Park committee asks staff to revise survey for Hunters Brook and Marsh Hollow developments

Victoria’s Park and Recreation Committee reviewed and requested revisions to a draft park-development survey focused on two future community parks — Hunters Brook and Marsh Hollow — at its May 19, 2025 meeting.

Committee members said the city should sharpen the survey language, reduce respondent burden and add neighborhood proximity questions so nearby residents’ preferences are easier to identify. Parks and Recreation staff said the survey will remain open through the summer, will be promoted at tabling events and via mailers and signs, and that results will be returned to the committee this fall.

The discussion centered on two roughly five-acre future park sites that staff said were funded through park dedication fees. Jenna Smith, Parks and Recreation staff, told the committee that Marsh Hollow includes a protected wetland and that "this 5 acres includes a protected wetland area," which staff said will remain undeveloped and preserved as natural green space. Smith said Hunters Brook is slightly larger and that both sites present grading and elevation issues that could affect development costs and design choices.

Committee members pressed staff on several survey design changes they said would make the tool more useful. Committee member Amanda Cahill recommended letting respondents choose a shorter ranked list rather than ranking every amenity, saying, "I would be for having the option of not having to to move them or rank them maybe all the way. Like, pick your top 5." Members also asked staff to separate questions about leisure use from scheduled programs and practices so the city can tell whether parks are chiefly used for casual recreation or organized activities.

Other topics the committee requested staff to add or clarify in the survey and outreach materials included: - Clearer maps and graphics that show park shapes, slopes and the protected wetland at Marsh Hollow; staff said a prettier map will be provided for public outreach. - Proximity questions: staff proposed two yes/no questions asking whether a respondent lives within a half-mile of each future park so neighborhood impacts (noise, traffic, parking) are visible in results. - Parking and layout notes: members asked staff to flag that certain amenities (sports fields, splash pads) increase parking demand; staff noted street parking is often used at comparable parks and that steep sections of Creekside Lane at Marsh Hollow limit parallel parking. - Amenity options and surfacing: committee members asked staff to include basketball courts, gaga pits, multi-use turf options, playground surfacing types and recent playground elements (for example, roller slides and inclusive swings). Staff said some options may not fit both parks but will be included for ranking and for in-person interactive exercises. - Survey mechanics: staff said she will change the ranking format to reduce burden (for example, allowing respondents to pick a top-5 rather than ranking every item) and to allow separate questions for leisure use and for scheduled events/practices.

Smith outlined the city’s outreach plan: the survey will be available online all summer, QR codes will be posted on signs at the future park sites, paper copies will be available, the city will mail targeted notices to nearby neighborhoods, and staff will solicit responses while tabling at events such as the Victoria Farmer’s Market and the Truck Rodeo in July. Smith also said staff will meet with the Hunters Brook neighborhood in June and will email committee members with details about members’ roles at engagement events.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the survey at the meeting. Instead members gave staff direction to revise the draft and return a summary of changes and the final questionnaire for review; Smith said survey results will be presented to the committee in the fall. The committee also discussed metrics for desired response rates; staff said typical targets used by the city are in the range of 10% participation for a strong community response and that the goal is "as many as possible." The committee noted the survey is not a scientific sample but will guide design choices and in-person engagement.

Background and next steps: the Parks and Recreation Committee emphasized that the two sites are intended as community parks (not solely neighborhood parks), and council policy requires multiple engagement strategies for major park developments. Staff will revise the survey wording and ranking format, add maps and proximity questions, include additional amenity options requested by the committee, and proceed with the summer outreach plan. Results and a summary of changes will be returned to the committee this fall.