DPR Sport User Group, Field AllocationFall 2016

1

Allocation Policy Purpose & Goals

• Purpose: The sport field allocation policy will provide facility reservations to sport user organizations through an efficient and transparent process.

• Overall Policy Goal: FACTS; Fair – Adaptable – Consistent – Transparent –Sustainable (Leader’s Challenge 2016)

• Policy will incorporate a model that allocates athletic fields based on:

• Field availability

• Field conditions

• Policy will define:

• Define a Sport User Organization (e.g.; organization that runs sports leagues that includes games over the course of a season)

• Tiered priority system to determine priority allocation scheduling

• Scheduling timelines

• User needs

• Sport equitability

• Transparency

2

Tiered Priority System

• A tiered priority system provides DPR a transparent method to reserve space to as many organizations as possible starting with Tier I

• Tiers were developed through the collaborative Sport User Group process, which determined that the highest priority for field allocation is to non profit organizations that serve Arlington youth.

3

Tier I: Arlington Residency, Youth, Non Profit

Tier II: Arlington Residency, Adult, Non Profit

Tier III: Arlington Residency, For Profit

(youth or adult)

Tier IV:

Other*

• The Sport User Group considered factors such as residency, age served, tax status, organization size, competitive levels, league options, and organizational membership.

• Ongoing work will continue to further define these tiers

Project Timeline

4

Study As-Is

Verify Findings

Draft Recommendations

Review with Users

Develop Allocation Model

Pilot Allocation Model

Summer/Fall 2015

Winter 2016

Spring 2016

Spring 2016

Spring/Summer 2016

Fall 2016 & Spring 2017

Where have we been?

Project Timeline, cont.

5

Where are we going?

Pilot Allocation Model

Policy Development

Review Pilot Feedback

Vet Policy to Sports Commission & User Groups

Implement Policy

Fall 2016 & Spring 2017

Winter/Spring 2017

Winter/Summer 2017

TBD

TBD

DPR Allocation Pilot Specifics Review

• Fall Season – 2016; In-season only for current leagues by primary and secondary season

• Allocation was based on the number of teams from the previous fall season and then updated if necessary

• DPR did not alter game time, but practices/time may be adjusted

• Start/end times were consistent across leagues

• Ideally, leagues were given a “cushion” to accommodate their teams and weather (not always possible during week)

• Leagues received blanket permit to manage space within

organization

6

DPR Pilot: Allocation

7

Description Activities/Week

Youth Recreational Primary Season 3

Youth Recreational Secondary Season 2

Youth Competitive * 3

Adult 1

Youth Maximum Time Hours/Activity

Under 8 Recreational Teams - Practice 1

Over 8 Recreational Teams/Competitive Teams* – Practice 1.5

Game Times – Vary by Sport/league 1-2.5

• Fall Pilot Allocation Basis Goal:

*Competitive teams are considered year-round travel programs; programs not wanting the amount of space (i.e.; not wanting practice) did not receive it

• Primary Season Sports: Soccer, Tackle Football, Flag Football

• Secondary Season Sports: Baseball, Softball, Ultimate

Initial User Concerns

• Field times

• N. Arlington field space

• League growth

• DPR field plans

8

Initial User Concerns: Field Times

• DPR set our policy start times at 5:00*

• End time was considered 7:00 for non lighted fields and between 10:00-10:45 for lighted fields (15 min. before lights out)*

• DPR allowed leagues to schedule before and after these times if possible and did not count it toward the allocation

• DPR could not justify allowing some leagues later start times and not others

9

*Few fields have further time restrictions (e.g.; community fields, high school fields, collegiate fields)

Initial User Concerns: N. Arlington Field Space

• Unable to consider allocation based on location/zip code– Large parks located in S. Arlington: VA Highlands, Barcroft, Longbridge

– DPR has about 55% of our fields in N. Arlington

– Only 12% of N. Arlington Fields have lights

• Should DPR look into field allocation based on location?

10

Initial User Concerns: League Growth

11

• Overall growth 10% from in two years

• Declines in some leagues Increase in field space for those in growing leagues

Youth Leagues – Fall 2016 FY15 FY16 FY17% Growth (FY15-17)

Youth Baseball (<12) 1,023 1,134 1,066 4%

Arlington Senior Babe Ruth 132 96 79 -40%

Arlington Girls Softball Association 315 335 388 23%

Arlington Soccer Association 7,847 8,402 8,498 8%

Arlington Youth Football Club 165 161 128 -22%

Arlington Flag Football 715 803 1,028 44%

YULA 231 328 284 23%

Totals 10,428 11,259 11,471 10%

Initial User Concerns: DPR Field Plans

• Construction of Diamond Field facilities at Stratford Park

– Currently used by YULA & ASA

– DPR will consider the field a combination field

– Part of CIP process; DPR will look to reallocate other fields to ease field loss in spring

12

DPR Concerns:

• Allocation shortage

• Regular unused field space, particularly at lighted facilities

• League growth

• Open grass areas not associated with athletic fields

13

DPR Concerns: Allocation Shortage

14

Description Activities/Week

Youth Recreational Primary Season 3

Youth Recreational Secondary Season 2

Youth Competitive * 3

Adult 1

• Recreational Soccer:• Unable to allocate 3 activities per week to recreational soccer despite primary

season soccer received an allocation similar to a secondary season • ~600 teams in rec. soccer• League already putting above maximum teams per field

• Flag Football• Unable to allocate 3 activities per week and received a similar allocation to a

secondary season sport (107 teams)

Youth Field Allocation Shortage

15

Youth Leagues EstimatedTeams

Actual Teams

AGSA 42 35

Baseball (all leagues) 100 98

YULA 25 14

AYFC 8 8

Flag Football 100 107

ASA 678 691

*Allocated all synthetic field and standard is to put more teams per field than DPR calculates

• Estimated teams shows delta between expected and planned v. actual

• Does not account for density on fields and is based on DPR estimates for teams per field

• Weekday space remained tight for many leagues

• ASA and DPR Flag both fell short of meeting goal for field allocation for entire week

DPR Concerns: Field Spot Checks, October

16

• Optimal maximization of space

• Scheduling practices and make-ups

• Public perception

Fall Pilot Lessons

• Continue to monitor field usage during the week via Rovers

• Consider space by location (north & south) – review again after spring pilot

• Try to eliminate open grass areas (not associated with athletic facilties) reservations because of community concerns

• Use space before adult leagues for youth practices (e.g.; time before adult softball games)

• Consider trimming allocation to secondary season leagues to accommodate primary season leagues (e.g.; less practice time)

17

Spring Pilot Plans

• Maintain basic policy model for the spring season– Primary Season: Rec. Baseball, Softball, Lacrosse, Ultimate, Soccer*– Secondary Season: Travel Baseball

*Soccer will receive a secondary sport season allocation (2 activities per week in rec levels)

• On-going work to identify additional places to play

• Plans to schedule youth practices before adult softball games

• On-going rover checks to determine field use with notification to leagues when fields are unused

18

On-Going Policy Work

• DPR has engaged the Sports Commission to advise on specific policy issues:

• Residency Requirements for organizations to meet in the tiered priority system• New Sport Process

• DPR will conduct a spring 2017 pilot after reviewing outcomes from fall 2016

• Sport User Groups will be asked for input after next pilot phase

• DPR will develop policy details to include preseason activities, tournaments/special events, and communication timelines

19

Conclusion

• Questions & Discussion

20