Meeting with Director of LifeLong Learning and Leisure – Jennifer Woodman
Jennifer has been with the City for six years and currently serves as the Director of LifeLong Learning. She is responsible for all aspects of adult programming. LifeLong Learning is the largest adult program in the Central Ohio area and is self-supporting. Non-residents make up 65 percent of the 6,000-7,000 registrations per year.
Biggest Challenges:
• Lack of a facility - Currently, the division uses the Senior Center, high school, Municipal Services Center, Ursus and Bartelt Studio.
• Lack of Staff – The division is comprised of one full-time and two part-time positions and a site supervisor.
Jennifer sees LifeLong becoming a stop on a national speaking circuit, E-learning and private bookings as viable short-term additions to the program. Extended office hours and increased marketing are also needed. An analysis needs to be done using
customer input to determine a strong marketing piece.
She believes a long-term vision should include developing certificate programs, travel programs and programs that make a connection with generations X & Y.
Changes that would benefit the entire department include designated facilities, recognition that customers are not specifically UA residents, shared part-time staff and an elimination of duplicate programs in the community.
Meeting with Recreation Superintendent - Ginny Houghton
Ginny is the Recreation Superintendent for the Recreation Division. The division has a program assistant, a youth recreation supervisor and several seasonal day camp positions. The annual budget is $897,000. The division is responsible for youth and teen programming, adult sports and four signature special events. A new format for the program brochure was launched in 2006, with a 22 percent increase in revenue. Ginny sees short-term visions as working closer with the Board of Education for more class space, more community field times, more middle school and special needs middle school programming.
Her long-term visions include facilities for birthday parties, putting a bubble/cover over the Tremont Pool, a land swap with the Board of Education for a small recreation center site, and moving soccer fields from Thompson Park to Sunny 95 Park.
Changes include using part-time staff or an intern to complete mundane activities, and an increase park access with walking paths and better marketing.
100 Focus on the Future Strategic Plan—March 2007
MISCELLANEOUS
Methodology
Members of the Strategic Task Force met with several community members with an interest in the future of Upper Arlington’s park and recreational facilities. The goal of these meetings was to generate a dialogue about their concerns and wishes for the future direction of Upper Arlington’s park and recreational facilities. Key points brought out during these sessions are detailed below:
Upper Arlington Realtors
Steve Bock, The Arlington Company, and three other realtors interviewed by Nikki McNary and John Simpson, October 18, 2006
The focus of the discussion was the relationship between homebuyer preferences (i.e. property values) and park and recreation facilities and programs offered in the community.
• Potential homebuyers who are considering Upper Arlington and peer communities in Central Ohio clearly respond to the quality and type of park facilities available. Specifically, families note that Upper Arlington does not have a recreation center, as do Dublin, Westerville, etc. and that Upper Arlington has poor “connectivity” (sidewalks, and bikeways). The realtors felt the addition of these amenities would enhance home sales and, by implication, property values.
• Although homebuyers still prefer Upper Arlington schools over those in other communities, that advantage is narrowing.
• Despite Reed Road Water Park, the condition of the other Upper Arlington pools is a negative among new homebuyers.
• Homes in close proximity to parks generally enjoy a modest price advantage over homes that are not near parks (although this can also be affected by other factors such as proximity to schools, shopping, etc.). The general condition of our parks in comparison to those in other communities is neither a competitive advantage nor a disadvantage,
• The existence and condition of Upper Arlington’s Senior Center does not usually impact homebuyer decisions since few buyers seeking homes in Upper Arlington are in that age group. It was the opinion of the realtors that the addition of a new senior-specific center would have no positive affect on home sales.
• The condition of Kingsdale and the lack of a town center are also factors that negatively affect in-coming buyer preferences.
• Most current buyers in the Upper Arlington housing market are long-time residents, as well as second and third generation buyers. For them, “family tradition” is the most important community attribute. They are less likely to comparison shop in other Central Ohio communities. While these “legacy buyers” are less likely to be concerned about the lack of indoor recreational facilities, they also are likely to respond affirmatively to questions about their interests in participating in specific activities if available.
Down the road Upper Arlington’s competitive disadvantage in community amenities will become more pronounced as Upper Arlington’s advantages in legacy, location, and schools wane.
Swim Club Meeting
Meeting held November 27 and attended by Tim King, Joy Peterson and Tim Moloney
Several representatives (primarily members of their Core Committee) of the Upper Arlington Swim Club (UASC) meet with a delegation from the Task Force and presented the business plan for demonstrating the viability of collaborating with the Upper Arlington School Board in building a new aquatic center at the High School. UASC has hired a consultant and created a business plan that includes site maps and drawings of a 50-meter competitive pool. The business plan also includes an overview of the current aquatic situation, products and services aquatic centers provide, a brief history of the UAHS Aquatic Program, community analysis, detailed proposal of the new facility and services that could be offered, an organizational structure and finally a financial plan.
UASC has met with the UA School Board including Dr. Weaver, Superintendent and presented its business plan. The core committee believes they have the support of the school board and related a very aggressive timeline (new pool open September 2009) to develop the project. Additionally discussion ensued regarding UASC’s plan for raising the funds to pay for the $7,000,000 pool project.
Discussion then moved to the possibility of locating the pool at Northam Park and UASC members voiced flexibility in location and design. UASC believes there needs to be community support for an aquatic center where school, community and swim team could join forces, but are very focused on their desire for a competitive pool. UASC members also expressed the belief that UA residents would support a single indoor pool, but not two.
From the meeting the Task Force learned:
• The community could not support two indoor pool facilities.
• The timeline set forth by UASC is too aggressive to be part of the Strategic Plan. • Locating the pool at the high school could have security issues and concerns. • Both the city and UASC could not compete for fund raising.
• UASC Core Committee has very strong desire for an indoor pool facility to be constructed as soon as possible.