Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Rec Advisory Board-Agenda Packets-3/4/1989 (4)C~tY of ~_ ® ~ Il Texas AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 5400 BRANSFORD ROAD May 4, 1989 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of Minutes 4-6-89 3. Issue Concerning Locating a Skate Board Ramp 4. Discussion of a Park Master Plan 5. Discussion of Reviewing Plats and Recommendations Concerning Park. Land to the Planning and Zoning Board 6. Discussion of a Park Project that would include usage of the `Park Fund` 7. Other Concerns 8. Adjournment DF/ df 7:00 p.m. P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 281-4044 Ci~Y o! (~~ Il~ .,,~ Xd5 Department: Parks and Recreation Subject: Approval of Minutes Meeting Agenda ~I 5-4-89 2 Minutes from the April 6 meeting. ~(~~~~ ~iGv~- Department Hea gnature DISPOSITION: Approved City Manager Other AGENDA BRIEFING r STAFF REVIEW: CoC 1/89 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES April 6, 1989 The meeting of the Colleyville Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order by the chairman Paul Vigiletti at 7:08 p.m. Present at the meeting: Paul Vigiletti, Alan Linford, Mary Lou Brieger, Dawn Quinby, Don•Wood, Nick Martine, Lila Coley, Cheryl Livingston, David Fain, Parks and Recreation Coordinator. Business 1. Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote. 2. Discussion and approval of park ordinances: Motion was made by Alan Linford and seconded by Dawn Quinby to amend ordinance Section 2,i as follows: delete "Recommend the establishment of" and replace with "The Parks anc~`Recreation Board has the right to establish." Passed u animously. Lila Coley made a motion to amend Article ~, Section 1, line 10 to read "A quorum shall consist o~f five (5) members.''' Dawn Quinby seconded motion. Passed unanimously. Nick Martine motioned that Article I, Sectionl line 9 be amended by adding"except in case of a tie'.' added after "the chairman of the Board shall be ;a non-voting member," Seconded by Lila Coley. Passed unanimously. Alan Linford moved and Cheryl Livingston seconded that the Parks proposed city ordinances be approved as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Discussion and approval of Parks and Recreation Board by-laws: Lila Coley moved and Dawn Quinby seconded a motion to amend Article iI, Section 2 to read "A quorum shall consist of five (5) members." Passed unanimously. Nick Martine moved and Lila Coley seconded a motion to amend by adding the words "except in case of a tie." to Article I, Section 2, line 4. Passed unanimously. Dawn Quinby moved and Cheryl Livingston seconded that Article III, Section 2 Part B should be amended to read "A motion to approve any matter before the Board or to recommend approval of any request requiring Council action shall require a simple majority of the voting members." Passed unanimously. Alan Linford moved and Nick Martine seconded to approve the Parks and Recreation Board by-laws as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Discussion of establishment of goals and objectives: To help in the development of goals, David Fain suggested that Terry Cheek of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates make a presentation on master plans. Dawn Quinby moved and Lila Coley seconded that this presentation be scheduled. After lengthly discussion about the pros and cons of master plans, Mary Lou Brieger called the question. p. 2 The motion passed unanimously. The presentation is tentatively set for Tuesday April 25, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. In additionthe following recommendations and suggestions were discussed: a) Mary Lou Brieger moved that David Fain pursue hiring an intern/part time employee for the summer. months of 1989 to work in the Parks and Recreation Department per the approved City budget. Alan Linford seconded. Motion passed .unanimously. b) Nick Martine moved that the Parks and Recreation Board Chairman should discuss with the City the use of park personnel to fill non~park related jobs. Alan Linford seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Nick is aware of a current situation because of his daily maintenance of the baseball fields. c) Mary Lou Brieger suggested that the Planning and Zoning Board representative give a short explanation of various zoning codes. Nick Martine suggested this could be part of the April 25 workshop. d) Lila Coley gave a brief history of the "Webb House" property. Restoring the historic house originally built by the community of its time has had some public support. Currently $10000 has been raised. Paul Vigiletti asked that a discussion of this proj•;ect be placed on a future agenda. Don Wood requested a field trip be scheduled to visit all park property. e) Don Wood suggested land acquisition especially for soccer fields in the future needs to be addressed because GCISD does not have a clear timetable for use of current soccer fields. David Fain said he was investigating the land around City Park for purchase. Don Wood said that 10 acres would meet the minimum needed. Alan Linford suggested we should investigate maximzing use of City Park's 30 acres. David Fain offered to make a presentation on land acquisition. 5. Alan Linford moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Seconded by Cheryl Livingston. Respectfully Submitted / /~1 ~ ~~ C r Bri er ~?~~~ Ma y eg Parks Board Secretary C 1 I >' U /' (C~ ® a Il~ 1~i•xas Department: Parks and Recreation Subject: Skate Board Ramp Issue Meeting Agenda 11 5-4-89 3 Mayor Hubbard requests that the Park Board consider a skate board ramp to be located in a park. Mr. Ed Feitel will be present at the meeting to discuss the skate board ramp issue and to give the Park Board more insi to to the situation, Attached is a research from the City of Hurst which discusses safety and liability, ecomonic considerations, and location of a skate board ramp. ~ G~f~`. Department Head ature City Manager DISPOSITION: Approved Other AGENDA BRIEFING STAFF REVIEW: CoC 1/89 .. ~Y ~ CITY OF HIIRST Community Services - Parks & Recreation Position Psper Skateboard Facility BACRGROOND: In the 1970's skateboarding became one of the fastest growing sports activities in the United States. It is a sport based on the skill, dexterity, and energy of the 1960's surfboard- ing pastime. Using everything from skateboard parks to "halfpipes" to concrete drainage channels to the open road, skateboarders enjoy the speed, risk, and fun of performing acrobatic maneuvers on their self-propelled boards. The increased enthusiasm for skateboarding was great enough to~lead to the opening of commercial facilities (skateparks) in areas where skateboarding was growing the fastest. Over 300 of these concrete skatelands were in operation during the 1970's. However, almost all of those commercial facilities were subsequently closed down because of their inability to obtain liability insurance. ~ ~ Skateboarding has continued to grow in popularity during the 1980's. Unfortunately, accidents related to skateboarding have continued to rise along with the growth in the activity. In a number of communities there has been a growing problem with skateboarders riding in pedestrian areas, parking lots, and even on the streets. Numerous cities have had to elimi- nate this type of activity by enacting or enforcing ordi- nances controlling the use of skateboards on sidewalks and in roads. At the same time, skaters have also become more organized and have been recognized by some communities as a form of activity warranting facilities and resources. Based on the activity's popularity in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, skateboard enthusiasts have approached the Hurst Parks and Recreation Board requesting that the City consider build- ing a skateboard facility in Hurst. These young men (ages 12-15) are interested in the construction of a halfpipe facility (see attached sketch). The halfpipe ramp is popular with skate boarders because it represents a high degree of challenge and it's U-shape allows them to work back and forth and practice their skills in an on-going motion. ANALY3I3: ~ A recent survey located three cities who have constructed halfpipe skateboard facilities in the 1980's: Grapevine, Texas; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Information was gathered from each of these communities about their facilities and their experiences in constructing and operating them. This information is included in the analysis section of this report. There are three major issues which have to be initially addressed when considering the introduction of a new facil- ity, such as a skateboard halfpipe, into the range of ser- vices offered by the Hurst Parks and Recreation Department. Theses issues are: - Safety & Liability (injury records, insurance costs, supervision required) - Economic Considerations (cost of construction, operation, maintenance) - Location (space, neighborhood, noise, activity, amenities) safety & Liability: The use of a skateboarding ramp carries with it the risk of injury. The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia has documented accidents and accident rates at the three skateramp facili- ties operated by the City. During one 12 month period there were 18,130 daily admissions during which there were 36 minor injuries and 15 major injuries documented. Major accidents listed included head injuries and fractures of the leg, ankle, arm, finger, elbow and collarbone. A major accident occurred at a rate of once every six to eight weeks. Minor injuries include abrasions, minor lacerations, blistering, bruises, sprains, and strains. Minor injuries occurred an average of once every four weeks. As noted before, there are very few private enterprises involved in skateboard facilities because they cannot pur- chase insurance. Legal opinions have stated that a City would be assuming a fairly high level of risk in operating a skateboard ramp. An injured party may try to hold the City liable for the accident based on faulty design or maintenance ~ of the facility, or on negligent supervision. -2- There are a number of actions that a City can take to mini- mize the risk including careful design and materials selec- tion, mandatory use of protective equipment, signing of waiver forms, controlling access, employing ramp monitors, providing daily maintenance, and initiating other restrictive regulations governing usage. These measures have been employed in Virginia Beach and in Ann Arbor. However, Grape- vine does not monitor their facility, although they do have signage with rules governing usage. These three cities have not had any skateboard related law suits filed against them to date. f The City of Hurst is self-insured. Any claims against the City would have to be paid from reserve funds set aside for insurance. Based on the experience of Ann Arbor and Virginia Beach, insurance coverage is virtually impossible to purchase on' this type of, facility. The City would assume the entire financial burden if a party were to win a judgement against the .City related to an injury sustained while using the skateboard ramp. In this area, the cities of Arlington and Lewisville have recently considered requests to install skateboard facilities in their park system. Both cities have denied these requests due to the overriding risk factors. Economics: After reviewing the cost of constructing skate ramps in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Virginia Beach, it is estimated that the cost of constructing a ramp in Hurst would be between $15,000 - $20,000. This cost would include the materials for the ramp, a fence, signs, and miscellaneous amenities such as bleachers, bike racks, and benches. If the ramp were con- tracted out for construction the cost estimate would have to be increased to $25,000 - $30,000. When Ann Arbor opened their skateboard ramp in October 1987 the cost of the ramp was $15,900. In April of 1988 they resurfaced the ramp with steel at a cost of $4,300. Virginia Beach recently constructed a skateboard ramp for $18,800. In addition to the cost of construction, it is necessary to consider the cost of operating the facility. Because of the safety and liability considerations discussed above, one of the operational requirements is the control and monitoring of the facility through proper supervision. The primary cost associated with this would be the salary of the ramp monitor E or supervisor. Provided here is a potential scenario and cost estimate: -3- Summer (June - August) 9 AM - 9 PM Spring (March - May) 3 PM - 6 PM Weekdays Fall (Sept. - Nov.) 3 PM - 6 PM Weekdays Spring & Fall Weekends 9 AM - 6 PM 12 hrs./day, 7 days/week @ $4.50hr. x 3 mos. _ $4,536 6 hrs./day, 5 days/week @ $4.50hr. x 6 mos. _ $3,240 9 hrs./day, 2 days/week @ $4.50hr. x 6 mos. = 944 Annual Wages $9,720 The other primary costs are associated with ongoing mainte- nance. Like other park system components, there would be ongoing costs for maintaining the facility. These costs include labor, materials, supplies, and equipment. Although estimated costs are difficult to determine, a skateboard facility would require a high degree of attention to daily maintenance due to the liability factors. The Parks organi- zation would have to place the facility within its mainte- nance system and request the additional resources to handle the new project. Revenue could be generated from the skateboard ramp in the form of annual passes and daily admissions. A user fee could be required to regulate usage and help offset some of the cost of maintaining and monitoring the facility. It would not be realistic to expect the fee to cover the cost of con- ( structing, maintaining and standard fee structure based who operate skate facilities • the skateramp. Additional fee ($0.50) in addition to tl resident daily guest pass. monitoring the facility. The on information from other cities is a $10 annual fee for use of fee policies include a per visit ze annual fee, and a $2.00 non- It is difficult to develop a detailed scenario for projecting revenues for an activity in which there is not much of a track record. After reviewing information provided by Ann Arbor, Michigan and Virginia Beach, Virginia the following scenario was developed: Annual Registration Cards 200 ea. x $10.00 = $2,000 Daily Admissions 2,500 ea. x $0.50 = $1,250 Total Estimated Revenue $3,250 Location: Another major issue related to a skateboard ramp would be finding a suitable location for such a facility. A detailed site analysis would have to be conducted prior to considering -4- the most suitable location fora proposed skateboard half- pipe. Location is the key element. A skateboard facility will generate noise from the skaters and their music (punk rock), from the physical layout (approximately 4,000 square feet with bleacher areas warm up area, and skating ramp), and from the general activity (parking, spectator area, control center) . A skateboard facility in a community or neighborhood park will definitely impact that surrounding neighborhood. Each potential site would have to be evaluated in terms of its physical attributes and facilities, the impact on the park and neighborhood, and the convenience of the facility for the potential users. Physical attributes and facilities to be evaluated at each site include: grade of site, usable fence, restroom, drinking fountain, and other facilities that would complement or con- flict with the ramp. Evaluating the impact on the park and neighborhood should take into account: noise screening, visual screening, expected neighborhood reaction, and user reaction to the site. RECOMMENDATION3 AND CON3IDERATION3: Based on the primary considerations of~safety and liability, economics, and location, it is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Board not endorse the request for a skateboard halfpipe in the Hurst parks system. It is further recommended that the following factors be con- sidered in planning this type of facility within the Hurst Park System in the future: 1. Current Economic Conditions The current operational guidelines provided by City Officials indicate that there will be no additional programs or facilities carried in the budget until the economic climate improves. 2. Master Park Plan The Hurst Master Park Plan is where the issues of need, funding, location, and liability for new facilities are addressed and placed in a City-wide perspective. 3. Capital Improvements Program This program addresses not only the economic fac- tors for construction and installation of new facilities, but also those associated with ongoing maintenance and annual reoccurring expenses. -5- ~, ..• ,. ~ i r +~-F ~;ity u/' Il~ ~~l' Xll5 Department: parks and Recreation Subject: Review of Plats Meeting Agenda Ik 5-4-89 5 Several members of the Park Board discussed the possibility of reviewing plats and other zoning items that would include park land. Discussion and recommendations as to the procedure in which the Park Board may wish to take to accomplish the task. aiU/~- Department He Si ature City Manager DISPOSITION: Approved Other AGENDA BRIEFING STAFF REVIEW: CoC 1/89 Department: C-~Y of a Il~ Meeting .~,~ X ~ S Parks and Recreation i 5-4-89 Subject: Park Master Plan Mr. Terry Cheek and Mr. Bo Bass of the firm Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates made a presentation on Park master plans at the 4-25-89 workshop. These gentlemen were very informative. They generated much thought for the members present. Possible consideration from Park Board for a park master plan and a proposal to Council for funding of such a project will be discussed. C.~..-_~ Department ad Signature City Manager DISPOSITION: Approved Other ~ STAFF REVIEW: AGENDA BRIEFING Agenda 4 CaC 1/89 Department: Subject: Parks and Recre~.tion Park Fund Meeting 5-4-89 Over the past several months there has been various discussions pertaining to different park and recreation projects which would utilize the park fund. Discussion and possible recommendations to be considered. ;~% W1/~- Department Head Signature DISPOSITION: Approved r~w~~-L Agenda Ik City Manager Other AGENDA BRIEFING (',11 V 11 /' i---~ ~~ -- -- Il~ ~'c+aas STAFF REVIEW: CoC 1/89 PARK MASTER PLAN CITY OF COLLEYVILLE MAY 1989 PURPpS~ INTRODUCTION PURPOSE A parks and recreation master plan is a document that provides a framework for orderly and consistent planning. The plan is utilized for acquisition, development, and administration of the parks and recreation programs, resources and facilities. The master plan also: 1) provides detailed researched facts concerning the community and the role of parks and recreation. 2) establishes priorities and statements of direction based on researched and documented facts, not on opinion, bias, or hearsay. 3) provides direction for the community for a five to ten year period and can also determine immediate as well as long-range goals. 4) serves as a decision-making document that allows other parks and recreation decisions, problems, and questions to be determined in relationship to the master plan. 5) allows for a consistency in planning that can survive changes in governmental leadership. However, the primary purpose of a community parks and recreation master plan is to allow community leaders to make decisions regarding both short and long range parks and recreation goals based on researched facts. 2 WHAT IS CONTAINED IN A PARK MASTER PLAN? OUTLINE OF A PARK MASTER PLAN I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. Of parks and recreation department B. Of the master plan II. SUPPLY ANALYSIS III. POPULATION ANALYSIS A. Population growth, distribution, projection of community B. Age, minority, income, education, gender, distribution IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS V. STANDARDS ANALYSIS A. Standards for sponsoring agency B. Standards for all parks and recreation related agencies VI. AGENCY ACTION PLAN VII. EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS VIII. PRIORITY CRITERION RANKING SYSTEM A. Actions of highest priority B. Ranking of all recommended actions I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. Parks and Recreation Department goals and objectives Below are several goals and objectives for the Colleyville Parks and Recreation Department: 1) Provide a park and recreation program to meet the diverse needs of the citizens of Colleyville. a) Immediate and short term improvements of parks. b) Long term planning of a parks system. c) Recreation opportunities and programs for all ages of the community. 2) Determine practical means of maintaining and upgrading existing areas and facilities to a prescribed standard and purpose. 3) Acquisition of park land and development of outdoor recreation facilities, including orderly development of existing park areas. 4) Enlist community interest by encouraging individuals and citizen groups funds, property, and manpower for the development and operation of the parks recreation facilities. 5) Increase and enhance parks and recreation oppor- tunities by providing maximim mulitiuse of parks and recreation resources. 6) To provide opportunity for full parks and recreation participation opportunities without regard to age, race, religion, gender, or ecomomic circumstances. 7) To provide new and traditional parks and recreation experiences for present and future community residents. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES B. Park master plan goals and objectives 1) To identify the existing and potential parks and recreation resources, facilities, and programs provided to the citizens of the community. a} The completion of a supply analysis of the parks and recreation resources. b) The completion of a supply analysis of the parks and recreation resources provided by other agencies and groups; county, state, and federal governments, private enterprises, school districts, and voluntary groups. 2) To determine the population characteristics of the citizenry of the community. a) The completion of a demographic analysis concentrating on the factors of age, income, gender, education, and ethnicity. b) The completion of a population analysis concentrating on the factors of growth, distribution and projection. 3) To delineate and analyze current and future demands of the parks and recreation resources. a) The completion of an activity analysis specifying the factors of participation and duration of each occasion of participation. b) The completion of a community needs assessment to determine random citizen irn~.put. c) The holding of at least one; ~p.i~k5ii~c! ~.he.a~~*ir~g ~.t~o assess citizen imput. 4} To compare parks and recreation resources to the nationally accepted parks and recreation standards. a) The completion of a parks and recreation standards analysis for nonagency provided resources. b) The completion of a parks and recreation standards analysis which includes population and distnace. 5) To provide an agency action plan based on the previous findings so that a positive parks and recreation direction can emerge. 6) To provide an expenditure analysis presenting a financial cost estimate for actions suggested timeline, a) The completion of an expenditure analysis. b) The completion of a method of funding chart. 7) To provide a priority criterion system recommending a specific order that the action plan should take. a) The completion of a priority criterion point system. b) The completion of a priority ranking chart. II. SUPPLY ANALYSIS SUPPLY ANALYSIS A supply analysis is the process of: 1) identifying the existing and potential parks adn recreation resources, facilities, and programs that are available to community residents. 2) The supply analysis should also include parks and recreation resources supplied by other organi- zations or agencies in the community of Colleyville. An example would be the playgrounds and open space around area public schools. The supply analysis should include: 1) Explanation of supply analysis boundaries and of planning district divisions. 2) Identification and description of all of agency supplied parks and recreation resources, facilities, and programs. 3) Identification and description of all nonagency supplied parks and recreation resources, facilities, and programs. 4) Charts and maps identifying all parks and recreation resources, facilities, and programs available and which agencies provide those services. III. POPULATION ANALYSIS POPULATION ANALYSIS A population analysis is the determination of the characteristics of the citizenery of the agency`s service area. The population is analyzed relative to: 1) Population Demographics: age, income, gender, education, ethnicity. The purpose of population demographics is to assure the planning process that as accurate a data base as possible about the population being served is utilized, 2) Population Trends: growth, distribution, and pro- jection. Purposes of the population analysis are: 1) The planning process does not occur in a vacuum and the population served is most critical. Therefore, one of the primary purposes of the population analysis is to be sure that the master plan meets the needs of the population it is designed for. 2) The population analysis provides the planner with information that can dramatically alter the recommen- dations of the master plan. 3) The population analysis provides not only current information (current planning needs) but future information (future planning needs). 4) The population analysis can identify very specific planning information for very specific communities. IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS DEMAND ANALYSIS A demand analysis is an approach for determining what citizens currently demand, what they want in the future, and what parks and recreation activities they are currently participating in. Purposes of a demand analysis are: 1) Determine precisely what current activities and resources are popular as measured by actual parti- cipation. 2) Determine precisely what current activities and resources are not popular as measured by lack of participation. 3) Provide an opportunity to participate in the planning process by conducting: a) a service area wide survey of interests, desires, participations, priorities, and awareness factors by randomly selected citizens. b) a series of public hearings open to residents of the service area to assess on a nonrandom basis the residents' desires, interests, participation, priorities, and awareness factors. ,~ V. STANDARDS ANALYSIS STANDARDS ANALYSIS A standards analysis is a process of identifying and comparing existing parks and recreation facilities and resources to nationally accepted standards for those facilities and resources. The standards analysis provides a comparison of one community's resources to a national standard which is based on population and distance. Purposes of the standard analysis are: 1) Allow a community to determine if the overall community is in line with the nationally accepted parks and recreation standards. 2) Allow the community to determine what facilities and resources are needed and which ones provide an over-abundance (from a standards viewpoint). 3) Make obvious, shortages or overages and prevent "personal bias" regarding the appropriate supply of parks and recreation resources. 4) Allow the community to determine if specific areas within the community do not have adequate resources despite the fact that the overalll community meets the standards. 5) The standards analysis provides an excellent starting point for planning with a very specific data base as the foundation. Explanation of standards: A standard is a guide, a benchmark, a direction identifer, and should not be considered the absolute, definite statement for a community. The National Recreation Park Association (NRPA) has developed a mathematical formula for determining standards for a specific community as well as providing general parks and recreation standards. Individual communities may also decide that their specific community needs its own specific standards. However, parks and recreation standards are extremely helpful in determining a community's relative standing specific to a national comparison. ~I• AGENCY ACTION PLAN AGENCY ACTION PLAN An agency action plan represents the use of the previously gathered data and findings so that a positive parks and recreation direction can be established. Purposes of an agency action plan are: 1) Identifies specific actions. The agency action plan is valuable in that very specific actions are suggested based upon the data which has been gathered. 2) Identifies specific agency responsibility. Another value of the agency action plan is that an agency is specifically identified as being responsible for a particular action. 3) Interpretation of data. The master plan must provide a statement of direction in addition to data collection. One of the major purposes of the agency action plan is to provide that data interpretation. VII. RXPLNDITURE ANALYSIS EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS An expenditure analysis is a financial cost estimate for each recommendation or suggested action of the master plan. An expenditure analysis should also include a detailed history of parks and recreation spending in the community. Purposes of the expenditure analysis are: 1) Highlight a method of funding the proposed costs so that community decision-makers have some idea of where the needed money can come from. 2) Communities may not realize how little or how much they spend for the "quality of life" aspects that the parks and recreation agency provides. is VIII. PRIORITY CRITERION RANKING SYSTEM ~n CRITERION RANKING SYSTEM A criterion ranking system is a method of determining a specific order that each recommemded action should take in the agency action plan. Purposes of the criterion ranking system are: 1) Actions of highest priority: Eliminate any bias as to what order the recommendation should take. By placing an order of importance based on a criteria, the recommendations should then be in line with what is best for the community. 2) Ranking of all recommended actions: Equality of needed facilities, programs, and resources usually emerges because of a properly designed ranking system. In other words, each needed resource is equal in value to the community and judgement is not made on the basis of what is important and what is not important but on which is needed first, second, and third. 21 RESOURCE FOR INFORMATION Gray, Howard and Kelsey, Craig; Master Plan Process For Parks and Recreation; 1985; American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance; Reston, Virginia.