Loading...
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