HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 02-11-1988Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
February 11, 1988, 7:00 p.m. (Note the early starti a time:)
AGENDA
1• Call to Order
Introduction of new commissioner, Phyllis Hanson)
2• Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations.
b;. Staff
c. Others.
4. Report on Past Council Action
a Final Payment - Parkers Lake Seed and Sod
b. Selected west site for community center in Plymouth Creek
Park
c. Approved 1988 Fee Schedule/Rental Policies
5. Unfinished Business
a. Park Usage/Cost Study Report Discussion Athletic Assoc.
Representatives
b Parkers Lake Update
c. Plymouth Creek Site Planning Update
d. 1987 Annual Report Approval
e. St. Mary's Neighborhood Park Update
f.
9•
6 New Business
a. Review Community Attitude Survey Results (mailed from
City Manager)
b. Discuss 1988 Park Tour
c. New Plats
d.
e.
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
January 14, 1988
Page. l
Present; Chair Edwards, Co missioners Anderson, Reed, LaTour, Beach and
Rosen; Councilman Sisk; staff Blank, Busch, Patterson and
Pederson
1. CALL TO aCER
Chair Edwardes called the January meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUI'E5
A motion was made by Commissioner Reed and seconded by Commissioner
LaTour to approve the minutes of the December 1987 meeting as
presented. Tte nation carried with all ayes.
3. VISrICR HtFSFNTATICNS
a. Athletic Associations: Carol Beech announcedthat the
Plymouth Athletic Association is now a reality, and she has
been named the Executive Director. She; stated that the
Association will use as its boundaries District 284 and the
City of Plymouth and that the Association will be a member of
the National Youth Sports Coaches Association. Right now the
only sport they will be involved in is soccer, but later they
will branch out to others.
b. „Staff , Mary Patterson stated' that the new recreation
specialist would begin her duties on 'Axoday, January 19. She
also stated that a youth ski trip planned for Monday, January
18, had 80 participants registered. She mentioned that the
winter triathlon is scheduled for Sunday, February 14, at
French Regional Park, co-sponeored by Plymouth Park and
Recreation and Hennepin Parks. She said that the Old
F'whicned Christmas event held at Plymouth Creek Park, in
cooperation with saes Plymouth Historical Society, was a great
success, and plans are already underway for the event in
December 1988. She indicated that plans are being made: now
for a special winter event in 1989 in cooperation with the
Plymouth Civic League, to be held at Parkers Lake. Sane of
the activities being considered are: ice sculptures,
medallion hunt, emooesh races, dog sledding, skating, etc. She
announced that she had done some research on a. 3ecads of
recreation and learned that the number of programs Offered in
1977 was 52 with 1,875 participants and in 1987 was 717
programs with. 28,786 participants. She said than athletics
had 1,112 participants in 1977 and 7,590 in 1987. She
indicated that she is beginning to plan the, summer recreation
progra;._ and asked commissioners if they had any ideas for ,
programs to contact her.
c. None.
January 14, 19880 PRAC Minutes
Page 2
4 FUCK CN PAST OOLRCIL ACrICN
a. Parkers Lake Pavilion, Architect Del, Erickson is making
changes to the oonoept plans of the pavilion as recommended by
FRAC and approved by the. City Council.
b. Neighborhood Park Nees Council approved thenames
reaame for the three neighborhood parks built in 1987:
Rolling, Hills, Heritage and Turtle Dake. Maintenance crews
will begin making signs for installation in the spring.
5. tWtNIS M REDESS
a. Parkers_ Lake LWAte. Director Blank announced that with a
financial settlement reached for a piece of property on the
south end of the lake, the City now owns 104% of this park.
He further indicated that rebidding of the Parkers Lake
f 2 Feb 25 and that MAC, Pavilion .is cheduled or p.m., ruary
may meet the week. of February 29 to review the bids before
passing them on to the Council.
b. Cont ' d Discussion an Park [save and Cost Study Resort.
Discussion continued on this subject which was referred to the
Park Commission by the City Council. Director Blank stated
that Council has recommended that PRAC hold public meetings to
discuss user fees. The commissioners suggested that a meeting
with the Athletic Associations shouldbe scheduled for
February and, it should be for the purpose of soliciting input
on ways to cut costs and/or raise revenues. Chair Edwards
wondered in what ways an athletic association could help cut
costs. Director Blank stated they could help by being field
attendants and doing things such as lining fields, putting out
bases, setting up nets, etc. Commissioner Beach, expressed her
concern -about charging user fees to youth athletic groups.
She is very much against it. Commissioner Rosen stated that
it may become a reality at sane point in the future and now is
the time to find' out how the athletic associations feel about
it. Co muissioner Beach then asked what a typical charge to an
athletic association would' be for using a field. Director
Blank reeporx3ed that that information Is not available at this
time, but the Cost Study Report doer indicate what it costs to
maintain one field. Chair Edwards indicated that she feels
people don't object to paying user fees for indoor activities
such as swimming and tennis, but that they'll be very upset
about having to pay for wide open outdoor spaces... Director
Blank suggested that PRAC read the philosophy statement frau
the "Mayor's Task Force on Park; and Recreation Program
Financing" prior to the .February meeting, Director Blank will
draft a letter for Chain Edwards to send' to athletic
associations inviting them to the February meeting.
c. ElyMth Creek Site Planning, Paul Fjare of Brauer and
Associates was present to review this subject with PRAC. He
indicated that there are three criteria to consider in.
J&"ry 14, 1968, FRAC ;Minutes
Page 3
selecting a site for the proposed community venter.. They are:
accessibility
community exposure
physical relationship to complimentary land uses.
Paul then pointed out Brauer's rem" for preferring a
masterly site. They are as follows
1) Plymouth Boulevard is a major collector more suited
to handle traffic generated. Good potential for
pedestrian linkage to neighborhoods.
2) Good possibilities in relating to existing community
buildings. Fair aLility to benefit from existing
City Center infrastructure and to share space..
3) Surrounding land use; public and cwwrcial leas
seitive to traffic and noise. Will add to the
public exposure of the facility through the area's
focus as a city commercial center.
The commissioners then discussed what would become of the east
site if not selected for the community center, since we own
this parcel of land. Director Blank responded that this land
is high, dry ground and of very good quality and may,
therefore, be considered for facilities such as tennis courts.
PRAC then agreed that a westerly site was the best choice for
the location of the proposed com mitt' center.
A HMICN WAS MALE BY COMyISSICNER BEACH AND SFS BY
C C*nSSICNR- FM) TO REO"END A WGSIERLY LOCATICN FSR THE
Pl O 00*MM CENM.. The motion carried with all ayes.
Commissioner Rosen indicated that he is not ready to make a
decision to cut down any trees on site #2, but agree that
PRAC needs to more ahead in planning the rest of Plymouth
Creek park.
This iteemm will be going to the City Council for approval on
January 25. Any na, rs of PRAC' wishing to attend the Council
meeting should let Chair Edwards know.
6.' NEW BUSINESS
a. 1988 Park Facilityity Rental Policies and_ Fee Schedule. Rick
Buschdiscussed with PRAC the 1988 Park Facility Rental
Policies and Free Schedule and the new proposed policy on
Rental of Softball Complexes. He pointed out that the
softball complex rental policy has been proposed to help
people better understand our policies in regard to using
softball complexes and other facilities. He stated that the
softball complex rental will apply only to Plymouth Creek and
Zachary Playfields and will be for groups wishing to ccrduct
tournaments.
January 14, 1988, PRANG Minutes
Page 4
Commissioner Reed asked Rick about charging youth athletic
associations to use our fields. Director Blank then remindLA
Commissioner Reed that it has been the policy of the City to
not charge youth groups to use fields for normal day to day
practices and games. These 'groups are charged, however, if
they wish to conduct tournaments
Councilman Sisk suggested that the policy on Facility- Rental
be changed to reflect that the fee schedule section applies to
tournaments and special events only. He further stated that
the City Council may begin to feel user fees for youth groups
will be necessary in the future if PRAC wishes to-ontinue
building new recreation facilities and athletic playfields.
Chair Edwards responded that to adopt that type of policy
could create ill will among residents and could cause
participants to drop out of our programs. She further
indicated that it was her feeling that residents would be lean
likely to pass a bond referendum for a community center if we
Started charging our youth to use facilities on a daily basis.
Councilman Sisk reminded PRAC of Council's desire to cut costs
and raise revenues and further stated that the park and
recreation department's budget requests in future years will
be very carefully reviewed.
A WITION WAS MALS BY COWISSICNER REEDAND SEOQNIDID BY
0CmWSSION R BE'rAm To REOCMW APPROVAL OF THE 1988 PARK
FACILITY RENTAL POLICIES AND FEE SCHEDULE AND THE 1988'
SOFTBALL COMPLEX RENTAL POLICIES' AND FEE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED
BY STAFF. The motion carried with all ayes.
b. 1987 Annual Hg=t. Copies of the 1987 Annual Report were
briefly reviewed for changes and/or corrections. Director
Blank asked commissioners to call the Park and Recreation
office if they have any changes prior to the February meeting,
so that these changes can be incorporated into the final copy,
which will be distributed at the February meeting.
c New Plats, Director Blank is still working with the Planning
Department on the plat north of County Road 9 and west of 494.
d. Neighborhood Reservation Policy. At staff's request,
PRAC was; risked to consider whether or not neighborhood parks
should be reservable by residents and to adopt a policy on
this. After brief, discussion, it was agreed that neighborhood
parks should be available to residents on a first--owe., first
serve basis with the exception of Lions Park ballfield. A
MOTION WAS MADE BY CC1*1ISSIQNEt FMEN AND SECONDED BY
M+ SSICNER BEACH' M NOT RESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE LIONS PARK BALLFIELD. The motion carried
with four ayes. Commissioners LaTour and Reed voted nay. It
was their feeling that residents should be able to reser1
picnic shelters and tables for family picnics and outings.
January 14, 1988, PRBC Minutes
Page 5
e. St. ry's NeiahbarPark, Director Blank stated that the
City Council had selected Barton Aschman Associates with a not
to exceed fee of %,-lno to design the St. Mary's neighborhood
park. Neigh-borho-6 11 ,estionnaires will be sent out the week
of January 18 with .v first neighborhood meeting scheduled
for February 10 if the consultant is available. The second
neighborhood meeting would then be scheduled for February 17,
with PRAC's normal monthly meeting on the 11th of February.
Notices will be sent to PRAC once all meeting dates have been
confirmed.
7. CCHMISSICN PPIMATIQN
None.
8. STAFF 00"ICATIQN
Director Blank indicated that the result the resident survey
would be shared with the City Council at meeting on January
25, and that the results would be available for PRAC's review at
their February meeting.
9. ADJCURNHWr
The meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
it
REsL)L s tom' ST. MARX'S PARK Q[k'bTICNMIR
Ore hundred ninety-three questionnaires were mailed. Thirty Four have
been. returned (18%)
The following facilities are ranked in order of most often checked to
least often checked:
27 trees/landscaping
24 benches
2,3 creative play equipment
j trails
2,2 open air shelter with picnic table
7
12 informalplayfield
1 volleyball
1 hardcourt/basketball%hopscotch/four-square, etc.
aopXe were asked to list "other", and the following shows how those
items ranked:'
3 wading pool
swimming pool
Wildlife area
bathrooms
horseshoe pits
shuffleboard court
softball field
drinking fountain
skateboard rang
concrete tennis wall for tennis practicel
water purtF
grills
1 cable ride
pond for wildlife
exercise stations along path
skating rink
The following list shows; which items. should receive the highest priority
in the opinion of the respondents:
12 trails
10 creative plan equipment
trees/landscaping
picnic shelter
benches
volleyball
picnic tables,
hardcourt
softball. field
2 water/*^nd play area
swimming pool
shuffleboardlard
bathrooms
rseshoe pits
t
Ages of household mambers responding to survey.
senior citizet
adults
high school
junior high school
elementary school
LL pre --school
Comments
1. Howe will this affect the taxes in this areae
2. Since softball is the only use I: have seen, at this site, it seems
veryimportant to keep an area: for this use. I am not aware of a
volleyball area nearby, but I know more than 10 people who play but
must go to Brookview. More ballfields are neo -fed it's hard to
fic' anyplace now that is free for teem and yourg adults to start
up an impromptu game.;
3. This: land: has a high water table arra we must not encourage flooding
on adjacent property. We have a serious problem in this
neighborhood with late night car vandals and sometimes snavA;obilers
than tear up the gra, on schools, churches and lawns. Proper
construction would minimize that problem.
4. 1 would like to see a duck pond that the whole neighborhood' could
enjoy up close.. Keep as many mature gees as possible. The park
could be planned in stages as money becov es available to include
all or mast of the items
5. A wading pool would be reall- and play equipment for smaller
children. Our favorite part is f` rcle Park, because the playground
is not too dangerous. Trail, -,a really needed in this park, sit>ce
it is very dangerous to walk in this area since you must walk on
Ridgenount or Sunset Trail where cars speed and there is a lot of
traffic.. It would be fantastic if you could Connect the trail to
the sports field at Ridgemount. There is no easy way (safe) for
the kids to get there now and the junior high kids could use a
short cut to the school.
6.. Swimming pool with lifeguards and locker rooms arm kiddie pool.
Real bathrooms. Park sounds 'like a good idea --very much needed.
7. 1 don't want noisy things that go on all hours of night.:
8.We're thrilled to see this will be happening.
g NO banches! It would be NICE to have some wildlife spec:t, left in
this area. Let's be careful not to make it a rendevoux nor
hangouts.
i
3
r
10.. grails should be for walking - not bikingl Concrete tennis wall to
hit which could be Crede in conjunction with a racquetball court..
Would like to we trails intertwine through the park with an outer
perimeter trail to provide miles of trails.
11. We like it just as it is. So that it does not becom e high
traffic area, I would like to se-- the pc-,sive cc mitr;',nt noted in
your acca%aanying letter implemented as overriding priority. At
present lots of joggers, walkers and dog walkers use f'orestview
Lane and Sunset Trail- they would like a natural part.
12. Shimming pool for recreation,
1.3. Wading pool for children. A, good model wouldbe Linden Hills Park
in Minneapolis - clean, safe and well utilized by neighborhood.
Traffic needs to be strictly controlled to ensure safety of people
cominc /going from park.
14. Use natural materials only: timber, cedar, etc. Keep existing
trees and acid more. Trails should be dirt, not paved,
15. No snowmobile=s"
16.; our family would be so happy for the convenience of a nice, safe
and clean .neighborhood park near our home.
17. Have parking to keep: cars off street.
We are hone owners residing directly across the street from this park site
and are happy that the city is proceeding with their plans to develop this
area. We feel that it is imperative that the Designers and developers of
this park have a clear understanding of what our neighborhood is all about.
Most of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood have lots of at least a
half acre and many with an acre or more. The area is heavily wooded and
the scenery is natural and slightly roiling. Wehaveall experienced deer
in our backyards, and a multitude of other wildlife resides in the area
including pheasants, rabbits, fox, raccoons, ducks, geese and hundreds of
species of birds.
We have all purchased; homes in this neighborhood because we take pride in
this natural beauty that surrounds us. Therefore, it makes good sense to
design a park that blends into this community, Focus should be placed on
retaining the park's exisi.;ng beauty and adding to it using natural Materials
only. No parking lots are Necessary because they attract non -neighborhood
use. No use of cement, colorful equipment or distracting buildings are
needed -orany reason.: A beautiful and useful pare could be created by
adding trees and shrubs to those that exist, large grassy areas for picnics
and play, dirt trails - not blacktop, play equipment for climbing and
crawling built out of woad and timber, a few wooden picnic tables and
wooden benches placednear groupings of trees, a sandpit for volleyball..
The schools, which are so close by, provide ample playfield space, tennis
courts and the like. This park, if developed as described above, would
be enjoyed by all ages and in all seasons.
There are so many newer neighborhoods in Plymouth which can only be described
as suburban: small lots, little privacy, few trees and lots of cement.
A park designed for such an area is not needed or wanted here.
Please plan a park that is understated, natural and tasteful. Our neighborhood
will greatly appreciate it.
CITY CSF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
I
i
CC MO
DATE October 21, 1987`
MOO James G. Willis, City Manager
PTMI Eric. J. Blank, Director of parks and Recreation
AKIUlJ1 V *: REVIEW OF LARK USAGE. AND l'!'11G7IENANCE LEVELS
As part of the 1987 Performance Standards and Measures for the City tlenager, r
have been asked to prepare a review of the appropriate park usage and current
park maintenance levels for our perk system. In the following pages, I have
attempted to review for you and the Council the following item::
Our current park system plan, which identifies our park standards and
park usage philosophy.
A sunwry review of the Task, Force Report on, Park and Recreation
Financing for Facilities and Progrxw.
The growth in the park system in terms of acres, program, and other
information since 1980:
Park maintenance costs for neighborhood parks, community playfields, city
parks, and costs per facility such as: ice skating, soccer, softball,
etc.,
After you have had a chance to review this document, I would be happy to meet
with you and further review and analyze the information that I have provided
here.
In 1980, the City Council charged the Park and, Recreation Advisory Commission
with the. task. of preparing a; comprehensive park system plan for the. City of
Plymouth.. After a year and a half in the development prMVes, this plan was
adopted by the City Council in February of .1982.Contained within this plan
is the philoe:)phy, rationale and procedures by which the City of Plymouth has
chosen to acquire,, develop and maintain a variety of park facilities..
Inherent in developing this document was the process- of developing a variety
of standards that the City should strive to obtain. As an example, standards
for neighborhood parks were:
one park per neighborhood
2.5 to 3.5 developed acres per 1,000 population
five to 21 acres in size.
For, coam:u ity playfields, the standards developed' were:
one playf geld` per community
PE;VSE W OF PARK USA(Z AND MINMWM'WMIS
October 21, 198
Page 2
r 2.5 developed acres per 1,000 population
20 to 65 acres in size.
For city parks,_ the standards developed were,
four to five parks disbursed throughrut the City, with a 20 acre
minimum, or large enough to encompass and protect a natural resource.
The: Park System was also reviewed for what: we refer to as its "functional
standards." 'ltye integrity and flexibility of the; entire park system; can be
monitored through the use of the following functional classifications 'There
I
s no one "correct" mix of functional components, but it is, nevertheless,
ipperative that each oomponent.be represented within the system, in order that
the system can be balanc ed and that it demor--rates its long-term viability. l
litw- five functional classifications are:
S YI - the preservation of significant ,Mural amenities such
as lakes,.. creeks, wetlands, prairieswoodlands,, unique and
significant landforms, vegetative coni nitiea and views, flood plains,
etc. Conservation, in this sense, means protection frau destruction
by all forms of urban. encroachment.
Ornmo talion the decorative, aesthetic aspect of the park system.
Ornamentation is usually provided through the development and:
vaintenanc* of natural amenities, either formally or informally.
v refers primarily to the non -recreational programming of the
parks and, as such, usually represents a smell percentage of land
area, though frequently a large part of p ogramming. Culture
enca"wes historical places, public amphitheaters, museums,
educational programeE and soon.
1 - includes participatory activities, active and passk v,
intensive and extensive, for all age grow a in the community.
HMECO- perhaps the most important, yet most frequently overlooked
function of a park system is .its reserve --its ability to expand and be
flexible in the face' of future growth and development, as well as
changing recreation demands and opportunities.
At this time, the two areas that we would appear to be the weakest in are
ornamentation and, cultural facilities. The fountains and featured gardens at
Parkers Dake are our first attenpt to promote these areas within our park
system.
The next phase of tl,' development plan was to review the Plymouth camKanities.
A. study was done :he population, household size, employment growth, and
other trends by w, ,,...g neighborhoods and driving neighborhoods. Population
by neighborhoods was the driving factor creating the demo for acres of
neighborhood park and ccmunity playfields. Facility standards were also
analyzed. In this process, we are able to compare ourselves now and in the
future to national norms with regard to the number.' of tennis courts per 1,000
people, the number of softball fields per 1,000 people, the number of
baseball./softball fields per 1,000 people,, etc.
REVIEW OF PARK USAGE AND IrWINrENANM tEVEMS
October 21., 1987
Page 3
The next part of our, development process was a park needs analysis. The park
needs analysis for neighborhood parks is also included l the appendix of this:
report, within the park needs analysis, we looked at the ultimate population
of each neighborhood, the existing park acres within that neighborhood,
compared that to our standard of 2.5--3.5 acres per 1,000 people, and were able
to determine which neighborhoods at that time had a deficiency in park
acreage. This ,allowed us to set up;a plan by which parks would be acquired in
future yeare. This has; continued to be the guiding force in our annual
development of the capital improvement program.
The next step in the process was perhaps the most important. rhis
future park identification phase. in this phase, the consultant was:
with the .responsibility of locating within the cammity a variety ofx. -
that would meet the standards for the various park types that had been, --A c
earlier in the report.. Each site was ccxnpared against other sites in ik':
ability to provide the components that would allow each ;park to .function
properly in providing the desired experiences to the park visitor. Some of
the items that were numerically scored in ranking these ,facilities . were
location within the walking or driving neighborhood
relationship to the thoroughfare guide plan
vegetation,
surface water conditions;
existing ownership and use
adjacent proposed land use
proximity of sewer and we'Nar
wetlands and soil conditions.
Each of these factors has a different importance to each different type of
park.. For example, a central location is much more important to a
neighborhood park that people walk to than it ,is to a playfield to 4 ich most
people may drive. It was this type of analysis that allowed the park
Commission and planners to take the prototype standard of a neighborhood park
and co%mre it to specific sites in the field throughout the cmmmity. The
end result is what we know today as the comprehensive park. system plan; a
detailed mapping of all future park rites to be acquired by the City of
Plymouth.
The final. part of the park system plan was the, setting of priorities based on
the current demand as determined by populations within neighborhoods.
Included in the appendix are the priorities developed in the 1982 plan, and an
analysis of the park acquisition that has taken place between 1982 and 1986 to
meet the priorities that had been established.
Next. I will touch very briefly on the results of the Task Force on Park and
Recreation. Program financing. In January of 1982, the Mayor and City Council
charged a task force to study and report on the guiding philosophies that
would be used in preparing future financial progran3 as they relate to the
REVIEW OF PAR;{ USAGE AND MAIN NANM hEVET,S
October 21, 198'
Page: 4
park and recreation c ava-ent of the City budget. dim Rise, Chairman of the
Park and Recreation Advisory L-4 mission at that time, was chosen to chair this
task force. On %y 2, 1483, the city council passed a resolution endorsing
the findings and concepts asf&-veloped. by the Task Force. This resolution is
also 'included in the appendia of this report., The findings of the task force
are contained for the most part within the five major funding philosophy
statements that: they prepared as part of the report. These funding statements
as taken from the report.are
A Research and Planning
Themajority of all research and planning should be underwritten by
tax -supported resources.; This deals with the hong--range planning
for the total park and recreation system
B. Construction of Facilities
The City shall use endwwnts, grants, gifts, enc., whenever
possible to underwrite facility construction. When these sources
of funds are not available, the taxpayer should underwrite the
capital costs of such :facilities. New construction should include
a forecast of operating; costs; no construction should start until
the City has agreed to pay the operating costs.
c. Maintenance of Facilities
The City's financial resourcesshall be used to maintain the basic
level of maintenance necessary to maintain in a reasonable manner,
all, parks and recreational facilities within the system. we
believe: that the everyday, ongoing maintenance,, e.g, mowing the
grasp, lis inherent with the City -ownership of any and all parks and
should not be cost -associated with special user groups., user
groups shall pay the majority of costs necessary to carer extra-
ordinary maintenanceassociated with their groom's use of special
facilities.
D. Development of Programa
Because recreation is important to all segments of our population.
including the young, old, gifted and handicapped, the taxpayer
should utxlerwrite the cost of the research and development of
programs to meet the needs of all tents of the community.
E. Operation of Programa
Program participants should, pay the, direct costs and some
administrative costs associated. with participating in any given
activity. Special consideration will be given to underwriting some
costs frjr the mentally and physically handicapped and elderly
populations.
in preparing our annual city budgets and the capital improvement budget, we
have tried to prepare our financial program based on these five funding
philosophy statements. One example of -this is the fee policy I'm have that
requires the Wayzata `oath Socoer Association to pay approximately a $1,000
user fee for the rental of our soccer facilities during their annual
invitational soccer tournament. The Association on the other hand does not
pay a rental fee for our facilities for their in-house soccer program which is
geared toward the basic P - mirth youth recreational participant. Another
REVHN OF PARK USAGE AND MAIKENR CE LVVMS
October 21 1987
Page 5
example. is the fees; charged for adult softball participation which includes
costs associated with field maintenance and energy coatsfor night play.
These type of management
kpractices
directly resulted from the philosophies put
tforthItTearoerepot
The next area: that needs to be reviewed in this report: the subject of
growth. Growth within. the City of Plymouth has been drivL,-,,,,j us in two ways.
First, new people have created a demand for additional neighborhood parks
throughout the co manxty. In the last seven years, the City has newly
developed neighborhood parks at Timber Shores, Mission, Schmidt Lake, tolling
Hills, Amhurst, County Road 61, and Maple Creek. our total park acreage has
increased from approximately 275 acres to approximately 600 acres between 1980
and 1987. Our city population has .increased 130% from 1980 to 1986. A
dramatic increasehas occurred in the number of participants in program
during the same time frame. increases in our program participation far
exceeded the rate of population. growth during the last six years. Listed
below is a summary of some of this participation growth.
Number of programa 121 779 461,E increase
Participation in fee supported 4,132 17,443 422% increase
general recreation programs
Adultteam marts 137 482 352& increase
Individual sports 1,322 1,664 1.26% increase
Use of ;playf fields (1981) .1.1021 3,197 313 increase
Population 31,615 41,207 130% increase
These figures do not include Wayzata Recreation programer provided on
a< contractual basis in 1986 & 1.987.)
Of the figures above, the most important statistic to this review is the 300%
increase in the use of the community playfields. The jump from. 1,000 games
per year to over 3,000 games per year is a direct result of the increasing
program demands not only by adult athletics, but more likely from the various
youth athletic associations that continue to grow and expand programs within.
our City. As people became more wellness conscious, we will see more people
staying active later in. their Lives. The young soccer player of today will
want to participate in adult leagues as they get older.
Later in this report you will see the hours associated with maintaining
individual sports facilities. Had we not developed an appropriate community
playfield system, the neighbod;hood park system would have seen a dramatic
increase in inappropriate uses and a much higher maintenance cost associated.
w
yyi//
thh/thayt usage. Problems with parking, noise, trash, eta . , would be very
COMITI n "
Rick Busch of our staff is assigned the responsibility of working with the
youth athletic associations and our adult sports program. It is his job to
attempt to balance the nerds of the users versus the ability of the playfields.
to withstand extremely heavy user occasions. We have in the past said "no,
and we will say "no" in the future when it is necessary. The: continued growth
of all of our sports; user groups will be one of the most important determining.
factors on the timing of the development of the Bass Lake and Parkers Lake
cannunity playf.ields.
Park Min_hMA e..SOQ
Without a doubt, the most startling figure within the Park and Recreation
budget has been the dramatic increase in the park maintenance budget, which
was $256,810 in 1981 and is projected to be $796,200 in 1988. Our highly
maintained acres have increased from about 100 acres to about 350 acres
between. 1981 and 1987. During th.s time we also have added four additional
year --round shelters, for a total of 5. The park, maintenance division will,
have grown from five full-time employees in 1981 to 10 full-time :employees in
1988.. Our part. -tame ,or seasonal work for us has also increased from
approximately 7,000 hours to 14,500 hours annually during this same time
period.
Since 1984, the park maintenance division has had available a campater on.
which all of aur maintenance time cards could be entered. Based on an
analysis of the .last three years, we have estimated that average maintenance
hours per acre for neighborhood parks is approximately 41 hours per acre per
year. The average time. for our beach facilities is between 80 and 90 hours
per acre per year. The average time for community playfields appears to be
between 80 end 83 hours per acre per year.
The major items of the maintenance program for the neighborhood park system,
lies in, four areas. (This example is Green Oaks. Park excluding new
con3truction.)
Est. I
A. Mowing and trimming 45
B. Play structure repair 6$
C. Rink flooding and cleaning 14%
D. Garbage pick-up 1Q$
75
Other components of our neighborhood park maintenance work make up the
remaining 25% of the; annual cost. Examples of this are: fertilizing,
broadleaf weed control, signage, tree planting, trail maintenance and repair,
etc. We, have designed our new neighborhood. parks in an effort to keep park
maintenance costa down. The three new parks developed in 1987 total 45.8
acres in size. Of this amount, 9.1.3 acres or 20% will be high maintenance or
nod area. The remaining 36.67 acres or 80% will be very low maintenance,
natural area.
REVIEW OF PARK L)SAM AM K%DnENMM IEVEW
October 21e 1987`
Page T
Attached in the appendix is a. detailed end of year summery for .198E showing
crusts for the various parks within the City. Listed below is a summary report
of a review of the park maintenance hours for neighborhood parksp beaches and
playfields for the year 1986, along With a summary report for the years 1984.
and 1985.
Hgy maint2ng= Hours
1986 t-4aigN=hood Parks
7.0 Acres Schmidt Lake 239 Hours
5.0 Acres (island 190 Hours
6.8 Acres green Oaks 308 Hours
3.0 Ac °est Lions 401 Hours
8.0 Acres Mise,',on Hills 227 Hours
2.2 Acres Circle 200 Hours
13L. Shiloh 3Q3 Hours
45.0 Acres 1,868 Hours ; 45 z 41.5 Hr/Ac
10.8 Acres
3.0 Act
13.8 Acres
24.0 Acres
5.0 Acres
14.0 .Acres
18.0 Acres
33.0 Acres
17.0 Acres
1986 Beaches
East Beach 913 Hours
West Beach 12Q -HQ =
1,303 Hours : 13.8 = 94.4
1986 Playfielde
Plymouth Creek 1,757 Hours
Wompte 706 Hours
Plymouth Jr. High 1,417 Hours
Oakwood 1,328 ;Yours
Zachary 2,566 Hours
Ridgenount 931 Hours
Playfields in ural 385 Hours
9,090 Hours 112 = 81.89
REVIEW OF PARK USAGE AND MAINTENANCE LEVELS
Octzber 21 1987
page
Summary
1284 & 85
Neighborhood Parks 41.0 tours/Acre 41.00 ire/Acre
Beec:,hee 79.0 Hours/Acre 94.00 Hours/Acre.
Playfields 83.5 Hours/Acre 81.16 Hours/Acre
These figures do not include any "new construction hours."
The park maintenance work associated with tfie community psayfields is much
broader and more time consuming than the, mainta,-~once required for neighborix)od
parks., Items such as irrigation maintenance, building cleaning and repair,
line painting, infield maintenance., top dressing, and seeding and 9-- ing add.
to our other maintenance areas to, in effect, double the average hour per acre
coat for community playfieads. The most time consuming are:
mowing/trimming 12
line painting 8
seeci/sod/repair' 9
building/repair/rmint 6
rink maintenanoe 16
irrigation 4$
garbage 51
60%
one shouldremember that theaverage neighborhood park runs between two and
approximately 13 acres in size. The community playf ields on the other hand
run between 17 and 33 acres in size. This factor alone dictates by their very
size that they will require more work per site each year.. Contract
maintenance on such things as _plumbing, electrical, irrigation and lighting
are not reflected in these hour per acre costs. The special nature of these
systems requires either special training or special equipment that at this
time is not practical for the City to provide on an in-house basis.
In an effort to quantify our overall maintenance effort, I would suggest that
on a scale of 1 through.5 our overall ranking perhaps could be rated as a 4-.
While there are some areas such as trimming, weeding and miscellaneous repairs
where we could improve, there are other areas such as field dragging and.
lining, snow plowing and rink flooding where our level of service could be
somewhat decreased. One means of gauging the success of the maintenance.
service provided would be feedback from the cio inanity. During the last five
years, we have received high marks from both the cannunity survey instrument
and from the. athletic associations and the, adult sports community. In 1979
REVIEW OF PARK LGAGE AND MAINIENRCE LEVELS
October 21 1987
Page
and 1980, the city was being criticized for poor maintenance on many of its
facilities. At the time of my hire, it. was made clear to me that part of my
responsibility was to make improvements in this area in an effort to turn
around the perception of the o mmmity of our poor maintenance. Hopefully, we
have been able to meet this goal.
Just as not all parka are created equal, not all athletic fields are created
equal. Same programa by their very nature require more sophistication and
more nisintenance than other programs. Outlined below are our beat estimates
of the annual cost for the maintenance on one hockey rink, otw softball, field,
and one soccer/football field. Because our recording system is based on hours
worked on projects by site, Mark has had to estimate as best he can some of
the hours associated with each of these cost estimates by facility.
Light Bulbs
Irrigation Equip.
Fertilizer
Ctanicals
Paint
Electrical
AgLime
Lime
Grand Total.
Mowing
Painting
Irrigation
Turf Renovation
Spry & F7ert.
26
Hours
aLZ -m; N
Hours
art -Tuns hkm
Mowing 26
70
411
Painting 10 160
Irrigation 13 208
Turf Renovation 5 80
Spray & Fert. 8 128
Electricity 8 128
Garbage 22 110
Miscellaneous, 16 256
Trimming 10 50;
Infield ;saint. 24 AD UQ
106 80 1,856
Eauinmwt and Mster.;;A
Light Bulbs
Irrigation Equip.
Fertilizer
Ctanicals
Paint
Electrical
AgLime
Lime
Grand Total.
Mowing
Painting
Irrigation
Turf Renovation
Spry & F7ert.
26
U06
416
48 768
13 208
70 1,120
8 128
260'
100`
65
100
56
40
55
80
50
ZU
1,046
375
400
300
8,0
20
300
100
2
1,825
4,72
260
480
65
1,400
56
RMEW OF PARD r AND MAINIEW E LEVELS
October 21, 1987
page 10
Electricity 8 128 40`
Garbage; 22 110 55
Miscellaneous
1lb
89
0 $
3
Eaux
21436
M&tgrialn
Light Bulbs
ana'
375
Irrigation Equip. 400`
Fertilizer 300
tmicela 80
Paint 353
sod 500
Seed 400
Top Dress Mie 250
Electrical (Cont..
2,958
Gram Total 8,568
Brooming 45.75
RIW
732 457.50
Shoveling 122.75 11964 660
Blowing 15 240 30
Flooding 69.25 1,1o8 690
Board Repair, 7.25 116 35
Lim Painting 8; 128 20
Garbage 5 80 25
Harms $
4a4%
Mstgr ial +x
1,951.50
oWt_
Light Bulbs
and
10
Grand Total 6,553
In our estimation, one of the beet thine we have going for us with regard to
our park maintenance is the fact that we have very few soccer/football fields
laid over softball/baseball fields.. We currently maintain l8
softball,/baseball fields and 11 sooner fields. Of this amount, only three
s ties' have a sower/football laying over the top of the softball/baseball
field. We are also fortunate in most cases we do not have pleasure skating
rinks laid out on top of any of our athletic surfaces. Whenever, you try and
maintain ice rinks on top of grass surfaced, you end tip with weeds. This
would necessitate a total renovation and reseeding project every spring in
those areas. Klaprich Field in Wbyzata is a classic example of Lhis. Because
their entire surface is flooded in the winter time, during the summer months
they do not have an adequate turf surface to play field games on. As we build
other facilities in the future, these are items we will keep in mind, so we
are sure we have the; easiest, maintainable surface. Because of the high
of maintaining s000er/football fields, we are researching the capi-al
costs associated with using an artificial turf surface to determine if, in the
long run, there wouldbe a cost savings over our grass surfaced areas, V4 --
have, fiehaveanewsoccerfieldatPlymouthCreekin; the capital :improvement budget
for 1988. Our analysis of this life cycle cost will be prepared in
conjunction with that project.
AM
In conclusion, what we have tried to accarplish as our overall philosophy can
be summarized as such:
A. Build the appropriate facilities In the appropriate locations to meet
the need in that population or atte!rndence: area.
B.. Design the facilities in such a manner that they can be maintained in
a reasonable :fashion based' on appropriate use. In new parks, create
the smallest po-sible areas that will require high maintenance.
C. Provide safe, attractive facilities to the public that present a good
image for the City of Plymouth. Because wet athletic turfs are most
susceptible to damage; we closely monitor all of our facilities for
the necessity of cancelling games in order to protect the surface.
D. Make the necessary repairs and maintenance to our facilities as
quickly as possible, so that: ursafe conditions are corrected and
further deterioration, and a poor public image is not created.
Finally, we must continue to provide motivation and training to our
maintenance division, so that they can most effectively and efficiently carry
out their duties and responsibilities in these, areas. With a continuing
spirit of cooperation and understanding between the City Council., Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission and our user groups, I am confident that we can
continue too provide safe, clean, and fun recreational experiences to the
citizens of Plymouth.
EJB%np
Attachments: Neighborhood Park Needs: Analysis
Funding Task Force Resolution
Development Priority List from CoWrehensive Plan
Park Acquisition, 1982-86
Park Meinteintanee Hourly Detail Reports
CITY OP PLYMOUTH
5400 PLYMOUTH BLVD,,, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
February 10, 1988
TO: PRS
PKM Mary Patterson, Superintendent of Recreation
St-SMZ: Decade of Recreation Statistic
l ZZ
Population 27,100
Total participants 1,875
Number of programs 52
Total participants 1,112
Number of programa 11
Number of teams 76
Populaticr 43 f 834 162-t .increase
Total participants 28,786 1,535% increaser)
Number of programa 717 1,379# increase)
d
Thtal participants 7,590 683% increase)
Number of programe 45 409% increase)
Number of teams 553 728% increase)-
u rt,
y tow woo
r S9 f
oi # SECTION POUR*§ R
r
CITY PRRKS AND RL:NEATIO1
e
lkT;
k
S 6. !i%' C . i 1Uk .r Y`' ,}. '.
R l
k{i 4,N W.1 w'Ntc' Y
k
My,a u t
y wagAN4 't F" k.t,l r
TA4
S nit k!
q .
M\R'kP`5=
e.?r YY
yyqq
j
r ri
rna
f} n 5 !
AA '
still
P # a'
Yit1ft; n4 p1y4a
I
R7?,{RAal
t b
v
i
VYi } e ""14".
TWORA 22 J
t 6 R%YT G "
t
M 4W 43
itN}RS1
Sr_S
PRECINCT him'
A IL iaa•tataiia.• atuiaar aar graMRpm' N 47
wocy - Y
LAK[
c C
3 65 =
LAX
EA
24
fi
CITY PARKS AND RECREATION
Plymouth residents were asked to evaluate current parks ard
recreational offerings, express opinions about future proposals,
and generally comment on their leisure time pursuits. An air of
satisfaction permeates the ratings of current facilities and
programs. At the same time, there appears to be a developing
consensus on the need to proceed in several new directions. But,
whether that consensus is sufficiently strong to dominate at the
election polls on issues involving new taxes is an open quE.stion.
General Rating:
Citizens were asked to evaluate the park and recreational
facilities across Plymouth:
overall. mould You rate park avid
recreation facilities in Plymouth
as excellent, good, only fair, Or
poor?
Eighty-five percent of Plymouth residents approved of current
facilities:
EXCELLENT. ...... .41%
GOOD.. ...... ..44%
ONLY FAIR.. .......8%
POOR.... ... . .. . 4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.................... ... 3%
Stronger evaluations were voiced by:
Precinct 4,10,16 residents
More discontent arose among;
recinct 5,8 residents
In comparison with other suburbs, the Plymouth rating is
exceptionally strong
44
Use of Existing Facilities:
Respondents were first told:
The Plymouth park system it composed
of trails, larger City darks, commun-
ity playf olds, and smaller neighbor—
hood parks. Of these four types of
facilitiesq which do members of your
household use?
TH?y were then asked about each of the four types of facilities.
Only community playfields were used by less than a majority of
households. First;
Trails
Trails have always been a prized part of the recreational system
in the city. It had the highest usage level:
HOUSEHOLD USES. .59%
HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT' USE......... .......407,
DON'T KNOW/PEFUSED ... .. .......... ... .1
Trails were especially used by:
Less than one year residents
Precinct 3,4,70105,16 resident
Zone 2 residents
Trails, then, continue to be well utilized by Plymouth residents.
Next, interviewees were asked about:
Larger city parks
A surprisingly large number report using the large parks:
HOUSEHOLD USES. .... .567.
HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT USE.. ....43%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...........................,1%
This represents a departure from the findings of the last study
in which few households ratedthis facility as of major
importance' to them. Clearly, although not a priority for most
residents, the larger parks are well used. Groups registering
higher levels of usage included
45
1-2 year residents
18-44 year olds
Owner/Manager households
Over $40,000 yearly household incomes
Precinct 9,1091.5916 resident
This data suggests that a higher development priority should be
given to the larger parks than suggested in the previous study.
Next;
Commnity playfields
Playfield5 were used by foray percent of they households:
HOUSEHOLD USES.. ..40%
HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT. USE.. • .59%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..._......................1
This smaller audience was primarily composed of:
35-44 year olds
50tOOO-$709000 yearly household incomes
Precinct 9,10915916.residents
Usagu and intensity of support may be quire different heret
however. Teams sports and the leagues they spawn tend to be far
more vocal about their concerns than residents at -large.
The final, facility tested has always been prized highly be
Plymouth residents:
Smaller neighborhood parks
Smaller neighborhood parks attracted an audience almost' equal, in
size to trails:
HOUSEHOLD USES. . .. .. .... ..58%
HOUSEHOLD DOES, NOTUSE.. ......._...........42%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... . .1%
Groups with higher usage levels included:
3-5 year residents
25-44 year olds
60,000-$709000 yearly ;ouseho l d incomes
Precinct 2,49700916 residents
Household with pre-school and elementary school
children
46
c
It will be particularly important in light of the changing
demogr`aphic's of the city that sites for smaller neighborhood
parks are .convenient to newer housing developments.
Overall., Plymouth registers a very high park and recreation
facilities usage rate. Citizens are not only supportive of the
current system but enthusiastic in their use of it.
j;j!rrent Mix of Recreational Opportunities:
To assess the adequacy of recreational opportunities in
Plymouth, residents were queried
Do you fowl that the current six of
recreational opportunities sufficiently
eeets the s of the embers of your
household?
Nearlyninetypercent answered affirmatively:
YES. .......... .89%
NO. .. . ..7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. .. ..... ....4%
Groups expressing less satisfaction included:
9-5 year residents
Precinct 2 residents
Comparatively, the recreational opportunities offered by the city
are rated extremely high by residents.
Respondents expressing dissatisfaction were asked:
Uhat additional recreational oppor—
tunities would you like to see the -
City of Plyeouth offer residents?
Preschool programs and more trails were the most common answers:
PRESCHOOL PKOGRAMS......................... 2Y.
SWIMMING POOL..... .., .....................1%
MORE TRAILS....... .. ..- ..3%
TEENPROGRAMS`... .. .. ........... 1
The City !ae°/ wish to examine its current trail system and review
the Opportunities for preschool programs currently available In
47
Plymouth. Butt in general, resident's are very satisfied with
existing opportunities.
Community Recreation Center:
The Community Recreation Center proposal has been examined
in each survey conducted for Plymouth during the past decade. So
far, it has failed on the ballot twice. The current status of
the issue indicates some change in opinions since the 1985
survey. However, the changes have been in both the positive and
negative direction.
VQTER 13WFEREMMS
Residents were first informed:
In the past, the City has considered
building a community center containing
recreational facilities and meeting
areas.
They were then asked:
Do yousupport or oppose the building
of s community center in Plymouth? Do
you feel strongly that way?
A majority support the community center
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR.. .....22%. .25%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR ................... 23%—.28%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ...................16%...18%
STRONGLY OPPOSE. .. ............26%...20%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..................13Y......9%
This is the first time that a majority has supported the concept.
In addition, the gap between support and opposition has widened
from three percent to fifteen percent. Strong opposition is down'
and support has increased. All of these are hopeful signs; but,
turnout will be the key to the success or failure of the measure.
46
Groups more supportive. included:
Strong approval of Mayor and Council, jobs
Good/Only Fair staff ratings
Unhappy with current recreational mix
Less than one year resident
Renters
18-24 year old
Blue Collar households
f2O-,O00-x4O,000 yearly household incomes
Groups more opposed included_:
45-64 year olds
Dissatisfied with city services
Know Vasi1iou, Sisk
Know Mayor Schneider
Lots ofcontactwith City Hall
Professional/Technical households
In a referendum, the more interesting split is between
strongly fa+vorables and strongly opposeds. Here, the margin
narrows tp five -to -four in favor of the facility. These figures
suggest that an aggressive campaign would be required to succeed.
DESIRED FACILITIES FOR INCLUSION IN THE CENTER
Voters were then surveyed about their preferences about the
facilities contained in the community center and whether these
features would impact their votes. In every case, there has been
a diminishment of intensity of feeling about everything contained.
in a potential center.
Residents were told:
I would like to read you a list of
facilities that could be included in
the cowunity canter. For each one,
please tell if you would strongly
favor. somewhat favor sose«hat op-
pose, or strongly oppose its inclu-
sion in the complex.
Seven facilities were considered in this study. Only two
attracted more than one-fifth strong support. And, in each case,
49
both strong support and strongopposition were lower.
First.
A senior citizen center?
Three-quarters of the respondents favored the inclusion of a
senior citizen center
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR.. ...............32%...21%
FAVOR.. .. ............... 41% ... 54%
OPPOSE... ... ...... 11_% ... 14%
STRONGLY OP,POSE.. .. 10%. .7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED........... ........6%....4%
Groups strongly in favor included:
Precinct 9110914 residents
Much more likely to support center if it
contains wanted facilities
Favor center
Groups more opposed
Precinct 3111912 residents
Not at all likely to support center if it
includes wanted facilities
Strongly oppose center
Although intense support has weakened, aggregate support has
actually increased slightly.
The next facility for inclusions
A county library?
Nearly seventy percent supported a county library in the center
1985 198'%
STRONGLY FAVOR.. .. ......... ...35%...22%
FAVOR. ..... ...............26%...46%
OPPOSE. . ... . ....19%.1.21%
STRONGLY OPPOSE..................... 15%....7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ........6'%.....4%
Groups much more favorable:
50
Less than five year residents
30,000-$40,000 yearly household incornes
Precinct 1,9110.12,13 res. dents
Zone 1 residents
Groups more strongly against its inclusion-
11--20 year residents
Professional/Technical households
Precinct 3,50.1 residents
Opposition-has diminished somewhat since the last study.
A swimming pool, always a key facility in other suburbs, was:
assessed next
An indoor- swims ing P001
Fifty-,four percent of the residents supported an indoor swimming
pool
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR .... .........28%...17%
FAVOR'. ........ .. .27%. .37/x,
OPPOSE 20% .31%
STRONGLY OPPOSE . ..... . . 20%---11%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......... ..........'...5I.... 4%
Both strong favorability and strong opposition hays declined.
Groups much more in favor included;
3-5 year residents
25-34 year olds
Precinct- 1. L 13 residents
Groups more opposed
t Precinct 10 residents
Unlike many other suburban areas, the indoor swimming-poo.l is not.
rated as the penultimate facility for inclusion in the Center.
The next facility tested tended to polarize other
communities
An indoor ice skating rink
51
Foray -nine percent of the residents would favor the
0)cl'usion of an indoor ice skating rink
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR_,_,_*,,_... , .. ?-5'f., . 1.6X
FAVOR.............:..... ,. .....30% .33 144
OPPOSE... .................. .21%.,.35%
STRONGLY OPPOSE ..... , .19%...11%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... , .... ....5f....51t
Groups much more supportive inc fueled ;
3-5 year resident
Precinct 2t5, 1305 residents
Groups much more opposed:
55-64 year olds
Precinct 3 & 10 residents
While support for the inclusion of an indoor ice rink has
decreased, opposition has increased. Although clearly not a `gyred
flag" facility,; care should be taken in weighing the positives
and negatives of the inclusion of a rink in the center.
A basic facility for inclusion in the center followed::
ftmultipurpose gymnasium?
Fifty percent of the residents supported a multipurpose gymnasium
as part of the project:
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR, .. ................. 29'!.... 17%
FAVOR.. ... .. .. .. 27V....43%
OPPOSE ......... ........ ... ....... .19%..,.27%
STRONGLY OPPOSE.. ....... 18%...10%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED..................... 6%....4%
Groups more in favor, of the gymnasium:
3-5 year residents
opposition to this facility was scattered throughout the sample.
Whle proponents have gained ground between the two studies
52
support has weakened somewhat in intensity.; Also, strong opposi-
tion has significantly' decreased.
A previously untested facility was asked about next:;
An exercise room?
Fifty-three percent of the residents support the inclusior of an
exercise room:
STRONGLY FAVOR.. . ........ ...117.
T'
ypY'{
IpyvY(
1pOR .
G:. .. . ... . . . .: • .... . . . . . • n • +1 .. .... . . .: r. • .. ....421/s
M1
OPPOSE .. . . . .. .. .. . . * . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . \: . . ., .. . • . .. • 3 1 %
STRONGLY OPPOSE....... ........ 12'
DONAT KNOW/REFUSED . ... .. 57
Groups much more supportive:
3-5 year residents
18-24 year olds
Groups much more hostile';
Over 45 year +olds
Since strong favorability and strong opposition are relatively
equal, an aggressive case may be needed for the inclusion of this
facility.
Finally, an organizational facility, rather than a recrea-
tional facility: was assessed:
A Ming and crafts room'
Sixty-one percent of the populace supported a meeting and crafts
room:
1985 1987
STRONGLY FAVOR.......... ...........25% ..13%
FAVOR ..........................29'1....487.
OPPOSE..................... ..23`I, 297.
STRONGLY OPPOSE, .. ....... 1'x'1.....7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . ... ... . 6% .... 4 7.
croups more supportive included:
53
3-5 year residents
t30,000-s40r000 yearly household incomes
Groupe more against its inclusion:
t40,000 -*70,000 yearly household incomes
Following the general, pattern for previously cited facilities:
support has increased, but intensity of feelings on both sides of
the question has diminished.
To insure that no potentially popular facilities were
missed, interviewees were asked;
Are there any other facilities you
would like to sere in: the community
centerT What are they?
Over three-quarters of the sample reported "no
NO...................... , 77'%
DAYCARE, PROGRAM. ..... . . ..3%
THEATER.... ................. ......,2%
TENNIS COURTS.... ..............2'T
HALLF1ELD... . ... .. ... . .2%
TEEN CENTER. . . . ...... 4 . ........ .3%
SOCCER FIELD .. ..1%
OTHER............. ........ ..................7%
The answers were 9enerally dispersed.
The decline in strongly positive feelings about each of the
above facilities may also indicate that the configuration of the
project will not be a large factor in people's votes. In other
words, will the specifics of the project sway evaluations? To
answer this question resi.:ondents were asked:
If the proposed community center
contained the feature a you. favored,
how much more likely would you be
to support its construction quite
a Tot more likely, somewhat more
likely, or not at all?
There has been an increase inthe number ofresidents who would
54
be impacted by-the inclusion of facilities:
1985; 198?
QUITE A:LOT MORE.. .................... 19% ..85%
SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY ................ 43%. .46
NOT AT ALL LIKELY.. x..........,......32% 23%
DON'T KhOWIREFUSED ....................7%.. 6%
Groups most impacted included;
Very strong supporters of the center
18--34 year olds
Zone 1 residents
The facilities which impacted voters the most were:
County Library`
Senior Citizen Center
Meeting and Crafts Room
Since the faci-lities in the project generally reinforce the
already committed,y recreational offerings should be regarded as
motivational factors rather than persuasion factors.
ACEEPTABILITY OF BONDI NS LEVELS
Support in the abstract can differ markedly from, the
willingness to vote for a tax increase tocoverthe costs of a
project or program.. In order to delineate between the two,
residents were first informed:
To build a community center- will
require passage of a bond r feren
cur.: Taxpayers would be asked to
pay for the construction of the
facility and to share in the cost
of operating the center. User, fees
would also underwir i to its operation.
They were then asked:
How much would you be Milling to
pay in additional property taxes
to support the construction and
partial operation of a Plymouth
Community Center's
Although one-third refused to pay anything, a tax increase of
55
5,0.00 per year would be supported by residents expressing an
opinion;
NOTHING ... .. .. ...... . 33'f.
j2{
5, .. .................` .... .I3'/E
50 . •. . . . . . . . . . .. .: . k . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . ... • . .. . . . • ...*13%. }.).
75.. . . • .. 64,
too ... •.. ..... ..
p ......
0 . .. 15%
1.25ca. • . .. M .. . ..,.• .. ...... .• .6:1,
s150..... ... . 6 •........3`a,
175... ..... .. . ....... ......lid
200 ............ ... • , ................. 57
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...................,.. ...7'
The thirty-three percent unwilling to pay anything indicates a.
moderately strong level of opposition to the project. But, the
opposition has not. reached levels of insurmountability.. An
aggressive campaign concentrating on voter identification and
turnout would have a good chance of success_. Without this
concerted effort, though, prospects are not bright.
Summary and Conclusions:
The Parks and Recreation Department is viewed in a very
favorable light. Facilities and offerings are judged sufficient'
in both quality and quantity. Upkeep and maint+enaar_e, as
discussed in the last section, is viewed overwhelmingly good -
Cut -rent facis1ities are well Used, by a majority,, in. most cases, of
the populace. As a Department, then, Parks acrd Recreateon scores
highly.
Plymouth residents, though, are split about the need for a
Community Recreation Centeno There is evidence ofgrowing
support for the project, yet a significant minority is still in
a opposition. People are willing, on average, to incur a modest
increase in their property takes to pay for such a venture. But,
f a 56
the fad li.t es to be included will greatly dictate the final
support level at; the polls. In any cases the split means, that an
aggressive campaign will be required to pass the needed bond
question became -;x. Will the Ci.ty p mobilizehelp referendum. The
the resources needed for A hard fought contest?
57
NAME
PARK AND RECKW-TON ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
F-48RUARY 11, 1988
AGENCY REPRESENTING
XU
r C} ct: S2 C6,11