#5
BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS

SPECIAL MEETING

Monday, March 15, 1999

Present:	June Bailey, Bob Martz, M.S. Mitchell, Leon Robinson

Absent:	 Lucy Burtnett, Pat Consolver and William Sanders

Also Present:	Tim Martz, Janice McKinney, and Maryann Crockett (Staff)

AGENDA

Approval of the Final Park Consultant Facility Report.  The Board reviewed the report noting 
typographical errors and the deletion of duplicate information.  Board members also expressed 
concern and requested clarification on specific information as noted below:

•	inclusion of an executive summary
•	page 2-12 under key values - correct the statement “Build [on] developing a sense of 
community”
•	page 3-1 under Methodology - additional wording to clarify the statement concerning 
Phone surveys.  “Phone surveys were conducted to ensure that the final sample had at least [a 
sum of] 114 completed responses from each of the six districts [between the two methods].
•	page l (Appendix A) under Section III - Community Survey - add questions 1 and 2.  
Also, under [other parks and open spaces] mentioned by less than 2%, clarify that these may not 
necessarily be City parks.
•	drop the page numbers (i.e., 3-1, 3-2) under Appendix A in Section III - Community 
Survey to eliminate confusing page numbers in this section
•	page 3-3 under Community Recreation Center Use - correct one-third (68%) to [two-
thirds]. Also, under the same section 45% + 22% + 19% = 86%.  Add statement about 14% (to 
equal 100%).
•	make sure page numbers show on the Benchmarking Survey Data under Comparative 
Communities and that they are readable.
•	eliminate reference ro Maintained Acres, Golf Course Acres, Cemetery Acres and 
Maintained Park Acres under Benchmarking Survey Data.
•	how did you come up with cost per day on baseball diamonds (lighted), softball 
diamonds (lighted) and cost per hour on outdoor pools?  What is the purpose of this 
“comparative” data ?
•	pages V-1 through 1, 2, and 3, insert narrative or preface on how Board came up 
with their recommendations on various facilities, including visiting each site, elimination of some 
consultant recommendations, etc.  Insert statement that these are Board recommendations as 
opposed to pages 4 and 5 which are the consultant recommendations based on NRPA standards 
•	page 1 of 1 under “Relationship of City Facilities to National Standards” insert 
narrative on comparisons with National Recreation and Park Association standards.  Board felt it 
should be noted that the Wichita Park Department was not the only “provider” of these 
recreational services.  Also eliminate reference to golf courses on this comparison chart and 
adjust totals accordingly.
•	eliminate Low Range, Medium Range and Unit of Measure under Capital 
Improvements - Cost Breakdown.  Change “High Range” to [Projected Cost]
•	page 1 under Capital Improvements - Cost Breakdown  at  West Douglas Park 
change to [Renovate Park], not Upgrade Park Masterplan 
•	under Capital Improvements - Cost Breakdown delete all references to golf courses in 
this chart and adjust totals according.
•	under Capital Improvements - Cost Breakdown the Board also discussed subtracting 
funding currently authorized in the Capital Improvement Program for the recommended 
improvements listed.  Board would also like to include subtraction of $1,000,000 authorized 
under the special “playground equipment fund”

On motion by Mitchell, second Bailey, IT WAS VOTED to tentatively approve the report, with 
corrections as noted, provided the Consultant furnished explanations on various report elements.

There being no further business, the meeting  adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.




							___________________________________
							M.S. Mitchell, First Vice President  




ATTEST:



_____________________________
Maryann Crockett, Clerk



									Park Board 3/15/99 (contd.)