Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting 2.26.24

Detailed briefing

Parks and Recreation Board Special Meeting — February 26, 2024 ATTENDEES: Karen Donnelly, Scott Reese, Shannon Mulder, Jamie and Sarah answered the roll call; Rachel was present, and city planner John Michelangeli attended as a guest. • The board approved a motion sending the draft parks survey back to the original survey committee to refine the details and work with Rachel toward launching it in May. No vote count was stated, and no opposition was heard. • The survey’s central purpose is to determine where park users live, which Harbor Springs parks they use and how often they participate in recreation programs. The city hopes the resulting data can support discussions with surrounding townships about sharing park operating costs. Little Traverse and West Traverse townships already contribute toward specified services or facilities associated with the city beach, skate park and Kiwanis Park. • Members supported using SurveyMonkey’s branching logic to clarify residency. A year-round resident could be directed to a question about where the person votes, while a seasonal resident could identify where the seasonal home is located. Township choices may include recognizable developments in parentheses or use a map so respondents do not mistakenly identify themselves as city residents. • The board discussed placing a small survey notice with a QR code and web address in city and township tax bills. School newsletters, social media, the Harbor Light and partner organizations were also identified as distribution options. Township permission is still needed. The city has an estimated 1,200 Harbor Springs tax-bill inserts, and Rachel said printing could come from the board’s budget. • Michelangeli recommended supplementing the general survey with very short, park-specific QR surveys asking current users where they come from. Members discussed keeping those surveys to only a few questions and using the results to compare use by township. The board also leaned toward listing the city’s main parks with descriptions of recognizable amenities rather than assuming respondents know official park names. • Purchased cellular-location data was discussed as another way to estimate where park users come from. Michelangeli described it as supplemental rather than a replacement for surveys and suggested contacting Cobalt 360 for pricing. The board did not authorize a purchase. Worth watching: 1. Whether surrounding townships agree to include survey notices in their tax bills. 2. How the committee resolves the final residency wording, park list and questions about activities or project priorities. 3. Whether the city later pursues park-specific QR surveys or cellular-location analysis, including cost and public concerns. Upcoming: The committee plans to refine the survey for execution in May; any tax-bill distribution or supplemental summer data collection still requires follow-through. Why it matters: Better evidence about who uses Harbor Springs parks could shape maintenance priorities and future township cost-sharing requests.

No open public follow-ups are linked to this meeting yet.