Municipal and County Parks and Recreation Services Study Focus on Trends

Municipal and County Parks and Recreation Services Study Focus on Trends Prepared by Recreation Resources Service A Cooperative Partnership between North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation and North Carolina State University Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management Introduction Each year the MCPRSS attempts to determine the current status of local government parks and recreation departments in North Carolina. The report seeks to provide information to all local governments and park and recreation agencies to use in evaluati current services. The report also strives to assist leisure services in budget planni, preparation and justification. The MCPRSS, fiscal year 212-13, marks the 63rd year of assessment for municipal leisure service providers. This edition also marks the 43rd year of assessment for county leisure service agencies. The MCPRSS for this fiscal year repents a focus on trends. This year s study marks the first in a shift from a three, to a six- year cycle. The shift is an effort to reduce content overlap between the MCPRSS and the national benchmarki system PRORAGIS, as well as continue to supply in- depth information, but also be an indicator of emergi trends within North Carolina. The MCPRSS will continue to annually report audited data from the State Treasurers Office The MCPRSS offers leisure service managers and administrators an important tool for: - - Tax supported fundi trend analysis based upon chaes in operati budget fund levels from year to year. Compari park and recreation fees and charges for similar communities to evaluate level of service. As this year marked the shift to the new MCPRSS six year cycle, departments were highly encouraged to participate in PRORAGIS, the National Park and Recreation Association s online database that collects, compiles, and reports on park and recreation department operati and geographic information. PRORAGIS seeks to collect updates across a wide rae of areas, while the MCPRSS collects more detailed information on rotati basis. Departments that participate in both PRORAGIS and the MCPRSS are ensuri that they have access to the data necessary to analyze their operations internally and against other departments on a state and national level. 1

Highlights from the 212-13 MCPRSS- Focus on Trends appear below, organized by the five categories of trend items departments were asked to pond to. Also included is an overview of study methods and a snapshot of pondents Methods In September of 212, the MCPRSS survey report was emailed to 237 recognized local government park and recreation departments in North Carolina. One hundred and thirty- four (134) ponses were received by January for a ponse rate of 57% Mean and median ults from the Municipal and County Services Study, FY 212-13, provide significant information to local government park and recreation agencies if interpreted correctly. Organization Description of Geographic Regions The MCPRSS reports ults based not only upon size of population serve but also by geographic region. The leisure needs of, and service delivery to mountain communities differ from those of coastal communities of comparable size. The geographic regions repent three distinct regions of North Carolina: Mountains, Piedmont, and Coast. Figure 1. MCPRSS Geographic Regions MOUNTAINS REGION COUNTIES Alexander, Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Cherokee, Clay, Cleveland, Gaston, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Iredell, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey PIEDMONT REGION COUNTIES Alamance, Anson, Cabarrus, Caswell, Chatham, Cumberland, Davidson, Davie, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin, Granville, Guilford, Harnett, Hoke, Johnston, Lee, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore, Orae, son, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockiham, Rowan, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren COAST REGION COUNTIES Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Hertford, Hyde, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, quimans, Pitt, Sampson, Tyrrell, Washiton, Wayne, Wilson REPORTING AGENCIES IN EACH GEOGRAPHIC REGION INCLUDE: 2

MOUNTAINS: Alleghany County Cramerton Iredell County Statesville Asheville Elkin Lenoir Surry County Avery County Fletcher Lincoln County Transylvania Co Belmont Gaston County Lincolnton Valdese Black Mountain Gastonia Macon County Watauga County Blowi Rock Granite Falls Madison County Waynesville Burke County Haywood County Mooville Wilkes County Catawba County Henderson County Mount Airy Yadkin County Cherokee County Hickory Mount Holly Clay County Highlands Shelby PIEDMONT Albemarle Eden Kernersville Raleigh Anson County Erwin Knightdale Randleman Archdale Fayetteville- Cumberland County Lee County Rowan County Asheboro Forsyth County Lexiton Salisbury Benson Garner Liberty Scotland County Burliton Gibsonville Louisburg Selma Cabarrus County Greensboro Lumberton Smithfield Carrboro Harnett County Madison- Mayodan Southern Pines Cary Harrisburg Mebane Town of Oak Ridge Chapel Hill Henderson- Vance County Mecklenburg County Wake County Clayton High Point Mocksville Davie Wake Fot Cornelius Holly Spris Orae county Zebulon Davidson Huntersville Oxford Davidson County Kannapolis Pinehurst Durham Kenly Pittsboro 3

COAST Ayden Goldsboro Onslow County Bladen County Greenville Pender County Brunswick County Jacksonville Pitt County Carteret County Leland Tarboro Clinton Nash County Warsaw Craven County New Bern Whiteville Currituck County Goldsboro Williamston Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County Oak Island Unnamed Agencies (N=17) The survey question aski pondents to indicate the name of their agency was an open ended item listed as which department do you repent? As such, there were several (N=17) agencies who failed to indicate their agency s name by either leavi the question blank, or inserti a generic ponse such as recreation department. Unnamed agencies are included in all analyses in the followi report, and are included as their own category when maki comparisons across agency type, geographic region, and population class. Figure 2. MCPRSS Respondents by Geographic Region 6 5 4 3 2 1 Services Study Response by Region N=134 Mountains (29%) Piedmont (43%) Coast (16%) Unnamed (13%) 4 Desc ripti on of Popu latio n Class The popu latio n estim ates used in this repor t were certified county and municipal estimates of July 211 population. The estimates were calculated by the North Carolina State Treasurer s Office and provided online at http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figu/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/munici pal_estimates.shtm

The population category groupis include: A Departments servi populations greater than 1, B Departments servi populations between 99,999 and 5, C Departments servi populations between 49,999 and 25, D Departments servi populations between 24,999 and 1, E Departments servi populations between 9,999 and 5, F Departments servi populations less than 4,999 Respondi Agencies by Population Category Category A Brunswick County, Cabarrus County, Cary, Catawba County, Craven County, Davidson County, Durham, Fayetteville- Cumberland, Forsyth County, Gaston County, Greensboro, Harnett County, Henderson County, High Point, Iredell County, Mecklenburg County, Onslow County, Orae County, Pitt County, Raleigh, Rowan County, Transylvania Co, Wake County Category B Burke County, Burliton, Carteret County, Chapel Hill, Gastonia, Greenville, Haywood County, Jacksonville, Lee County, Lincoln County, Nash County, Pender County, Surry County, Watauga County, Wilkes County Category C Anson County, Asheboro, Bladen County, Cherokee County, Cornelius, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County, Garner, Goldsboro, Henderson- Vance, Hickory, Holly Spris, Huntersville, Kannapolis, Macon County, Mocksville Davie, Mooville, New Bern, Salisbury, Scotland County, Wake Fot, Yadkin County Category D Albemarle, Alleghany County, Archdale, Avery County, Belmont, Carrboro, Clay County, Clayton, Currituck County, Davidson, Eden, Harrisburg, Kernersville, Knightdale, Leland, Lexiton, Lincolnton, Lumberton, Madison County, Mebane, Mount Airy, Mount Holly, Oxford, Pinehurst, Shelby, Smithfield, Southern Pines, Statesville, Tarboro Category E Black Mountain, Clinton, Fletcher, Oak Island, Selma, Oak Ridge, Waynesville, Whiteville, Williamston Category F Ayden, Benson, Blowi Rock, Cramerton, Elkin, Erwin, Gibsonville, Granite Falls, Highlands, Kenly, Lenoir, Liberty, Louisburg, Madison- Mayodan, Pittsboro, Randleman, Valdese, Warsaw, Zebulon Figure 3. MCPRSS Respondi Agencies by Population Class 5

N=116 Category F (- 4,999) 16% Catefgory E (9,999-5) 7% Category D (24,999-1,) 24% Category C (499,999-25,) 2% Category B (99,999-5,) 15% Category A (+1,) 22% 5 1 15 2 25 3 re Information The information pented in this executive summary reflects a census of all public parks and recreation departments expenditu as audited by the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer. The Local Government Commission and Department of State Treasurer provided standardized financial reports from the fiscal year 21-211. The data is aged one year but is standardized to create comparable ults. All operati expenses are categorized under Salaries and Spendi. All capital expenses are categorized under Construction and Land, Equipment, and Existi Structu. Table 1. Audited 21-211 Recreation in North Carolina Department Type Number Respondi l TOTAL County N = 1 $94,986,358. $41,82,887. $136,87,245. Municipal N = 527 $313,993,813. $12,944,165. $434,937,978. TOTAL N = 627 $48,98,171. $162,765,52 $571,745,223. The 21-211 Reported Local Government Recreation for North Carolina: 6

$571,745,223. Ø All local park and recreation agencies should derive their per capita measu based upon the most current local population estimates. Since fiscal year 21-212, the local government per capita expenditure for parks and recreation taken from the reported rae was between $33.8 and $64.41. For fiscal year 212-213, the reporti agencies show a projected per capita expenditure of $59.64. This figure was derived from the total parks and recreation budget of all reporti agencies divided by the total population of all reporti agencies. Figure 4. Statewide for Parks and Recreation 21-212 $6 $5 capita expenditu $4 $3 $2 $1 $ 2-121- 22-323- 424-525- 626-727- 828-929- 121-11211- 12212-13 Table2. All Municipalities (Statewide Budget from NC Treasurer) Salary Construction Purchase l l ber rti 27 334 89 166 551 551 551 et $154,763,91. $159,229,93. $93,916,985. $27,27,18. $313,993,813. $12,944,165 $434,937,978 age $747,651.74 $476,736.24 $1,55,247.2 $162,814.34 $569,861.73 $219,499.39 $789,361.12 $79.27 $21.17 $1.44 an $22,62. $63,724.5 $132,. $4,232.5 $8,18. $. $12,517. $7.59 $. $13.48 7

Municipalities with Park and Recreation Departments (the followi tables are a subset of Statewide Budget from NC Treasurer) Salary / Constr uction Purcha se l r es l Number 135 139 57 12 151 151 151 151 151 151 Budget $139,748,568. $13,97 5,618. $8,646,432. $19,893,528. $27,72 4,186. $1,53 9,96. $371,264,14 6. Average $1,35,1 $942,27 $1,414, $195,3 $1,792,8 $665,82 $2,458,72.9 $8.25 $28.14 $18.39 74.58.63 849.68 4.59 75.4 7.55 5 Median $383,96. $255,74 2. $182,93 3. $55,323. $582,11 2. $51,554. $727,9. $66.84 $4.74 $8.37 Municipalities with Park and Recreation Departments by Population Class Class A Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 $58,143, $57,148 $47,212 $4,61, $115,29 $51,273 $166,565,2 $517.48 $249.34 $766.82 98.,278.,444. 445. 1,376.,889. 65. Mean $8,36,1 $8,164, $6,744, $58,2 $16,47, $7,324, $23,795,3 $73.93 $35.62 $19.55 56.86 39.71 634.86 6.43 196.57 841.29 7.86 Median $6,91,6 33. $6,652, 479. $6,751, 621. $217,3 82. $11,81, 266. $6,811, 96. $2,387,4 5. $74.27 $42.4 $1.97 Class B Salary / Constru ction Purchas e n g l Operat i l Number 7 7 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 $22,666, $21,481, $4,861,9 $1,37,8 $44,147, $5,899,8 $5,47,8 $645.6 $83.94 $729.55 914. 71. 79. 74. 985. 53. 38. 1 Mean $3,238,1 $3,68,7 $972,39 $172,97 $6,36,8 $842,83 $7,149,69 $92.23 $11.99 $14.22 3.57 24.43 5.8 9. 55. 6.14 1.14 Median $3,51,1 24. $2,62,9 98. $49,29 4. $121,4 9.5 $5,911,5 92. $515,23 4. $7,311,83 6. $12.3 5 $6.41 $113. Class C Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 17 17 11 14 17 17 17 17 17 17 $2,765, 12. $21,255,442. $19,553,448. $2,447, 954. $42,2, 544. $22,1,42. $64,21,94 6. $1,227.11 $686.21 $1,913.3 2 Mean $1,221,4 $1,25, $1,777, $174,8 $2,471,7 $1,294, $3,765,996 $72.18 $4.37 $112.55 76.59 32.12 586.18 53.86 96.71 2.12.82 Median $1,355,1 38. $849,63. $265,58 7. $59,69 3.5 $2,354,2 42. $183,29 3. $2,731,681. $68.76 $6.96 $8.37 Class D Salary / Constr uction Purcha se 8 l l Number 34 34 11 24 34 34 34 34 34 34 $2,821, 724. $16,132,514. $2,44, 434. $8,384, 546. $36,954, 238. $1,788,98. $47,743,21 8. $2,378.73 $777.9 $3,155.8 2 Mean $612,4 $474,48 $218,5 $349,3 $1,86,8 $317,32 $1,44,212 $69.96 $22.86 $92.82

3.65 5.71 84.91 56.8 89.35 2.94.29 Median $57,98 4. $427,88 6. $89,. $59,1.5 $1,4,2 3.5 $46,242.5 $1,179,32. $66.99 $4.3 $78.28 Class E Salary / Constr uction Purch ase l l Number 24 24 8 2 27 27 27 27 27 27 $8,519,8 32. $7,62, 369. $2,742, 769. $988,5 55. $15,582, 21. $3,731, 324. $19,313,52 5. $2,34.95 $451.4 $2,485.9 9 Mean $354,99 $294,2 $342,8 $49,42 $577,118 $138,1 $715,315.7 $75.37 $16.71 $92.7 3. 65.38 46.13 7.75.56 97.19 4 Median $282,76 5.5 $226,2 33. $8,82 1. $41,72 2.5 $51,615. $21,29 8. $543,88. $58.69 $2.79 $66.11 9

Class F Salary / Constr uction Purcha se l l Number 46 5 15 31 59 59 59 59 59 59 $8,831,8 98. $7,895, 944. $3,871, 358. $2,973, 154. $16,727, 842. $6,844, 512. $23,572,35 4. $5,313.41 $2,1.51 $7,314.9 2 Mean $191,99 $157,9 $258, $95,9 $283,522 $116, $399,531.4 $9.6 $33.92 $123.98 7.78 18.88 9.53 8.19.75 8.68 2 Median $14,47 8.5 $113,6 6. $49,82 3. $37,78 3. $157,985. $8,495. $216,823. $64.92 $3.17 $75.41 Municipalities with Park and Recreation Departments by Geographic Region Mountai n Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 3 31 13 23 36 36 36 36 36 36 $2,82, 24. $18,722,181. $16,858,53. $2,27, 37. $38,84, 421. $18,885,423. $57,689,84 4. $3,716.43 $894.26 $4,61.6 8 Mean $669,4 $63,94 $1,296, $88,14 $1,77,9 $524,59 $1,62,495 $13.23 $24.84 $128.7 8. 1.32 773.31 6.52.58 5.8.67 Median $365,16 2.5 $252,37 9. $49,823. $37,51 6. $433,57 2. $37,32.5 $53,581.5 $77.74 $3.3 $91.82 Piedmo nt Salary / Constr uction Purcha se l l Number 73 75 31 53 77 77 77 77 77 77 $92,35, 58. $91,774,59. $51,458,631. $15,64,966. $184,12 5,98. $66,523,597. $25,648, 695. $5,28.7 $2,161.29 $7,369.9 9 Mean $1,265, $1,223, $1,659, $284,24 $2,391,2 $863,94 $3,255,17 $67.65 $28.7 $95.71 75.45 661.2 955.84 4.64 35.4 2.82 7.86 Median $451,3 5. $39,8 9. $286,48 4. $55,613. $743,26 6. $68,436. $889,431. $64.21 $6.41 $77.8 Coastal Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 32 33 13 26 38 38 38 38 38 38 $27,315, 82. $2,478,847. $12,329,748. $2,81, 192. $47,794, 667. $15,13,94. $62,925,6 7. $3,192.16 $1,193.58 $4,385.7 4 Mean $853,61 $62,57 $948,44 $17,7 $1,257,7 $398,18 $1,655,937 $84. $31.41 $115.41 9.38 1.12 2.15 38.15 54.39 2.63.3 Median $43,61 2. $27,98 2. $323,71 4. $59,32 1.5 $491,7 8. $56,616.5 $74,689.5 $64.24 $4.59 $82.18 All Counties (Statewide Budget from NC Treasurer) Number Salary / Constr uction Purcha se 1 l l 74 9 29 44 1 1 1 1 1 1

$47,157, Budget 632. Average $637,26 5.3 Median $236,75 1. $47,828,726. $531,43.29 $25,59 9. $36,942,112. $1,273, 865.93 $325,74 2. $4,878, 775. $11,8 81.25 $34,89 5.5 $94,986, 358. $949,86 3.58 $338,86 5. $41,82,887. $418,2 8.87 $6,24. $136,87, 245. $1,368,7 2.45 $392,715. 5 $1,64.44 $536.81 $1,61.2 5 $1.64 $5.37 $16.1 $7.45 $.14 $8.91 Counties with Park and Recreation Departments (the followi tables are a subset of Statewide Budget from NC Treasurer) Salary / Constr uction Purcha se l l Number 71 77 27 41 82 82 82 82 82 82 Budget $46,783, 748. $44,123,366. $36,95,631. $3,485, 159. $9,97, 114. $4,39,79. $131,297, 94. $1,37.53 $533.34 $1,57.8 7 Average $658,92 $573,3 $1,366, $85, $1,18,6 $492,57 $1,61,19 $12.65 $6.5 $19.16 6.3.73 875.22 3.88 23.34.61 3.95 Median $238,79 4. $23,83 6. $377,24 1. $35,18. $422,74 2. $22,11.5 $529,388. 5 $1.2 $.37 $11.8 Counties with Park and Recreation Departments by Population Class Class A Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 19 21 12 16 22 22 22 22 22 22 $33,892, $3,827 $24,79 $1,975, $64,72, $26,684 $91,45,41 $222.79 $11.1 $323.89 832.,657.,187. 74. 489.,927. 6. Mean $1,783,8 $1,467, $2,59, $123,4 $2,941,8 $1,212, $4,154,791 $1.13 $4.6 $14.72 33.26 983.67 98.92 83.75 4.41 951.23.64 Median $713,42 2. $719,43 2. $418,1 6. $76,48 5.5 $1,49,6 98. $188,4 4. $1,93,148. $7.45 $.94 $1.5 Class B Salary / Constr uction Purch ase l l Number 15 16 6 9 17 17 17 17 17 17 $5,187, $5,1, $3,757, $84,5 $1,197, $4,597, $14,795,3 $153.71 $72.73 $226.44 79. 27. 117. 66. 349. 683. 2. Mean $345,8 $313,1 $626,1 $93,39 $599,844 $27,4 $87,296. $9.4 $4.28 $13.32 5.27 41.88 86.17 6.22.6 51.94 Median $238,79 4. $292,2 41.5 $466,8 28.5 $36,49 9. $557,919. $34,61 1. $733,. $6.6 $.45 $1.98 11

Class C Salary / Constr uction Purch ase l l Number 16 18 5 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 $4,331,8 $5,559, $2,17, $246,9 $9,891,3 $2,264, $12,156,2 $276.21 $62.13 $338.34 44. 478. 974. 6. 22. 88. 2. Mean $27,74 $38,8 $43,5 $35,27 $494,566 $113,2 $67,81.1 $13.81 $3.11 $16.92.25 59.89 94.8 2.29.1 44. Median $232,87.5 $196, 21.5 $236,9 47. $16,64 6. $278,755. $. $333,954.5 $7.1 $. $8.36 Class D, E* Salary / Constr uction Purch ase l l Number 21 22 4 9 23 23 23 23 23 23 $3,371,9 $2,725, $6,421, $421,9 $6,97,9 $6,843, $12,941,25 $384.82 $297.39 $682.21 Budget 93. 961. 353. 47. 54. 3. 4. Average $16,57 $123,9 $1,65, $46,88 $265,128 $297,5 $562,663.2 $16.73 $12.93 $29.66 1.1 7.32 338.25 3..43 34.78 2 Median $132,88 7. $99,11 2. $36,8 5. $23,23. $242,394. $3. $252,387. $17.97 $.2 $18.86 *One county, Graham, is population less than 1, Counties with Park and Recreation Departments by Geographic Region Mountai ns Salary / Constr uction Purch ase l l Number 28 28 1 13 29 29 29 29 29 29 $8,453,4 $7,881, $6,263, $577,1 $16,335, $6,841, $23,176,11 $379.51 $86.68 $466.2 4. 68. 869. 65. 84. 34. 8. Mean $31,9 $281,4 $626,3 $44,39 $563,278 $235,8 $799,176.4 $13.9 $2.99 $16.8 7.29 88.57 86.9 7.31.76 97.72 8 Median $211,4 6. $22,6 4. $28,2 17.5 $2,71 9. $411,875. $14,87 2. $52,567. $1.77 $.36 $14.66 Piedmo nt Salary / Constru ction Purcha se l l Number 22 $25. $8. $15. $27. $27. $27. $27. $27. $27. 29,565,8 $27,18 $13,423 $1,899, $56,674, $15,323 $71,997,99 $277. $69.58 $346.59 56.,965.,662. 511. 821.,173. 4. Mean 1,343,9 $1,84, $1,677, $126,6 $2,99, $567,52 $2,666,592 $1.26 $2.58 $12.84 2.55 358.6 957.75 34.7 67.44 4.93.37 Median 383,314. $44,4 4. $653,6 7.5 $73,48 6. $667, 8. $5,139. $948,279. $9.87 $.38 $11.77 Coastal Salary / Constru ction Purcha se 12 l l Number 21 24 9 13 26 26 26 26 26 26 $8,764,4 $9,132, $17,218 $1,8, $17,897, $18,226 $36,123,79 $381.1 $377.7 $758.9 88. 721.,1. 483. 29.,583. 2. Mean $417,35 6.57 $38,5 3.4 $1,913, 122.22 $77,57 5.62 $688,35 4.19 $71,2 2.42 $1,389,376.62 $14.65 $14.5 $29.16

Median $192,29 9. $188,8 62. $395,39 4. $35,18. $29,12 8.5 $2,614. $355,289. $9.69 $.45 $11.43 13

Results: Trends Data The ults of the 212-213 Municipal and County Parks and Recreation Services Study are reported below. Questions are arraed in the order they appeared in the survey. I. Greenways 1.) How many miles of trails and greenways does your department maintain? Respondents were asked to indicate how many miles of both hard surface and natural surface greenways their department maintains. Mean and median ults are categorized in the followi table statewide and by population category. Table 2. MCPRSS Greenway Trails by Population Category Hard Surface (N=112) Natural Surface` (N=119) Statewide Mean 4.92 4.51 Median 1.5 2.5 Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Category F Mean 15.81 1.73 Median 2.5 8 Mean 4.15 4.27 Median 1.5 2.35 Mean 3.65 2.74 Median 2. 1.25 Mean 2.5 3.36 Median 2. 3 Mean 2.67 1.31 Median 1.5 1.5 Mean 1.44 1.81 Median.5 1.5 Unnamed Mean 1.19 3.7 Median.5 2 2.) What percentage of your trails system is located within easements of any type? Respondi departments were asked to indicate the percentage of their trail system located within easements of any type. The table below lists the total number of greenway 14

miles maintained, and total percentage of greenway miles located within easements by pondi departments. TABLE 3. MCPRSS Greenway Trails by Individual Department Department Greenway Hard Greenway Natural Alleghany County 2 Anson County.3 Avery County 1 Bladen County 2 Brunswick County 3 1 3 Burke County 1 3 18 Cabarrus County 5 5 Carteret County 1.7 Catawba County.25 19.3 Cherokee county 1.5 2 93 Clay County 1 49 Craven County.25 6.5 11 Currituck County 5 3 3 Davidson County 7 Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County 4 3 Fayetteville- Cumberland 15 5 8 Forsyth County 12 12 11 Gaston County 1 12 3 Harnett County.84.22 Haywood County.25 Henderson County 2 2 2 Henderson- Vance 2.5 9 Iredell County 1 1 Lee County.6 16.25 6 Lincoln County 1.5 1 Macon County 6 1 91 Madison County Mecklenburg County 32 5 8 Mocksville Davie 1 Nash County.6 Onslow County 8 Orae county 2.5 18 1 Pender County.5.53 Pitt County 1.3 7 Rowan County 1.5 1.5 Scotland County 7 1.5 1 Surry County 6 Transylvania Co Wake County 5.5 Watauga County 4.264 51 Wilkes County 1 1 5 Yadkin County 2 1 Albemarle 1.1 1.2 1 Archdale 3.5 4 Asheboro Cultural.5 15 % Greenway within Easement

Asheville 4.5.7 2 Ayden 2 Belmont Benson.45 Black Mountain 1.5 1.5 3 Blowi Rock.5 1 Burliton.25 8 2 Carrboro.4 1.75 2 Cary 78.8 8.5 35 Chapel Hill 9.5 8.1 69 Clayton 6.5 9 39 Clinton Cornelius 6 2.8 15 Cramerton 2.5 3 2 Davidson 8 Durham 26 5 Eden 2 3 15 Elkin 3 5 Erwin.5 3 2 Fletcher 3.1 3 Garner 5 3.5 2 Gastonia 6 6 Gibsonville Goldsboro.33 12 8 Granite Falls 3 Greensboro 5 4 5 Greenville 6.33 1.5 3 Harrisburg Parks and Recreation.75 1.5 Department Hickory 4.579 5.98 2 High Point 3.25 11 8 Highlands 2 3 2 Holly Spris 15 5 5 Huntersville 1 1 Jacksonville 17 3 5 Kannapolis 2.25 3 Kenly.5 18 Kernersville 1.5 3.5 Knightdale 2.5.35 52 Leland 1 Lenoir 7.5 5 82 Lexiton 2.13 Liberty 2 Lincolnton 2.75 Louisburg 3.2 2.3 1 Lumberton 1.8 6.25 2 Madison- Mayodan 2 1 Mebane 3 Mooville 8 11 Mount Airy 4.4 6.8 1 Mount Holly 1 1 6 New Bern 2 1 8 Oak Island 12 65 Oxford 3.5 Pinehurst 1.25 8.5 3 16

Pittsboro.5 1.5 5 Raleigh 69.77 8.24 75 Randleman 1 Salisbury 4.2 5 Selma.33 Shelby 2 3 2 Smithfield 4 3 Southern Pines 11 5 Statesville 2.2 4.8 66 Tarboro 3.5 1 Town of Oak Ridge 3 3 6 Valdese 18 Wake Fot.3.5 26 Warsaw 1 1 1 Waynesville 2.6 2.2 Whiteville 2.5 1 Williamston 1.5 74 Zebulon 1 1 3 Unnamed agency Unnamed agency Unnamed agency 3.5 Unnamed agency.4 1 Unnamed agency 1.5 Unnamed agency Unnamed agency Unnamed agency 2 Unnamed agency 1.5 2.5 Unnamed agency 1 3 Unnamed agency 7.1 3 Unnamed agency 8 Unnamed agency 8 Unnamed agency 8.5 Unnamed agency 1 14 Unnamed agency Unnamed agency Unnamed agency 1.25 2.25 3.) Is any part of your greenway system connected to a regional trail system? The majority of pondi departments (8%) indicated that the their regional trail system is not connected to a regional system, while the remaini departments (2%) indicated that part of their trails system is in fact connected to a larger regional system. Figure 5. MCPRSS Trails Systems Connection to Regional Trails System 17

Regional Trail System N=131 15 1 5 2% 8% Statewide % of Greenway Trails Connected to Regional System Yes No 4.) How do you police your greenway system? Respondents indicated that their greenway systems are most frequently (36%) policed by local law enforcement. They also indicated that park staff (2%) has a hand in monitori the greenways, and that just as often, (2%) their greenway systems are not policed. The remaini agencies (15%) indicated usi other methods of polici their greenways. In their open ended ponse, departments reported usi a combination of law enforcement and park staff, volunteer groups, that they have not yet established a formal method of polici their greenway system, and that their department does not maintain a greenway system. FIGURE 6. MCPRSS Statewide Methods of Greenway Monitori Greenway Polici N=124 Local Law Enforcement 36% Park Staff 2% Do Not Police 2% 15% 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 5.) How do you promote your greenway system? 18

When asked how they promote their greenway systems, the majority of departments indicated usi online trail maps (69%). They also reported promoti their greenway systems by usi trailhead signage (37%), and paper trail maps (19%). Very few reporti agencies (4%) indicated usi mobile applications to promote their greenway systems. Intetily, other promotional methods were the most frequently indicated promotional tool followi online trail. Open ended ponses for this item indicated that departments frequently utilize web sites as promotional tools, that they promote their systems on partner s websites, for example, Triale- Off- Road- Cyclists, as well as social media and citizen committees. Respondents were able to check multiple ponses, so percentages do not add up to 1%. FIGURE 7. MCPRSS STATEWIDE METHOD OF GREENWAY PROMOTION Greenway Promotion N=125 6% Trailhead Signage 37% Mobile Aps 4% Online Trail Maps 69% Paper Trail Maps 19% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 II. Economic Impact Studies 6.) Has your department ever participated in an economic impact study? The majority of pondents (76%) indicated that their department has not participated in an economic impact study, while the remaini departments (24%) indicated havi participated in an economic impact study. 19

Figure 8. MCPRSS Statewide Participation in Economic Impact Studies for Parks and Recreation 15 Economic Impact Study N=131 1 5 24% 76% Yes No 7.) Was the study completed by Most pondi agencies (69%) indicated that an outside agency completed their economic impact study. However, close to one- third (31%) reported havi completed their economic impact studies in house. Results should be interpreted with caution however, due to the low number (n=29) of overall ponses to this item. Figure 9. MCPRSS Department Involvement in Economic Impact Studies for Parks and Recreation 25 2 15 1 Completi Agency N=29 5 69% 31% Outside Agency Within the Department 8.) What aspects of the department were examined? 2

When asked to report what aspects of their departments were examined in any economic impact study, sporti events emerged as the most frequently examined aspect in economic impact studies across all pondi agencies, followed by facilities (45%), special events other than sports (45). The remaini departments indicated examini other (1%) aspect of their departments includi programs, festivals, and the potential development of a soccer complex. Figure 1. MCPRSS Aspects of Departments Examined in an Economic Impact Study Department Aspects Examined N=31 1% Sporti Events 68% Facilities 45% Special Events(other than sports) 45% 5 1 15 2 25 3 9.) Do you have an intet in participati in an economic impact study in the future? The majority (86%) of pondi departments indicated havi an intet in participati in a future economic impact study. Figure 11. MCPRSS Future Intet in Economic Impact Study Participation 15 1 5 Future Intet N=13 86% 14% Yes No III. Smoki in Parks 21

1.) Do you currently allow smoki in your parks? Although over one- third (34%) of pondi departments do not allow smoki in parks, the majority (66%) continue to permit smoki throughout their park systems. Figure 12. MCPRSS Level of Smoki Bans in Parks Smoki in Parks N=131 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 66% 34% Yes No 11.) Do you have designated smoki areas? The majority of pondi agencies (62%) reported not havi designated smoki areas in their parks, yet over one- third (38%) indicated that their park systems did offer designated smoki areas. Figure 13. MCPRSS Designated Smoki Areas 6 5 4 3 2 1 Designated Smoki Areas N=84 38% 62% Yes 12.) Is there a system- wide ban in place or is this park specific No 22

Over 75% of pondi agencies reported havi a system wide ban versus park specific (18%) smoki policies. Figure 14. MCPRSS Smoki Bans Systemwide vs. Park Specihic Ban N=45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 82% 18% Systemwide Ban Park Speciqic IV. Dog Parks 13.) Does your department have dog parks? Almost three- quarters (74%) of pondi agencies indicated that their department does not have dog parks, while just over one- quarter reported that dog parks were part of their park system. Figure 15. MCPRSS Dog Parks within Departments 12 1 8 6 4 Dog Parks N=133 2 26% 74% Yes No 14.) Are they attached to other facilities or are they stand alone? 23

Half of all pondi agencies indicated that their dog parks are attached to other facilities, nearly one- third (32%) are stand alone, while the remaini (12%) agencies reported havi a mix of both attached and stand- alone dog park facilities. Figure 16. MCPRSS Dog Park Location Dog Park Facilities N=34 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 5% 32% 12% Attached Stand Alone Mix of Both 15.) Are your dog parks lighted? Respondi agencies indicated most frequently (91%) that their dog parks are unlit. Figure 17. MCPRSS Dog Park Lighti 4 3 Lighted Dog Parks N=33 2 1 9% 91% Yes No Lighted Dog Parks 16.) Are there species or size trictions within your parks? 24

Responses to this item were nearly split with just over half (53%) of pondi agencies indicati not havi size and species trictions in their dog parks, while just under half (47%) reported that their department does place trictions on dog park users based on either size or species of dog. Figure 18. MCPRSS Dog Park Restrictions Dog Park Restrictions N=32 17.5 17 16.5 16 15.5 15 14.5 14 47% 53% Yes No 17.) Who cleans up the dog parks? Respondi departments were asked to indicate what community groups are ponsible for cleani the dog parks. The majority (47%) reported that their citizens took the lead in cleani their dog parks followed by park staff (31%) abd volunteers (22%) Figure 19. MCPRSS Dog Park Maintenance Dog Park Maintenance N=58 Citizens 47% Volunteers 22% Park Staff 31% 5 1 15 2 25 3 V. Online Registration 25

18.) Does your department currently use online registration for your programs? While nearly one- third (31%) of pondi departments indicated usi online registration software for their program, the majority (69%) reported not usi online registration Figure 2. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software Online Registration N=132 1 8 6 4 2 31% 69% Yes No 19.) Who is your current provider? Almost half (45%) of pondents use Active Network as their online registration provider, just under ten percent use RecDesk, no agencies reported usi Facility Dude. Respondents indicated most frequently (48%) usi other providers, such as Rec1 (5), RecTrac (7), ActiveNet (2), RecPro, ReservPartner, and Windstream. Figure 21. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software Online Registration Provider N=4 48% Facility Dude % Active Network 45% RecDesk 8% 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 2.) How lo have you been usi the current provider? Over one third pondi agencies (38%, and 36% pectively) of indicated havi been usi their current online registration software provider for at least three years, and at 26

least five years. Just over one- quarter of pondents (26%) reported havi used their current provider for at least one year. Figure 22. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software Provider Duration N=39 5-1 Years 36% 3-5 Years 38% 1-2 Years 26% 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 21.) How many years have you been usi any online registration system? When asked to report the number of years they have been usi any online registration system, pondents (36%) indicated havi used online registration for at least five years, for at least three years (28%), while the remaini agencies (5% and 5%) reported usi online registration for over ten years and for at least one year. Figure 23. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software Online Registration Duration N=39 1+ Years 5% 5-1 Years 28% 3-5 Years 36% 1-2 Years 5% 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 22.) Who pays the processi fees? 27

Responses were nearly split, with a small majority (58%) of pondi departments reporti passi their online registration processi fees onto their participants, while nearly half (42%) reported absorbi these costs into the departments budget. Figure 24. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software 25 Processi Fees N=4 2 15 1 5 58% 42% Participant Department 23.) Where is the registration data housed? When asked to indicate where they house their registration data, over one- half (56%) reported housi their data within the department, while just under one- half (44%) indicated that the online registration software vendor is ponsible for data storage. Figure 25. MCPRSS Statewide Use of Online Registration Software 25 2 15 1 Registration Data N=41 5 44% 56% With Vendor Within Department VI. Joint Use Agreements 28