|
Cleveland Lakefront Park Investment Program Introduction One of the greatest assets in the City of Cleveland is its proximity to a waterfront, Lake Erie. Cities, throughout the world have invested millions of dollars towards the prosperity of their waterfronts including the parks that are part of their success. Chicago, Toronto, New York and Detroit are just a few of the cities that have recognized their waterfronts as a key component to their economic vitality. The City of Cleveland’s waterfront is no exception to this valuable role it can play in the future of its economy and quality of life. This was recognized with the development of the City’s Waterfront Plan in 2004. This was an ambitious plan to transform the City’s lakefront connecting neighborhoods and restoring the ecological integrity of its unique coastal environment. The Plan included an enormous public input process with thousands of participants and hundreds of community meetings to create the vision for the lakefront’s future. As 2008 comes to a close, the plan has not moved into a comprehensive implementation phase and has not realized the potential envisioned for the City. The key public asset component of Cleveland’s Waterfront Plan is the City’s lakefront parks. The Cleveland Lakefront Park system comprises of over 450 acres of parkland. They serve as the primary front door for public access to Lake Erie in one of the most densely populated regions of the Great Lakes and is the key linkage to other regional public assets including the Ohio & Erie Canal Heritage Corridor and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. As with every urban city established over a century ago, this network of green space in the urban core, has endured many economic and social changes over the years. Today, the parks and their management continue to be challenged by declining government budgets, establishment of plans with no implementation and operational strategy, and a decrease in programs and use by its visitors, locally and out of town. In the City of Cleveland, the use of our lakefront and quality of our greenspace amenities will significantly influence the future of the City and its competitiveness to attract new and emerging companies to maintain existing residents today and attract new residents to the City tomorrow, especially as the City competes globally. Realizing the critical needs of the lakefront and the substantial benefits of a comprehensive approach to its future, this proposal presents an opportunity to move the Cleveland Lakefront forward in its operation, management, ecological restoration and premier venue for the City. The Cleveland Lakefront’s Parks The lakefront park system is comprised of nearly 450 acres of parkland in the City of Cleveland with six distinct parks. These parks include Edgewater Park to the west, Gordon, East 55th Street marina, Euclid Beach, Villa Angela and Wildwood to the east. In addition, other greenspace, not managed by the state has sprouted up in the last five years, including Wendy Park, Coast Guard Station, Dike 14 and Dock 32. NorthCoast Harbor is also a public space along the Lakefront. The parks provide public beaches, walking trails, picnic areas and proximity to marinas as well as the central northern anchor to the regions emerald necklace connecting Euclid Creek on the east side, Rockefellar Park, centrally and the Towpath Trail and Cuyahoga Valley westward and serving as the connector across the length of the City with the Lakefront Bikeway and nationally designated Lake Erie Coastal Scenic Byway. Parks and the Local Economy Numerous studies across the country over the years have highlighted the many benefits of parks in cities and their economic impact, including jobs, quality of life, property values, and population retention and new population attraction. A recent study conducted by the Trust for Public Land for the City of Philadelphia revealed that the park system in Philadelphia attracted “ $23 million in revenue, municipal savings of $14.5 million, resident savings of $1.28 billion and a collected wealth of $700 million.” (TPL, 2008) Separately, as new companies and residents seek out locations to become grounded, recreational amenities are key criteria in determining their choices. The future of the Lakefront Parks and the other greenspaces along the Lakefront are a critical component to the future economy of the City. As the City continues to expand its global business program, its amenities of place and its distinctiveness of its Lakefront will be essential as an attractive place to do and retain business and the talent they require to prosper. History of Cleveland’s Lakefront Cleveland’s lakefront parks have been an integral part of the City’s history. The land over time has been preserved for greenspace by individuals, the city and the state who all recognized the value of public access to the water. As early as the 1930’s, the lakefront was a hub of activity which included bathhouses and even rollercoasters. Even today, people throughout the city can share memories of these grand days on the lakefront. Today’s generation has not had that opportunity. There was a resurgence of the Lakefront in 1977, when the City transferred the management of the parks to the State of Ohio. A comprehensive plan was established, and investments towards improvements were implemented by the state. But since the early 1980’s the investments on the lakefront have been few and far between. In 1977, an agreement was formed between the State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland on the management of the parks. The City owns the property and the state manages and maintains the parks. The current agreement expires in 2024. Over time this agreement expanded to included Euclid Beach and Villa Angela Parks. Today, the budgets of both entities continue to decline. The state’s budget for the Lakefront state parks, at a level of $3 million was cut another $700,000 for the biennial 2008-2010 budget while costs and needs continue increase. This continues a trend of decreasing budgets for the parks in the last decade. The cause of the budget declines today are part of the overall state budget concerns. The City provides no budget to the Lakefront Park system. Wendy Park, North Coast Harbor, Dike 14 and the Coast Guard Station, are all managed and owned by either the City, County or state with non-profit partners such as the Wendy Park Foundation and the Dike 14 Education Collaborative working to support the management of these sites. This multi-management approach lacks a comprehensive strategy to the Lakefront in its day to day management, park priorities, programming and marketing. Cleveland’s Lakefront Vision In 2004, the city’s lakefront was thrust to the forefront of a massive public planning process that engaged thousands of individuals, neighbors and professionals to the discussion of what the lakefront should be. An ambitious vision was presented to the city and adopted in 2004 as the guide for the future of the lakefront. The next steps of the plan were to engage conversations on the management and implementation strategies for the plans. ParkWorks had begun initial steps to evaluate management models across the country for the waterfront and the implementation of the Waterfront Plan. It identified two key management structures, a park conservancy and a development authority as the two most viable public-private partnerships that had been successful and fit the setting of Cleveland’s lakefront needs. This initial work never proceeded, for varying reasons, including the transition of a new administration, budgets, and no comprehensive private leadership to assist the City in its implementation. Another endeavor was being explored during the same time as the City’s lakefront planning process. The BLUE project (Building Livable Urban Edge), led by then Eco-City Cleveland, brought, environmental and greenspace experts together to discuss the ecological potential for the Lakefront Parks. This process harbored a variety of ideas and concepts to bring forward the coastal integrity and sustainable landscape approaches of the lakefront as a key component to the future management of the parks. One of the key recommendations put forth in the project, was the establishment of a Lakefront Conservancy as a public-private entity to move these ecological concepts forward. The project did not identify the “doers” of the recommendations or an action plan, hence the ideas have been limited in their actions. Various area plans have been developed for places like Euclid Beach, Wendy Park and the Coast Guard station and Dike 14. Additionally, a revised waterfront plan strategy for the relocation of the port will potentially expand public space along downtown’s lakefront potentially in the future. All of these efforts put forth the best physical planning ideas for the lakefront, but lacked a key ingredient of identifying lead organizations and action priorities and timelines for implementation. Because of these omissions, these plans continue to be conceptual and intangible. A Public Private Partnership As we look across the country, urban parks and waterfronts are not the success of one entity but the best and the brightest are a result of partnerships between a public entity and private non-profit organization. The success component is that both entities bring value to the management and services to the parks and that lead to implementation of the vision set forth. Today, these partnerships are in almost every major city and part of every major urban park and waterfront in the United States. Two organizational structures ParkWorks identified in their initial assessment and successful public-private partnerships are the park conservancy model and the waterfront development authority model. After discussions with community stakeholders on the concepts presented here, it is recognized that a development authority or similar organization should be examined as well for the Cleveland Lakefront and what existing entities or new entities can address this current gap. For the purpose of this proposal, the focus on the “greenspace” part of the Lakefront will be its priority, due to it being the primary component of the Lakefront and the most opportunity in the near future to be improved as an asset and in fact spur future development on adjacent lands. Park Conservancy A park conservancy is a non-profit organization that typically establishes a partnership through a formal agreement with a public entity to provide support to the management and stewardship of a public park. One of the first park conservancies in the United States was the Central Park Conservancy in New York City in the early 1980’s. Central Park Conservancy, has raised over $200 million over the past 25 years and now provides 85% of the overall budget and management of the park. Today, there are park conservancies in every major city in the United States providing the same effort as in Central Park. They are found in large cities, small cities, thriving cities, economically challenged cities and large parks and small parks. They partner with counties, cities, states, and in some instances, the federal government, through the National Park Service. They also play a variety of roles which include maintenance, capital improvements, master planning, and park security. While the park conservancy model exhibit varieties of all of the above factors, they all have proven to be a successful partner to raise the park to greater significance in their community, through ambitious philanthropy success and a well managed strategy. Local examples of this type of partnership include the Cleveland Zoological Society, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association and the Cascade Locks Park Association, which have all had significant success and growth since their inception. Appendix A provides a summary of some park conservancies across the United States. A New Approach to our City’s Front Door: A Public-Private Partnership Over the past twenty five years, urban parks across the country have experienced the same issues, the Cleveland Lakefront now faces. While these organizations are widely varied by size of park, local economies, and population of City, they largely possess key similarities in their organizational structure and operation that the City of Cleveland can examine to implement a similar strategy for its Lakefront Parks. Establishing a Partnership Agreement: A majority of park conservancies has a formal agreement with a public entity. This agreement outlines roles and responsibilities of the Park Conservancy and the public entity. As one Park Conservancy Director, stated, this is critical for the success of the partnership. Evolution of Roles and Responsibilities: The Park Conservancies that have been in existence for over ten years and in some instances twenty years evolve their successes. As reflected in these established organizations, their roles and responsibilities for management, maintenance and programming increased over time as their success surpassed the capacity of their respective public entities. Typically the essence of a park conservancy’s value at its inception is to garner funding for capital projects, facilitate planning and strategy and lead ecological restoration activities. Diversity of Operating Budgets: The successful park conservancy models utilize a business model approach to its revenue. While private philanthropy is a significant part of their budgets, revenue is also sought through corporate partnerships, programs and concession type businesses within the park. Further examination of the Park Conservancy model and successful organizations will likely demonstrate additional similarities on their operation and management that will be critical to the success of a Cleveland model for the Lakefront Parks. A Case for a Cleveland Lakefront Park Conservancy The Cleveland Lakefront park system is comprised of over 450 acres of parkland providing a variety of recreational opportunities for the adjacent neighborhoods, downtown employees, weekend regional visitors and out of town tourists. However, the parks are not at the capacity on a number of fronts, due to existing budget decreases and the lack of a comprehensive management strategy to leverage the lakefront parks as part of the economic future of the city. The mission of a public-private partnership with a newly formed park conservancy would be to provide an organizational structure to bring private support for the stewardship and enhancement of the Cleveland Lakefront Park system as a premier urban waterfront park, ‘central park’ to the City. An initial assessment of the Lakefront Parks identifies six key areas that could be bolstered with a strategy for its future success and rejuvenation. Further study would confirm these findings and develop an action plan for each one and others that surface. Recognizing that none of these areas are isolated to the others, the study would require an integrated process to inform all aspects of advancing a Lakefront Park strategy. Future Management- The 50 year lease between the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources expires in 2024. While it may appear that this provides ample time to worry about future management of the parks, the City’s future can not afford to wait on enhancing the opportunities for its lakefront if it is to stay competitive with top tier or even second tier cities. The thoughts of many include bringing the Cleveland Metroparks to the forefront as park manager. This study offers the opportunity to examine the variety of entities, including the role of a park conservancy, to advance the discussion of the strengths and challenges of existing organizations and the role of a park conservancy to facilitate and institute partnerships for the future of the Lakefront Parks. Capital Improvements: Signature projects within or adjacent to the City’s lakefront parks have floundered over the past twenty years, due to the inability of a concerted effort to raise the capital funding to implement these projects and a lack of project management leadership. These include the restoration of the Coast Guard Station, the Euclid Beach Carousel and recently, the Euclid Beach pier. These projects alone require an estimated $20 million of funding for their implementation and additional funding for their operation and maintenance. In addition, although not specifically within the Lakefront parks, the relocation of the Huletts, pose another unfinished endeavor for funding. These signature projects can begin to transform the lakefront parks landscape and their use. Park Conservancies throughout the country have fulfilled this objective to raise private philanthropic support and garner public funding to implement these essential elements for their respective parks. Ecological Restoration/Natural Resource Management: The BLUE project and the Waterfront District plan identified key opportunities to restore the ecological functions. Some Park Conservancies have focused on developing restoration strategies, including their management at a landscape level to enhance the ecological function of the urban parklands. The Cleveland Lakefront currently is operates under a basic maintenance approach. Examining maintenance and sustainable natural resource management practices and future operating costs, poses an opportunity for a “triple bottom line” approach for the Lakefront Parks. Implementation of City’s Lakefront Plan: The Waterfront Plan that the City and various partners directed in 2004 was an ambitious vision which engaged thousands of people across the city to participate in the process. While elements may have changed, a park conservancy can carry the plan’s blueprint towards a strategy for implementation. Park Conservancies have been successful in both developing plans and implementing plans to fully realize the impact of these visions. A Cleveland Park Conservancy can work with various partners to identify short term and long term implementation strategies of the Lakefront Plan. Maintenance Endowment (infrastructure support): One of the greatest basic needs for the Cleveland Lakefront Parks is to provide support to the current maintenance and infrastructure needs for the park. Operational plan priorities should be identified by the City and state that private support can help offset the current budget issues, the parks face. Park conservancies have assisted in bridging the gap in resources to provide upkeep and basic services to the parks. Examining an effective approach to bring resources to the maintenance of the Parks was identified by numerous community stakeholders in initial discussions on this work. Marketing/Outreach and Program Expansion The Lakefront Parks are limited on the programming and activities offered to the residents of nearby neighborhoods and visitors to the City. The Cleveland Lakefront Park provides an opportunity to become one of the premier go-to locations for events for the City. The marketing and program expansion should include awareness of the current landscape of the Parks, identifying program and event opportunities, and developing partnerships with existing organizations to leverage the park’s assets to a greater capacity. As one community leader suggested, there should be a ribbon cutting every few months along the Lakefront to show progress and gain public and private support for future investments. The Proposal As a result of over twenty interviews with community leaders, initial research in the park conservancy model across the country, initial examination of the needs of the Cleveland Lakefront Park system, and review of the ParkWorks study, BLUE project and City’s Waterfront Plan, a proposal is presented to move the dialogue further into action. The goal of this proposal is to prepare an operational and implementation strategy for a public-private partnership, for the Cleveland Lakefront Parks and complementary public spaces along the city’s lakefront. The mission of a public-private partnership with a newly formed park conservancy would be to provide an organizational structure to attract private support for the stewardship and enhancement of the Cleveland Lakefront Public greenspace as a premier urban waterfront park and to facilitate the leadership to form partnerships with existing organizations for effective management and new program opportunities for the future of the Lakefront Parks. The intent is to serve as a bridge to garner momentum over a condensed period of time in which a concerted focus on the Lakefront from the whole community will reap significant benefits and when complete is transformed as an iconic landmark. Upon completion of this concentrated period of effort, the management of the parks can be transferred with an effective organizational structure in place to continue effectively and sustainably. To meet this goal, five objectives are established; · Identify roles and responsibilities of the future management of the Lakefront’s public spaces. · Determine the fundraising capability and develop a finance portfolio including business ventures to meet the needs of the Lakefront Parks and a strategy to implement it. · Determine priority areas of investment to improve the visitor experience in the short and long term. · Identify opportunities to establish sustainable landscape management and ecological restoration · Create a marketing and program strategy to advance the awareness and uses within the parks and facilitate partnerships. Activities Planned to meet Goal and Objectives Each of these activities will involve consultants with professional expertise on the subject and reported to an advisory group of organizations and individuals of the Lakefront community to provide recommendations and set forth an action strategy for the Lakefront as an outcome of this study. The goal of this proposal is two-fold; study and action. While further study is essential to establish the best strategy for the future of the Lakefront, the proposal will balance that with an immediacy of tasks that can move forward simultaneously to lay the foundation of enhancing the parks and their awareness to the community within the process. A. Operational Development and Financial Feasibility A key component of any organization whether it be at its birth or as a well-established organization, is its organizational structure and its financial sustainability. How an organization is structured is critical to its operation and meeting its mission. Its sources of funding can also play a critical role in how the organization is structured and delivery of its programs. Because of this critical component, any public-private partnership that will likely be valuable to the community must determine these items. This activity will involve two key areas of work: identify the strengths and challenges in establishing the partnership while also working towards establishing a basic foundation for the Lakefront Parks that will benefit the parks more immediately. As one community leader stated in our initial discussions, ‘we are running out of time’ to get Cleveland back on its feet. 1) Development of Financial Portfolio Task: Develop a Fundraising Feasibility Analysis Hire a professional fundraising consultant to conduct a fundraising feasibility analysis. This will provide a snap shot on the individual and corporate philanthropy opportunities and challenges to support a Lakefront Park Conservancy and the future management of the park. Task: Identify Revenue Ventures using a Business Model Work with a stakeholder group of community leaders to identify short-term and long-term potential revenue ventures for years 1-3 and develop a business plan of two short-term priorities. This task will also include the inventory of existing revenue that the State receives for Park Operation. Examine conservancy models across the country on their revenue –generating ventures and the aspects of contracting, management and staffing. This is complementary to the Community Wealth Ventures of the Cleveland Foundation Program and offers an opportunity to utilize this existing program and its application to the Lakefront. Task: Assessment of public and private finance mechanisms. Based upon the outcomes of the operational inventory and management priorities, evaluate other finance options, such as a public levy, assessments or other finance structures that could generate revenue towards the Parks and their management. As the Cleveland Metroparks levy renewal comes to play in 2014, laying the groundwork to determine the viability of public support for the Lakefront’s advancement will critical to its future and the role of Cleveland Metroparks. Task: Assemble a summary of the findings of these tasks into a Financial Strategic Plan for the Park for years 1-5. 2) Operational Development & Efficiency Opportunities Task: Inventory existing operations and park units. Through interviews and research, inventory the current park operations to assess staffing, costs, and programs. In addition, an inventory will be conducted to survey all management entities along the Lakefront. This will determine which entities own what and how are they are managed. For example, outside of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park, Wendy Park, Dock 32, Dike 14 and NorthCoast Harbor are all owned and operated by separate entities. This will assist in identifying potential efficiencies in the operation and service of these various units could prevail with a Park Conservancy entity in place or other options. Task: Assess future roles and responsibilities for future park partnerships and management of the parks. Assess the existing park management agencies in the region through a decision analysis process and cost-benefit analysis to determine the strengths and challenges of park management scenarios for the future of the Lakefront Parks. This will include Cleveland Metroparks, the State Parks and the City of Cleveland. Task: Research partnership agreement arrangements of the park conservancy model. Develop partnership agreements option between existing entities. Task: Based upon fundraising and program assessment, develop a strategic action plan for implementation to kick-off the Cleveland Lakefront Conservancy. This includes identification of initial organizational structure, years 1-3 tasks, budgets and staffing, and a fundraising strategy. B. Setting Program Priorities These tasks will be the inventory of the parks conditions and management challenges and to examine all aspects of operation and the future roles and responsibilities of future entities for their management. Task: Identify Park Conservancy Role priorities. Examine all aspects of the parks operations in Cleveland Lakefront Park. In addition assess operation of complementary parks with Park Conservancy models in place. Inventory includes Task: Needs Assessment of Capital Projects. In working with state park management and advisory committee, identify and prioritize Capital Projects. These will include signature projects and basic management/infrastructure priorities. Assess costs and develop action plan for implementation. Task: Natural Resource Management Plan Hire a consultant with landscape architecture and urban landscape management expertise to work with advisory committee in developing a natural resource management plan that fosters operating cost reductions, ecological enhancements and visitor experience opportunities. Utilize the expertise of Cleveland Metroparks and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in developing the ecological restoration and resource management blueprint and its implementation. C. Marketing & Outreach Task: Community Stakeholder Interviews. The initial assessment of this proposal included over 20 interviews throughout the community. As a result, many more stakeholders were identified to involve in the process to foster future partnerships, gain support and utilize for future leadership of the program. These interviews will add value in all of the tasks outlined, hence they will be applied specifically as well as part of the broader strategy. Task: Formation of Community Executive Advisory Committee Utilizing public, private and community partners throughout the process will be essential to fostering a wide community support for this effort and the future of the Lakefront Parks. A committee will be formed to serve as an Advisor throughout this process from the community perspective and to assist in identifying key partners for the implementation of its outcomes. Task: Establish Marketing Strategy for the Lakefront Parks for years 1-3. Work with a marketing and graphics design consultant to identify opportunities and costs for marketing and develop an initial outreach item and theme for the Lakefront Parks. Assemble a “campaign” approach to the priorities both internally for project management and externally to promote to the community and private and public investors to the effort. Task: Programming Opportunities – Work with ParkWorks, Cleveland Metroparks, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, the State Park, Greater Cleveland Sports Commission and others to identify key program areas and opportunities for the Lakefront Parks and the other greenspace units along the Lakefront. Identify partnership options and year one program and its budget. D. Coordination of Study To make this a seamless process, having a point person to coordinate all aspects of this study will be critical to its success. A Program Director will lay the foundation for a future organization, the park conservancy, and its formation and be responsible for the delivery of an action plan for the future management of the Lakefront Parks. An existing organization will serve as the fiscal agent for this study with support from the primary land owner of the Lakefront Parks, the City of Cleveland. The Park Conservancy will be established as its own non-profit 501c3 organization but will serve as a subsidiary to this organization during the initial year of being established. This will allow for the organization to determine its viability under an existing organization before ramping up as an independent start-up with greater risks. However as a subsidiary, the conservancy can begin to lay the groundwork to be an independent organization with with less burden and risk to the existing organization. Organizations being examined include the Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority, Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association and Wendy Park Association. The Lakefront Park Conservancy will serve as the interim entity to move the immediate effort forward. Due to the existence of the 2014 Metroparks levy and the expiration of the state lease in 2024, this concentrated effort of investment is for a period of five to ten years. While its existence may be maintained once the initial focused investment is completed, it will be determined on its viability and value at that time if it remains a permanent organization. Budget includes, staff of coordinator (30 hours), operational support from Fiscal Sponsor (5%), overhead, benefits, expenses for travel to four park conservancy cities (New York, Pittsburgh, Detroit, one other to be determined, and costs for final delivery of report. Timeline The project will begin upon receipt of the funding in April 2009 and commence by April, 2010. Program Start-up April 2009- June 2009 Establish Program Staff and Agreements with Partner Organizations Establish Subsidiary (this will already be underway) Form Community Executive Advisory Committee Finalize Work Plan and Scope of RFP Hire Consultants/Develop Timeline and Deliverables with Consultants Assemble Community Executive Advisory Committee – Conduct initial meeting – Goals & Objectives, Expectations and Outcomes Inventory and Assembly – July 2009 – November 2009 Inventory park operations, park units, budgets Conduct financial portfolio assessment. Inventory and visit park conservancy models. Identify program and marketing opportunities. Inventory Natural Resource Management Component Identify future park management entities and develop initial assessment criteria. Conduct Community Advisory Executive Advisory Committee – Report initial assessment work Development of Operational and Park Management Plan December 2009 – February, 2010 Assemble work tasks to determine short term and long term strategies. Assemble draft plans for various aspects of Plan Present to Community Advisory Executive Committee Presentation of Final Report & Implementation Schedule April 2010 Present work to Executive Committee Establish Partnership Agreements Conduct work plans for years 1-2 Key Staff: Lynn Garrity will serve as the Program Director for this project. She has worked on park issues for over 17 years at the National, county and local level. As a landscape architect she is fully aware of placemaking and the importance of parks as an integral component in the community. Over the years, she has assisted in managing multi-million dollar projects with the National Park Service, developed numerous Watershed/Greenspace plans throughout Cuyahoga County and helped raise over $2 million in private and public funding for the implementation of the Euclid Creek Watershed Plan. She holds a Bachelors’ Degree in Landscape Architecture and recently received a Masters in Environmental Management from Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Jim Kastelic (Volunteer Advisor) Appendix A– Case Studies The list of Park Conservancies below provide a brief summary of each a selection of organizations in the United States and does not reflect all of the great organizations working in partnership with cities to steward their urban parks. However, these organizations have been largely successful and provide similarities to landscape, governmental entities and needs that exist in Cleveland. This summary of examples in no way suggests a comprehensive understanding of the operation of these organizations and will require further study to utilize lessons learned with the Park Conservancy Model. 1. Central Park Conservancy (843 acres) Central Park Conservancy is the signature Conservancy organization n the United States that was established in 1980. It is the largest Conservancy both in staffing and budget. The partnership between the Conservancy and New York City has increased conservancy responsibilities over the years with today the Conservancy providing 85% of the budget and management and program activities for Central Park. Today the park boasts a staff of over 200 employees on all aspects of park management, programming and restoration. http://www.centralparknyc.org 2. Golden Gate Conservancy ( 74,000 acres) The second largest Conservancy in the Country, the Golden Gate Conservancy works with the National Park Service to provide stewardship and programming to Golden Gate National Park. The Conservancy has raised nearly $100 million since its inception in 1981 an continues to grow and provide support to the park in variety of ways. It possesses a staff of over 100 and has some of the most innovative revenue ventures in the country under the conservancy model including gift shops, and hotels. http://www.parksconservancy.org/ 3. Piedmont Park Conservancy (190 acres) The conservancy was formed in 1989 and to this date has raised $12 million to the renovation of dilapidated structures and cover landscape and operating expenses through the establishment of an endowment. A staff of eleven is implementing a recently established master plan led by the Conservancy. http://www.piedmontpark.org/ 4. Buffalo Bayou Partnership (10 miles) A partnership formed with the City of Houston in 1986 created a non-profit authority to plan and manage capital projects along 10 miles of the Buffalo Bayou. Since its inception in 1986, led by the City of Houston, the Partnership has raised $45 million for its planning and implementation of this corridor. The Partnership, with a staff of ten, besides raising funding, provides programming and restoration expertise. http://www.buffalobayou.org/ 5. Herman Park Conservancy (450 acres) Founded in 1991, this park is of great interest due to the similar size as the Cleveland Lakefront parks. This is a partnership between the conservancy and the City of Houston to manage and operate this signature park for the City. The Conservancy has raised $14 million for park improvements that includes a theater and improvements to a lake. Today, the conservancy has a staff of eight providing management and programs to the park. http://www.hermannpark.org/ 6. Prospect Park Alliance (585 acres) Prospect Park, once a dilapidated urban park in the hear t of Brooklyn, New York, has transformed itself as one of the premier urban parks in the country. Formed in 1987, the Alliance is a well established partnership with the City of New York that has an income of $12 million in 2007 with over 100 employees. Its successes include, the refurbishment of a carousel, and the restoration of its signature woodlands. http://www.prospectpark.org/ 7. Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy (800+ acres) The Buffalo Conservancy has evolved in the late 1970’s from a friends group for the Parks to establishing a partnership agreement with the City and County in 2004 to be the primary stewards of maintaining, operating, restoring and enhancing these signature parks and their associated parkway system. With a staff of 16, the conservancy receives a portion of its funding from the County and raises additional private support to steward the park system. http://buffaloolmstedparks.org/ 8. Pittsburgh Park Conservancy The Pittsburgh Park Conservancy founded in 1996 formed a partnership with the City of Pittsburgh to provide support to programming, planning, design, maintenance and restoration to four signature parks in the City Pittsburgh that covers approximately 1500 acres. The Conservancy has evolved its role over time initiating educational programming in 2000 and then taking on the capital maintenance role in 2003. Today, the Conservancy boasts a full time staff of 14 and continues to bring private support to the parks. http://www.pittsburghparks.org/ 8. Detroit River Waterfront Conservancy While the economy of Detroit continues to strained, the City has invested a large commitment to the Detroit River Waterfront through the formation of a conservancy in 2003. Since its inception, foundations, local corporations, and individuals have brought $50 million to improve the waterfront in Detroit and are currently engaged in a $140 million capital campaign. The Conservancy focuses on improvements and management of the waterfront to make it an active waterfront with a variety of venues. The Conservancy has a staff of eight providing services to a future 5-1/2 mile waterfront linear park. http://www.detroitriverfront.org/ 9. Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy The Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy was established in 1987 and was formed to implement the vision to transform the Brooklyn Bridge docks into a signature city park. The Conservancy is part of a partnership between the City of New York, the State of New York and a Community Development Corporation. The Conservancy has raised $5 million and has a staff of eight today that focuses on implementing the vision for the future 85 acre park and serves as the primary event coordinator and programmer for the park. http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/ 10. Baltimore Waterfront Partnership The Baltimore Waterfront Partnership is a non-profit organization with a partnership with the City of Baltimore. The Partnership was newly formed in 2007 and is funded both by the local government and private funding. While it is still in the formation and start-up stage, it focuses on the waterfront with members of its Board key members of businesses along the waterfront. http://waterfrontpartnership.org/index.aspx 11. Cuyahoga Valley Park Association The Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association is one of the few models of a public-private partnership in the Ohio related to a public park. The Association, which was formed in the late 1990’s has raised significant private funding since its inception to provide primarily environmental education partnership with the National Park. This has been a successful partnership that is being emulated across the country with other National Parks. www.cvnpa.org/ 12. Cascade Locks Park Association Cascade Locks Park Association was formed in 1989 as a non-profit organization to foster the development and stewardship of the 50 acre Cascade Locks Park in the City of Akron. The Association is formed with a partnership agreement between the City of Akron and Summit County and close coordination with the National Park Service. A key accomplishment was the raising of $1 million from private and public funding partners for the restoration of the Mustill House and Store. The Association’s staff of three continues to lead the effort of implementing the park’s master plan. http://www.cascadelocks.org/index.htm 13. Cleveland Zoological Society Recommended Letters of Support Sustainability Institute – CMNH – David Beach UCI- Chris Ronayne Cleveland Metroparks Cleveland City Council persons (Zone, Polensek, Pierce-Scott, Westbrook, Cimperman) City of Cleveland Cleveland Urban League CDC’s – Northeast Shores, Detroit Shoreway, State of Ohio, Division of Parks Friends of Edgewater Park Euclid Beach Now Cuyahoga County Cleveland Cuyahoga Port Authority Cuyahoga Valley National Park Greater Cleveland Partnership Wendy Park Foundation Dike 14 Collaborative Senator George Voinovich State Representative Kenny Yuko State Representative Eugene Miller |
