Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 Misc. lfElUTAGE 1891 COMMUNITY 1991 CUYJS(!)JV' 2{(9~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Parks Advisory Committee Members Bill Mangan, Director of Parks and Recreation Art Schoot, P.A.C. Chair Upcoming Meeting Schedule November 15, 1990 RE: DATE: The Parks Advisorv Committee is in the middle of a very exciting time for the C1ty of Prior Lake. As a Committee, we will be formulating the future of our Park System as it pertains to the 1990's. The Parks Survey was able to communicate very well with what the residents are seeking in terms of park improvements for their community. with that in mind, the P.A.C. has established a time line with which to make some recommendations to the City Council. We will be meeting on Wednesday, November 28, and then at our regular meeting on Wednesday, December 5, to try to finalize our recommendations to the Council. They have been very patient while we have tabulated the survey and compiled the information and are anxiously awaiting our findings. While we may have "burnt out" somewhat in this large task of administering the survey, attendance at these next few meetings is critical. If we are to establish the Parks Advisory Committee as a viable working committee, we must all pull together and make some solid recommendations based on the results of the survey. To do this, we seek your input as a member. You have expressed an interest in serving on the P.A.C. and your membership is valued. However, at this juncture, we want to make certain that any or all recommendations coming from the Parks Advisory Committee are indeed those of the Committee. Perhaps your schedules have changed so that Wednesdays are no longer as available as they were---Iet us know and maybe we can switch to a different evening. At the current time, we are having only 4-5 of our 9 members attend the scheduled meetings. If your job situation or family situations won't allow you to attend the meetings, we totally understand---but please let staff know if you are not comin9 so that we can arrange to have a quorum at our meetings. In add1tion, if you are no longer interested in serving on the committee, for whatever reason, please let us know so we can seek replacement members. Please mark your calendars for the above mentioned dates. November 28 will be a work session to try to prioritize some of our improvements. For the meeting on December 5, we will want to finalize our priorities and put them into recommendation form for the City Council meeting on December 17th. We respectfully request your attendance at both meetings so that, together, we can set the course for the future of our Park System. cc: Dave Unmacht, city Manager 4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: 6 BILL MANGAN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS ON PARKS SURVEY FROM PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 17, 1990 In February of 1990, the Parks Advisory Committee received Council ap~roval to conduct a community survey to ass1st the Parks Advisory Committee in ~reparing for the future of the Park System 1n Prior Lake. The survey was conducted in July, the results tabulated, and the Parks Advisory Committee reviewed the survey results to determine their recommendations. Please find attached a copy of the summary of the survey results and recommendations as prepared by the Parks Advisory Committee. Discussion should focus on the Committee's findings and subsequent recommendations. Direct staff to proceed with the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Committee and commence the design of a Conceptual Plan for a City Trail System. 2. Accept the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Committee but table the item until there is sufficient funding for the project. 1. 3. Accept the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Committee but reject the recommendations due to lack of funding. 4. Reject the findings of the Parks Advisory Committee and direct staff as determined by the Council. 5. Table the discussion of recommendations to a later date. the staff would recommend Alternative #1, accept the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Committee and proceed with the "in-house" design of a Conceptual Plan for a City Trail System. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion directing staff to proceed with the design of a Conceptual Plan for a City Trail System and that this plan be completed by March 1, 1991, and the design plans completed by June 1, 1991, may be in order. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1990 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS PREPARED BY THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARTHUR SCHOOT, CHAIRMAN KATHE ABRAMS ANTHONY ANDERSON MICHAEL BABCOCK DOUG BERENS RONALD CEMINSKY BILL HANSON PATRICK HEANEY KATHY SMITH DANIEL WEHRS SUBMITTED TO THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 1990 THE PROCESS The city of Prior Lake Parks formed in October of 1989. The established by the City Council, community that would serve in council on Parks and Recreation would be the "eyes and ears" of into the future direction of the Advisory Committee was initially purpose of the committee, as was to be a cross-section of the an advisory capacity to the City Department matters. The PAC the community in providing input Park System for Prior Lake. During the initial stages of the Committee, several meetings were held to discuss all aspects of the Park System. From these meetings, it was determined that the Committee could not really formulate a plan of action until they had citizen input from the residents. In February, 1990, Art Schoot, PAC Chair, and Bill Mangan, Director of Parks and Recreation, appeared before the City council to recommend that the PAC conduct a survey of the residents of Prior Lake to find out where their interests lie. The city Council was very receptive to the survey instrument idea and the PAC proceeded to design and administer the survey. The Parks Advisory Committee continued to meet to gather information concernin~ the survey format, types of 9uestions asked, who should rece1ve the survey, and other adminlstrative details. In April of 1990, the PAC finished the design of the survey and it was presented to the City Council for review and input. After considerable discussion and some minor changes, it was recommended that the entire community (homeowners and rental units) be given the survey. The surver and an accompanying stamped, self-addressed envelope would be ma1led to all residents based on the City's sewer and water billing list. This would assure that all residents had an opportunity to provide input by filling out the survey. After that Council meeting, the PAC continued to "massage" the survey instrument based on Council and staff review. The survey was finished and approved by the PAC and in July, 1990, the survey was mailed to the residents. The total number of surveys mailed or distributed ended up being 3,554. This included the number of surveys mailed as well as those distributed to apartments and rental units. In August, 1990, the PAC met weekly to tabulate the results of the survey. This was a very tedious task and the manual tabulation was going very slow as well as being counter productive. The PAC recommended that staff tabulate the results on the computer and hire a data entry person to enter the results. This would allow the PAC to pull information of value from the survey by being able to cross reference different items within the survey to be able to draw conclusions. The results were entered into the computer in September, 1990. The PAC reviewed the survey data in October and November of 1990 and presented their recommendations to the City Council on December 17, 1990. -1- THE SURVEY with help from other communities who had recently conducted their own surveys, the Parks Advisory Committee was able to draft a rather simple, yet comprehensive, survey instrument. The survey ended up bein9 two pages (both sides) including a map for the residents to 1ndicate which neighborhood they lived in. There were 3,554 surveys distributed and a phenomenal mail in return of 1,106 which was a 31% return! The City of Prior Lake was ma~ped of into the twenty different neighborhoods as the res1dents perceived where they lived. Each of the neighborhoods returned the survey with the range being as low as 8 returns (Raspberry Woods) to as high as 111 returns (FiSh Point Park). Over 100 returned surveys were left blank for this question. In terms of which Community Parks were used, all of the Community Parks have been used by the residents with Sand Point Beach receiving 539 tallies followed by Lakefront Park (523), Memorial Park (479), The Pond (368), Neighborhood Parks (318), and Watzl's Point Beach (177). When asked what activities members of their household participate in, it is very apparent that our residents are a very active group! There were 36 different activities listed and there were responses for all 36 plus some other activities that weren't listed! However, leading the responses in terms of active participants was walking and jogging (770) followed closely by swimming (750), fishing (634), reading (633), biking (624), boating (617), and golf (510). The rest of the activities all received tallies with 52 responses under the other category. Question #6 on the survey asked the respondents to rate the maintenance and upkeep of park facilities. Almost 70% (700) of those responding felt that the maintenance and upkeep was adequate with 272 feeling that there needs to be improvement in this area. There were 39 responses that thought that Prior Lake parks and facilities were neglected. When the residents were asked to respond to adequacy of existin9 facilities or whether new facilities were needed, the new fac11ities needed category provided tremendous insight into what is needed in the community from the residents perspective. When combining the tallies as listed, trails (nature, walking, biking, and fitness) received the largest response. When combined, trails ended up with 1,333 tallies from those responding. Of those responding, walking and biking trails received the most tallies with 560 with fitness trails (389) and nature trails (384) very close behind. The next largest category was those facilities that would be included in a Community Center with 1,229 tallies. These activities would include a teen center (431), Community Center (325), ice arena (306), and swimming pool (167). Interestingly, an outdoor pool received 392 -2- tallies which is significant in that Prior Lake is a lake community. When asked to prioritize future development in our community ~arks (Lak~front, Sand Point B~ach, M~morial, and The Pond) th~ number one priority for all but Memorial Park was walkin9 and biking trails. At Memorial Park, trails were the second pr10rity behind play equipment (which already exists). For all of the Community Parks, the top four priorities as established by those responding were trails (#1), play equipment (#2), tennis courts (#3), and skating rinks (#4). This response is yet another indication by the residents that trails and walkways have significant importance to them. As the Park Comprehensive Plan is being updated, there was considerable interest on the part of the Parks Advisory Committee to find out how the general public feels about the preservation of wetlands, slopes and marshes. This question was asked as part of the survey and an overwhelming 74% of those responding to this question felt that the city should acquire and preserve wetlands, creek valleys, swales, and natural, wooded areas and incorporate those areas into the park system. There were 918 respondents to this question and 677 supported this philosophy. One of the areas the Parks Advisory Committee wanted to address in the survey was to be able to get a "feel" from the community as to their attitude toward a "cit~ide system" of walking and biking trails. Many of the Comm1ttee members felt very strongly about the need for trails and walkways but they felt that this should be checked out by the survey. When that question was presented in the survey, there were 536 who strongly supported this system, 273 who sup~orted this item, 134 were neutral, and 43 and 41 respect1vely who opposed or strongly opposed a citywide trail system. 79% of the respondents either strongly supported or supported the "citywide system" of trails and walkways. This item received the most support of any of the items on the survey. Again, when ranking the importance of park system components as to their relative importance to the respondent, trails achieved the highest ranking with 684 tallies for community trails. Nature trails finished second in importance with 586 tallies. Natural areas, wetlands, and slopes finished third in importance to the res~onders with 585. When community trails were separated out, tra1ls linking parks, neighborhoods, and schools finished on top with 589 tallies of importance followed very closely by trails along Highway 13, County Roads 44, 42, and 21 with 542 tallies. When asked what the residents like best about their park system, the general concensus was that they are clean, they are available, convenient, well maintained, and accessible. -3- When asked what they like least about the park s~stem the general comments were not enough trails, poorly mainta1ned, lack of shelters, and too many dogs running loose. When asked what do they like best about the recreation activities offered, they respondents liked the diversity, the fact that we do have programs, summer playground and totlot, diversity, and quality. When asked what they like least about recreation activities, respondents answered with lack of trails, tennis courts, teen programs, community center, not enough offerings., and programs are too costly. The Parks Advisory Committee wanted to inform the public about how much of their tax dollar goes for parks and recreation services and then ask if they would like to see that support increased, left the same, or decreased. There were 857 responses to this questions and 304 (36%) felt that support should be increased; 504 (59%) felt the support should be left the same; and 49 (6%) felt that the support given parks and recreation services should be decreased. If the respondent felt there should be an increase in financial su~port, they were asked their preference. 147 checked an increase 1n property taxes; 52 checked initiation of franchise fees; 256 checked a park referendum; 70 checked reduce level of other City services; and 18 checked other and most filled in user fees. Of those responding, there were 1055 people under the age of 19 livin~ in households, 147 respondents were between 20 and 24; 575 were 1n households between the ages of 25 and 34; 593 persons in households between the ages of 35 and 44; 322 in households between the ages of 45 and 54; 140 in households between the ages of 55 and 64; and 126 were in households of those responding over the age of 65. When the respondents were asked how long they have lived in Prior Lake, 114 have lived here less than two years; 213 respondents have lived in Prior Lake from 3 to 5 years; 175 respondents have lived here for 6 to 10 years; and, somewhat of a surprise, 414 of the respondents have lived here for more than 10 years. The survey did provide a place for the respondents to add any additional comments. At the end of the survey, space was left for these comments and the public certainly did respond. There were 42 pages of single-spaced comments that the residents did provide. Many of the comments thanked the Parks Advisory Committee and the Mayor for the opportunity to participate in the survey; many of the comments related to being taxed too high already and they don't need more; many comments encouraged the -4- city to put trails and walkways throughout the city before someone gets hurt or killed: many thought that the system was well maintained while others thought that we lack maintenance in our park system. AS mentioned previously, there are 42 typed, single-spaced pages of comments that will be on file in the Parks and Recreation Department. The survey is of tremendous value to the Parks Advisory Committee when trying to formulate the future direction of our Parks System. There is now a working document that can be used for future planning by the PAC and staff. This is something that has never been done by the Parks and Recreation Department and, while there really wasn't too many surprises, all of the information either has been, or will be, addressed in the future by the Parks Advisory Committee or by staff. -5- THE RECOMMENDATIONS In their meetings of October and November of 1990, the Parks Advisory Committee have analyzed the data of the Parks Survey and have determined the following prioritized findings: 1. A citywide system of trails and walkways are of the highest priorit~ of those who responded to the survey. The reasons for tra1ls and walkways being necessary to the community was that of safety---the residents of our community do not feel safe walking in the street or along Highway 13; the children are not safe while walking or biking to schools or the librar~; there is no safe running/jogging path in our commun1ty that people can use for fitness; and there are no trails or walkways in our park system that people can use to simply enjoy nature. 2. Athletic field improvements became the second priority of the Parks Advisory Committee. Irrigation of existing fields would improve turf and soil conditions; if the Park System had regulation soccer fields, tournaments could be conducted which would generate revenue for the community; the City of Prior Lake does not have any lighted softball or football/soccer fields; there should be warning tracks around the softball fields; all of these improvements were very high on the list of comments as submitted by the respondents. 3. The Parks Advisory Committee's third priority is athletic field expansion. A real problem exists in using neighborhood parks for summer youth softball/baseball due to the fact that there is no parking. This means that people park in the street resulting in the neighborhood becoming very congested causing complaints from those areas. There are no regulation soccer fields in the community which are required by league rules. There is not enough baseball/softball fields to meet demand. This past summer, there were almost 2,000 youth involved in softball, baseball, or soccer and not enough fields available. There are no tennis courts within the Park sfstem. The only courts available to the public are at the H1gh School. 4. with the high response given to community Center kinds of activities, the Parks Advisory Committee will have to address the need for some kind of multi-purpose facility. The Committee feels that there were many respondents who checked the need for new facilities in the areas of teen center, physical fitness, swimming pool, theater, and indoor ice arena. It has been determined that public school availability is not an o~tion because the school activities result in those facil1ties being at capacity. This is definitely an area that needs more study and discussion in the future. -6- As a result of these findings the Parks Advisory Committee voted unanimously for the following recommendation: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CITYWIDE TRAIL SYSTEM. THAT STAFF BE UTILIZED TO DESIGN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM AND THAT THE ACTUAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BE COMPLETED "IN-HOUSE" WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL PLAN WOULD BE COMPREHENSIVE IN NATURE LINKING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RETAIL AREAS. ONCE THE PLAN IS DESIGNED AND COST ESTIMATES ARE DETERMINED, THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL STUDY AND RECOMMEND METHODS OF FUNDING SUCH AS REFERENDUM, TRAIL DEDICATION, PRIVATE FUNDING AND/OR GENERAL FUND BALANCE. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT A TIMEFRAME BE ESTABLISHED OF COMPLETION OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN BY MARCH 1, 1991, WITH DESIGN PLANS BEING COMPLETED BY JUNE 1, 1991. It was the consensus of the Parks Advisorv Committee that the design of the Comprehensive Trail System 1S critical. Public facilities such as parks, neighborhoods, schools, and retail businesses should all be incorporated into the plan so as to make the trail "comprehensive". Once we have a quality project designed, then the Parks Advisory Committee will work diligently toward making the Comprehensive Trail System a reality. Funding alternatives as discussed include a Park Referendum, Capital Outlay, General Fund Balance, civic groups and organizations, and private funding methods. -7-