#2

BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS

PUBLIC HEARING
PARK FACILITIES STUDY

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998
7:00 P.M.


Present:	June Bailey, Lucy Burtnett, Bob Martz, M.S. Mitchell, William Sanders

Absent:	Pat Consolver and Leon Robinson

Also Present:	Ron Vine, Consultant, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff; Chris Tatham, Management 	
	Consultant, ETC Institute; Ray Ontiveros, Wichita-Sedgwick County 		
	Metropolitan Area Planning Department; and Ron Hayworth, Vince Kendrick, 	
	Tim Martz, Janice McKinney and Maryann Crockett (staff)


President Burtnett called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.  She welcomed 
members of the public and thanked them for attending the hearing.  She introduced Ron Vine, 
Consultant, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff.  She explained the Mr. Vine would give a brief presentation, 
followed by public comment, discussion and a question and answer period.     

Mr. Vine gave a brief overview of the facility study process stating that it was a four step process 
consisting of public input, audit, analysis and implementation.  He said the entire process was 
“people driven”.  He made several comments relative to demographics, bench marking, financing, 
on-site facility inspection, programs, partnerships and citizen involvement and input.  

Vine introduced Chris Tatham, Management Consultant, ETC Institute, who spoke briefly about 
the citizen survey to be conducted as part of the facility study.  He said the survey was designed 
by Council District and would measure citizen opinions about such items as partnerships, 
financing, park facilities and programs,  most important unmet park program needs, capital 
funding, operating costs to maintain parks and recreation facilities, development priorities, where 
new park facilities should be developed/located and what elected leaders and citizens would 
support in the way of park facilities and programs.        

The following individuals spoke regarding various park programs, facilities and other related park 
matters:

	1.	Gene Reed, 1446 Smith - expressed concern about the standing water in Orchard 
Park and said he felt it was a health hazard. 
	2.	Chris Thompson, 4910 W. Memory Lane - commented that there was a mosquito

problem at Orchard Park because of the standing water.  She also mentioned that the 
neighborhood would like to see the construction of outdoor shelters, the addition of picnic 
tables, additional lighting, replacement of the snow fences, expanded pool hours and 
construction of a roller blading area.  She added that she and others would be willing to 
volunteer as “hall monitors” at the recreation center to help provide better control over the 
children in the halls, who she said were roller blading inside the center.   
	3.	Wayne Templeton, 739 N. Elder, President, Orchard Park Neighborhood Assoc. - 
requested that the Park Department consider installing additional lighting at the west end of the 
parking lot at Orchard Park.  He said he had been informed that Orchard park was a “non-
picnicking park” and requested clarification of that term.  He also expressed concern regarding 
what he felt was poor supervision of the children at the recreation center and mentioned children 
pan handling and roller blading in the halls. He concluded by requesting that center staff provide 
more activities for the young people at the center.
	4.	Dorothy Templeton, 739 N. Elder - requested that additional lighting be provided 
at the west and northwest exit areas of the parking lot at Orchard Park; that the Library provide a 
book drop box; that the glass and debris be removed from the playground area on a regular basis; 
and that pool hours of operation be expanded to be more user friendly for those adults who 
worked. 
	5.	Dana Giggy, 1017 N. Doris - mentioned the following items relative to Orchard 
Park: installation of proper lighting; installation of gates at the parking area; the location of the 
children’s play area on a dead end street; standing water in the park; class cancellations because 
they were not “self supporting”; lack of picnic areas in the park and that the park was not very 
“user friendly”.
	6.	Larry Bush, 907 E. Mona Circle, Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 
Council 4 - commented about park inadequacies in the south part of Wichita.  He stated that the 
people in his neighborhood were not affluent enough, but at the same time they were not poor 
enough nor minority enough to qualify for Community Development Block Grant funding and 
other programs.  He commented on several south Wichita parks including South Lakes, stating 
that development of that park had been scaled back considerably from what was originally 
designed.  He also mentioned Emery Park and Watson Park and commented that his children 
would have to cross several major arterials in order to go to those parks.    
	7.	Larry Henry, 4409 W. Henn - thanked the Board for listening to citizen concerns.
	8.	Trina Heath - spoke about the “3rd Street Project” and requested the following 
items: better lighting, benches/seating and a concrete pathway.  She commented that the 
neighborhood would be willing to assist with development of the area and provide “sweat equity” 
and that they were interested in the matching playground fund program as well as the addition of 
crossings/bridges.  She said the project as designed had literally cut the neighborhood in half and 
was not very user friendly.
	9.	Bill Fox, President of Wichita Independent Neighborhoods (WIN) and Riverside 
Citizens Association (RCA) - commented that the issue was money and that he felt the Park 
Department needed to get a commitment from the City to maintain and keep up the facilities it 
had now.
	10.	David Pendergraft, 3019 E. 2nd, President, Uptown Neighborhood Assoc. - spoke 
regarding the “3rd Street Project” and made the following comments.  He said the area needed 
pathways and he also suggested acquiring empty homes in the area to add acreage/play areas to 
the project, so it was not so narrow and linear.
	11.	David Franks, 3001 E. 2nd, Uptown Neighborhood Assoc. - spoke regarding the 
“3rd Street Project” stating that the neighborhood had been promised a park and now they had an 
open drainage ditch.  He suggested that the City acquire additional properties in the area to add to 
the project.  He also requested that lighting be added, that CDBG funding be set aside for 
improvements and requested the Park Department’s help with development of the area.  He 
concluded by expressing concern about the public hearing notification process.     
	12.	Mike _______, Uptown Neighborhood Assoc. - commented that he felt the City 
should be more proactive regarding land that can be used for more than one purpose such as the 
“3rd Street Project”.  He said he believes the City has committed itself to developing 
neighborhood parks over the years, and that developing the “3rd Street Project” into a park area 
would be a good opportunity to use the land to its fullest extent.  
	13.	Jim Dolenz, 405 N. Chautauqua, Uptown Neighborhood Assoc. - said that 
although the “3rd Street Project” was originally a Public Works project, he would like to see the 
area maintained by the Park Department and developed into a linear greenway/corridor, with at 
least two (2) crossings/bridges.  He concluded by mentioning his concern about the safety of 
children crossing the open ditch. 
	14.	Judy Williamson, 2401 N. Doris - commented that the residents in the vicinity of 
Kiwanis Park have established a “Park Watch” program that has been very successful in cutting 
down on vandalism and other activities.  She said she felt that Kiwanis Park needed more “teen 
friendly” equipment and that the Park Board needed to make the public more aware of park 
programs and facilities such as the matching playground equipment program and others.  She 
added that she felt police officers should also be more aware of park rules, hours, etc,
	15.	Lois Ann Newman, 2112 S. Topeka, President, South Central Progressive 
Association (SCPA) - made several comments regarding Lincoln Park stating that the park 
contained a national land mark which was Fire Station #6; that the neighborhood was 
disappointed about the pool closing; that the park needed additional lighting, especially at the 
tennis courts, which were very busy.  She requested the consultant’s definition of the term 
“partnership” and reminded board members of a proposal the SCPA made in 1993 for a 
convention/tourism park at Broadway and Topeka.  She also requested that frisbee golf be 
removed from Herman Hill Park.  She concluded by mentioning that although the City advertised 
on Cable Channel 7, many people do not have cable television, and that may be why people do 
not always find out about meetings and other City programs.  
	16.	Gary Hasting

 - spoke regarding the “3rd Street project” stating that he liked what had been done so far, 
but wanted the City to go a little further with additional improvements such as lighting, 
benches and connecting bridges along the ditch.
	17.	Eva Commer, 337 Everett - commented on an idea for a park on a plot of land 
north of the Bypass and Meridian.
	18.	Larry Ross, OZ Bicycle Club - commented on several items including the 
following: closure of the bike path from 2nd Street north to Central by the Science Center; the 
dangerous and unsafe conditions of the bike path on the east side of the river by Veterans 
Memorial park; that the Bike Plan was part of the Comprehensive Plan and should be reviewed on 
an annual basis; the lack of notice of this public hearing; development of the “Big Ditch” as a 
recreational corridor; opening up Pawnee Prairie Park to bicyclists; and that although the “3rd 
Street Project” was a Public Works project, he felt the Park Board needed to take a more active 
approach to park and recreation open space needs.  
	19.	Deanna Wheeler, 1331 N. Westlink, Metropolitan Area Planning Commission 
(MAPC) - spoke in support of the following issues: multi-use facilities; wider walking paths; 
additional park lighting; and seating areas or benches at park pools.

Several general questions were asked regarding the survey document, comparing Wichita with 
other cities, contacting additional park and open space organizations that may be interested in 
participating in the study, and advertising public hearings/meetings.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

								Park Board Public Hearing 2/3/98
								Park Board Public Hearing 2/3/98