.- WE ARE NOT A DIRECT
MARKING FIRM AND THIS IS NOT A SALES CALL. OUR FIRM IS CONDUCTING A SURVEY
ON PARKS AND RECREATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY. MY QUESTIONS SHOULD -ONLY TAKE
ABOUT 10 MINUTES, AND YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL. WOULD YOU CARE
TO PARTICIPATE?
AREA AREA I . . . . . . . 3 5 %
AREA I . . . . . . 2 9 %
AREA III . . . . . . 19'-.
AREA IV . . . . . . 18%
SEX
MALE . . . . . . . . 51%
FEMALE . . . . . . . 49%
1. FIRST, HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE QUALITY OF PARKS AND
RECREATION IN EULESS?
2. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE.CITY?
VERY SATISFIED . . .
38%
SATISFIED . . . . .
56%
DISSATISFIED . . . .
. 4%
VERY DISSATISFIED
1%
NO OPINION . . . . .
. 2%
UNDER I YEAR . . .
. . 4%
1 - 3 YEARS . . .
. 18%
4 - 7 YEARS . . .
. 18%
8 - 10 YEARS . . .
. 13%
11 - 20 YEARS . .
. 17%
OVER 20 YEARS . .
. 30%
REFUSE TO ANSWER .
. . 0%
3. IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, DO YOU FEEL THAT THE QUALITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION
IN THE CITY HAS IMPROVED, STAYED ABOUT THE SAME, OR DECLINED?
IMPROVED . . . . . . 63%
SAME . . . . . . . . 31%
DECLINED . . . . . . . 2%
NO OPINION . . . . . . 4%
VI'-.....
I
U
VU.:.
NO
R)
AMPHITHEATER.. _
8 0
42 %
41 %.
2 0
;,,: S;.G:...P1�'T:,;f
DO<<r`;:'•
6a18a::..�...,^
5 .;...., .
NATURA'HABITAT /NATURE..AREAS
1
,570T)
Q,;:.'..
%d-
,_
oL
U)
GYMNASIUMS
9%
52%
30%
2%
70
V)
SENIOR CENTER
18%
51%
21%
2%
9%
W)
RECREATION CENTER
13%
56%
23%
2%
696-
X)
MEETING SPACE
6%
37 %
43 %
3%
11%
Y)
BMX BICYCLE COURSE
.5%.
37%
45%
5%
9%
Z)
SKATEBOARD PARK
60
410
410
5%
8%
AA)
FISHING PONDS
13%
51%
29%
3%
5%
AB)
CHILDREN'S WATER PLAYGROUND
15%
57%
21%
3%
5%
8. FROM THE LIST I JUST READ, WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT
RECREATIONAL FACILITY TO CONSTRUCT?
Jogging - biking trails (18%), aquatic facilities (13%), children's water
playground (12%), senior center ( 7 0 ) , dog park (6%), recreation center (6%)
9. USING A SCALE OF EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR OR POOR,
IMPRESSIONS YOU MAY HAVE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE EULESS
E
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
G)
H)
I)
J)
K)
L)
M)
N)
O)
P)
Q)
a
S)
T)
if
V)
W)
X)
Y)
Z)
AA)
THE NUMBER OF PARKS IN THE CITY 36%
HAVING PARKS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED FOR 31%
PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY PARKS
THE OVERALL SAFETY OF CITY PARKS
THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY PARKS
THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ART IN PARKS
THE VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
WITHIN PARKS
THE NUMBER OF ATHLETIC FIELDS IN THE CITY
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS
THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS
THE NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL POOLS IN THE CITY
HAVING CITY POOLS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED
FOR PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY POOLS
THE OVERALL SAFETY OF CITY POOLS
THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY POOLS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE SENIOR CENTER
THE VARIETY OF CLASSES AND PROGRAMS OFFERED
BY THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF PARKS & RECREATION
CLASSES AND PROGRAMS
THE AMOUNT OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS IN CITY
HAVING HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS CONVENIENTLY
LOCATED FOR PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS
IN THE CITY
THE OVERALL OUALITY OF PLAYGROUNDS IN CITY
THE NUMBER OF CITY TENNIS COURTS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY TENNIS COURTS
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE RECREATION CENTER
THE VARIETY OF AMENITIES AT THE REC CENTER
THE AMOUNT OF ACCESSIBLE NATURAL AREAS
AND BASED
IN TERMS
OF
G
F
510
11%
520
120
ON WHATEVER
P NO
2% 1%
2% 3%
33%
570
9%
0%
to
27%
58%
11%
2%
3%
30%
56%
11%
1%
20
5%
32%
24%
19%
20%
13%
52%
24%
6%
7%
15%
52%
17%
4%
13%
14%
630
100
1%
13%
16%
610
8%
1%
14%
5%
39%
30%
130
14%
5%
14%
28%
12%
15%
8%
43%
17%
6%
27%
9%
50%'
10%
2%
29%
8%
47%
14%
2%
29%
8%
29%
9%
3%
52%
23%
50%
12%
20
14%
17%
500
12%
20
20%
15%
47%
21%
60
12%
13%
44%
23%
9%
12%
20%
54%
13%
3%
11%
14%
63 %
10 %
2=
1 1 =
4%
30%
22%
6%
39%
4%
35%
18%
3%
41%
19%
54%
11%
2%
15%
17%
50%
14%
2%
17%
13%
48%
22%
60
11%
14 .
HOW. 'STRONGLY WOULD :YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS BEING
FUNDED. ..
BY
THE_ CI.TY IN THE .NEXT. FIVE TO TEN YEARS
A') "RENOVA'.TE
AND REDEVELOP ''NEIGHBORHOOD" 'PARKS
2 6 %
6'6 0 `
"5 %
1 %
2 0..
B)
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL RECREATION CENTER
18%
59%
17%
1%
5%
C)
CONSTRUCT AN AQUATIC PARK
20%
54%
19%
3%
46
D)
CONSTRUCTION OF A DOG PARK
15%
47%
31%
5%
3%
E)
RENOVATE AND/OR CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL SENIOR
15%
65%
11%
2%
8%
CENTER
F)
EXPAND THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM
230
66%
8%
1%
3%
15. IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF AQUATIC PROGRAMMING IN THE CITY, ADDITIONAL
FACILITIES MAY BE REQUIRED. SEVERAL TYPES ARE BEING STUDIED. AS I READ EACH
OPTION, PLEASE TELL ME THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT YOU WOULD GIVE TO EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING FACILITY OPTIONS . . . .
SS
S
0
SO
NO
A)
A SINGLE OUTDOOR AQUATIC FACILITY,
18%
56%
20%
4%
3%
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SEVERAL WATER
FEATURES
B)
A LARGE FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY,
25%
56%
14%
2%
2%
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BOTH POOLS AND
CHILDREN'S SPRAY PLAY AREAS
C)
AN INDOOR AQUATIC FACILITY
26%
46%
23%
4%
3%
D)
SEVERAL SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD
6%
46%
39%
60
4%
POOLS, BUT WITH FEWER AMENITIES
E)
NOT CONSTRUCTING ANY FURTHER AQUATIC
3%
14%
66%
14%
4%
FACILITIES IN THE CITY
16. OF THE FIVE OPTIONS I JUST READ, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR NUMBER ONE PREFERRED
FACILITY, SHOULD THE CITY DECIDE TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL AQUATICS IN THE CITY?
OUTDOOR AQUATIC FAC. 12%
FAMILY AQUATIC FAC 40%
INDOOR AQUATIC FAC 27
NEIGHBORHOOD POOLS 9%
NOT CONSTRUCTING ANY 10%
NO OPINION . . . . . . 3%
17.
I'M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF STATEMENTS.
PLEASE
TELL ME
HOW
STRONGLY
YOU
AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH . . . .
SA
A
D
SD
NO
A)
I'M SATISFIED WITH THE RECREATIONAL
17%
69%
11%
1%
2%
FACILITIES IN EULESS
B)
I AM WILLING TO PAY ADDITIONAL CITY TAXES
6%
59%
24%
6%
5%
TO SEE THE QUALITY OF PARKS UPGRADED
C)
THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE
5%
58%
350
2%
2%
D)
THE CITY SHOULD IMPROVE.THE EXISTING
5%
40%
48%
2%
6%
PARKS AND NOT DEVELOP ANY NEW ONES
E)
I HAVE ADEQUATE AVENUES TO VOICE MY
8%
43%
11%
1%
8%
CONCERNS ABOUT RECREATION IN EULESS
F)
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT
5%
67%
26%
1%
2%
LANDSCAPING IN CITY MEDIANS AND
INTERSECTIONS
G)
NATURAL AREAS ARE IMPORTANT AND SHOULD
26%
70%
2%
1°
2%
BE PRESERVED WHERE IT IS AVAILABLE